Tenisha #4

Having the model use an negative attention-getting symbol is an easy way to get impact into an image.  Technically, the light is very good and creates a strong 3-D quality.  I suppose this image has a sort of theatrical appeal.  Other than what I have written, the other 900 words I might write are cut short by that "finger".

What a cute photo.  Seems model and photographer have a sense of humor.

when photographing people this pose ranks as #2 on my top ten list of unwelcome poses. #1 is the horns behind the head. Otherwise nice portrait.

This one caught my attention for obvious reasons, but the color is a little flat and muddy on this one...

"horns behind the head" I am not familiar with.

Thank you for commenting.

What color??

Like David, I simply find it offensive and I'm immediately turned off by it.  The others in the series hold far more interest.

The photo is technically  a 3, 4, or 5. Offensive is irrelavent (my opionion). I like your landscapes very much, by the way. Thank you for commenting.

Meir, surely reactions to a photograph are based on more than just technical aspects.  Photographs are often described by viewers in critiques as funny, or cute (this photo), or disturbing, or charming, or theatrical (this photo), or provocative, or moving, and these are emotional reactions based on content, not technical aspects.  Why would one specific negative emotional reaction ("offensive") based on content not be relevant here?  

Thank you again for commenting. You are correct -offended is relavent. I considered such before I replied. As you point out, I should have considered longer. However, your critique implies this is offensive in the porno sense and should not have been posted. That is why I said "irrelavent".  I do not recall what engendered (is that a word?) this pose. -it was years ago. Maybe is was after I told her how much I was charging her :-) 

This is not offensive. its powerful and provocative and this one gesture means more than 1000 of lost words. The fingers behind the head from someone else ruins the photo and is to makes  it look like  the  subject has BUNNY EARS.. i embrace photos such as these.I find it strange how this is offensive however a nude woman with her legs spread open is cute?  all the best MOSCOW

All of those attributes (offensive, cute, funny, disturbing, etc.) are personal determinations.  What may be offensive to me is not necessarily offensive to Moscow.  When we describe this, I think we should use words like "I think this is offensive," or "I don't find this offensive," rather than "This is offensive," or "This is not offensive."  The former two phrases indicate it's a personal opinion, while the latter two phrases indicate absolutes.  In my original post, I didn't link my sense of offensive to pornography, and even though I thought it was offensive, I did not and would not suggest that it not be posted.  Anyway, overall it's a nice series, and I look at this as a photographer and the model simply trying something a bit different; to some, it may be offensive, while to others it will likely not be offensive.  Language is the same way, and this photograph can be seen as non-verbal communication (we know what she is saying, although we really don't know what she means; some people may use this in a joking manner, while others may use it in a hostile manner, and that makes all the difference in the world).

Stephen,, the fact  is that the gesture  is offensive. If we are offended by it or not offended by it  however that is of personal taste, and that lies on each individual to decide and has little to do with the particular image at hand but on personal values and ethics and upbringing.... MOSCOW

I consider (a) "I am offended" is better than (b) "I think this is offensive," (a) is a fact; it cannot be refuted. (b) is subjective and implies that 'in your opinion' it is offensive to everyone. Contrary to my first response, your first comment is closer to "a", if not the same

"I am offended" may be a fact, but it is far, far different than saying "This is offensive."  The former applies just to the person saying it, while the latter is a global statement that applies to everyone.  I see relatively little difference between "I am offended" and "I think this is offensive."

You wrote "far far different" and then wrote "see little difference". That is a contradiction. I think you meant to write different. Anyway, either comment is more informative than the often "bravo" "congrates" "nice street scene" etc.  I kind of expected a comment from someone on her unusually long  fingers -proportionally.

What I'm starting to like about this photo is that it has drawn some comments.  My photos usually draw no interests, nor comments. Maybe I should do more offensive photos like this?  :-)

Meir, I think you're on to something!  Now, if I could only make offensive landscapes.

Just to try to be more clear, there are three statements that have been made relating to offensive:  1) this is offensive, 2) this is offensive to me, and 3) I think this is offensive.  #1 and #2 are stated as facts, while #3 is stated as an opinion.  Despite that #1 and #2 are stated as facts, they are very different kinds of facts.  #1 implies universal offensiveness, while #2 implies only personal offensiveness.  Therefore, I think #2 and #3 are very close in meaning and could be used interchangeably, and #2 and #3 are very different from #1.  In critique language, I think #2 and #3 are appropriate ways to comment, while #1 is not (#1 is simply too presumptuous and implies that everyone who ever looks at this photograph will be offended, and that's simply not the case).  IMO, of course.

We agree.