a question of taste

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's fine to tag the images as mature but it should apply to scenes of war and pepper spray too.

On Facebook and other sites, other people are allowed to flag images that may be inappropriate. Then we would be self-policing in case the photographer overlooks using good judgement or is in a cranky mood. Just be clear and specific about the rules and be civil about it. Somebody will get flustered but life isn't fair.

When I first came here there was a jerk who got all hepped up over my pictures, not polite and rational like Paul. I certainly don't want to offend anyone or expose your grandkids to harshness prematurely. Heck I don't like a lot of them myself, if it were easier to delete the entire gallery I would since there are some howlers in it (you have to do them one at a time, about 45 seconds per....)

Also I don't like being associated with nudes or cheesecake or that sort of thing actually, I am pretty prudish in real life and treat whatever crazy naked women are crossing my path as documenting their eventual train wreck. So far in my experience they all grow to regret it. The creepiest thing is all the middle aged men who go gaga over the pix and make stupid comments, I find that most amusing... Here's to having a couple semi-naked druggie drunk wanna-bee model bimbos in your life fellas!

Cheers
 
thanks, frank vII.
by the way, thanks to rover, i have clicked on the mature filter box.
now i need to go back and read all three pages. i've been out shopping with the bride ...
 
Funny and sad that some think that boobies are more dangerous than depictions of violence, even murder, as commonly seen on general television.
 
and thank you, benjamin marks, for your opinion on this matter.

i think the mature button is the perfect application for this issue. i have so marked my gallery profile.

there are two sides to what some of you are calling censorship: those who want to see a subject, and those who do not. those who do not should not have to continually confronted with the subject in question. those who want to see the subject should be able to do so. a simple click by a poster wanting to show the subject is the answer. in my view, nudity is one of those subjects. so is gore for the sake of shock.

one more thing, for you dads with daughters: do you want guys like us ogling your naked children? under any conditions?

hey, i'm just sayin' ...
 
Well they are all sons and daughters but there are different kinds of pictures. Some are contrived to titillate and I find those embarrassing most of the time, especially in public. But others are more documentarian where the nudity is happenstance and not calculated. Sometimes they're just girls showing off and being real, as a 22-year is apt to do. I don't look at pictures of kids the same as young women ~ I know my 28-year old daughter is out in the world with boys and men and enjoys her sexuality but I can deal with it. It certainly isn't the same as when she was 15.
 
For the couple of years I've been on RFF.
This is probably the most brave, well-reasoned, and well presented thread.
And I mean the OP, not some of the comments.

I suspect Paul and I share quite a bit in the matter of faith, but I'm here to stand up with him *deliberately* setting aside that fact.

There are other websites with mature contents that are accessible to minors. That is the fact. But to use that as an excuse for *this* website is akin to say that trash is everywhere in the world, so it's okay for me to litter in my own neighborhood.

Tagging one's photo with the mature tag is a responsible and self-respecting action. A forum that honors the tag is a forum whose owner and maintainers are people with strong sense of order and fairness. And that is called filtering, not censorship.

For those who are so sensitive as to object to clicking one more button just to see what you want to see, please, we may have to coexist, are you man enough not to whine about it?
 
I can never understand this sort of thread. I understand Paul's faith and am happy for him. It isn't something that we share but diversity is what makes the world we live in interesting. But for other posters to say that everyone that poses is being taken advantage or or is a druggie or whatever seems irrational to me. I read an interesting post on one of the forums about a couple of models who travel the US of A and make a great living posing for Photo clubs. I find it more distasteful when I see shots of street people drunk and passed out than I do of the 1 picture I saw in gallery today of a woman;'s chest.
I have a daughter of 20 and I have brought her up to make her own decisions, I always explained to her consequences of the decisions she made. If she said to me she wanted to earn some extra money by posing semi nude I doubt I would be happy about it but I would explain to her the consequences that that the images could/would be on internet forever and that "guys like us" will be looking at them. The decision would be hers just as the consequences would be as well. But to the make a massive generalization to say she is then being taken advantage of is non nonsensical to me. I have never taken a nude and doubt that I will. Would love to know how they light them though. Always been a weakness of my photography.
 
paulfish4570 said:
one more thing, for you dads with daughters: do you want guys like us ogling your naked children? under any conditions?
Click to expand...

That is partially a matter of age. But I spent all my life publicly embarrassing myself, and left enough of a trail of bad art that it will take them many years to catch up - so who am I to blame them for showing off?
 
the most ogled thread on RFF seems to be the Let's See Your Leica M at well over a million views. Based on that, I'm going to keep a half-case on my cameras in the interest of modesty.
 
Beauty is all around us. Sometimes it is a human body. Why not photograph what you see? If you do, why not display what you photograph?
Choose to view it or not. What one does or thinks about the images is their own personal interpretation.
That saying "guns don't kill people... people kill people" comes to mind. Most (not all) of the images of nudes I've seen in the gallery are innocent on their own.
Being either a narrative or portrait of a woman or a moment in time and light.
A well made photo of a beautiful nude woman is not in itself a vulgar or exploitive thing.
It's the viewer who sees beauty and humanity or, vulgarity and as a result exploitation.
Is this not true of all art... of all photography?
So then... What is "taste" ?
 
35mmdelux said:
I don't see any commandos around here.....mostly photogs worried about their eyeglasses, how to muster courage to shoot street and whether they should shoot left or right eyed -- major philosophical questions -

Actually, in medieval times the nude form was exhibited by the rich for the rich. Its only in modern times this has reached the masses. Even the Third Reich took issue with exposed boobs.The ancients didn't have a problem, but their nude art form blows ours into the bushes.

Have a nice evening.

PS: Canon 50/1.4 Ex + for sale in the classifieds soon.
Click to expand...

you sure have a hard on for me lately...keep it up.
 
I can see that both sides to this discussion have very valid points, I also fully feel where Paul is coming from. Having a tick box to allow the filtering of content that many of us do not want to see is a good compromise, though I would think it might be preferable to opt in to seeing 'mature, content. Then any new members who do not want to see such content will not have to. From what I see Paul does not want to censor what others see, but he does not want to be exposed to nudes, I will admit that I do not either and for similar reasons to Paul. The human body is a very beautiful thing, it is easy to see that many people find it that way with out it being in anyway sexual. I also do not like to see pictures of peoples guns too, I see nothing pleasant about them nor do I want to see violence of any form. In the end though I think that having an opt in for mature content will prevent those of us who do not want to see it from being upset from seeing it and it does not prevent those who do, they only have to tick a box.
 
Someone far above in this thread said it correctly - this is not a public forum. If the moderators object to an image, they have the right to remove it. That "status quo" is fine with me. (Likewise the availability of a "no mature content" setting.)

Everyone should post what they like, if a mod does not like it, remove it. Courtesy dictates that a PM should be sent to the "offender" with some explanation.

I have had comments I have made removed on a couple of occasions by moderators (can you imagine!?) and I did not make a peep about it.

While I feel the moderators sometimes overreact, an UNmoderated forum is not something I would participate in.

Randy
 
I feel I'm one of the offenders.

Although I have no nudity in my gallery, I feel I may have offended or made some here uneasy, judging by the some of the posts. That was never my intention.

I'd like to know which images in my gallery, if any, are considered mature content.

I'd appreciate it if someone could point them out, then I can mark them as mature content and gain a better understanding of when to click the 'mature content' button in future. As it is now, I'm a little confused as to what is 'cheesecake'.

I find pictures I see in the gallery and threads of guns, rifles, pistols and people with guns pointed to their head far more disturbing than a pair of stockings....maybe I'm odd?

-Greg
 
to those who say nude photos are not sexual in themselves, let me offer this: over at APUG, the view count tells an interesting story: any nude shot of a woman will quickly draw 200-400 views when an excellent landscape shot, for example, on the same page will draw 40-80 views.
art ain't the reason ... ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom