| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/28/2006 12:34:36 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by MikeOwens:
There has always been 'people' around that preyed on children, its not anything new its just these days it gets a wider coverage than it used to in the past. |
That is very true and is well-documented. Because of new media technology and the media's willingness to "sell" these types of stories, the public hears more about it, but it has always exsisted.
Consequently, the children themselves are more aware that it happens and are more careful about contact with strangers. Also, law enforcement agencies have become more effective in catching and prosecuting abusers. So, contrary to popular belief, the problem is actually less severe than it was in past decades.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 12:47:54 PM · #27 |
Edit. OOps wrong thread.
Message edited by author 2006-05-28 12:48:18. |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 12:58:25 PM · #28 |
| This are all awesome shots Gusto!!! Thanks for posting! I love the backgrounds - really makes the shots unique and fun! |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 01:06:31 PM · #29 |
lol...people don't want their kids to do anything these days unless they have five layers of bubble wrap around them.
PUTTING PICTURES OF AN UNIDENTIFIABLE 14 YEAR OLD ON DPC DOES NOT PUT THE CHILD IN HARM'S WAY.
This discussion is illogical and way off base. People keep saying "I hear the news stories" - NO...you hear news stories of girls on myspace.com who are giving out all their personal information along with their pictures. You hear about girls talking to people on instant messenger and giving out their personal information and agreeing to meet with strangers.
For some reason, adults these days can't seem to differentiate between what is safe and what is not on the internet. This is common sense. Do you think that anyone can find out who this girl is? Where she lives? Couldn't happen.
Now stop trying to tell this person that they shouldn't have put these pictures up...it is only an issue for people who can't tell the difference between what is really possible and what is not.
Message edited by author 2006-05-28 13:07:00.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 01:11:49 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by MikeOwens:
There has always been 'people' around that preyed on children, its not anything new its just these days it gets a wider coverage than it used to in the past. |
With digital photography sexploitation of minors is a bigger problem than it every has been before. It is a legitimate concern, especially when images of minors have even a hint of sexuality in them.
I'm not suggesting that is gusto's intent. It isn't. He is a gifted photographer and does events. His looks to be along the lines of children's fashion catalogue imagery. A huge part of the event photography business involves taking pictures of children at their various activities which are purchased by parents and relatives. I suspect a big part of gusto's child photography is an outgrowth from that. That is a legitimate as any other type of photography.
A lot has to do with image perception by viewers. I'd have to say that gusto's imagery can be percieved as far, far more provocative than this very touching nude of his own minor children taken by Artyste:
Message edited by author 2006-05-28 13:15:36.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 01:12:18 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by specialk0783:
Do you think that anyone can find out who this girl is? Where she lives? Couldn't happen. |
Er..it could if someone recognises her...and now they know her name too...is it likely? No. Is it impossible? No. I strap my child in to the car...am I going to crash..probably never..is it impossible>? No. |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 01:15:54 PM · #32 |
Sorry gusto. I tried to start a new thread for that discussion:(
Anyway, my favorites are
 and 
I also like  and 
Personally the bikini ones don't do much for me. If she were playing with a beach ball or holding a surfboard they might be better suited for her age.
PS, If she has on makeup, it's done beautifully.
Message edited by author 2006-05-28 13:22:09. |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 01:27:21 PM · #33 |
Lovely shots Gusto.
I'm not a fan of the bikini ones but not because of the same reason as the over-protective mums here.
I just don't like the color :P
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 03:02:55 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by MikeOwens:
There has always been 'people' around that preyed on children, its not anything new its just these days it gets a wider coverage than it used to in the past. |
With digital photography sexploitation of minors is a bigger problem than it every has been before. It is a legitimate concern, especially when images of minors have even a hint of sexuality in them.
I'm not suggesting that is gusto's intent. It isn't. He is a gifted photographer and does events. His looks to be along the lines of children's fashion catalogue imagery. A huge part of the event photography business involves taking pictures of children at their various activities which are purchased by parents and relatives. I suspect a big part of gusto's child photography is an outgrowth from that. That is a legitimate as any other type of photography.
A lot has to do with image perception by viewers. I'd have to say that gusto's imagery can be percieved as far, far more provocative than this very touching nude of his own minor children taken by Artyste:
|
I just have to step in here, they aren't my children. I was their nanny for 2 years. Just wanted to make that clear. However, their mother an I are close, close friends, and I have full support and permission of every photo of them I put on the internet. |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 04:25:10 PM · #35 |
Hi-ho,
Nice work Gusto...
For my edification, and that of others, can you share the details of lights/lens/apeture?
My favourite is the first one really, or 5th, I prefer 'quiet' portraits, although you've caught a whole bunch of life and energy in these shots, which is cool.
If I were being picky...
The first Bikini one and the blue top look like she's going to fall over, and the right arm showing in the bikini shot is distracting.
I'm not sure if I like that splotchy flower background either, it is really busy compared to the two shots you got in front of it... Possibly crazy poses/movement to go with the crazy backdrop would have worked? Just to contradict myself, I like the stripes, they seem to work really well.
Thanks for sharing..
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 05:36:58 PM · #36 |
This discussion has gotten a bit rediculous... Posting these pictures does not put her in any more danger than letting her go to school or the mall... Should we lock her away untill she is an adult to protect her safety? To bring this back to a photography discussion, I have commented on all the shots posted!
TC |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 07:06:12 PM · #37 |
I just want to add if anyone's taken it too far it's everyone taking offense to the fact that I even asked if he'd gotten permission.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 07:13:28 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by missinseattle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by moniepenny:
She's a beautiful girl, and the photos are very lively and nice. My only concern would be posting pictures of a pretty young girl in a bikini on the internet. That just doesn't seem like a truly safe thing to be doing to me.
But they are good portraits worth showing off. |
OK, what's wrong with posting this kind of picture?
Is the girl naked, doing anything sexual?? NO!
Is her name, address and phone number posted? NO!
How is this in any way unsafe or unseemly? I just don't get it.
Would it be OK if she was considered somehow unattractive? |
Maybe it's because I have a 5yo daughter and know at 14- or any age for that matter I wouldn't want her picture posted for the whole world to see especially wearing a bathing suit and a bikini at that. There are sickos out there. I don't care if the mall is more dangerous is not the issue.
I find some of the poses to be a little to provacative for a 14 yo but I'm an overprotective mother lol. |
Kimberly you openly admit that you're an overprotective mother and a bit old fashioned in your views. Perhaps you should obstain from voicing your opinion about topics uncomfortable to you if you already are aware enough to recognize that your opinions may be skewed a bit. Are these images within legal bounds and is there a policy at DPC preventing thes images from being downloaded and viewed. Perhaps we'd do a little better if we kept morality out of the thread discussions because all you've done in my opinion is stir up a hornets nest... and one that was harmless and positive until you voiced your opinion... :) |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 07:26:06 PM · #39 |
Back to the original thread that Martin attempted to share his work in for some critiquing...all of these are very nice photographs. Your pose choices, your focus, your DOF, your exposure control and HER clothing choices all work beautifully together to provide for some photographs that any NORMAL parent would be proud to hand out. She looks like a very happy, very relaxed 14 year old, and that's not always easy to accomplish in a photo shoot. What was your lighting setup and post-processing workflow?
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 08:00:16 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Back to the original thread that Martin attempted to share his work in for some critiquing...all of these are very nice photographs. Your pose choices, your focus, your DOF, your exposure control and HER clothing choices all work beautifully together to provide for some photographs that any NORMAL parent would be proud to hand out. She looks like a very happy, very relaxed 14 year old, and that's not always easy to accomplish in a photo shoot. What was your lighting setup and post-processing workflow? |
=======================================================================
The backdrops are several fabric choices from Walmart each between 4 and 7 dollars each, the lighting was 2 AB 400's shot thru large soft boxes one at about 8 Oclock towards her front at about 8 foot distance at eye elevel, the other AB 400 softbox was sitting at 3 O Clock to the cameras right from about 3 ft above her head. On several of them I lit the hair with an AB 800 without any modifiers, The majority of these were at f4 - f6 or so with the exception of a couple shot at f 2.8. Got away from the 2.8 real fast because I was having trouble with too much light. All shots here are with the Canon 70-200 Non IS EDIT: shutter speed was my max sync 250 and ISO was 50 and 100, I just tweaked the light to suite the ISO and shutter speed. Post processing was very simple... duplicate a layer, apply a fairly strong gaussian blur on the top layer, set its mode to overlay then reduce the opacity to 50% flatten the layers and save as a jpg. Processing is fairly simple with this approacj, it really deepins the colors and accent of the hair its always nice to select the eyes with a feather of about 10 then delete the area on the top layer to assist sharpening the eyes without using the sharpening tool.
Attached is the original of the kitten pose where the bottom layer is the original and the top layer is a layer blurred pretty good with its mode set to overlay. Download it if you like so you can see the effect this brings to a shot. Its easy enough to turn off the bottom layer then on again to see what exactally the top layer is doing here. REON KITTY PSD SAMPLE WITH LAYERS
Message edited by author 2006-05-28 20:20:12.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 08:32:33 PM · #41 |
Keep in mind that the photographer rarely dresses a child, and many kids will pose by themselves without any instruction. If the child comes dressed a certain way from home, and strikes poses all on her own, this is of no blame to the photographer. This is probably the look she wished to achieve.
Life happens, we as photographers just capture it. And just because a 14 year old wears a bathing suit or a middriff shirt doesn't mean she is promiscuous or engaging in behavior unfitting a child. Alot of these assumptions are just wrong, and have no foundation in truth.
I say beware of my portfolio if you don't like partial nudity in children. Perhaps a site like this is not for everyone. Because there is alot of art and controversial photography here. Put your blinders on if you want to stay unoffended!
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 08:36:52 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Qart:
Kimberly you openly admit that you're an overprotective mother and a bit old fashioned in your views. Perhaps you should obstain from voicing your opinion about topics uncomfortable to you if you already are aware enough to recognize that your opinions may be skewed a bit. |
Kimberly is well within her rights to state her opinion, just as you have. I'm sure she's not alone in her opinion, even if others who share it haven't yet posted.
Why should the forum threads pander to the lowest common denominator of opinion?
Edit: fix quotes
Message edited by author 2006-05-28 20:37:28.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 08:42:16 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by Qart:
Kimberly you openly admit that you're an overprotective mother and a bit old fashioned in your views. Perhaps you should obstain from voicing your opinion about topics uncomfortable to you if you already are aware enough to recognize that your opinions may be skewed a bit. |
Kimberly is well within her rights to state her opinion, just as you have. I'm sure she's not alone in her opinion, even if others who share it haven't yet posted.
Why should the forum threads pander to the lowest common denominator of opinion?
Edit: fix quotes |
Because the lowest common denominator is photography and those that take pictures. If you want to get into a morality discussion, I'm sure there are plenty of sites out there that would welcome such a debate. As I stated earlier... these images are legal and accepted here and therefore the original question and or comment was moot... :) |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 08:51:50 PM · #44 |
wow, ya just never know where a post will end up going do ya...
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 08:53:29 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by gusto:
wow, ya just never know where a post will end up going do ya... |
Hehehe...well done with your pics mate!
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 09:11:43 PM · #46 |
Kel is correct on this. Also, it is up to the parent to instill morals in your children from an early age. I've seen 12 year olds in bikinis at the pool acting like 12 year olds and nothing seem "sexual" about them..(at least to me). However, I've seen 12year olds in "one piece" suits that are surely "flaunting it" in front of the boys !
...so it is up to us to teach and guide.
As far as posting shots on DPC of 14 year olds in bikinis. IMO it is ok as long as there is no way for the "general public" to "track her down" via your username on DPC. I believe there may be people that develop an infactuation for someone they see on the net and may want to track her down. This is highly unlikely to happen if your username is "bozo12" and there is no "neighborhood info" in your profile.
Look at my favorites. You will see one of Kels daughter and one by user "cutter". This thread almost wants me to lose those two shots as favorites.
Originally posted by CalliopeKel:
Keep in mind that the photographer rarely dresses a child, and many kids will pose by themselves without any instruction. If the child comes dressed a certain way from home, and strikes poses all on her own, this is of no blame to the photographer. This is probably the look she wished to achieve.
Life happens, we as photographers just capture it. And just because a 14 year old wears a bathing suit or a middriff shirt doesn't mean she is promiscuous or engaging in behavior unfitting a child. Alot of these assumptions are just wrong, and have no foundation in truth.
I say beware of my portfolio if you don't like partial nudity in children. Perhaps a site like this is not for everyone. Because there is alot of art and controversial photography here. Put your blinders on if you want to stay unoffended! |
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 09:13:13 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
gusto, forgive me for discussing this in your thread. You've done a great job with these photos; and as I said before: I like them very much. The tangent that this thread has taken can be resumed in another thread; so I'll start one now.
Protecting Children |
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 09:29:25 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Qart:
Because the lowest common denominator is photography and those that take pictures. If you want to get into a morality discussion, I'm sure there are plenty of sites out there that would welcome such a debate. As I stated earlier... these images are legal and accepted here and therefore the original question and or comment was moot... :) |
I've no wish to get into a morality discussion. Someone has missed the point.
The forums are for everyone. Trying to silence one member whose views are not in direct alignment with yours seems, well, not in the spirit of photography discussion. Specifically, the emotive aspect of the shots is a valid point for comment.
For the record, I personally don't see anything wrong provided the OP has parental permission, which appears to be the case.
To get back on track, the technicals in almost all of the shots appears well done. My personal fave is Reonp02. Composition is excellent, as is facial expression.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 08:14:18 AM EDT.
