Are these Gallery images OK?

M

mike goldberg

The Peaceful Pacific
Local time
1:42 AM
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,148
First, to be very clear, I'm NOT picking on anyone.
Here are the images in question from 24 Feb 07:

HH-3 by Sostler... self-portrait with his penis & balls hanging out

FS: OM 24/28 (kit) 3 views, For Sale in Gallery

Comments by Moderator or anyone are invited.
mike
 
mike goldberg said:
First, to be very clear, I'm NOT picking on anyone.
Here are the images in question from 24 Feb 07:

HH-3 by Sostler... self-portrait with his penis & balls hanging out

FS: OM 24/28 (kit) 3 views, For Sale in Gallery

Comments by Moderator or anyone are invited.
mike
Click to expand...

Not bad. Slightly over exposed.
 
I'm not a moderator soooooo, as far as I'm concerned Sostler's "self porty" is a little revealing yes. ;)

Todd
 
Rather interesting self portrait :rolleyes: , at least he used an RF camera .
Might have been best to PM a Moderator though as the pic in question has probably had more views since this thread was posted than it was probably ever going to get .



Paul
 
I find this image and the ones with guns simply disgusting. What do these people think when posting?
 
Jon Claremont said:
When a mod looks at those photos maybe they could also look at the three recently uploaded photos of kids with guns?
Click to expand...

I completely agree, not least on aesthetic and technical grounds. My assumption has always been that the Gallery is not simply a dumping ground for snapshots.

However, I would like to defend HH-3. Firstly because there is nothing objectionable in the human body, only in a purient understanding of nudity. Secondly because the picture is entirely non-sensational and makes clear reference to two distinct traditions of German art, A) that in which the body is de-idealised and made a symbol of human frailty (look at the paintings of Cranach or Grunwalde) and B) the brutally frank mirror self-portrait. It is a wholly legitimate image.

But there is another reason, perhaps more powerful than either. We can all easily imagine the ape-like glee that would greeted a female member posting a similar picture. So why is this so bad? Lets grow up gentleman.

Cheers, Ian
 
Last edited:
yeah i wanted to ask, what's wrong with a male nude if nothing is wrong with a female nude. However, i noticed then the actual image and i did not like it so i decided not to defend it. :)
 
from the rules...
"You will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, racist, sexist, discriminatory, or otherwise violative of any local or international laws."

while not my cup of tea the photos in question don't break any rules.
we have had female nudes here without objection.
as for posting snapshots - i am not about to set myself up as a critic.

when stephen comes back from holiday, i'll see if he has a different take on things from what has been established previously.

joe
 
I think maybe a bit more thought on a nude self portrait. such as a pose and surrounding area that would make a bit less like he was just curious how he would look to others if he was nude while taking a picture.

I have no issue with the nudity, but only with the lack of imagination in creating a nude self portrait.

Gutsy, anyway.
 
back alley said:
from the rules...
"You will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, racist, sexist, discriminatory, or otherwise violative of any local or international laws."

while not my cup of tea the photos in question don't break any rules.
we have had female nudes here without objection.
as for posting snapshots - i am not about to set myself up as a critic.

when stephen comes back from holiday, i'll see if he has a different take on things from what has been established previously.

joe
Click to expand...
Joe; this world need more like you

regards
 
And I do agree with Ian as well... although the nude evokes for me the man/machine dichotomy... the human with his machine companion, here the RF. The male nudes often convey a feeling of frailness, or loneliness... the acceptance of one's self, in a way.
 
Hi... First, thanks for moving the post to the 'Provide Your Feedback' place.
Re: the images:

- scottgee1's four shots of his OM-1 24/2.8 are actually quite good. Given that we have Classifieds, and members often attach a few keywords of FS or WTB in their signatures, my only question is: Is it OK to have FS [for sale] in a Gallery post?
- If a Moderator has determined that sostler's nude self-portrait does not break any forum rules, then so be it. The Gallery IS available to minors, thus there's an open ended question here, about good taste.
- I find schow's 'Mark 'n Justin posts with automatic weapons, real or dummy's, the most objectionable.

So, where am I coming from? I'm a former Bostonian in the mid-East... in Jerusalem, Israel, and have been here for 35 years. Yes, I'm an American in Israel, and I see a lot of weapons in the streets. These are carried by 19 year old soldiers, and civilians who need them, carry licensed sidearms. And, proudly I can claim, that we have fewer crimes with guns than many a Western country.

Return, if you will, to Mark 'n Justin in the Gallery. In one shot the boy in blue is aiming his weapon. In another, he casually has the weapon at the chest of the T-shirted fellow in red. Now obviously, with the eye patch and false mustache,
this is some kind of costume party in jest .

Even though these images may break no forum rules, for me they are extremely distasteful. In my early years in Israel, I was associated with a community in which the 18 year old son of immigrants from Florida was killed
in a military training accident. In other words, he caught a bullet.

When I did basic training in the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] at the age of 38, we were taught:
- The first thing you do when given a weapon is to examine it. Is it loaded? And, a visual inspection was not enough. We had to put our little finger in the breech to make sure.
- You NEVER point a weapon at anyone, unless you intend to shoot him. In most of my military career here, I pulled boring guard duty. When confronting someone suspicious or threatening, first you shout a verbal warning, then, only if absolutely necessary, do you shoot in the air. If attacked and fired upon, you shoot first at the attacker's legs.

It is NOT my intention here to give a treatise on weaponry. Many RFF members are far more knowledgable in small arms then I am.

My point is: Weapons are serious business. For me, at least, the Mark 'n Justin shots do NOT belong here.

Thanks for listening,
mike
 
As long as it's a photograph (and the definition keeps changing) it's OK by me to post it. I don't have to like it. I don't have to look at it, I just wouldn't want to force my standards on someone else.

Let's see what you've got. (Pun intended.)
 
Pherdinand said:
yeah i wanted to ask, what's wrong with a male nude if nothing is wrong with a female nude.
Click to expand...
Not all bipeds are kangaroos.

How many photos have you seen taken by a female herself of herself and posted on the gallery? The nudity itself is not the question; the taste (or lack thereof) and craving for attention is.

There's only one thing this shows: often, photography is not about photography when it grabs RFF's attention.

On the other side of the argument, it's "Free Speech", and actually that's fine.

It is incongruent with how threads have been effectively err...moderated... in the past, and how we've been persistently asked to "keep it clean -- there are kids browsing the forum".

I gotta hand it to the mods, it's no walk on cake, or piece of the beach...did I say that imcorrectlee? ;)
 
ok, you got me brian.
i went to the faq for the rules and copied/pasted from there.

so it seems i have some editing to do.

joe
 
Jocko said:
However, I would like to defend HH-3. Firstly because there is nothing objectionable in the human body, only in a purient understanding of nudity. Secondly because the picture is entirely non-sensational and makes clear reference to two distinct traditions of German art, A) that in which the body is de-idealised and made a symbol of human frailty (look at the paintings of Cranach or Grunwalde) and B) the brutally frank mirror self-portrait. It is a wholly legitimate image.

But there is another reason, perhaps more powerful than either. We can all easily imagine the ape-like glee that would greeted a female member posting a similar picture. So why is this so bad? Lets grow up gentleman.
Click to expand...

I second that. I don't see any problem, though I admit it's not my cup of tea. Since it's not pornographic, nudity is a legitmate artistic subject.
 
According to the rules cited by Brian Sweeney above, HH-3 is breaking the rules. I'll leave it at that.

As for the forum owner, he's on vacation.

Yes, there is some wisdom to the comment above, "If an mage is distasteful, don't look at it." Still and all, freedom of expression is best, when balanced by good taste.

And, what is good taste? Well, maybe there's one for another poll ;-)
It's 1:11 AM in Jerusalem.
Laila tov u'mazal tov... Good night and good luck.
mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom