gary_.1

Mr. Bjorn Moback, After your comments posted to this photo, I thought I would take a look at your portfolio to see if I could determine the basis for your comments posted here. Of the large number of photos you have included, I find all be one to be totally CRAP! Quantity does not translate to quallity... and what makes you such an expert anyway? If others want to simply take your opinion stated about this photo, I hope they will take a look at yours. Grainy, out of focus, ugly and cluttered photos do not always constitute "art". Of course you and others that think like this will disagree with me... and that is just fine. What you consider art may not be art to others and v.v. That is what makes art... "art". Mr. Peter Nixon, on the other hand, does seem to have a nack for the camera. Maybe there can be some growth in your skills if you observe his portfolio. To be honest, I find the content of the above photo to be very offensive (at least to me and others of similar religion). However, I find the photography to be very artistic and hope the photographer uses his talent to produce more photos of other topics as well.

I find this photo very fascinating. Also, I find it very interesting that there is not as much discussion regarding the potential recourse of this being an "offensive" topic. It seems that there is a moratorium on photographs that show female genitals (but not the case when it is a male or even something religious... you hypocrites). The fact that this can be interpreted as an attack on a specific religion seems to not be as offensive to the censers than a fully spread female crouch. Personally I find this photo to be extremely well done (whether or not I agree with the appropriateness of the theme... which I don't). But I do admire the artistic qualities it contains (the lighting, shadows, facial expression and colors are extremely well done... and yes, Jesus was also naked on the cross). I just disagree with the inconsistencies of the P.N. censers who judge the photography. If a sacred theme and the male genitals can be retained as "art"... then let the same be true for ALL of the photos that may display the most sensitive parts of the female anatomy... as long as they are done with good taste and artistic approach (which... by the way includes some that may be considered too "erotic"!).

 

Guess if you tone a pornagraphic picture in B&W it somehow becomes art. You must be related to Antony Jeanes because he displays the same garbage. It is about the form... not the act. If it was truely art, you could drop the water level two feet and everything would be the same! Olof, Niko and many others... now that is art.

I don't often comment (only enjoy) the photos on this sight, but this one is different. No... I am not an "artist", but I do enjoy art and that is what this is. This is done with great taste and style. There is a sense of sensuality masked with shading that stirs one's emotions. Take an experienced photographer, add an excellent model and mix in the right lighting... perfection. Would love to see more photos like this!

I am a long-time viewer of photo.net and enjoy the artistic expressions presented here. Because I am NOT a professional photographer, I have reserved my comments on the photographs on this site... until now!

 

The photographs presented here are matched by no other site. And the photographers strive to improve their abilities by the comments made by other viewers. This is where my frustrations with the "censors" begin.

 

I will start by saying that this photograph (in its original uncensored state) does not offer a lot of artistic presentation. If it were a B/W, in an old building, shaded, with flowers (?), etc., it may have more appeal to me. But that is not the point. The point is that it has been censored because it shows a female's genitalia. SO WHAT!!!!!!

 

There are several photos of males which show their dicks (nope, I didn't use the "p" word). As far as I am concerned, the male photographs are the same as a female spreading her legs and holding her virginal open with her fingers. Is that porn? Not any more than a male exposing his genitalia.

 

So, ether get off of the censorship of the female genitalia in artistic presentation or start censoring that of the males.