zoewiseman

the perv is hiding behind bushes and taking photos of nude women. sick. he should be charged with something. this is gross behavior. if he

was a decent human being and didn't want to take photographs like a sneak this probably could have been a positive outcome. like taking

the time to respect the women he was pointing his camera at by asking for their permission. his ethics are in question, and the rights of

those women are in question.

1. It is rude to stick a camera in someone's face without asking them first.

2. Stealing someone's face or persona without letting them know is rude.

3. If you would stick a camera in my face, I would probably chase you down the street or throw your camera in the trash or demand that

you take the film out and throw it away.

4. Assuming that everyone should love to be photographed as if it's some compliment that you want to point your lens at them is also

rude and egotistical.

5. Long telephoto lenses - sleazy!

Please have some ethics about it. It's no wonder people think photographers are sleaze balls.

Ask first! Explain your project! Acquire a photo release like a professional.

the plans are only for Hollywood.

you can always email them and let them know Chicago wants it too.

thanks vinny,

you should make the opening! it's going to be great.

Z

A&I Photographic, in partnership with Don Weinstein of Photo Impact, is pleased to present "LA

NUDE 10". <BR>

The LA Nude series began twenty years ago at Photo Impact, a Hollywood lab known by

professional photographers across the nation. With the best of Photo Impact now residing under

the roof of A&I Photographic, the LA Nude exhibit will be carried on, once again, redefining the

words exhibition and exposure.<BR><BR>

Artist Reception & book signing<BR>

Saturday, June 7th, 8PM - 11PM<BR>

@ A&I <BR>

933 N. Highland Ave, Hollywood, CA 90038<BR>

RSVP @ events@aandi.com <BR><BR>

Featuring the photography of:<BR>

Steven Arnold, Scott Ashton, Nathan Bilow, Michael Childers, Phil Condit, Jeff Dunas, Jimmy

Fikes, Steve Diet Goedde, Greg Gorman, Michael Grecco, Mark Edward Harris, Dennis Hopper,

Ken Juergen, Douglas Kirkland, Herman Leonard, Joel Levinson, Mitch Longley, Ken Marcus,

Richard Meade, Kevin Merrill, Astor Morgan, Leonard Nimoy, Damion Poirtier, Eckhardt

Schmidt, Jack Shear, Bryony Shearmur, Julius Shulman, Dave Snow, Jay Styranka, Michael

Tighe, Arthur Tress, Sara Terry, Kaelin Trice, Myra Vides, Henning Von Berg, Zoe Wiseman,

Donna Wong, Jim Wright, Tim Zinneman<BR><BR>

Sales Proceeds Benefit

The AFTERMATH Project

http://www.theaftermathproject.org/

<BR>

<img src="http://www.zoewiseman.com/L.A.NUDE10invite.jpeg">

OMG - I just saw this. LOL

It's the first time I've ever won anything! I'm honored!

When you are a stock photographer, you just go out and shoot what you like. You aren't

hired nor shooting for a corporation. Most artists that I know are a bit "left leaning" and so it

shows in their work. When they submit the images to their stock agent, they have no idea

where these images will even end up. Corporations know that if they show warm fuzzy

feelings through photography or video (left leaning artistic views) the can then win over the

general public. The only way to not sacrifice your integrity where politics is concerned, is to

not be a stock photographer.

Dear Dennis,

You should start this website yourself! I'd join!

Bruce, I think, and this is assuming as in making an ass out of u and me... but I digress,

the "painting" aspect is exactly what Dennis was referring to. Too many people "paint"

their photographs and turn them in to a MIXED MEDIA instead of straight photography.

Although you do have the Jerry Uelsman's out there who manipulated the heck out of

negatives in the way some manipulate the heck out of photoshop. But, then again, I think

F64 would have considered that "painting." Don't you? Although I love love love Uelsman.

Zoe

hi Laura,

google Colin Finlay. You will find a wealth of information.

Zoe

Learning the craft of photography doesn't mean that you only learn ONE thing. A school

that focuses only on one thing, be it film or digital, isn't TEACHING. Students need to know

how to get the shot, what medium to use in order to make the photo, and what type of

photography they need to utilize in order to come up with a finished product. Starting out

with basic 35mm film is the first course in accomplishing this goal. After learning this one

should graduate to another medium so that 35mm isn't the only thing one learns or gets

stuck with. Digital cannot teach everything one would learn working with film, and film

cannot teach everything one would learn working with digital. Just because you might be

anxious to jump into the digital technology doesn't mean that you should abandon the

film course. Otherwise, you will not have all the knowlege you need.

i won't be back to this thread after reading one of these responses. not saying what one...

but i think i need to leave this discussion alone before i regret something that may start

typing away in streams of consciousness. not good when that happens. so, if anyone

wants to put words in my mouth, would you please respect that i won't be back to set you

straight if you do? that would be utterly human of you if you could.

i have enjoyed this up until now though. i think the conservative right just entered the

building and well.. that's all i'll say about that. and if i get going it will take way too much

of my time and energy to do battle with witless worms (to quote gandolf). sorry, trying to

be funny, laugh, it's ok.

I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all

kinds of things you can't see from the center.

Kurt Vonnegut

Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for

it terrifying and absolutely vile!

Kurt Vonnegut

I should leave before I'm abducted by Tralfamadorians - Love Live Free Will and Kilgore

Trout

tata

john kelly... as far as my site goes, you will find old, young, male, female, obese, firm, black,

white, gay, lesbian, straight, asian, russian, jewish, christian, atheist, buddhist and even

islamic and all body types and ages under the sun. one of the women i work with is 50 years

old. one of the male models on my site is 65. the youngest is 18. so you clearly don't know

much about my website. and i wish you would not say that i have said things i haven't. that

isn't very nice.

fred... i get it. i just get frustrated with immaturity. i need to learn to sit in yogi pose and

hum when that happens. i'm not fully enlightened, but i'm working on it.

Nicole said: "Does a woman stop wearing revealing clothing because it causes a married

man to lust after her? Is she responsible for his perversions, thoughts or actions? Where

does the responsibility lie? (just an example)"

I could not agree more.

Pete,

I understand what you are saying, sure. I just think that if anyone looks at those

photographs and sees anything other than innocence or feels anything in the groin area

that they should do well and go talk to a psychologist, pronto.

How does one document a nudist colony? Consider yourself on a journalistic assignment

to go to a nudist colony for one year and do nothing but document the day to day life. Do

you only photograph the adults? No, because that wouldn't be a true documentation and

you would fail in your journalistic approach.

john kelly said:

"Repulsion is the most shallow possible response to questions, and the easiest way to

avoid thought."

I couldn't disagree more. We are talking about people feeling erotic responses to

photographs of children... I am still repulsed. Not repulsed at Jock's work, but repulsed at

the IMMATURE actions of the people who view his work. So, we are once again back to the

ever dangerous immature mind set that CREATES all that we fear about sexuality.

http://weeklywire.com/ww/04-20-98/boston_feature_1.html

read this

I am so sorry I brought up Sturges. It is a shame that people still refer to his work in this

way and compare it to something really sinister. It repulses me.

I wish I had a photographer around me when I was young so that my body and my life

were documented the way Jock's subjects are. He has known these families for decades.

And the children he shot who are mother's and father's now have also posed with their

children. He shoots family portraits, not photographs of underage children. These

portraits just so happen to be nude. And big God damn deal! The FBI was hounding him

over photographs he took in France of French families on "nude" beaches (just a "beach" in

France). And I notice that no mention of "young boys" was brought up, just about the girls

he photographed. *eye roll* What about the children with their parents? Didn't anyone

notice those? His photography is very innocent. And I agree that the people who are

uncomfortable with it are the people who we should concern ourselves with, not Jock.

People like to talk and talk about something they know nothing about all the time.

Frustrating.

I was gone for 4 days and came back and tried reading all of this. Someone mentioned

Nimoy and then refered to Burlesque and snickering... why? Is nudity really that funny?

Last time I checked I wasn't in a Benny Hill skit and I wasn't the underling of Gypsy Rose

Lee. I don't have a gimick.

I don't have a problem with anyone.

I do have a problem with the attitude towards the chosen genre of my work though. When

other photographers are saying these things about the nude in photography it makes me

wonder how the general public sees it. When these questions are posed it does nothing to

separate the genre from pornography. And it is exactly this attitude that gets

photographers in trouble with the law. Just look at Jock Sturges. There was nothing sexual

about his work, yet because of immaturity the FBI busts down his door and takes his

negatives. This same attitude is what keeps women covered in bags in the middle-east.

Women are MUCH MORE than sex, they should have the respect and opportunity with

photographs to be depicted as MORE.

oh, and georgia o'keefe really out does maplethorpe in terms of sexuality in flowers.

maplethorpe only wished he were as good. just as one can sexualize flowers, one can also

desexualize a woman or a man. that was the point i was trying to make when i spoke about

flowers, thought i'd try to let people open their mind around it just a bit.

Galyon... of course i understand what the guy is saying. although i feel it is a tad bit

immature. i was kind of trying to be humorous in my response because i thought the

question was filled with humor. i've never really encountered a photographer who acted

like this on a shoot, but then you have to take a look at who i've worked with in order to

understand that. i was blessed with photographers who weren't doing it to "get off" they

do it because they must, it's what they do, they're artists. it doesn't have anything to do

with sex but everything to do with creation. i find it to be completely a-sexual, an act of

freedom, natural, and yes spiritual in a sense when you think of the beauty of human

beings - a celebration of humanity. turning it into something to do with sex, for me,

negates the beauty or the innocence of art for art's sake. yes, it is empowering - no it isn't

a notch to put in your belt when you photograph a woman or a man just to say "hey i took

a photo of someone naked." that's immature behavior. and i would warn any model not to

work with photographers like this, as they probably aren't going to get good photos if they

do. and i would suggest to photographers that if they are doing it because of sexual

attraction not to even shoot nudes as they will never see past the sexual aspects and they

will never create art. one must do it because of love of art and love of human beings. there

really isn't anything creepier for a model to put up with than a photographer acting like a

GWC. that is, unless the model enjoys it. and looking at the porn industry, there are a lot

that do. most models, however, DO NOT. it's a shame that these questions are posed to

those who work with cameras to create art. it's never posed to those who use paint

brushes. i worked for alex beard, peter beard's nephew, for a series of paintings he did. no

one asked him about a sexual attraction when they looked at his paintings. and hey, that's

the longest i've ever been nude posing - roughly 6 days, 8 hours a day spent nude for one

piece - and there were 3 pieces total of myself. and no, there were no sexual advances,

connotations nor unprofessionalism exuded the entire time. i think we talked about

physics mostly, time travel and adventures to other solar systems. if that were model and

photographer instead of model and painter, i think some people would have asked if we

had a thing for each other. so, i think people need to grow up and get over it.

and thank you for the compliments about my work. it's really appreciated. :)

GWC = guy with camera

one can look at a flower and recongize the beauty without getting arroused, why can't one do

the same with a woman?

I'm a female photographer who shoots nudes, so I really don't know what you're talking

about. Other than admitting that you might be a GWC.

I agree... whoever it is probably wanted to print your image or something without paying you

or he wanted to post it on a website without your permission or or or... anyone who

complains about a copyright notice is a twit!

and... if someone would try and rubberstamp the copyright notice off of your work, that just

proves intent in court if you have to sue. so keep putting your copyright on your work. i find

photographers who do not do this a little naive.

i've had my work stolen before and it was not a very fun nor easy experience.

robi,

yes, stupidity does rule.

Zoe

ooops! make that Spencer Tunic... sorry, Spencer sounds so lame to me that my brain

automatically put in something more masculine. was that wrong to say? oh, hell, who cares.

it's funny.