Is this the new DPC? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/02/2006 04:42:22 PM · #1

So I get it. And in alot of ways I agree with alot that's been said regarding the diversity of the site and the wish to respect everyone's comfort levels etc.
Recent activity and efforts especially by members such as Leroy have shown a willingness to adjust behavior and address concerns... and that's a good thing of course.
So I come online and as I log in to DPC I notice that a member, a paid member, who has proven his excellence and has been rewarded for his efforts has been assigned a back seat so to speak for excercising bad judgement. What was his error in judgement? He had the audacity to create a perfectly wonderful image that depicted a nude man in a bubble. What's especially troubling is the fact that there is nothing of 'interest' visible and it's a profile so low key that from the thumbnail, it's impossible to make out exactly what the image is anyway.
So here we are. We have the ability to honour and celebrate excellence and instead we treat our members... who I might add enjoy this site so much that they opt to PAY to become a member... like an embarassing relative whome we all love but would prefer to keep hidden until the company leaves.
How was the decision to hide this offensive image reached?
Did a number of members contact site council and complain?
Looking at the main site page, there are many, many wonderful images and of course all worthy of recognition. The one thing that stands out, for me at least is the very safe and vanilla subject matter. Hardly a good representation of what art and photography is all about.
Either this is a true photography site or it is not. Either people are allowed to express themselves completely or they are not. Of course within reasonable boundaries.
If I was this member, I would be very offended that this image would be deemed potentially inappropriate and for that I am sorry.
Rudy

quiet_observation

Canon EOS-7D

09/02/2006 04:46:07 PM · #2

Change your preferences and you will see it.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

09/02/2006 04:47:23 PM · #3

what preference is that?

Falc

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

09/02/2006 04:48:35 PM · #4

Originally posted by Qart:

How was the decision to hide this offensive image reached?

I can still see it on the front page!!

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

09/02/2006 04:48:42 PM · #5

The one where you turn on viewable nude images. Peete himself probably placed that photograph in the nude category, thus putting it behind the site's built-in filters.

If you have them turned off, you won't see it.

Message edited by author 2006-09-02 16:56:04.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

09/02/2006 04:48:53 PM · #6

I must be sleepy again, but what is the problem? I don't see anything different. You are talking about the Steve in the bubble image, right? It's still there. There were no complaints that I'm aware of.

Edit: As I understood it, the questions about that image had to do with multiple-exposures.

Message edited by author 2006-09-02 16:49:27.

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

09/02/2006 04:48:56 PM · #7

You need to uncheck "Hide Nudes" on your preference page. The image is only unviewable on the main page to people who have chosen to hide nudes.

09/02/2006 04:49:44 PM · #8

this is before I log in... it's the main page of the site.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

09/02/2006 04:50:29 PM · #9

Originally posted by Qart:

this is before I log in... it's the main page of the site.

Right, and the *main* default for DPC is... and always has been.. to hide nudes for non-registered guests.

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

09/02/2006 04:51:34 PM · #10

The photographer himself would have marked the image as 'adult content' - thus its not viewable by the public if you're not logged in. There is no conspiracy. :)

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

09/02/2006 04:53:00 PM · #11

He, he, I guess we're giving away here who has their screen set to hide nudes and who doesn't. :)

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

09/02/2006 04:53:45 PM · #12

Originally posted by ursula:

He, he, I guess we're giving away here who has their screen set to hide nudes and who doesn't. :)

LOL Me & Ursula like to see the nudes! :D

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

09/02/2006 04:57:16 PM · #13

Originally posted by idnic:

Originally posted by ursula:
He, he, I guess we're giving away here who has their screen set to hide nudes and who doesn't. :)

LOL Me & Ursula like to see the nudes! :D

Actually, I prefer nature abstracts and candids. :)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens

09/02/2006 04:59:38 PM · #14

not talking conspiracy... :) and I figured that he had entered it in the nude category.
But he has won a ribbon and to me it probably would have been a good move to bypass the default and have the thumbnail visible as a sign of respect.
The point to me is that it's been pretty well stated that all images with any form of nude content mild or not must be put in the nude category which will automatically filter the image.
Seems to me that there are no exceptions and an image such as this which screams tastefulness dosn't get the full honors it deserves.

Elaine

Canon EOS R5

09/02/2006 05:01:09 PM · #15

I think this could be a "true photography site" and limit the subject to flowers, portraits or anything else. I would venture to guess that many, if not most, professional photographers (excluding those who mainly deal with porn) have taken very few if any nude shots, and yet they can express themselves. (No, I haven't hidden nudes, but I don't care for most of them, and continue to hope this does not turn into a soft porn site.)

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

09/02/2006 05:05:05 PM · #16

Originally posted by chaimelle:

I would venture to guess that many, if not most, professional photographers (excluding those who mainly deal with porn) have taken very few if any nude shots, and yet they can express themselves.

Not including the three 'Nude' challenges, of course?

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

09/02/2006 05:06:00 PM · #17

Nothing soft porn about the image that won the Red... :)
Don't know if that's even debateable.
Guess the point is, it's hard to have an all or nothing game plan and in light of all the good will being expressed lately ;), is it not possible that SC could act as a last resort filter where a situation like this one could be assessed. Pretty sure you would agree that this image dosn't fall into the soft porn category.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

09/02/2006 05:07:08 PM · #18

Originally posted by chaimelle:

I would venture to guess that many, if not most, professional photographers (excluding those who mainly deal with porn) have taken very few if any nude shots..

I'm not a professional, nor ever played one on TV, but I just can't find any nekkid gurls around to shoot while I am driving down the road at 80mph...

09/02/2006 05:08:12 PM · #19

Originally posted by Qart:

I just don't see it as the "all of a sudden" problem that you're making it out to be. There have been nude winners before.. that were blocked for people that weren't registered and didn't have 'hide nudes' turned off, and the site lived on.

If anything, I think it serves to grab visitors and say.. "hey, that one's blocked, maybe I should register and check it out. Hey.. great shot.. I like this place, maybe I should stay."

You never know.

It's not ever been a problem to this point, and, as I said, I don't see it as a problem now.

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

09/02/2006 05:12:06 PM · #20

Well then I guess I am paranoid and naive. Perhaps I AM the only one who has seen a movement of late to conservatize (is that a word) DPC... :)

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

09/02/2006 05:14:49 PM · #21

nah - you aren't alone.
Seems to be a movement to quietly polish the surface.

09/02/2006 05:15:47 PM · #22

Thanks Brad... felt very alone. :)

09/02/2006 05:22:02 PM · #23

My *point* is, a year ago, that image still would have been blocked for non-registered visitors.

There was no so-called "movement" then.

And if there is a bit of a concious effort to polish up what new people come and see, what problem is there in that, really? I don't get the opposition to it.

09/02/2006 05:28:06 PM · #24

Artyste, with all due respect, you are wrong... log out and look back over the past year.
You'll see an image of Judi, a couple in bed together and a number of others that could qualify.
This image is 1 of two that had been designated in the past couple of weeks. And in addition, this image is far less risque than others that are not flagged... :)