Girl nailed to a cross

The girl nailed to a cross is a symbol, but the interpretation

depends on which judges. Comments welcome, (also religious fanatics)

excellence set up & composion but the hightlight too strong . beautyful nude love it

It is interesting that you originally did not want the comments of Religious fanatics, but now it's OK. ?? Looking for a debate? I don't think PN is the place for that.

 

A girl nailed to a cross... is a symbol... of what? Rome crucified many people 2000 years ago, I assume females also for various crimes. Are you mocking Jesus the Christ? If you are, OK. I am not angry nor offended. My sins put Him on His cross too. For that I am "eternally" greatful.

 

Artistically speaking, her arms should be tight and stretched. Her ribs should be showing. Try making her look like she is having a hard time breathing. This girl is in no pain, you fail to depict anything of what crucifixion was. She should be totally nude and humiliated.

 

I agree with others about the lighting, you have blown out her face, hair, arm & cross. It looks fake.

 

The model is very attractive. Her hair & nails look great. Perhaps you are crucifying pornography!

 

Good Luck.

I don't mind the blown out lighting. It looks like an artist's expression of the holy, blinding light of the Lord's aura.

Honestly it's a kind of cheesy, shock value, melancholy sort of subject. The model is pretty, she has a wonderful round breast, and certainly does not look like one who has been crucified. More of an S&M, bound-and-gagged kind of feel than any serious religious commentary.

Not pornography in a sexual sense though I can imagine some more closed minded folks being offended by this photo.

Not a bad shot, cheers.

Sorry, I can't resist. I started to look at this site as a way to learn to be a better photographer. Admittedly I am Catholic, but that is not the issue, just an admission. While I would agree this is a controversial picture, I am trying to figure what I can learn from it?(not that that is why you posted it.) The lighting is technically poor, the focus is off, and the angle/cropping makes her arm look twice as long as it should. In a politically correct world, we are so afraid to be critical of anything that is controversial for fear of a backlash against us from the the group that we are being critical of, that we forget to apply our honest judgement. Sort of like an Emporor's Clothes thing. This looks like a frame from a video, not a true photograph, and I don't think it is particularly well executed or aesthetically pleasing. If you do, enjoy! As for me, I am not offended by the picture as much as the repeated posts of the same theme. We get it!! By the way, you have stirred an emotion, maybe that is the point.

Poor lighting, poor focus, poor composition, poor photograph.

I think that you are too self-centered. If I?m fascinated by the figure of the crucifed Christ as woman, others are not going to prevent to me, my fascination because they think that it is sacred.

 

If you eat cow meat, do you think about the millions people in India that they prefer to die of hunger before to eat their cows, because they believe that the cows are "sacred animals"? You can?t demand that this one that is sacred for you, must be sacred for all. But, it does not mean that I not respect your beliefs. Please, let me believe what I will.

 

I think that throughout history, it is the faith that have attacked to those that did not wish to have faith. Those that do not have faith, are not dangerous, because them have not business that to defend with help of the religion. But I think that unfortunately the history is full of examples that demonstrates as the religion is used in businesses and political. Link:

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_H.W._Bush_and_the_Atheists

 

I don?t know an atheist that argues that a religious person can?t be considered a citizen.

 

If you are honest, please, read and respond the many reasons to abandon Christianity. Link:

 

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican32.htm

 

I would wish to explain that when affirms that Christianity produces sexual misery , it is clear that the many sexual abuses of the catholic priests with children is the worse sexual misery than I can imagine. Links:

 

http://www.mgrfoundation.org/ODSexAbuseResponse.html

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E7DE113FF934A25751C0A9649C8B63

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E1DA133AF934A25754C0A9629C8B63

 

Honest people as you are not interested in speaking of this Christian "honesty". People like you, offend to me.

 

"I think that a good religion must stand for this: Love all, but... not their money!"

 

 

I know that this is not necessarily the right place for political debate, but it is a photography forum and any discussion regarding the "art of photography" is therefore relevant.

 

I respect the right of people to believe that cows are "holy" although I enjoy a good hamburger as much as the next guy. All I would suggest is that if you were to post, repeatedly, in India, pictures of a man sodomizing a "holy cow" and throwing feces at it, and urinating on it, then you would have to expect them to be offended, no? At that point you can either stop and say it wasn't my intention to offend, or you can continue to post several variations claiming that it is your own personal art when in fact it may be your attempt to shove it in their face. The latter is what would be more offensive.

May I also suggest to others that not everyone with whom you disagree is a "radical leftist" or from the "radical right wing." Remember then for that one person in the "middle" there are 5 billion radical leftists and 5 billion radical right wingers.

And if all you ever do is remain within the "moderate middle" on all topics then you will never know the joy of pursuing things with passion, and you will neglect your responsibility to stand up for what you think is right or moral. Amazingly, I support your right to post any pictures that you want. I also support the right of any viewer to tell you that they find your work offensive. All may avert thier eyes if they want. I look forward to your next picture posted. Thanks and may God bless you! Now back to myself trying to figure out how to use a light meter!

Mr. Bertagnole, thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate much your honesty. Unfortunately, the critics of some people demonstrates, of which way the religion can stain the art.

Since I am the only John posting here to date I'll assume your anger is directed at me. You presume a lot about me, my faith, my character based on...I can't imagine what. I'm not going to debate you, nor is photo.net the place.

 

I am too self-centered? I agree, but, I don't think you know me well enough to say that. If you re-read my post , you might notice that I am not offended by your picture. You requested critique from the photo.net users and that is what I gave you. A critique.

 

I'm not proud of what "the Church" under Roman rule did. but I wasn't alive then. Neither am I proud of what a lot of people do today in the name of "Christ".

 

You said -If you are honest, please, read and respond the many reasons to abandon Christianity. link.

 

No I'm not going to do that.

 

If the only Christianity I knew was what you know to be "christianity" I probably would abandon it too. Your hostility toward "Christianity" has valid points. The churches history is horrible. In some groups, it is still horrible. Just because people call themselves Christians, does not make them one.

 

Jesus didn't much like the religious leaders of His day either. They were entrusted with the auricles of God, yet they abused their power and oppressed Gods people.

 

However if you knew the Christianity I know, I have no doubt that you would consider it's mercy and grace. The true Church is NOT run by man. True Christianity is not a geo-political organization.

 

You said-"I think that a good religion must stand for this: Love all, but... not their money!"

 

The old Testament says true religion is taking care of the poor, the elderly and the widows.

First off this is offensive. Its a crappy picture in general and i like how Ramon always responds with the same EXACT long response to every cratique and ends with the promotion of his movie. If attention is what you wanted you got it, if a good picture is what you we going for well im afraid you failed terribly!

One of your similar images is being used by pain-gate.net on their home page

Sam, you must to be sure that they have used the image without my permission. But, what can I do? Many people do not respect copyright.

The impact of the specular lighting in these 2 images is outstanding! The eye is drawn to her face and one can almost feel the pain. 

Very original! Kudos to both you and the model.

 

Jim Phelps

Jim, many thanks for your kind comments.