May Not Be Safe for work? (non-nude glamour photo)

07/01/2008 12:52:01 PM · #1

In the wake of my failing Free Study shot, I'm ready to spark a non-related discussion to take my mind off it. I recently entered a photo onto a completely different site, but somewhat similar to DPC. I posted this shot for voting.

After receiving a very low score from someone, i asked for a comment and this is what i received. First let it be clear that I'm not angry at this person for commenting, am not trying to call this person out, and actually thanked her for the comment although i disagreed with some of her statement. And i left her name and the site off on purpose....

"I am trying hard to figure out how to respond nicely so have patience with me, I have re-read this several times and can not figure out how else to say it.. On the technical voting scale, the lighting is harsh, the focus is okay, the reflection in the mirror is distracting and there is too much shine on what is supposed to be clothing. On a personal level, and I am sorry that you are going to take offense at this but it was done in bad taste. Some photos make women look like art and some make them look like sluts. This does not fit the art definition. The position shows off way more than is appropriate and it is more appropriate for a website geared to hard core sex pervs than a tasteful place like ----------(told you that you wouldn't like my opinion). Usually I try really hard to vote just on technical aspects but my kid uses this site and I do not wish for this picture to pop up in his voting box ever. Sorry but it is the way I feel. It needs to be done with a little more taste. I am not sure ----------- needs an xxx category. I am more appalled than hostile but I really have to say in this situation personal over-rides technical aspects."

Now of course the technical aspects aren't what rose the issue for this post. The part that generated this post, is the xxx and hardcore perv parts. The girl is wearing shorts and a top. All her body parts are covered. Is not in a sexual or explicit pose. And quite actually covered more than someone would be in a swimsuit. And no photo wearing a swimsuit would be considered explicit or xxx.

Do you agree that this photo is something that is geared towards "hard core sex pervs" or a triple xxx category and why? (understand that this doesn't work if you just answer no or yes!! The why is the important part!!!)

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

07/01/2008 01:04:39 PM · #2

I think you probably just hit some nutty bible-thumping zealot.

I don't like the picture. And I think the way her leg is positioned (showing her vaginal area) is uncouth and not sexy in the least.... For me...the harsh lighting..and the reflection of the door in the mirror are what I really don't like.

but this is far from HARDCORE or XXX.

Just take the advice with a grain of salt.

By the way..could you PM me the name of the website? I was lookin for other photography websites...and would like to see the one you speak of as well. Thanks

Message edited by author 2008-07-01 13:06:38.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

07/01/2008 01:16:20 PM · #3

I'll take a stab at this as I feel that at 53, I've seen a lot and haver been exposed to many culturally varied experiences.

I pretty much have top agree with the technical aspects......and I don't think that's the issue.

What's difficult is that an image that exemplifies something that is outside of what many consider to be the acceptable norm is going to invoke fear, anger, and a certain degree of narrow-mindedness. Not everyone is going to be comfortable, and accepting of an offering that explores the limits in a manner such as this.

And bear in mind that this same person whom I consider to be narrow in view may see me as a screaming wacko liberal......it takes all kinds.

As to the offending of this person's kid, well, it's stated more places than one that this site is *NOT* offered as being solely of family content, and that's not reasonable or fair to project that on the photographer.

Besides, you cannot shield your child from the world forever.......and again, IMNSHO, this shouldn't be the issue either.

Bad taste? Strictly subjective. It's a style that does absolutely nothing for me in any manner, but neither does it offend me, and if my 13 year old daughter saw this, she'd pretty much click on by and not give it another thought.

What this really boils down to is that anytime you offer up an image onto a public site, especially if it's ever outside the realm of traditional in composition and/or subject, you run the risk of offending someone's sensibilities.....and you will have to accept that they may choose top tell you exactly how they feel about it.

All that said, I'm sorry to say that I feel the image to be somewhat uninspired as far as invoking much in feelings or opinion from me......8>)

07/01/2008 01:35:33 PM · #4

egamble PMing you now.

I agree that I took some risks with the techicals here. Overexposing certain areas. Quite frankly I took a not so great photo and tried to make it something tecnical wise. As for the vaginal region, that's seems to be the fold of the leg. And of course not to be intentional. But even that I don't see as that revealing as everything is covered. If it were a bathing suit with legs open like that it prolly wouldn't be such an issue.

07/01/2008 01:51:45 PM · #5

Originally posted by egamble:

Let me clarify....I think this photo would have the same effect without the unflattering vagina shot...with a small change in leg positioning.

07/01/2008 01:52:11 PM · #6

thank you!

:)

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

07/01/2008 01:54:38 PM · #7

Originally posted by albc28:

Its not revealing at all. I was just stating...that it was very unflattering for the photo as a whole. I am not offended by alot. Look at my crime scene photo! Haha.

We all wind up with shots that don't do as well. And we also all have people that like to shove their own ideals down our throats.

Just gotta bob and weave....and stay on your feet.

rossbilly

Nikon D200

07/01/2008 06:52:51 PM · #8

what do the TOS say, on the other site? Many people (incorrectly) assume that THEIR ideals apply, when that may not be the case.

i never have understood why people would vote down an image just for the subject matter...but suppose that is their prerogative

no, the photo is nowhere near pornographic, let alone 'xxx' ( which typically denotes either detailed genitalia or some form of penetration). hey, even that industry has standards / terms / ratings.

yes, i am very curious about the other site. pretty sure i've seen you on that other one - mind sharing the location, please?

cryan

Nikon D700

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Nikon

07/01/2008 07:14:24 PM · #9

Before I give my opinion, let me first say this is not at all porn. I should know, I used to work at a porn shop many years ago.

As for the photo itself, not a big fan of it. Again the lighting is very harsh, however you said thats what you were going for. I don't think the mirror would be such a distraction if there were more of a reflection in it. My biggest problem is the models expression. It just doesn't convey sexuality or sensuality.

And yes i too am curious about the other site as well. I've tried one other site and did very well but there just wasn't the community that there is here at DPC.

07/02/2008 09:06:11 AM · #10

hmm...I actually wish more women would chime in on this one. Obviously men have a different view of whats explicit and what's not.

Cryan that makes it even worse....if you say she doesn't even have a sexual look on her face...lol.

Sorry I won't put up the site. Cryan it may be the same site you are talking about where there isn't much community...but there is a lot of voting on all images rather than just challenges.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/02/2008 09:10:55 AM · #11

hmmm...just got another comment on it that said "poor taste" - I finally deleted the photo from that site.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

07/02/2008 09:17:21 AM · #12

Female opinion. Not hard core, nor xxx. Had you been able to clone out the door in the reflection, the reflection would have been fine. I think someone else already mentioned her expression - she looks startled more than anything. More of a "deer in the headlights" kinda look that anything sensual or sexual. The original commenter may take some offense to what doesn't seem to be a positive portrayal of the woman - though I don't see it as negative. Perhaps simply neutral, really.

angelfire

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

07/02/2008 09:28:27 AM · #13

I would have switched the position of the legs and leaned her back a bit more but even then it's not XXX as is. I agree with the "deer in the headlights" look that Melethia stated. There is also very harsh lighting and an orange tint that doesn't agree with the eye. That's all that I see in the photo. I don't see XXX.

jeger

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/02/2008 09:38:08 AM · #14

While I would not classify this photo as "hardcore" or "XXX", I definitely think there is a strong sexual connotation.

Why do I feel this way?

1) The clothing she is wearing is extreme. It's not your day to day clothing. It's more extreme than lingerie. The high shiny boots, sexy top and short shorts all fairly extreme.
2) The pose. Her leg positioning reveals a little too much information in the private area.
3) The lighting. I think the lighting plays a big part here. The harsh lighting is extreme and enhances the mood.

In the end, I can certainly see why some viewers would take offense to this type of photo and why it would stir up emotions.

I hope that helps.

Shecoya

Nikon D70s

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

07/02/2008 09:55:41 AM · #15

I absolutely think the photo is sexual in nature... slightly open mouth, clothing (criscrossed open parts on her breast) shorts(shorts look like panties imo) boots, and the pose.. legs apart is absolutely suggestive/sexual in my opinion.

Having said that.. I find nothing wrong with suggestive or sexual pictures if thats what you are going for.

Could the pose have been more flattering to the model.. of course. As a woman I would have liked the fold in skin around my tummy region pointed out so I could sit taller and therefore more flattering. I think a different angle of shooting could have made the legs look like they were a little more together (again as a woman I don't think I'd love seeing my bits open like that) Something as easy as posing her so the inside (closest to you) leg was brought down slightly and the one against the wall/mirror brought up slightly could have made the image a little more demure...only if sexual wasn't what you were trying to convey.

Its a typical pose you find in most suggestive photos. The harsh lighting doesn't bother me all that much but again creates a certain mood you were either going for or you weren't... only you know that.

It takes all kinds to make the world go around.. (varied opinions and people) .. take what you like from comments and leave the rest. Personally, I think its kinda cool that we have zero control over the comments people post about our images and that we are able to solicit heartfelt opinions from some of our images.

Message edited by author 2008-07-02 10:06:32.

NVPhoto

Canon EOS-40D

07/02/2008 10:03:39 AM · #16

I don't think this photo is in poor taste at all. Its not a Maxim style glamour shot, but it doesn't look like that was the idea. Even the harsh light could be used effectively depending on what type of contest/series this was presented in. If it was supposed to be a glamour shot, I think it missed the mark on technical aspects as well as posing/model choice. If it was supposed to be an edgy kind of dark photo, its right on. The first thing I thought of was either prostitution or drug use. From teh way she is on a slab counter in a bathroom (maybe a public bathroom) with a very non graceful pose and facial expression. From that aspect you could do a few more similar and make a pretty solid series.

As to the poor taste crap. People get all up in arms about nudity and suggestive material. They need to get over it. If their child is looking and it offends them get the child off the site, im sure there is something w/ nothing but bunnies and kittens. Or they could explain to them why it is technically sound/lacking and how the human figure is one of the oldest most difficult subjects in all of photography/painting/drawing etc...

07/02/2008 11:41:26 AM · #17

Originally posted by albc28:

hmmm...just got another comment on it that said "poor taste" - I finally deleted the photo from that site.

Bad call.

If you like it...keep it up. Screw what other people think.

icu1965

Sony DSLR-A200

Sony 75-300 mm f/4.5-5.6

07/02/2008 11:59:52 AM · #18

Originally posted by albc28:

Do you agree that this photo is something that is geared towards "hard core sex pervs" or a triple xxx category and why? (understand that this doesn't work if you just answer no or yes!! The why is the important part!!!)

No I don't agree. Hard core sex pervs wouldn't find this hard core at all! It's also not XXX in any way, she's not nude! Maybe XXX means something else to other people, but when I hear XXX I think of Hustler and porno movies and your photo doesn't represent either of those to me.

07/02/2008 12:29:41 PM · #19

Ok. I got a little heavy handed with the PP..I admit. But I had some fun with your pic. Just thought I would show you what changes I would have made to alleviate some of the concerns.

ORIGINAL:

MY Quick Edits: ( I realize there are still some spots where cloning is noticable..etc...I was just wanting to show how I would have changed it..hope it helps)

[thumb]694567[/thumb]
[thumb]694568[/thumb]

Message edited by author 2008-07-02 12:31:37.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

07/03/2008 07:53:08 AM · #20

Guess I should have warned, that I never said it wasn't meant to be suggestive...but it was meant to show a side of sexiness (i guess that is the way i would put it) without having to show all the "goodies" Again I may have completely missed the mark on that side technically, but xxx wasn't close to what i was working for. Haha...definitely wasn't looking for the drug look either. I might tweak it some more to see what i can do for it technically.

Okay here is a clear sign that I need to leave that other site alone. This shot recieved this comment:

"Anthony,
Personally I feel as if this image has no place here on DA, it looks like an image I would find in Hustler or something along those lines, and the technical side of it is not that great."

This was from a guy who only shot birds....won alot of awards on the site...but they were all birds. Now if this is hustler...I'm never buying another hustler magazine again!!!! (not that I buy them now...but you get the point).

edit: This was another one I experimented with technically.

Message edited by author 2008-07-03 07:54:37.

Nikon D200

07/03/2008 08:33:44 AM · #21

Originally posted by albc28:

... The part that generated this post, is the xxx and hardcore perv parts. The girl is wearing shorts and a top. All her body parts are covered. Is not in a sexual or explicit pose. And quite actually covered more than someone would be in a swimsuit. And no photo wearing a swimsuit would be considered explicit or xxx.

Of course it is a sexual/explicit pose. Dude, her crotch is hanging out. It doesn't matter if it is a swimsuit or a flannel nightgown --> crotch hanging out = explicit.

Originally posted by albc28:

Look albc28, you got a girl here in booty shorts, a corset, and high-heeled black boots; not exactly chaste clothing now is it? I don't know about where you are from, but in my town they call that a "hooker get-up."

Add to that where she's up on a shelf for no apparent reason with her legs positioned to show proof that her naughty bits are barely covered -- and you are actually wondering why some peeps think your shot belongs in Hustler?

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/03/2008 09:35:51 AM · #22

It's art until it offends, then it's porn. Self-righteous responses are optional.

Judi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

07/03/2008 09:44:33 AM · #23

Q - What's the difference between Art and Porn?

A - The Price......hehehehe!

chesire

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/03/2008 09:52:25 AM · #24

I don't think either fit the XXX rating. But they are both explicitly sexual. The wardrobe choice is obvertly sexual, and really on the trashy side of that. (Not that it's a bad thing, but usually a private thing).

I don't mind the pictures, though the reception you'll receive here vs at DA is huge. There's a completely different culture, and I can see where it's very unacceptable in some places where it's ok at others. I would agree I'd expect to see this more in some men's magazine than up on someone's wall.

Art vs porn... Well what catches you first? The beauty or the sexual connotation? In this case the second.