critter

Crank the AC and go back to hotlights. Diffusion is your friend. Try different setups

to gain a feel for it. Vary the angle of your key light, figure out what you like as fill

and then work on seperating from the background with a hairlight. Once you figure

out what works for your taste, you should be able to translate it to flash with

confidence.

Now that I can respond, I will.

First, It's some what annoying to have my question zapped because I

responded to someone dragging the discussion into a tired direction with a bit

of forceful verbage. My point was, stop debating what is or isn't, if you have

nothing informative to contribute, go away.

It's further annoying to have a clear violation of the TOS stand (calling me a

moron - both defamatory and abusive.... Not to mention the "deserves killing"

Texas bit of charm) Sorry the question was so patently offensive. I always

thought this was a place where pragmatic questions, by working

photographers, could be answered.

But it is your living room, and (albiet, a paying one), I'm your guest.

I could give a crap, bowel movement, er... about freedom of speech on this

site. I do find it peculiar that I was so resolutely dealt with. Having logged

many an hour here, and having found it's editorial slant geared towards a

more serious tone, I'm a little suprised that I was dealt with by an

indiscriminate machete. I'm also a little dissapointed that no one bothered to

address me directly.

As for my "crude descriptions of actual acts being performed"...please.

And Bob, what exactly is your issue with me? I wasn't asking the site to

promote pornography. I was asking how people sold images to adult

magazines. Most of what is glamor photography is what people buy at the

news stand. It's annoying to have my comments about (whatever) taken out

of the context and not read (by people a smart as you) for what they were.

I'm a little tired of exactly your response when people discuss marketing

nudes. It's a legitimate question, and again, your living room, but I resent

being lumped in with some photographic version of the raincoat set because I

wanted to get some information from other members on how they sell nudes

to magazines.

My question pertained to news stand sales. You know, that legal stuff that you

buy at 7-11. Why is this so jarring of a concept, let alone the scandolous edge

you seem to be smitten with? And why is this offensive to the site?

Oh, and can someone please explain which terms of use I violated?

And I believe calling someone a moron is both defamatory and abusive.

But thank you for zapping my legitimate questions. This site is a peach.

Thank you for your pithy insult. I'm actually reasonably intelligent. I'm a little

confused as to what about the subject line didn't tip you off to NOT

INTENDED FOR CHILDREN. I'm also a little confused as to why you clicked

on a post that obviously triggered your gag reflex.

But thank you for being an upstanding citizen and spamming a post with a

specific set of questions. Lord knows, such graphic descriptions of sex acts

need to be weeded out from every day conversation. That's why God

inventend euphamisms. So much more cooth. I mean, we all know what they

mean, but at least it isn't *gasp* verbalized.

Tickle the ivories, anyone?

I've had good luck using that scheme eual distant around 45 degrees on

either side of the subject. The more important part is to soften them by

throwing a sheet between the subject and the lights. (I used a rigged PVC

frame.)

My main suggestion would be more fill light from the right and investing in a

set of kneepads for Chris:)

Has anyone ever come up with a scheme using hotlights to emulate the

ringlight flash look?

Damn, someone beat me to it. The more specific link is http://

www.lightingmagic.com/difpanel.htm<br><br>

reading that inspired me to build a makeshift panel out of pvc and a white

sheet and a smaller wing draped with a black sheet. That and a

doubleheaded quartz worklight were my main lighting rig for a year. Worked

fabulously.

Absolutely - A white sheet over a PVC frame with halogen worklights was my

main lighting until I bit the bullet on some lowel softboxes. Works like a

charm.

To quote you: <br><br>"You relly need a minimum of 8 ft between one human

subject and the background in order to fit the lights behind your subject and

still get an even spread of light on the background."<br><br>In general, a

good bit of space behind the subject makes the key and fill lights negligable

(good old inverse square law) allowing independent control of the

background. It also allows for blurring the background using DOF.

Somewhat a standard approach, and like the rule of thirds, a good starting

place. Nothing bogus about it.<br><br>If you keep answering questions wih

questions, you're well on your way towards being a zen master. The pinhead

question you will have to meditate on. <br><br>Oh, and nice shot. Did you

do that in your too small shooting space?

Zenmaster Hal, are you going to start whacking people with sticks soon? Six

feet is a general rule of thumb to keep the light fall off from showing up on the

background using a fairly standard portrait lighting with the lights high and

angled down. As Hal has pointed out, modify from there...

Have you looked into Speedtron? Speedtrons the way to go. I own stock in

Speedtron. They're the best. Get some speedtrons. Do it now. NOW...

Bob,

<BR><BR> Since this discussion started with the idea that this image was

pornographic and shouldn't be here, I'm slightly confused as to why the

debate isn't about what is or isn't pornographic - the entire tone of the

discussion is such that the basic assumption is pornography = offensive and

should be removed. That was what kicked off this discussion. Besides the

mislabeling the image, by the original poster, I think I've adressed why I don't

think pornography is offensive. Strikes me as on topic. <BR><BR>

The who is fairly obvious - those who moderate the site. Again, it's somewhat

annoying to keep harping on the fact of removal. No one questions that. We

are simply arguing the rather shallow definition Chris offered as a standard.

<BR><BR>

And in response to your point # 1, it doesn't follow that not censoring anything

equates to an attitude of nobody is qualified to judge the merit of anything, nor

would it matter. The desire to let ugliness stand in public view is often a more

potent reminder of what is appropriate and lofty in our human pursuits. The

fact of Hitler or racism, unexpunged, is often curative in the early seeds of

similar attitudes. Part of a communities power is in recognizing the face of

evil. I'm not so sure the dualistic concept you offer is the only path. Which is

again, my voice in a community and not any attempt to alter policy. But I do

think it belittles a more critical view that tends towards point 1, to presume it's

a view embracing relativism and chaos. It simply isn't. It's a very simplistic

reduction of the argument that vomit should be censored. And frankly, art (not

photo.net) is often charged with making us face the ugly in life. <BR><BR>

One gripping photograph from the evolution of photography is the vietnam

civilian being caught in the moment of being shot in the head. Not pleasent

in viewing, but then who said knowledge is pleasent. Hell, just watch the

discovery channel. Lambs don't lie down with lions. They become dinner.

<BR><BR>Chris,

Chris,<BR><BR>

I'm familiar with this strange device you call "dictionary". And yet I still

disagree with you. Why, because I don't find your, (or it's) definition to be

accurate. As I've redundantly stated, I don't think a vulva in the context of an

image of a naked woman is explicit. They have them. This isn't a beaver shot.

that's a different debate. And I've seen many a mesh swimsuit shot that is far

more explicit and intent on arousal than the image you decry as

pornographic. I do know what the word means, I simply don't think it's

applicable to the example you used. We disagree. Duh.<BR><BR>

You sound remarkably like someone who wishes pornography swept under

the rug. I take it that you find photo.net to be a loftier place than a mere porn

site, which communicates a basic thought that sexuality expressed in art is

somehow tainted and base. Having nothing else to go on, perhaps my

assumption is wrong, but if it looks like a duck...<BR><BR>

I think the weight of my thoughts convey my education and experience. I'm

certainly uninterested in a bodily excretion contest (How's that, bob?) And I

disagree - Most "highly educated" folks I know both swear and enjoy a pithy

indulgence in common vulgarity when more logical appeals meet deaf ears.

Sometimes, indulging the vernacular is an appropriate response to the vulgar

obscenity of someone compelled to bleed "This is porn, boo" and it carries

more weight in the discourse - to all, excepting those who find such thoughts

informative and civil.<BR><BR>

Hmmm - I didn't realize those were statements of braggado. The first was

simply a statement about my experience drawn from an empirical sample of

women I've known and loved and what I saw as a common element. The

second was hyperbole - exageration for effect meant to Illustrate that we all do

this and to lace that common human experience with a veneer of something

that doesn't adress that is silly, inauthentic and misses the point of artistic,

versus conformist, expression. My point was that intimacy and sexuality are

individually defined and part of what makes good art is recognizing and

focusing on those idiosyncracies, rather than stereotype all of our

experiences by a legal or dictionary definition. One biblical quote has

dogged me my whole life - We all see through a glass darkly. I take that to

heart.<BR><BR>

Thank you for implying I'm a pig. I do like a dirty rutting in the obscene desire

for actual conversation, and yes, I quite enjoy it. So perhaps I am. I'm sure

you meant it as a barb, but then, I like honest, no holds barred expression. I

have a basic faith in knowledge not being scarry and a trust in truth winning

out over fear and neurosis.<BR><BR>

Not sure what damage this image does to photo.net, but I wasn't part of those

previous discussions. I jumped in over your comment, which I found

damaging to my particular photographic pet project - Integrating sexuality into

the image of a person. As I've stated, I found your less than 10 word

comment obnoxiously intrusive into that discussion and I responded with my

own fangs out and thirsty for blood. It strikes me as odd that obnoxious

behavior is supported when it agrees with a more traditional more. But dare

to yell back, why that is just uncouth.<BR><BR>

And in case you haven't noticed, I'd much prefer exchanging ideas than pithy

insults. But until you recognize why your comment was offensive to me, I'll be

happy to lob back and forth more BS that misses the point and engages in

some intellectual version of arm wrestling or a bar fight. I recently had a

rather nice discussion with someone who called an atypical photograph of an

ass (ie, no face included) "lame". In the process of discussing it - heatedly, no

doubt, I got out of it a deeper understanding about why the image resonated

with me and how it merged my conscious ideas with my ever developing eye.

<BR><BR>To me, that's the point of this site. Contentious defense of one's

ideas. The contentious bit is a more refining fire, because, unlike academic

discussion, it forces a more immediate and gutteral response. Pleasentries

have their place, but I've learned more from the all out brawl than the refined

dialogue. Perhaps it's a stylistic thing. <BR><BR>

And again to Bob, <BR><BR>

Prune as you see fit. I will still find it sad that you feel it is necessary. I tend to

find the good, bad and the ugly informative. It strikes me that the role of the

moderator is to not be the parent, but more of the Solomon wisdom that

recognizes the benefit in allowing adults to draw their own conclusions from

sometimes less than pleasent debate, tempered with an eye towards gently

urging the discussion towards a point. But I'm long past needing daddy to

help me distinguish right from wrong, nor do I need protection from offensive

discourse. As I've stated, I'm a great believer in the truth will win out.

Sometimes that struggle towards it is unpleasent, Sometimes some vomit

gets on your shoes. And as one who is concerned with the responsibility to

moderate the fray, I hope you err on the side of wisdom rather than caution.

Often the most passionate arguments are the most informative, despite the

bursts of ugliness. At least, that's my experience. And at the end of the day,

when the dust settles, the intellectual sparring forms a seed of respect that

woldn't exist outside of the engagement.

Chris,<BR><BR>

Whether or not this is an intelligent debate is not completely in my hands. But

please - I don't think I misrepresented your opinions at all. I won't indulge the

semantics of comments versus critiques, but to me, your "simply pornographic

- this doesn't belong here" is rude and certainly violates the spirit of a site

geared towards people improving their photography. As I said, It's essentially

a Boo and I find that disrespectful to the artist. Had you made your initial Boo

as a forum post (a place to discuss ideas about art vs pornography) instead of

as a comment on the picture, you would have avoided a great deal of my ire.

<BR><BR>To quote you <I>Art tries to reveal something about the human

condition, teach us, challenge our assumptions, make us think or appeals to

the brain due to its geometry, color, texture, etc. The image fits none of my art

criteria.

<BR><BR>

Porn is sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary

purpose is to cause sexual arousal. The image does meet the porn criteria

due to the explicit nature of the photo, the bed in the background, the

subject�s breast implants and her shaved public area. Any of these things by

itself would not make an image pornographic. However, in combination they

convince me that the photographer�s primary goal was to cause sexual

arousal in the viewer.</I><BR><BR>

I believe I've already adressed why I found this silly but let me be more

specific. By your "criteria" of "primary purpose is to cause arousal" a swimsuit

calendar is pornographic. <BR><BR>I also object to your catagorizing a

view of genitalia in the context of a shot of a person as explicit. Nothing about

the shot focused on the genitalia. It is simply there, well, because that's what

naked people look like. And I found futher ridiculous the assertion that the

presence of implants and a shaved pubic (although nice freudian slip) area

somehow are significant "tells" for why this is pornographic. Women modify

their bodies - they pluck eyebrows, use makeup and shave their legs. Some

do, some don't. Exactly how is that more suggestive? My guess is that the

subject of the photo finds her particular modifications aesthetically pleasing.

<BR><BR>So sorry, your keen eye for sniffing out pornographic intent fails to

live up to the scrutiny of your own definition. But let's go further - let's

examine where the picture meets your criterion for art.<BR><BR>I agree the

composition is lacking, but the use of light is nice. The shadows play well

across the skin and the curves. It's an appealing use of light to convey

geometry and texture. Regarding art's attempt to reveal something about the

human condition and challenge our assumptions, this discussion seems to

indicate that the image was sucessful on some small level. Perhaps one of

the photographers intentions was to challenge the very notion that a vulva is

not inherently obscene. Perhaps he was trying to bridge a cultural gap that

focuses on either woman as a person, devoid of sexuality or as a sexual

object, devoid of person. I can certainly say that for me, one of the goals I

shoot nudes with is to try and show the integration of person and their

physicality. Sort of my answer to the ancient dualistic discussion of mind

versus body.<BR><BR>

For some of us, that is the point of shooting nudes - our little jump in the

stream of human thought that drives a wedge between a persons body and

their soul. For some of us, they are inseperable and the perpetuation of that

notion does violence to us as humans. There is a pretentious idea that art

reduces a body (and person) to mere geometry and anything that smacks of

sexuality must be swept under the rug and labeled pornographic. It strikes

me, that although this image fails in many ways aesthetically, it does succeed

in challenging that bias.<BR><BR>

Perhaps you, as a viewer, failed. Made a snap judgement and then offered

up a really shallow definition for why your snap judgement is correct. .<BR><

BR>And finally, I don't need accepted references in order to think. I defend

my position based on my education and experience. I could care less what a

book says. It's called critical thought.<BR><BR>Oh, and crudeness is a social

construct that shifts with time and context. Most attempts at refinement of

dialogue I find simply evasive and arrogant. I'm not sure where I implied

anything about my sexual prowess, but your last line is just pathetic and

completely misses the point of the two hours I've spent discussing this. Your

adolescence is showing...

Bob,<BR><BR>

Sorry you were offended. They're just words and last I checked, all in my

dictionary. Perhaps you are used to an expunged version.<BR><BR>

I believe I was adressing photography and art in general and the inane

conclusion Mr. Hawkins drew about the photo that triggered this discussion.

The presence of a vulva in an image, let alone the absurdity of the surgical

status of breasts determining the pornographic nature of an image, caused

me great ire. He failed to make his case, based on his own nebulous

criteria.<BR><BR>

Photography and art involve an often uncomfortable examination and

expression about the life we find ourselves in. Part of my larger point was

that often what postures as a higher aesthetic is often just a ritualized civility

that fails at what it is attempting - expressing the mystery and magic of our

experience. Art and photography are an evolving dialogue. And truly great

art (and photography as a subset with an emphasis on craft) often challenges

our immediate suppositions. Commentary that inspires growth. Truly bad art

is derivative and doesn't move us forward. It's just gladhandling and playing

within the rules. Yawn.<BR><BR>

If Mr Hawkins had simply stated the photograph was a boring nude, I would

have agreed. But he didn't. He sought to invalidate the photographers effort

by applying a rather stupid moral argument. Frankly, to me, his observation

was innappropriate to a civilized discussion. And I answered him in kind. He

offered no information on how he'd improve it, or what he felt was lacking. He

just said boo and then referenced this forum discussion as proof. (I came

here from the photograph itself.) To me, that is an inappropriate response to

an image, especially one posturing as a critique. As I said, we probably won't

have much common ground on this.<BR><BR>

As to what I do in the bedroom, that is a part of my experience and seems

utterly appropriate as support for my argument in a discussion about

photography and art. It is, afterall, the empirical data upon which my more

abstract and philosophical notions are formed.<BR><BR>

Photo.net has every right to censor images as they see fit. This is a private

community. Aside from bemoaning briefly what I see as an unfortunate

attitude from an administrator, I most certainly didn't challenge that right. My

post had nothing to do with an argument about what photo.net will or won't

allow. It was adressing a notion in photographic categorization that I thought

was erroneous and explaining the larger reason I found the assertion patently

absurd. You know, ideas about photography and art.<BR><BR>

So thank you for the shopping tips, (I'm covered in both) but I wasn't

discussing what this web site will allow. If I objected to a specific shift in

policies of posting, I would simply, (and regretably - as I've enjoyed

participating here for quite some time) leave. So , please, spare me the

lecture over the rights of a private site to dictate standards. <BR><BR>Until

the time my voice is unwelcomed here, I will continue to express my opinion

as I honestly see it. It may be percieved as obnoxious by some, but then I

posted because I found someone else obnoxious in their opinion. It strikes

me that challenging another's opinion, you disagree with, is the point of a

forum. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

Wow - this discussion just saddens me. People who should know better just

towing some party line that dismisses a huge chunk of what it is to be human -

our sexuality - as somehow an invalid enterprise for artistic discussion,

because, gasp, it might be seen as pornographic.

And this was triggered by a nude shot that "ooooo" shocking, was boring in

it's attempt to conform to "fine art nudity" and violated the rules of the game

because it mistakenly showed a shaved genetalia. I hate the "fine art"

aesthetic that feels no compunction with violently lopping of the heads of the

nudes portrayed and blathering on about shape and texture. But be so bold

as to photograph eyes and genitals in the same image (and sorry, most

women I know shave, without my proclamation on whether I approve) and

suddenly there is turmoil over it's appropriateness as an image worthy of a

presence here????? Is this not the same stupidity of Elizabethian morality

that objectified woman as an object put on a pedastal to protect them from the

reality of the world (and their own Hysteria (gotta laugh - it inspired the

vibrator as medical cure for restlessness))?<BR><BR>

The women I know fart, burp and get horny. It has everything to do with who

they are. The violence of pornography is it's reducing the individual to a

cliche. Having read this whole thread, most reponses are just as obscenely

reductionist. Isn't part of art the honest challenge it offers to our

suppositions?<BR><BR>

A lot of people mistake critique with judgement. But the point of critique is to

engage the image and respond. Not decide whether it's worthy of

discussion.<BR><BR>

This reminds me of the protective BS I grew up with. The lack of faith in the

individual to encounter something and process it. At all cost's, divert the

discussion towards the proper conclusion. What tripe. Knowledge is power

and how dare anyone presume to place their opinion over the interaction of

honest indulgence that informs most sweetly?<BR><BR>

I've been a participant here for many moons. I've enjoyed a lot of heated

debate. But the current parental tone of what is worthy for me to appropriately

consider is obnoxious. I have no problem with discussing why I don't find this

image pornographic (not to mention the concept of pornography vs art), but

the suggestion that the discussion is invalid is just sad.

Some more particular responses:

Brian - Didn't I once give you advice on rope bondage? Since when is purient

interest in conflict with art or the impulse to comment on life?

Sandy - No desire to critique your parenting, but I will reveal a bit of my

growing up. The image you skip is precisely the one your son will seek out.

Taboo is ultimately a reverse psychology intrigue. It strikes me that a

discussion about the image is more productive than skipping it and leaving it

to his own imagining and confusion. Most obnoxious male attitudes towards

women are long on informed by porn and short on any understanding of

woman as people who jill themselves off on occasion, but aren't reduced to it.

Bob - not sure we could find much common ground, but what I liked about

photo.net was the maturity that requested a (nude) demarcation by the site to

allow people to avoid it as a topic if desired. As the resident flaming perv, I

have no problem with a checkbox. Believe it or not, the discussion of

whether the erotic is valid art is fairly boring for those who assume it. It gets

particularly annoying when the discussion always flounders at such a basic

point, rather than discuss the nuance of it. Not all of us are cut out for

activism. We're just jealous that bitching about a banal flower shot doesn't

cause such a stir of controversy by those uninvested in taking a good one,

simply because they feel the need to be outraged.

Chris - Since when does a visible labia equal porn? That's such an

adolescent assumption. Having lived with many women, labia takes on a

variety of shades. Sometimes it's a hunkering down bit of yum. Sometimes

it's a bloody mess. Sometimes it's awash with a rather unerotic discharge.

<BR><BR>So where in all of this, is the pornographic? My girlfriend has a

particular soft spot for clinical, rather base pornography. It gets her off. <BR><

BR>

Remind me again why this is a less valid exploration of humanity than your

(frankly) pedantic view of what is acceptable art? How, again, am I

supposedly being inauthentic by demonstrating faith in knowledge exposed?

And how is her experience obscene, while your teenage romantic notion of

arousal is somehow sophisticated and refined (despite it's uncourageous

urge to avoid)?

<BR><BR>Oh, yes, yes, I know - My aesthetic is mingled with my hand on my

dick. Because we all know that arousal is an evil indulgence, certainly not

common experience and most definitely not the stuff of elevated art. Why the

hell would we want to discuss something so lizard like. We are refined -

breasts are shapes and plays of light. Never mind that they are connected to

a person who thrills in the fondle. That would be just base. And certainly

unworthy of artistic investigation.<BR><BR>

I'll reiterate - Grow the fuck up.<BR><BR>

Mark - thank you for bringing rationality to this discussion, Despite the

unpopularity of your voice.<BR><BR>

To summarize, a lot of you dance around the idea that an image taken as

purient by some is still valid as art. I challenge the notion of Mr. Hawkins.

Pornography - ie - that which is intent on arousal is a valid image. Arousal is

a huge component of what it is to be human. Rather than dapple on the

fringe and the absurdity of the reasons Mr. Hawkins found the particular

image pornographic (which are just silly and demonstrate a wierd sense of

the tawdry - Please - had her breasts been real and she had an unshaved

bush, we apparently wouldn't have violated the 4 point pornography and

presumably, wouldn't be having this discussion. Not.) Perhaps the

discussion is better focused on why or how arousal as a photographic goal is

or isn't a valid photographic exploration.<BR><BR>

Just a suggestion. Far be it from me to interupt the handwringing over

whether artificial tits and a glimpsed, shaved vulva are pornographic. But

please, can we actually discuss something that isn't merely a rehash of the

same silly argument that worms it's way into any revealing of naked bodies?

Am I the only one who fucks and adjusts technique based on the individual?

Am I so odd that a chunk of my time is concerned with the unspoken dialogue

of bodies and sex and thrilling???

One of the elegant bits of this sight was the ability to click on

those marked interesting and see their latest comments.

Unfortunately, that sorting priority dissappeared many moons

ago, necessitating a click on their picture and then clicking their

name to get the reverse sort order of their comments. This has

been the main reason I don't linger her as much. <BR><BR>

Please reverse the sort order<BR> It makes no sense to mark

someone as interesting and be able to instantly call up their

latest photo submissions while needing to click around in order

to see their latests comments. The entire idea of marking

interest is to provide a quick link to someones latest

contributions. Amoung the many different angles that made

this site great, that was a crucial one - and one I've mourned

since it dissappeared many months ago.

<BR><BR>While I realize I can click upon the summary total link

and follow along, Every time I do, it's an anguishing scrolling

task exacerbated by the number of comments. Before, I was

able to click on a name and see their latest responses. It

makes no sense to continually see the same 5 first comments

here when I click on a "favorite" it strikes me as an utterly

unusefull change in the sorting order.

<BR><BR>And I know it seems a bit trite, but it was what made

me linger here and what made me lose interest. And it's such

an easy correction

It looks fine - a nice gamut of greys and the gun barrels are black

. If anything, it's a tad bright, (but I use a mac, and our gammas

are a bit different (assuming your PC)).