| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/20/2006 10:01:24 AM · #76 |
Pretty interesting that not only does this pic that risu81 found hint more explictly at a sex act, oral sex, it goes a level of explicitness further by showing pubic hair.
This pic has the same level of explicitness as the one in question and more interestingly has the following quote by the photographer - "... wanted to see if it would be dq'd. I never placed this image in my portfolio because I figured it was a wee too much for dpc."
Again, and not to insult you, but I believe the DQ requests came more aplenty b/c of the level of attractiveness and not the level of explicitness.
For this reason alone a greater standard for DQ in these circumstances needs addressed - and hopefully will be with the new rules. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 12:00:06 PM · #77 |
| I know some of the members allow their children to submit photos to dpc challenge, but this whole thread is one of the main reasons I would never allow my 11 year old (who just happens to be one of the most fabulous photographers) ever enter any of the challenges on this site. I know the blah blah blah of you can't hide everything from your kids etc. but like every good thing, someone has to try to ruin it for the rest of us. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 12:27:42 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by fotoshootme:
I know some of the members allow their children to submit photos to dpc challenge, but this whole thread is one of the main reasons I would never allow my 11 year old (who just happens to be one of the most fabulous photographers) ever enter any of the challenges on this site. I know the blah blah blah of you can't hide everything from your kids etc. but like every good thing, someone has to try to ruin it for the rest of us. |
No one is trying to ruin it for anyone. DPC could always put filters in place such as EyeFetch.com does. You may want to check out that site for your son in the mean time. I think as a photographer I should be allowed my artisitic freedom. I do not mean to offend anyone. If you find a photo of mine offensive, just dont go to it again. I do agree that not everyone wants to have nude photos just pop right up, and a filter should be in place for those individuals. Until such a filter is in place, you could always use turn off forums for his account and spend the time he is on DPC together to ensure he is not seeing anything you wish to protect him from. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 12:51:06 PM · #79 |
maybe, there should be a seperate site... DPCkids.com ... G-rated only images.
No matter how "tasteful" an image is. Any level of nudity or sexualty will offend someone.
My cheese pic : offended 60+ people, apparently... the level of nudity was PG at worst.
ShutterPug and I agree however: At least with these images being DQ'd the horrible scores won't stick with out Average socre recieved :-P
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:09:57 PM · #80 |
Seems to me this is going to be a continuing problem unless the rules are applied evenly every time. Otherwise I am going to get used to this type of topic in the forums. So what̢۪s up? You rule guys going to make this right or what? It seems that the people who like and understand the image out weigh the few who didn't. How̢۪s is that even handed?
Cower to the minority. What a joke!
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:19:05 PM · #81 |
the 'him' you are referring to is a 'her'. : )
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Originally posted by fotoshootme:
I know some of the members allow their children to submit photos to dpc challenge, but this whole thread is one of the main reasons I would never allow my 11 year old (who just happens to be one of the most fabulous photographers) ever enter any of the challenges on this site. I know the blah blah blah of you can't hide everything from your kids etc. but like every good thing, someone has to try to ruin it for the rest of us. |
No one is trying to ruin it for anyone. DPC could always put filters in place such as EyeFetch.com does. You may want to check out that site for your son in the mean time. I think as a photographer I should be allowed my artisitic freedom. I do not mean to offend anyone. If you find a photo of mine offensive, just dont go to it again. I do agree that not everyone wants to have nude photos just pop right up, and a filter should be in place for those individuals. Until such a filter is in place, you could always use turn off forums for his account and spend the time he is on DPC together to ensure he is not seeing anything you wish to protect him from. |
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:28:36 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by fotoshootme:
the 'him' you are referring to is a 'her'. : )
|
I understand your want to protect your child from images such as this. And to be quite frank, I am all for any measures that can help you to achieve this goal: better nudity filters, better screening of images or perhaps a parental control box, where the parent can go through and click images he/she does not want thier child to see.
I don't think anyone TRIES to ruin the site. You do have to understand that that art, like life, is not always "pretty". Artist that only produce "pretty" images may make a living, but will never make a statement.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:30:27 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Artist that only produce "pretty" images may make a living, but will never make a statement. |
What statement were you trying to make with this most recent image? |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:35:04 PM · #84 |
To me it was a comedic statment about the funny things that can turn people on!
ITS FUNNY! It made me laugh! |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:37:21 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by A1275:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Artist that only produce "pretty" images may make a living, but will never make a statement. |
What statement were you trying to make with this most recent image? |
Was not the Challenge - Seven Deadly Sins? I do believe we made quite a bold and soemwhat humorous statement on the stigma of "internet" lust.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:38:34 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Seems to me this is going to be a continuing problem unless the rules are applied evenly every time. Otherwise I am going to get used to this type of topic in the forums. So what̢۪s up? You rule guys going to make this right or what? It seems that the people who like and understand the image out weigh the few who didn't. How̢۪s is that even handed?
Cower to the minority. What a joke! |
Good point there...the majority who have posted here and in private PM's had no problem with the images. There are a minority few who were offended, of whom both Leroy and myself have apologized publicly to....yet they feel it is necessary to continue to rant at us.
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 13:39:13. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:49:46 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Seems to me this is going to be a continuing problem unless the rules are applied evenly every time. Otherwise I am going to get used to this type of topic in the forums. So what̢۪s up? You rule guys going to make this right or what? It seems that the people who like and understand the image out weigh the few who didn't. How̢۪s is that even handed?
Cower to the minority. What a joke! |
Good point there...the majority who have posted here and in private PM's had no problem with the images. There are a minority few who were offended, of whom both Leroy and myself have apologized publicly to....yet they feel it is necessary to continue to rant at us. |
Be careful saying there is a minority few who are offended. I'm sure there's probably a whole lot more people that belong to this sight than have made a statement in this post. Those who are offended by photos like this aren't always as bold as those not offended. Just because they don't say something doesn't mean they aren't offended. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:53:53 PM · #88 |
Lets ask Dr.Jones his opinion!
ROFLMAO |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 02:20:32 PM · #89 |
As I have said before. I love this idea, is it great photography- not really. Is it clever, is it funny- yes on both. Did they deserve to be DQ'd on the basis of sexual content- maybe, although there are a number of much more sexually explicit photos that have been submitted that were not (as evidenced by some of the examples posted on here). My question is this, would these two photos have been DQ'd had thier hands been say 3 inches higher (what about 6 inches higher)? I have always been told that one of the purposes of Art is to elicit a reaction, well I guess both of these shots can be considered Art, judging by the multiple threads running on them.
BTW- They are even funnier side by side.
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 14:21:45.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 05:01:10 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by vxpra:
BTW- They are even funnier side by side. |
We actually had hoped they would show up side by side in the voting. We simultaneously hit our enrty button to see if it would work out that way. I had a feeling the randomization would split them apart, which it evidently did as many came back saying that a few shots later they saw the other image and caught on. There both up now on the first posting of this thread, so you can now see the effect we were after. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 05:21:21 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by fotoshootme:
the 'him' you are referring to is a 'her'. : )
|
I understand your want to protect your child from images such as this. And to be quite frank, I am all for any measures that can help you to achieve this goal: better nudity filters, better screening of images or perhaps a parental control box, where the parent can go through and click images he/she does not want thier child to see.
I don't think anyone TRIES to ruin the site. You do have to understand that that art, like life, is not always "pretty". Artist that only produce "pretty" images may make a living, but will never make a statement. |
I'm not talking about shooting flowers and sunsets for God's sake. I have absolutely nothing against nudity. I happen to think both images were inappropriate, especially with the disclaimer about 'sex acts' in the challenge rules. I think both of you are (edited because I wasn't being "nice") ughhhhhhhh why can't I speak words like ZeusZen?
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 17:37:24. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 05:26:09 PM · #92 |
Just a reminder:
While it's certainly ok to discuss these photos and the rules surrounding them, let's please do so without getting personal.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 05:27:23 PM · #93 |
Nudity, genitals, sexual acts... are subjects like any other. Why should we exclude or conceal any part of human experience? When we use the camera to sell something or someone, however, we cease to celebrate or even to document life. We are, instead, entering into obscenity and the possibility that we may cause more harm than good.
If, on the other hand, we can look at each other without any ulterior motive, will we not find only what's there already, unrepressed and untainted by sentiment?
And... if we do indeed live in repressive times, the best thing we can do, is to continue to take pictures which show us life, not some half-life, politically correct mush no one in his right mind believes in.
My (very private) consolation is this: the better the picture, the smaller the sensor -either by force or ridicule. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 06:02:01 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Nudity, genitals, sexual acts... are subjects like any other. Why should we exclude or conceal any part of human experience? When we use the camera to sell something or someone, however, we cease to celebrate or even to document life. We are, instead, entering into obscenity and the possibility that we may cause more harm than good.
If, on the other hand, we can look at each other without any ulterior motive, will we not find only what's there already, unrepressed and untainted by sentiment? |
I agree with this statement. We did not shoot our images to sell anything or anybody. We entered a challenge that asked us to depict one of 7 sins. We both felt our images depicted a real life documentation of one of those sins - lust. Lust is all around us, including on the internet, and yes even here at DPC I have no doubt. We were not trying to be obscene. Our poses are what sent the message we were trying to convey. I think we did an excellent job as everyone seeems to understand the message.
Thank you for your input zeuszen |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 06:07:53 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
...We did not shoot our images to sell anything or anybody. We entered a challenge that asked us to depict one of 7 sins. We both felt our images depicted a real life documentation of one of those sins - lust...We were not trying to be obscene. Our poses are what sent the message we were trying to convey... |
I did not find the images discussed here obscene. An element of the obscene was inferred to it via censorship, IMO. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 06:22:19 PM · #96 |
If these photos had contnued in the challenge, they would have had less exposure (sorry about the pun!) than they have thro' being DQ'd and everyone discussing them at length in this and other threads.
Frankly I don't know what the fuss is about - I have been much more offended by the television news recently or a child telling me to f*** off. ~We are adults taking photos - remember any parent who chooses to allow their children access have had to get special permission - this is an adult site and any adult that can't admit people masturbate and accept that in a "sins" challenge there may be "sinful" ideas/acts portrayed, shouldn't be allowed to watch tv/movies/read newspapers/mags, in case they are offended.
Please can we move on in an adult manner? I accept the SC decision ( based on complaints and the loose interpretation of the rules regarding sexual acts) and I am really sorry for the two photographers because they were good pics and deserved to be judged in the challenge, but this dissection of every nuance of posts really isn't helping anyone.
Just my 2pence worth!
P
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 06:37:13 PM · #97 |
I agree, I get more offended driving to work when someone gives me the finger or whatever...or when I turn on the news...or when I watch 90% of the movies out there...
I don't find it offensive one bit. Masturbation isn't a 'dirty' or 'offensive' thing -- and those people in the pictures aren't even masturbating -- they're pretending, and it's quite obvious...heck it's natural -- go ask your 11 year old if she knows what it is, I'm sure she does.
Get your panties out of their bunches, and be adults for goodness' sake...
--
That being said, it would be nice to see rules enforced evenly throughout the field -- not sure why some of the other photos posted had been allowed to remain in challenges.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 06:41:15 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Cower to the minority. What a joke! |
I can't stand the suicide/violence/blood photos. I may be in the minority there, yet no one is yelling to stop THOSE types of photos!
I have to deal with them, and have to keep my daughter away from them.
Seeing a "sexy" photo, she just rolls her eyes and moves on.
Seeing the violent ones, she gets upset.
I know which I find worse.
Where is the gore filter? |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 06:42:18 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I did not find the images discussed here obscene. |
I did and I shot the one I thought was obscene ... LOL,
Truly though, obscenity is as subjective as art itself. My mother, for instance, is very conservative when it comes to nudity and assumes that any image of a nude form is pornographic.
I, on the other hand, am willing to accept genitals and sex acts as art, if done so for the sake of art. Yet I consider quite a bit of television and magazine advertising in bad taste (even if it is PG).
I draw the line at intent. Television ads use sex to sale products, not remotely related to sex.
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 19:10:33.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 06:46:20 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Cower to the minority. What a joke! |
I can't stand the suicide/violence/blood photos. I may be in the minority there, yet no one is yelling to stop THOSE types of photos!
I have to deal with them, and have to keep my daughter away from them.
Seeing a "sexy" photo, she just rolls her eyes and moves on.
Seeing the violent ones, she gets upset.
I know which I find worse.
Where is the gore filter? |
Agree 100%, I hate to see suicide, violence and blood pictures. They really offend me, I never give these pictures more than 5, even if they are well executed. As for nudes, nothing on this site did offend me up to date. |
|
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: 08/28/2025 05:54:27 PM EDT.
