anne_morgan

I can say that, for ME, the pre-flash on the Nikons drives me crazy! I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who's noticed it. I have two friends who use the D70 and that extra flash is very irritating.

My Elan IIe ALWAYS gives me 25 - 26 shots per 24 exposure roll; 37 - 38 per 36 exposure roll.

I did a wedding recently and saw that look in the bride's face near the end of the reception while we were squeezing in some B&G shots at the water's edge. Even though I had some great ideas and some great scenery available, I realized, at that point, continuing shooting would have been to please ME, not the bride. I'm disappointed that I missed some good idea shots, but I just couldn't see putting her through any more (these shots were not "essentials.")Between gorgeous smiles, her face seemed to say "stick a fork in me, I'm done!

And Jaimie Blue - I'm SO GLAD TO HEAR SOMEONE ELSE SAY THIS because I feel exactly the same way. I recently did a wedding and hired an assistant whose photos I've been familiar with for years. Despite what most photographers do, her shots will have her name under my business name on them. She has a unique style, much of her work is light and fun and humorous, and I am simply incapable of repeating her style. If a couple hired me based on those photos (without credit to her), then the photos I give them could be technically and compositionally perfect award winners, but they will be a huge disappointment to the couple because that quality that attracted them would be lacking. I would be shooting myself in the foot! I'm working too hard now to try to develop my own style, I don't have time or energy to try to match someone else's work that I've passed off as mine. Thank you for expressing your opinions!

I, too, understand that many photographers DO expect assistants to simply work for the check and have no rights whatsoever to any image they take. I know this is fairly common. However, I am to old to dicker around for a tiny paycheck just to have someone else market my work as theirs. If I were 22, it would be different. But I'm starting my business as a 40 year-old. So what most photographers do is irrelevant. Even though she stated I could use my images, I have too much respect for her and her work to use photos that were obvious recognizable wedding shots from that day. I chose that particular photo because it not only it is unrecognizable as being from a wedding job that she took me to, but it isn't even distinguishable as a wedding shot nor is it a recognizable person. (But yes, I have a release - I always get a release.) There could be no impression that I am trying to pass her job off as one of mine. If she had asked me to sign a work for hire contract, I would have declined and told her she needed to find someone else. I made that very clear to her. Just as a photographer is free to ask someone to sign a contract, one is free to decide not to sign. "If you want to work with me you have to accept that I won't be your gopher light carrier, but as another professional."

Got the release. Thanks for the advice!

A family member asked if I would do two weddings with her (i know, I

know...) We both do free-lance photography work. I made it VERY

clear that I was NOT agreeable to giving away the copyright or right

to use to my photos, but did agree that if she set up a shot and I

simply shot a "backup", there was no problem, knowing that this would

limit my usage to totally unique candids. I signed no contract and

said that for future weddings we would have to work out something

that didn't involve my losing my usage rights. Even though she

stated I would have my images to use, I have been VERY careful not to

use the "standards", her poses and ideas, or the repeated shots.

While by myself, I shot a few images of the flower girl (from the

back as she was gazing over a balcony.) When she saw I used the

photo in a brochure(1 x 1.5 inch thumbnail along with some non-

wedding portraits I've done, she was upset saying she planned on

using the images to market herself. I feel that I was very careful

to use only images that were completely unique to me, and therefore

justified. Have I acted in an unethical manner?

James - I agree with you. My remarks weren't really meant to imply that I feel constantly bombarded with nudity on Photo.net nor were they meant to disparage the photo mentioned in the first question - although I probably didn't express that sentiment very well - thank you for calling me on that. Maybe children in American culture ARE too heavily sheltered when it comes to the subject of nudity. But that's not something I can change today or on my own. We live in a culture where photos running throught the processors at your local Eckerds of children in the bathtub can get you into trouble. And I, like you, remarked that there are all sorts of images that have nothing to do with nudity, that I don't deem appropriate for young children.

 

As I said earlier, I'm just glad that I found that browsing through critique requests by category has proven to be a great compromise. And when that occasional mis-categorized nude should happen to slip through, I'll do as you said, and "move on to the next one", no big deal ;-)

 

Thanks for your added views!

I, too, would like to reiterate what Jamie was saying. We were not (nor am I now) asking for a fool-proof guarantee than a nude body would not appear on my screen. We were simply suggesting that a filter, on MY SCREEN ALONE, would certainly knock a large number of them out of the way. That being said, I have learned that my children can view in the critique part where you can browse new critique requests by category. I would like for them to be able to view some of the older ones, but I find this a very acceptable compromise.

 

Furthermore, John - I certainly apologize for my outburst and my directing it to you - I reacted so strongly because I'm tired of people's assertion that it is crazy and irresponsible not to expose young children to nudity. Just because they may be seeing a man's naked body everyday in their FUTURE doesn't mean I need to start them on that road today as an 8 or even 12 year old.

 

I realize that in other cultures children see very different things than they do here - and I respect that. But appropriateness in one culture does not make something appropriate in another. You certainly don't see women walking around topless and nursing 5 year old children in public here, while that is the norm in other nations.

 

If someone in my cultire wants to constantly expose their young children to the sexual genitalia of others then I suppose that is up to them. But I don't buy into the idea that just because something exists, that it needs to be viewed by young children. Do we show pictures of murder victims or pictures of suicide victims - although both of those things exist. I shudder to think... Those images can be introduced when, or if, they ever become appropriate.

To John Crosley- OH MY GOD! What world do you come from where you think 12 year old girls should be looking at penises. Do you have a 12 year old daughter who sees naked men all the time? Do you have children at all? I often hear men voice this opinion UNTIL THEY HAVE A LITTLE GIRL!!!

 

To Jamie - I voiced a similar complaint last year because my 8 year old daughter enjoyed looking at this site with me. I got SLAMMED by people telling me that my 8 year old daughter SHOULD be looking at nude men and that she'd be a warped prude some day if I didn't expose her to it NOW! I had to assume that those who espoused that opinion probably had no children. This additude makes me sick. But as far as Photo.net is concerned, we are fighting a losing battle. I had a few supporters, but for the most part I was the one made out as sick.

Happens to me quite often - very frustrating. I usually end up just going to the browse area and only rating what I like.

Yep, that's exactly what I meant! While there is a time and place for this to be enjoyable viewing, it shouldn't be at 8 years old.

I understand Mike - and I wasn't offended in the slightest. You raised a very valid point. I wish there WAS a solution that would be only minutes away from implementation and done without effort. Much of the nude photography is no different from the art my children view in museums. But, increasingly, (or could just be my imagination) much of it seems to be becoming more and more vulgar and shocking. Thanks

Sorry Mike, no... But in all fairness, my original question was "is it possible for me to..." , not "what can Bob do to..." I just wasn't sure if there was, already built in, a way to choose certain parameters of viewing. This is certainly not a condemnation of nude photography, Bob, Brian or PN.

Sounds like a great idea to me Steve. I understand the occasional nude would slip through the cracks (no pun intended); I'm not concerned with an occasional shot, they could be easily skimmed passed and go unnoticed by the children if a big deal isn't made. That's just not possible to do the way things are now. Thanks for your support and thanks for the thoughful suggestion!

Sorry Bob -I didn't mean to beat anything to death. It wasn't my intention to irritate.

I joined PN 5 months ago and I have thoroughly enjoyed every minute

of it! During the summer, I used to love to flip through the TRPs,

finding some of the most wonderful images. Both of my daughters (9

and 12) enjoyed viewing the pages with me and the 12 year old is a

little budding photographer herself. But at some point-I'm not even

sure when -I realized I can't even click to those pages now until my

kids have gone to bed at night. I am not a prude - I have no problem

with most of the nude photos that are posted, (and I won't get into

the artistic merits of someone's fingers shoved inside themself) but

now it seems that nudes constitute most of the TRP spots - I can't

just quickly throw up a hand to hide the occasional nude and keep on

scrolling anymore. Is there any way that I can filter these so that

I don't have to restrict my girls from viewing? (or restrict myself

to only late-night viewing) I'm not trying to censor anyone and I

respect the fact that nude photography is so popular here - I just

miss sharing the beautiful work on this site with my family. To all

those responsible for ensuring this site runs smoothly - thanks for

all you do!

I've noticed the same thing on several of mine recently - in fact, one today moved a photo of mine off my "most rated photos" page. Similar to Mellik's case, but the ratings removed from mine were "average" range (4's or 5's), but not those that would have been weeded out for excessive low ratings. Just curious...