tonight's interesting thread

I am generally opposed to paying a woman for posing nude for me. I do it for the art. Yes, I love the female form in many ways, but I was taught a great many thing by a former gf who was a painter about how she and other women approach the nude as an art form.

Just as I would not charge money to anybody for me to do a poetry reading, and I would not pay anybody to do a poetry reading for me, I have not paid money to do a nude photo session. I have traded in kind or with other work. [I've only to pay someone once, and although she has not yet collected, she has insisted on doing another session. That's another story.]

Of course, this "philosophy" --if you can call it that-- hasn't yielded many sessions with many modeling, but I don't attribute it to my view of it, but rather to women's undoubtedly deep-rooted mistrust of men's intentions when it comes to these matters.
 
When I said "aroused" by visual stimuli, I did not mean sexually aroused, and the visual stimuli I was referring to was not of a nude. Sorry for not being clear.
 
BrianShaw said:
sexual arousal isn't necessarily the key purpose for them... or is it?
As I see it, nudes fall into three categories.
1. those that arouse (or are designed to do so)
2. those that are clearly about form/texture/lighting
3. those that can fall into 1 or 2 depending on perspective/state of mind

Peter
 
back alley said:
it is the least sexual thing a serious photographer can do.
when shooting normal portraits one can hide the ugly bits with clothing and lighting. with a nude there is no place to hide except maybe the shadows.

nudes are not nearly as fun as street shooting.
Yes. Yes. You have been there. It is time-consuming, tests the model's patience (I just go crazy and shoot different angles, sometimes take minutes to compose a shot, sometimes take a dozen within a minute), the hiding, the do this, don't do that (and I do not like to give directions, I like to work "naturally").
 
peterc said:
I suspect these devices are in a great way responsible for many of the restrictions on photography. Authorities always make a point of blaming the device when some pervert gets caught using a shoecam to see up skirts or sets up a spycam in a washroom. This gradually builds public acceptance for restrictions on all photography.
If every photographer had to walk around with a bulky camera you could easily see who was abusing other people's rights.

Peter

you made some very good points Peter,
so the idea that photography is now super quick n easy, and cameras are carried more often as cell phone combos, is valid justification for gov'ts to restrict photography to "protect" the citizens
especially with all these'' terrorist" casing and photographing major targets.
it makes handing over your civil liberties a must do thing, almost a patriotic duty.
 
xayraa33 said:
is valid justification for gov'ts to restrict photography to "protect" the citizens
That seems to be the direction things are going. What I find most disturbing is that the general public seems to be buying the argument (or at least accepting bans on photography).

Peter
 
Generally speaking, with individual exceptions obvious, Canadians are not as patriotic as Americans, IMO. Depending of course on how you would define "patriotic". I would define it as the willingness to give up individual freedom for the sake of the nation. That's kind of ironic because Americans often seem to pride themselves on protecting their individual freedoms, yet when it comes to terrorism, they acquiesce.

(I think we may have hit on a hot topic. To my American friends, please do not take critisism of your government personally. Keep those separate. )
 
memphis said:
Anytime Frank -- it's a campfire story --- i got a lot of those... when I lived in tahoe working for the adult site, I gambled a lot -- one night I had a $45,000 winning streak -- took 6 hours to go from $100 in my pocket to $45,000 -- also slept with my boss' wife and have a million little stories to tell about that period in my life... my life is much more... tame now...

Thank goodness, eh?
 
FrankS said:
Generally speaking, with individual exceptions obvious, Canadians are not as patriotic as Americans, IMO. Depending of course on how you would define "patriotic". I would define it as the willingness to give up individual freedom for the sake of the nation. That's kind of ironic because Americans often seem to pride themselves on protecting their individual freedoms, yet when it comes to terrorism, they acquiesce.

(I think we may have hit on a hot topic. To my American friends, please do not take critisism of your government personally. Keep those separate. )


we are now veering into the region of probable problems...
 
Okay, let me back track and withdraw that post. Such a topic is best discussed over beers face to face. I mean no disrespect and generalizations ar edangerous at best.

(Didn't realize you were keeping such a close eye on us, brother.)
 
FrankS said:
Okay, let me back track and withdraw that post. Such a topic is best discussed over beers face to face. I mean no disrespect and generalizations ar edangerous at best.

(Didn't realize you were keeping such a close eye on us, brother.)


threads like this make me want to stop being a moderator frank.
instead of having a nice evening looking through the forum, i come back here, often , just waiting for the explosion.

joe
 
What I really worry about is that government will stop photographers from doing nude photography! (How's that for tying together these 2 separate topics?) Off to bed for me. Nighty-night!
 
back alley said:
threads like this make me want to stop being a moderator frank.
instead of having a nice evening looking through the forum, i come back here, often , just waiting for the explosion.
joe


But we were good! Wish you would have joined in.
 
memphis said:
do you feel like the blood in your head is going to spurt out your ears and eyes --- we do this just to make you sweat, Joe! :angel: :bang: 😉


I try to avoid real politics online as i'm here about photos --- my conservatism would draw wrath and ire from many ---😛

no blood spurting, sorry😉

it doesn't take much to get a diverse group going and they don't always 'behave'.

joe
 
FrankS said:
What I really worry about is that government will stop photographers from doing nude photography! (How's that for tying together these 2 separate topics?) Off to bed for me. Nighty-night!

Do not give those neocons any ideas Frank,
we might end up back to the 1950s.. the golden decade of the rangefinder camera.
and gentlemans magazines like " Wink"
and models like Betty Page and Marilyn.
 
memphis said:
You say that like it's a bad thing --- think how much more aesthetic there would be it the auto industry, the furniture and home decore industry.... I miss the world of jayne mansfield, betty paige, marilyn, gil elvgren, vargas... the days when a man could have a sexy pinup calendar in his office - our society has gotten boorish, ugly, and insensitive to design and beauty --- perhaps that's why divorces are on the rise, violence is on the rise, and we hear about more and more psychos (mommas killing their baby's, pedophiles, etc) --- we opened a pandora's box at some point --- perhaps we should reexamine many of our current societal dogmas...

But if i continue, women will be out of the workplace, back at home raising kids (that might not be bad - that may be one the roots of our societal decay is that the parents are both too busy working and doing whatever to be parents) and people will accuse me of being a misogynist and chauvinist and racist and many other 4 cent words

... and June Wilkinson and Uschi Degart... no it is not a bad thing.. just wishful thinking..
.. and brand new Leotax cameras and Zunow lenses...
 
Back
Top Bottom