| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/20/2010 07:54:47 AM · #1 |
Recently, I have seen a few photographs showing female genitals, which I thought were prohibited under the rules.
Is the site is developing...? |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 08:00:45 AM · #2 |
I haven't noticed any.
As a photography site the restriction does seem a bit silly, particularly when we have nude content signs but i guess the site is all ages so it's fair enough i guess. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 09:26:57 AM · #3 |
Here's one:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=914811
|
|
|
|
10/20/2010 09:33:01 AM · #4 |
I was under the impression that you can put anything you wish into your portfolio, but challenge entries were subject to the "no genitals" restriction.
*shrug* It's the internet... Wanna see something really horrible that will make you forget all about this silly genital business? Go to Google and type in "One guy one cup"... Get back to me when you start to care about genitals again, I'm sure something even more horrible will be available by then... |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 09:33:57 AM · #5 |
| Not sure i'd class that as genitalia but i guess it's a bit more revealing than the usual nude. Not by much though really. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 09:34:13 AM · #6 |
Oh, and Moe there looks a little pissed, kinda like she'd enjoy stuffing Leroy's camera into his "jar hole".... Bit scary really.
Message edited by author 2010-10-20 09:34:37. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 09:46:25 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Go to Google and type in "One guy one cup"... |
OK, I read a description of the video (courtesy of urban dictionary) and yeah, I think I'll skip the actual viewing. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 10:17:48 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by kbhatia1967:
Recently, I have seen a few photographs showing female genitals, which I thought were prohibited under the rules. |
Only under the challenge rules. You can't enter ding-dongs and hoo-hoos in the challenges. (Those are the medical terms, by the way). Users with portfolios may upload any sort of image they wish. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 10:19:39 AM · #9 |
| holycrap! fotoman is back? |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 10:28:04 AM · #10 |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 10:37:04 AM · #11 |
| HOLY CRAP! goc and Louis are talking? |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 11:01:56 AM · #12 |
holycrap! who is this Louis guy?
Just kidding Louis. But this thread does begin to nibble into an interesting if old idea; that people with a point of view offensive or even abhorrent to oneself ought to be prevented from expressing it. It's always a very slippery slope.
At the risk of transgressing the 'calling-out' conventions:
Leroy makes photographs that have little appeal for me (well, in truth, none at all), but it's still not reasonable to couple his work with that deliberately and childishly offensive video clip (even indirectly). His sensibilities and mine may be different but even I can see that his stuff is technically competent and photographically legitimate. Even instructive for some photographers. Thus it is by definition apt here.
Louis has also done some very fine nudes, less anatomically explicit but in some respects more overtly suggestive. With quite different but nonetheless equal claims on photographic legitimacy and competence. And instructiveness.
The fact that I personally find one of the above more artistically satisfying than the other is nothing to do with the level of explicit nudity in the two photographers' images. Each is equally legitimate here, surely?
To reduce sexual or anatomical 'offensiveness' to a question of the degree of resolution of genitalia is infantile and ultimately self-defeating for the complainant. What if Antoine D'Agata was entering challenges here, rather than rattling around the dusty hallways over at Magnum?
|
|
|
|
10/20/2010 11:53:03 AM · #13 |
| What a wonderful analysis. The lack or presence of the human body, naked or otherwise, has only indirect relevance to the impact an image has on any particular viewer. More important is the visceral impact, nicely illustrated by the D'Agata images. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 12:15:37 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by ubique:
holycrap! who is this Louis guy?
Just kidding Louis. But this thread does begin to nibble into an interesting if old idea; that people with a point of view offensive or even abhorrent to oneself ought to be prevented from expressing it. It's always a very slippery slope.
At the risk of transgressing the 'calling-out' conventions:
Leroy makes photographs that have little appeal for me (well, in truth, none at all), but it's still not reasonable to couple his work with that deliberately and childishly offensive video clip (even indirectly). His sensibilities and mine may be different but even I can see that his stuff is technically competent and photographically legitimate. Even instructive for some photographers. Thus it is by definition apt here.
Louis has also done some very fine nudes, less anatomically explicit but in some respects more overtly suggestive. With quite different but nonetheless equal claims on photographic legitimacy and competence. And instructiveness.
The fact that I personally find one of the above more artistically satisfying than the other is nothing to do with the level of explicit nudity in the two photographers' images. Each is equally legitimate here, surely?
To reduce sexual or anatomical 'offensiveness' to a question of the degree of resolution of genitalia is infantile and ultimately self-defeating for the complainant. What if Antoine D'Agata was entering challenges here, rather than rattling around the dusty hallways over at Magnum? |
To be fair, there was no intention to form ANY relationship between Leroy's work (which is good IMHO) and that horror of a video.. I just wanted to point out that there are much better things to be worried about. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 12:30:32 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by ubique:
.... To reduce sexual or anatomical 'offensiveness' to a question of the degree of resolution of genitalia is infantile and ultimately self-defeating for the complainant. .... |
Well said! Although the flip side may be illustrated by the humorous comments I've seen in these forums by people who say their pornography viewing has been ruined by learning too much about photography. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 12:31:04 PM · #16 |
There IS a difference between porn and nude photography. Leroy made his mark in nude photography. Fortunately he is not into computer games hehehehe!
Message edited by author 2010-10-20 12:31:24. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 04:53:43 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Louis:
holycrap! goc is back? |
yes. thank you :-)
|
|
|
|
10/20/2010 10:06:07 PM · #18 |
This thread is WORTHLESS w/o photos to illustrate your POV!
Show me photos - and demonstrate the brilliance of your logic ...
To paraphrase ... "You enter DPC with a skull full of mush, and you leave thinking like a photographer!" |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 02:31:42 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
It's the internet... Wanna see something really horrible that will make you forget all about this silly genital business? Go to Google and type in "One guy one cup"... |
I did exactly the same, and the following message appeared:
This domain is blocked.
Site blocked. www.1guy-1cup.com is not allowed on this network.
This site was categorized in: Tasteless
Contact your network administrator.
LOL!
Message edited by author 2010-10-25 02:32:04. |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 02:36:46 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
This thread is WORTHLESS w/o photos to illustrate your POV!
Show me photos - and demonstrate the brilliance of your logic ...
To paraphrase ... "You enter DPC with a skull full of mush, and you leave thinking like a photographer!" |
Visit the "Nudes" gallery, and you will find many... |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 09:34:33 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by kbhatia1967:
Visit the "Nudes" gallery, and you will find many... |
I get the impression you are offended by the presence of these nude images showing genitals. The gallery was labeled "Nudes" for a reason. Don't go to that gallery and you won't see them. |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 09:42:19 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by kbhatia1967:
Visit the "Nudes" gallery, and you will find many... |
I get the impression you are offended by the presence of these nude images showing genitals. The gallery was labeled "Nudes" for a reason. Don't go to that gallery and you won't see them. |
I didn't get the impression from Krishan's posts that he was offended at all. Just that he'd noticed a slight change and was curious- hence the question in the OP = 'Is the site developing?' |
|
|
|
10/29/2010 05:34:03 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by kbhatia1967:
Visit the "Nudes" gallery, and you will find many... |
I get the impression you are offended by the presence of these nude images showing genitals. The gallery was labeled "Nudes" for a reason. Don't go to that gallery and you won't see them. |
I didn't get the impression from Krishan's posts that he was offended at all. Just that he'd noticed a slight change and was curious- hence the question in the OP = 'Is the site developing?' |
Yes. Absolut-ly right. |
|
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: 08/26/2025 07:01:12 AM EDT.
