nudity in the gallery
- Thread starter back alley
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 107
- Views 9K
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
Psshaw....
back alley
IMAGES
let me also add that what gets deleted is at the discretion of the moderators.
joe
joe
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Well you certainly know how to title a thread to get us to read it Joe.
photogdave
Shops local
Well, rules is rules...
At least that photo generated some interesting discussion during it's brief stay here. However I do hope there is something that can be done about photographers using the gallery for their own free promotion without contributing to the community here.
At least that photo generated some interesting discussion during it's brief stay here. However I do hope there is something that can be done about photographers using the gallery for their own free promotion without contributing to the community here.
steamer
Well-known
Doesn't posting a photo count as a contribution? Much rather see somebody's work than another x vs y or Leica-love thread.
sirius
Well-known
back alley
IMAGES
sexuality
- state of being sexual: the state of being sexual
- involvement in sexual activity: involvement or interest in sexual activity
- sexual appeal: sexual appeal or potency
- state of being sexual: the state of being sexual
- involvement in sexual activity: involvement or interest in sexual activity
- sexual appeal: sexual appeal or potency
photogdave
Shops local
My comment was related to a discussion in the comments for the deleted photo - which were deleted with the photo.steamer said:
Basically the poster of the photo had posted a few nude shots in the gallery over time, the photos didn't seem RF-related (I could be wrong about that), and the poster had not participated in any discussions or even responded to any comments about his or her work.
I've seen this a few times on RFF and it seems some photographers are just using the gallery as method of free promotion and I don't agree with this.
I do agree with you 100 per cent that photo contributions are more interesting than some of the same old gear talk. That's why I spend so much RFF time in the gallery!
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
back alley said:
oh gawd, joe. there's the can o' worms!
I think you would be better off with a no frontal nudity policy than being the judge of 'sexuality.'
it's the bartender's site and ultimately the cameraquest=RFF=RFF Gallery, will determine policy. does this me turtle-necks and blue jeans? 🙂
.
back alley
IMAGES
i just put the definition up for others to see ray.
i'm not agreeing with the assertion made.
i'm not an art critic or an expert on porn so deciding on what is ok for posting and what is offensive is a tough call for me.
i'm not agreeing with the assertion made.
i'm not an art critic or an expert on porn so deciding on what is ok for posting and what is offensive is a tough call for me.
ChrisN
Striving
For what it's worth, I saw that image and read the several pages of comments, and I support the removal of the image from the RFF gallery. The discussion was interesting and well-argued. The image was indeed provacative on several levels, and would certainly offend some people (which I expect is the photographer's intent). I think it did not fit in well with the general "feel" of this forum, and there are plenty of other places where it would fit in.
Generally, what I like about this place is that most of the members have genuine respect for the others. For this to continue to be a place where we can learn and share, there needs to be a certain level of harmony and willingness to get along. Sometimes that means holding back on criticism or comment for the sake of getting along. It's more important for this forum to continue than it is for me (as individual) to be able to exercise absolute freedom. Some won't agree with that - and that's ok too. 🙂
Generally, what I like about this place is that most of the members have genuine respect for the others. For this to continue to be a place where we can learn and share, there needs to be a certain level of harmony and willingness to get along. Sometimes that means holding back on criticism or comment for the sake of getting along. It's more important for this forum to continue than it is for me (as individual) to be able to exercise absolute freedom. Some won't agree with that - and that's ok too. 🙂
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
As we all know I'm not averse to posting the odd nude here ... I saw that photo and I must admit it made me think. I personally wouldn't post a photo like that and the image to me was too distractingly provocative in it's explicitness and RFF is fairly conservative as a body so it's removal seemed imminent to me!
I like Robert Maplethorpe's work and went to an exhibition of his photographs in Sydney years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. (It was banned in a lot of states in Oz but they are a bit more 'grown up' in New South Wales!) I wouldn't want one of his more graphic sexual images hanging on the wall of my loungeroom though ... there's a place for everything! 🙂
I like Robert Maplethorpe's work and went to an exhibition of his photographs in Sydney years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. (It was banned in a lot of states in Oz but they are a bit more 'grown up' in New South Wales!) I wouldn't want one of his more graphic sexual images hanging on the wall of my loungeroom though ... there's a place for everything! 🙂
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
back alley said:
my point exactly. you shouldn't have to make that call. I wouldn't want that job either. 🙂
.
steamer
Well-known
The guy's work is kind of edgy and disturbing, but pretty creative. Visited his sight a while ago and vaguely recall that he does use a rangefinder of some sort. The photos big watermarks could be construed as self-promotion. In the end the rules do state no genitals. Wonder if Mapplethorpe's bullwhip-in-the-butt photo would be OK here?
Sirius that was a great link, photos so calm but with a subtle erotic undercurrent.
Sirius that was a great link, photos so calm but with a subtle erotic undercurrent.
Last edited:
sirius
Well-known
Thanks, Steamer! I'm in awe of them.
gb hill
Veteran
I saw the photograph in question and yea it was a bit on the provocative side. The debate was facinating. I hate to see the debate part gone but Joe was right in deleating it. Too risky for kids to see it as well as some adults I might add. I visit several art sites like Renderosity and they have warnings on the photos that they deem explicit. You have to click on the cover to view the photo. Even "tasteful nudes" here should have this, because if it's a recent upload and you click on the Gallery...Bam! there it is. I am a christian and don't care for this kind of art, but I don't like censorship either. To be truthful I would rather have the option of full frontal nudity here on RFF with the option of having to click on a cover to see the photo than the openness of the "tasteful nude" being out in the open the way it is now. Borderlines on hyprocisy I think! If this was in place then no one could be offended and the thread wouldn't have to be deleated.
Last edited:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Darn, I usually am in the galleries more than the forum.. I missed some excitement. Probably just as well. I might have had to have the wife crank up the volts and apply the "paddles" to revive me. J/k/h
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I'm surprised the photo lasted as long as it did in the gallery.
It was thought provoking and while I wouldn't want it on my wall I'd like to see it in an exhibition as a part of a body of work.
When I last saw the photo there were just a couple of comments. I'm sorry that I cannot read comments now that the photo is deleted.
Looking at d'composed photos on Flickr they seem to be interesting and not at all as 'in your face' as the one they posted here.
It was thought provoking and while I wouldn't want it on my wall I'd like to see it in an exhibition as a part of a body of work.
When I last saw the photo there were just a couple of comments. I'm sorry that I cannot read comments now that the photo is deleted.
Looking at d'composed photos on Flickr they seem to be interesting and not at all as 'in your face' as the one they posted here.
iml
Well-known
I can understand why the moderators would want to delete porn from the gallery, but I am baffled as to why anyone would consider a "no genitalia" policy to be sensible.
Ian
Ian
Similar threads
