"moon"

some comments ?

I like it. I would prefer to have her hair off of her back - it is a texture that does nothing for the image. The feet gone might also create an interesting abstract image.

I like it Johnny!

 

Best,

 

Michael

Besides the pose of the girl which is lovely, you have captured very good tones of the water, for me this B/W is much better than the other you have, congratulations , happy weekend // Salvador

Excellent!

Very well done. Just excellent. Regards

 

I don't like it.

 

I find it stupid to plunge head down in 20cm of water, so in my oppinion "diving" is only a lame excuse for this picture... Such pictures, with nothing else to show than nudity and organs are world-wide rated as "porn". :|

 

The line of guys waiting behind the camera would've been of same interest.

 

I'm sorry, but this is what I felt when I saw it. No originality & bad aesthetics. However, it's a technically correct picture, with nice tones. How should I wote for it??

 

Mircea.

I don´t agree with the above opinion and I don´t agree when people criticize this kind of shots and then one goes to their portfolio and only sees 3 shots , (none of them , nude) it can be a better way to say the things, keep on shooting Johnny , best regards // Salvador

Duncan

 

You should NOT wote for this picx or comment i think....

 

why do that if you not like this type of picx....

 

another time wright to me on pm, if you will say somthing abouth you taste and my picx...

 

(i dont comment macro because i dont like them, but I not wrighting like you abouth the macro picx)

I'll repeat the same comment that I made on Johnny's other similar image:

 

Ah yes... the proverbial "Is it art or porn" controversy! I don't think good lighting is what necessarily, and always, differentiates the two. I've seen some porn that was extremely well lighted, and obviously done by some top-notch professionals!

 

For me, one facet that "usually" takes an image out of the porn category and places it into the portraiture, fashion, or fine-art categories, is if it's shot in B&W. God, please don't assume that I'm saying that that these genres HAVE to be shot in B&W! I'm not!

 

In color, this particular image could easily slip into Playboy magazine. Does that make it pornographic? Does that mean that every image in Playboy is pornographic? To me, no, but I realize everyone has their own definitions. The fact that it's in B&W "pretty much" eliminates it from any man's magazine application though.

 

Is this image well lighted? Yes, it is. Is seeing a woman's vagina straight on in this manner pornography? To some, yes. To me, no. The vagina is a beautiful part of a beautiful woman, and in my opinion, meant to be viewed and admired that way. And while I certainly respect one's opinion to the contrary, I don't think it's factual to say that in the 'world' view it is porn."

 

That being said... if I had to cast this image into only one of the camps, it would have to be in the art camp.

 

This photo is well executed - there is no argument. Unfortunately this is porno. The main emphasis is placed on the genitals explicit. We see unfortunately at times a few photographers on the Net who take explicite photos with the emphasis on the genitals. People, esspecially girls, are split open to a point that I have not even seen in pornographic material under the name of "originalaty". Once such a photo is presented a few will immediately praise it 14/14 if they can. It is simple nude photos where the girls are splited, exploited etc. The girls are just undressed and photgraphed naked, nothing more is put into the photo. Nude photography is controlled photography where the photographer has full control over his/her subject and props used.

 

Originalaty does not make a photo good, it must be "positive" original.

 

There are people on this site that understand this and share with us beautifull nude photography. There are unfortunately a small group that try to convince us that this is not porno. Nude photography is an easy type of photography, you just need a model who is prepared to model in nude, there-after you can do almost anything, BUT to take a good nude photo is more than a naked girl split or exploited to a point where there is nothing left under the word "originalaty". The fact that genitals are beautifull is not an excuse to take porno, as sex is beautifull for most people, it does not mean it is not porno.

 

The fact that a photo is B&W does not make a photo porno or not. Porno is presented in both B&W and colour. This is no criteria to decide when a photo is porno or not.

 

Nude photography is the ONLY category in photography where there are so much controversy, one of the reasons is that there are a group who can not get ENOUGH and will stop at nothing and want the majority to believe that what they are doing is not porno.

 

If one is not doing nude photography, they are categoriesed as not knowing what porno is. We all know what porno is, whether we do nude photography or not.

 

It is a beautifull picture presented to a community who does not share porno. The main interest or focus point in this picture is GENITALS GENITALS ...........

 

This is not the only one, there are other photos on the Net in this same catergory. If we give this type of comments it does not mean we are against nude photography, we are against porno!

 

Please keep our Net clean of porno so that we can share it with our children.

To Rust Brand,

 

I knew there had to be at least one person who would retort with the "B&W doesn't make it art photography" reply!

 

What did I say?: "For me, one facet that "usually" takes an image out of the porn category and places it into the portraiture, fashion, or fine-art categories, is if it's shot in B&W. God, please don't assume that I'm saying that these genres HAVE to be shot in B&W! I'm not!"

 

The emphasis is on "USUALLY," and "don't assume that I'm saying that these genres HAVE to be shot in B&W! I'm not!" Of course, all these genres can be shot in B&W or color!

 

Because you are intimating that "some people on this site" KNOW it this way or that, you are assuming that your esoteric group has the all-knowing ability and the right to tell others that your insight is infallible, placing you well above anyone else's right to an intellectual, or even moral, opinion!

 

At best, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Oh, and just a moral observation of my own... Should your children should be looking at this section anyway? It is obviously for adult viewing!

Hi Michael

 

You are really oversensitive, I just clearified a point. I think we agree that it is a good photo, but that does not change the fact that this is straightforward a porn photo. Worldwide there are certain criteria which are excepted in the photograhic society as when a photo is a nude photo or porno. This is not decided by you or me and as a society respect these criteria.

 

This is porno. The photo itself is well executed, but the whole focus point of this photo is on the genitals and even lit to a point where it draw immediately the attention of the viewer.

 

Johnny took some good nudes which we all appreciate, but this one is porno.

 

We all have no problem with nudes, but there are excepted criteria worldwide when a photo is a nude or not. As a photograhic society worldwide we respect that. I believe there are a place for this photo, but not here. This type of photos do the word nude photography shame.

 

Let us stick to nude and keep the porn to the sites where it belongs.

 

In terms of children. As far as I known is this site not age or gender bound. I started photography when I was 9 years old. Every one who can operate the internet can go on this site and this photo is amongst all categories. I believe that we as photographers share this site mainly to show our work and to learn from one another. Let us not forget our young photographer and at the end exploit nudes models to a point where there is nothing shamefull or art. This type of photos can be taken millions per day is there are enough models, but art nudes photos is of a higher level. Nudes is not to bend over that I take a photo of your back part with the focus on your genitals and then I call it art. Take these photos if you like it and share it with your best friend or keep it private.

 

We like nudes, let us keep to nudes.

 

 

Rust,

 

While I respect your opinion, and your interpretation of the "world's definition of porn," as I said before, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I hope you can do that, because I get the feeling that neither of us are gonig to budge in our thinking! LOL!

 

In the past, I've always been a black & white person, and it has only caused consternation in my life. Several years ago, I finally accepted the fact that there's a lot more gray in this world than there is black & white - like it or not. I also found that no matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't fit everyone into the same box... I couldn't pigeon-hole everyone into one way of thinking and seeing things.

 

The attached image came to my mind during this discussion. I rather imagine you will still view it as porn. I, of course, do not. Just wanted to share it.

 

Poor Johnny... maybe this should have taken place in the Forum. It would have made for a good debate for sure.

 

Anyway Rust, as I said, I respect your position, and the one thing we do share in common, is our mutual love for photography. Keep on shooting!

 

Best,

 

Michael