Pencil Nude yanked! (no pun intended)

08/19/2002 02:13:53 PM · #26

Originally posted by Martin:
The only thing I find more offensive then badly taken pictures of fat hairy men is censorship. A picture of a guy in the nude is pulled but would a picture of a gun cause any concern? What was so disturbing about it? Was it because he was large? Or hairy? Or just because his penis and scrotum were on view? SAD SAD SAD.

I think it was removed because it totally lacked taste, artistic value and there was no reason for it. However, I DO have to wonder if it were a beautiful woman or a really hot guy would it have been DQ'd?? The photo did kind of look like an ad for child pornography. A kind of scary looking guy totally naked with a strange look on his face trying to lure young kids in with crayola! At least he wasn't excited. Guess if we have to be thankful for something, that's it.

Martin

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

08/19/2002 02:21:22 PM · #27

No artistic value: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Lacked tast: The human body is not distastful.
The reason for it: This weeks challange.
One thing I can be thankful for is now I know what child molestor looks like, scary,naked with a strange look, holding crayons.

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

08/19/2002 02:23:41 PM · #28

Censorship occurs everywhere.

I take offense that people suggest that if the guy or girl is attractive they stand a better chance of getting away with anything.

Listen..if a guy lays there with his balls protruding like the elephant man and the art supplies placed to force you to look at his balls I dont care if he looks like Mel Gibson I think he is gonna get DQ'ed.

Simple.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

08/19/2002 02:26:25 PM · #29

Hokie's jealous ;)

Journey

Canon PowerShot G3

08/19/2002 02:49:42 PM · #30

Originally posted by hokie:
Censorship occurs everywhere.

Listen..if a guy lays there with his balls protruding like the elephant man and the art supplies placed to force you to look at his balls I dont care if he looks like Mel Gibson I think he is gonna get DQ'ed.

Simple.

I am laughing and laughing. This is going to be THE thread of the week. We have to be thankful to the fat hairy guy for being such a source of entertainment.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

08/19/2002 02:53:56 PM · #31

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Hokie's jealous ;)

Maybe Hokie IS the ugly naked guy. ;)

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

08/19/2002 02:57:16 PM · #32

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Hokie's jealous ;)

ROTFLMAO!!! John..hehehe..you read me like a book!!!!

I will not make any more comments on this situation. Someone like me with the moral fabric of the Marquis de Sade and the foul mouth of a Lenny Bruce shouldn't be commenting on nutsack etiquette :-)

muckpond

Nikon D200

08/19/2002 02:59:32 PM · #33

Originally posted by Martin:
The only thing I find more offensive then badly taken pictures of fat hairy men is censorship.

If censorship is why the photo was pulled, then I've gotta say GO censorship. It was just wrong!

I'm really halfway joking. I am glad the photo was pulled, but it was not because the guy was naked (*shudder*...and SO wrong). It was because someone used the challenge to display a picture that had nothing to do with anything challenge-related except he threw in a box of pencils. Whoopee. I for one don't need to know that someone is out there getting their rocks off knowing that a bunch of people accidentally ran into his nudie photo between 12:00 and 12:03 EST.

I couldn't sleep! ;)

--Rob

darylbrown

Olympus C-720UZ

08/19/2002 03:00:44 PM · #34

hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/19/2002 03:09:03 PM · #35

Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by Martin:
[i]The only thing I find more offensive then badly taken pictures of fat hairy men is censorship.

If censorship is why the photo was pulled, then I've gotta say GO censorship. It was just wrong!

I'm really halfway joking. I am glad the photo was pulled,
but it was not because the guy was naked (*shudder*...and SO wrong).
It was because someone used the challenge to display a picture that
had nothing to do with anything challenge-related except he threw
in a box of pencils. Whoopee. I for one don't need to know that
someone is out there getting their rocks off knowing that a bunch
of people accidentally ran into his nudie photo between 12:00
and 12:03 EST.

I couldn't sleep! ;)

--Rob

[/i]

Can we apply the same rule to all the pictures people took of their
pets, and oh by the way, happened to throw them a pencil to play
with ? :)

08/19/2002 03:10:43 PM · #36

Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:

Can we apply the same rule to all the pictures people took of their
pets, and oh by the way, happened to throw them a pencil to play
with ? :)

Only if they are showing their nuts to us in a way that goes beyond nature channel etiquette :-)

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

08/19/2002 03:12:33 PM · #37

Originally posted by Martin:
No artistic value: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Lacked tast: The human body is not distastful.
The reason for it: This weeks challange.
One thing I can be thankful for is now I know what child molestor looks like, scary,naked with a strange look, holding crayons.

Martin, if you are trying to belittle my comment (actually my ENTIRE post) please read the rest of the posts in other sections of the forum. I personally didn't say these things, they are posted all over the forums! Numerous people have stated it and I was only relaying the message for someone who had asked about it earlier.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/19/2002 03:18:59 PM · #38

Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Originally posted by Martin:
[i]No artistic value: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Lacked tast: The human body is not distastful.
The reason for it: This weeks challange.
One thing I can be thankful for is now I know what child molestor looks like, scary,naked with a strange look, holding crayons.

Martin, if you are trying to belittle my comment (actually my ENTIRE post) please read the rest of the posts in other sections of the forum. I personally didn't say these things, they are posted all over the forums! Numerous people have stated it and I was only relaying the message for someone who had asked about it earlier.[/i]

I think maybe he was trying to present an opposite point of view on
several of the reasons you thought it should have been removed.

Doesn't neccessarily mean he was belittling your comment, just disagreeing :)

myqyl

Nikon D3100

08/19/2002 03:23:59 PM · #39

To quote the rules :

"Blatantly offensive and lewd photographs will not be tolerated. Nudity is allowed, but pornography is not. Use your good judgement here -- if it's going to get us kicked off our host, it will be disqualified. Quoting a wise professor, "I don't know what IT is, but I know IT when I see IT.""

D & L have legal and finacial responsibilities as the site admins. I think they acted wisely here. Anyone that wants to advocate a censorship free photo challenge, please start one... I'll come and participate on it up to the day the FBI comes and seizes your servers...

08/19/2002 03:29:02 PM · #40

I think maybe he was trying to present an opposite point of view on
several of the reasons you thought it should have been removed.

I think I stated CLEARLY in my last post that I personally did NOT say these things, so I personally didn't "think" either way on the subject. actually I had said in another post in a different part of the forum that I wasn't sure WHY it was DQ'd because it didn't contain pornography in any way. it was just a naked guy. cause in my opinion, if it was disqualified solely on the fact that there was "offensive" penis in the photo, then i think I can think of another one that should be DQ as well. I do NOT think the horse photo should be DQ'd before you jump to conclusions. All I'm saying by mentioning it, is If you DQ a photo cause it has a bird in it, then you need to either explain yourself, or DQ ALL the bird photos.
I honestly have no clue WHY and I think it would be interesting to find out from the person that DQ'd it why in fact it was DQ'd.
Anyway, I've got a lot of commenting to do before Monday, so I'm going to jump on that for awhile.

08/19/2002 03:37:31 PM · #41

Originally posted by myqyl:
To quote the rules :

"Blatantly offensive and lewd photographs will not be tolerated. Nudity is allowed, but pornography is not. Use your good judgement here -- if it's going to get us kicked off our host, it will be disqualified. Quoting a wise professor, "I don't know what IT is, but I know IT when I see IT.""

D & L have legal and finacial responsibilities as the site admins. I think they acted wisely here. Anyone that wants to advocate a censorship free photo challenge, please start one... I'll come and participate on it up to the day the FBI comes and seizes your servers...

Rules are rules. But if they were a little clearer, it could be nice. Maybe it was his wife that took and submitted the photo and in that respect SHE wouldn't find it offensive. It really IS based on opinion, and I'm cool with that. I personally didn't care either way and would have voted it on technical aspects and visual appeal, right along with the rest of the photos. The DQ that puzzles me is the one that said that there was a "tagline" attached to it. I was here for the very beginning of the challenge and didn't recall seeing anything like that. I'm not even positive what a tagline is. Could someone explain it to me or tell me which photo is was so I will know what it is that we can't do?

sohr

Nikon Coolpix 990

08/19/2002 03:43:37 PM · #42

Originally posted by hbunch7187:
I'm not even positive what a tagline is. Could someone explain it to me or tell me which photo is was so I will know what it is that we can't do?

A tagline is simply text added to a photo (easily done in any image editor)... usually the bottom. In this case (from what I understand), a user had added a copyright notice at the bottom of their submitted photo.

While I don't believe the rules explicitly rule out the addition of text to a photo, it does violate the spirit of the rules to not add or remove anything from the image that was not (or was) originally there.

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

08/19/2002 03:58:11 PM · #43

Originally posted by sohr:
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
[i]I'm not even positive what a tagline is. Could someone explain it to me or tell me which photo is was so I will know what it is that we can't do?

A tagline is simply text added to a photo (easily done in any image editor)... usually the bottom. In this case (from what I understand), a user had added a copyright notice at the bottom of their submitted photo.

While I don't believe the rules explicitly rule out the addition of text to a photo, it does violate the spirit of the rules to not add or remove anything from the image that was not (or was) originally there.

[/i]

Ok, gottcha. I don't have a photo editing program, so that's probably why I didn't know what it was. Will they have the chance to re submit it without the tagline? On another note, I saw a photo in a past challenge that was date stamped. It was allowed. Are the circumstances different?

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

08/19/2002 04:00:08 PM · #44

hokie - I didn't argue at all that it shouldn't have been DQ'ed. I wouldn't make the kind of people who vote on the photos on DPC look at that all week. I was just amusing myself on the reasons why one nude is offensive and another one isn't, that's all.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

08/19/2002 04:01:35 PM · #45

Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Originally posted by sohr:
[i]Originally posted by hbunch7187:
[i]I'm not even positive what a tagline is. Could someone explain it to me or tell me which photo is was so I will know what it is that we can't do?

A tagline is simply text added to a photo (easily done in any image editor)... usually the bottom. In this case (from what I understand), a user had added a copyright notice at the bottom of their submitted photo.

While I don't believe the rules explicitly rule out the addition of text to a photo, it does violate the spirit of the rules to not add or remove anything from the image that was not (or was) originally there.

[/i]

Ok, gottcha. I don't have a photo editing program, so that's probably why I didn't know what it was. Will they have the chance to re submit it without the tagline? On another note, I saw a photo in a past challenge that was date stamped. It was allowed. Are the circumstances different? [/i]

The difference here would be that the date stamp was added by the camera and therefore was in the original shot. In that case, if the photographer had cloned out the date stamp that would have been grounds for disqualification.

I strongly recommend shooting with your date stamp off -- voters don't like it.

-Terry

myqyl

Nikon D3100

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

08/19/2002 04:02:10 PM · #46

Date stamps can be done with the camera and are usually a mistake (forgetting to turn it off)... I recall a fantasic shot got DQ'd for editting out a date stamp.

Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Ok, gottcha. I don't have a photo editing program, so that's probably why I didn't know what it was. Will they have the chance to re submit it without the tagline? On another note, I saw a photo in a past challenge that was date stamped. It was allowed. Are the circumstances different?

08/19/2002 04:05:07 PM · #47

Originally posted by lisae:
hokie - I didn't argue at all that it shouldn't have been DQ'ed. I wouldn't make the kind of people who vote on the photos on DPC look at that all week. I was just amusing myself on the reasons why one nude is offensive and another one isn't, that's all.

I know you are pretty easy going about all this and so am I. I would never call for a DQ of a photo for any reason. It's not my nature to care about whether other folks pay attention to rules ow whatever. I have a hard enough time worrying about my own submissions. :-)

I was just talking..not trying to add to the 10 commandments or nothing :-)

sohr

Nikon Coolpix 990

08/19/2002 04:05:14 PM · #48

Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Will they have the chance to re submit it without the tagline?

Nope... currently once you've been DQ'ed, your gone for the rest of the challenge.

On another note, I saw a photo in a past challenge that was date stamped. It was allowed. Are the circumstances different?

Yes... the difference is in the fact that it was the camera itself that placed the date stamp on the photo. Just about anything that comes out of your camera is legal... but once you start playing with it in a photo editor you are subject to all of the usual restrictions.