"I Beg to Present to You, Japanese Style 'Adult'."

The world of 'adult' pitchmen is apparently universal,but this

Japanese salesman or entrepreneur, seeks to differentiate

his 'output' by showing its distinctly 'Japanese' flavor, at the

recent Adult Expo in Las Vegas. Your rating and critiques are

invited and most welcome. Please rate the photograph and not whether

or not you like or condemn 'porn' -- this is a 'street'

and 'documentary' photograph and should be judged on its values in

depicting the subject, not the subject's content and your reaction to

the subject. If you rate harshly or very critically, please submit a

helpful and constructive comment; please share your superior

knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy (or at

least be edified) John

Hi, very interested as to how you ended up at this show :-) Good photo. Love his expression.

I had credentials to enter the show, for all of the days, including the days it was closed to the public, as 'industry' for reasons I cannot name, but also as a photojournalist -- but anyone could enter the main expo show, as the credentials only gave me (special) access to a separate, first day, that 'was not much' in my opinion and photographically, pretty dull, although I got one capture that was priceless but hard to display. I also got access to the awards celebration, which I skipped, as ell as 'industry' parties, which I also skipped.

 

You could easily attend this show, but it has (I am told) a steep daily admission . . . for like airplanes, boats, recreational vehicles . . . and 'adult' things . . . everything is 'marked up' very highly.

 

Partly because they're paid for with 'discretionary income' -- as opposed to say, flour, milk, eggs, etc., which are pretty cheap if you think about it.

 

There are big profits to be made in porn -- I hear it's a $60 billion industry and I went to find out for myself and I wouldn't undo it for a second, though through tiredness I skipped a day, and was NOT there for much of the rest of the days, but taking interesting photos like crazy during the times I was there.

 

Very, very interesting (and not arousing) piece of business to attend the Adult Expo. There were a number of women there, also, as women like women too, many times, or are 'switch hitters' as they say.

 

There are other photos, not all of which are here, but very interesting including one a critic said was one of my lifetime best ever.

 

Thanks for the inquiry.

 

John (Crosley)

John-- I have no objection to the photo or the photo's content. I think it's a good street or documentary image, showing (at least to me) a lot of contrast between what's going on on screen and the demeanor of the man standing by. The contrasting colors from the screen to the background also set up a nice dichotomy, as does your perspective. I think you've said a lot with this photo and it feels like a success to me. I do, though, question your statement that goes along with the photo. Telling your audience by what manner to judge your photo is a tricky business. I'd let them judge it however they want, find all they say interesting to the extent a lot of it says more about them than you, and use what you think is valuable feedback and toss off the rest. I'm also not quite sure that we can separate the "subject" from the "subject's content" or even our reaction to it. Even in a straight portrait, there is going to be an expression on the person's face that is going to (and why not?) influence our emotional reaction to the photo, whether we've done a great job as photographer or not. When I shoot a portrait, I am very concerned about the "content" (meaning the expression) and don't want people to react to just the lighting and composition. I want them to react to the content as well. Clearly, a lot of this photo of yours is about the content. That's why you took it. You were there and you found something about the "story" interesting or compelling or at least worth shooting. You are now telling people not to let that influence them. I happen to agree with you that it is a worthwhile shot, but that hasn't come about because I've ignored any of the content. I say, if you get strong negative reactions and you are pleased and happy with what you've done (which you should be), that's great. The negative reaction is at least a reaction stimulated by your work. That, to me, is as important as all the positive reactions people get that are simply pats on the back, like "great work." I'd take an angry emotional outburst at one of my photos any day over a simple "nice shot." Hope you don't mind my 2 cents for the day. --Fred

There is a long history of people expressing anti- x x x x (name your subject -- nudes, pornography, women, etc., ) feelings by giving low ratings, no matter what the value of the photography.

 

I don't say disregard the content; after all this is a photo and the content is the photo.

 

What I tried to say, was 'give a rate on the photo as a photo, and this is NOT a plebiscite on whether or not you like porn or Japanese and/or Japanese porn and please do NOT attempt to stifle expression by giving a low rate -- that is contrary to the rating schema of Photo.net which I long ago read in great detail.

 

The purpose of the comments section is for people to express their opinions and I may have as many meaningful and long, thoughtful comments and replies as any photographer on this system; all comments are regarded seriously, and almost never is there a real wrong-headed comment; almost all are constructive.

 

But this is no place for someone to make a rate of 3/3 just because they 'hate porngraphy.' In fact, this photo appears, to me the photographer at least, not to promote pornography at all . . . .

 

In fact, it appears to be a little anti-pornography. My personal feelings are not revealed here, I think, other than that I covered this 'expo' and was there, and my beliefs did not prevent me from carrying a camera and recording this.

 

But in the past three years, there have been large attempts to use robots ('bots) and other rating devices to defeat the rating system -- to promote or demote this or that particular photographer who produced content unliked by certain individuals and/or groups and substatial Photo.net resources were used to defeat the ratings machinations of those who sought to destroy the exposition, say, of nudes, by manipulating the ratings sytem, resulting in complex safeguards now in place.

 

I have no fear of comments, be they wrong-headed or not; I have a long history of standing up for myself in the comments section and answering almost every comment from almost everyone, often in great and even painstaking detail and with like effort.

 

But it's the anonymous raters who still are out there who can try to ruin the viewership of a photo, which is based on the place in the TRP where it lands based many times on the average 'rate' in one or two catetories, by slamming it with 3/3s. Go ask John Peri about that, I think, as he has more experience than anyone in dealing with the subject since he produces some of the best nude/glamour photography around, and is very careful in presenting it to keep it tasteful.

 

But in the past, if I read correctly, he has had battles with no-nothings -- the Luddites who think that no nudes is good nudes, and the same may be lurking out there for a photo like this, and my idea was to set them straight about the ratings system. If I am wrong about this exposition, please tell me. But I doubt that my history is wrong, as I've been a member, now, for a while, and have watched carefully as the Administration has battled the Luddite raters.

 

Right now there are some safeguards in place, but, like other photographers, I want my photos to be seen, and a slam of 3/3s condemns a photo from much viewership on the TRP, hence my admonition.

 

I think you have overreacted, or I simply was less than usually clear about what I was saying.

 

I was saying, 'rate this as a documentary or street photo, and do not use this as a plebiscite to record your pro or anti-porn views.'

 

That's really all, but it's hard to put in a ratings request those precise words, so I worded it differently.

 

If someone thinks I did poorly with my photography and/or my subjects, that's fine and is completely ratable. I have many photos with 3/4 ratings or such that have evntually pulled away from the pack and received very high viewership because eventually they were very worthy despite initial low rates, but it's an uphill battle.

 

My plan and thought was to keep the ratings within the schema announced by the Administration, and your comment really does not change that and probably you also subscribe to the 'no plebiscite on the subject matter' rule as I've stated it.

 

If not, I'd like to hear from you, as that would appear to be against the rating schema.

 

Or maybe you can educate me about ratings and the ratings schema.

 

But first you'd have to tell me you've read the forum posts about ratings manipulations against various subjects, particularly nudes, for the past three years before I'd take your comment seriously, or that you were intimately familiar with that subject, as it has been exhaustively tackled by the prior Administration and safeguards installed partly to forestall ratings hijacking of the sort I have warned against.

 

Think about this a while please, before responding.

 

I think we both are thinking the same thing; if my depiction of this subject matter is bad, out of focus, poorly framed or some such, then my photo deserves a low rate. If I have done a bad job in presenting it, the same applies.

 

But if you judge it a good photograph but slam the ratings because you are anti-porn, then you are wrong-headed, in my view (the 'you' here refers to 'everyman's Luddite' and not to you in any way, shape or form).

 

As I think you and I agree about this photo and essentially probably about everything else.

 

Let me know if you disagree, and first, be sure you know the history.

 

But thanks for putting in your 'two cents worth' they're always respected in my comments columns, and I welcome whatever comments or criticisms there are, and I can defend myself here (not in ratings) against even Luddites, if they dare show their heads.

 

Usually they don't.

 

That's the problem -- they rate anonymously, and surreptitiously and are cowards for the most part.

 

Anyone who wants to put their name to a rate or a comment is entirely welcome to do so.

 

(Note to John Peri, have I stated your position and PN's position clearly? Let me know if not.)

 

That being said, I'll settle down and now, for the first time, I'll look at the ratings (I almost always write first, then look at ratings, so I am not influenced.)

 

Best wishes

 

From the prolix

 

John (Crosley)

John, This is an industry like any other. Forget who is offended and who is not. I have taken shots on the street of people going to work and got asked to delete the photo. People will react differently. If you have other classic shots go ahead and share them.

 

I will always try to ignore the subject when rating but I do not think it is possible not the react. For example a good photo of war, accidents etc. will ALWAYS effect peoples emotions and hence the ratings. The Adult industry will do the same.

 

I would hope your not here for the ratings but the real feedback people give.

 

If I had taken the above picture I would be very proud and would show it.

 

 

Not even here for the ratings, and partly for the critiques, but mainly to get an audience for my photos. I judge their worth myself, but I like the Neilson poll aspect -- checking popularity and 'viewability'.

 

For the rest, I have my own standards, but if someone wants to 'goof' with the system, and use my photos to do it, I stand up against that . . . . and I'll fire a shot across their bow with my request for critique.

 

Frankly though, I have few ratings problems because I really don't care that much; I've had over 6,000 of them; some were well-made and some not, and I learn from each photo I post, at least something about public taste on this service.

 

And the critiques -- some of them are outstanding and they are wonderful. Yours is typical of the good ones.

 

Thanks for the comment.

 

John (Crosley)

 

Hy John ...

 

Actually my position regarding ratings is a simple one, the more I get, the happier I am. Not because I collect these, but because quite simply they push a photo up in the visibility scale, by climbing up the ladder of "most rated" photos.

 

Frankly John, I don't care what numbers the give me, I am delighted to get any amount of 3s, the more the merrier.

The reason why I post my photos is firstly in order to exhange views with others that enjoy photography alike myself and secondly, more specifically, to receive some photo critiques on what I do.This has proved invaluable in the past and my technique has changed progressively as a result.

 

Yes, there are several witch hunters out there, but the ones that aggravate me more are those that do not hesitate to vent their venom in any way they please, but are totally incapable themselves of accepting a reply. That is rather pradoxical, don't you find ?!

Sure, I am for free speech and criticism, that's why I post my photos, but I also reserve myself the right to respond if I want to.

 

So the standard slogan that is thrown out is that one does not accept any crticism, which is nonsense. I love it, when it concerns the photo. What I do not tolerate are those that talk besides the point, criticize the author or make personal remarks about the anatomy of the models. I think that is a pretty straightforward position.

 

The relevance of the subject matter is another item that frequently raises eyebrows. Personaly, I only rarely open thumbnails of baby photos or those of flowers, though there are exceptions. Why should anyone object to those that specialize in nudes? All they have to do is bypass them. I am sometimes amazed at how much attention is given to a photo and it's content by some people that profess to hate it!

 

Also, are we only to photograph people smiling, standing up straight, relaxed and indulging in social activities that we approve of?

One of the most absurd remarks made on PN are that a model does not look relaxed. So what, are we never to photograph any of her moods? Likewise, does one have to like pornography or murder in order to photograph these acts? Such narrow mindedness among artists is astounding. Oh, and since we are on the subject, another of my pet hates are straight walls and horizons, or missing limbs come to that! Why on earth should every representation of our surroundings obey such silly rules. Ahh, there you are, I feel better now, thank you !

 

On a lighter note, I see that you just posted another photo of a composite, with a young lady added to the frame (or maybe it was there already!). Amazingly, I just did the same thing an hour ago, so there, we have one more thing in common! In my case, it's really more of a private joke with the model who is a very brilliant and creative young artist in her own right. In fact she made the composite for this picture out of photos that I took of her.

 

Dont forget to call next time you pass through ...