Reading mode: Light Dark

got told my photo is half-nude in series in Challenge 16-what do you think?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arlene
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
Clearly the woman in the photo is not half-naked. Her genitals, breasts and nipples are covered. It is unlikely that she would be arrested if she appeared in public.

That being said, the photo is clearly intended to be seductive, to stimulate a man (or perhaps a woman too, I wouldn't know) to a state of arousal. This is obvious not only in the style of clothing worn by the model, but also by her facial expression and the lighting selected by the photographer. If you do not believe this, then you should read some books on sexuality. Men are highly visual, think of sex often, and automatically take notice of an attractive woman (heterosexuals).

This style of photography is very popular in our society, and is very lucrative for the photographers and publishers, although seldom the models. It should not surprise you, however, that public placement of this picture would meet with less than universal acceptance.

I do not judge you for taking the picture, or even for posting the picture. But really, if you honestly expect NO ONE to be offended by a picture that is seductive in nature, then you are not being realistic.
Arlene said:
I'm being challenged as putting in a photo that isn't in good taste
and too provocative. I totally disagree. I think it is a tasteful
glamourous photo. Am I wrong. What do you guys think? Please read
some of the comments below the photo. Two of them are rather
negative. I was really surprised and dismayed by the reaction to
this photo. Here's the link:

http://www.pbase.com/image/1848364

Arlene
Click to expand...
 
This post made me realize something. I have finally metamorphisized from a male to a photographer. Honestly, I noticed the lighting and the setup effect more than I noticed the model. The thing I desired when I saw the photos was more the photographers talent and equipment than the model. I am beyond hope. Anyone know of a local photographers anonymous chapter?
woodsofthewest said:
That being said, the photo is clearly intended to be seductive, to
stimulate a man (or perhaps a woman too, I wouldn't know) to a
state of arousal. This is obvious not only in the style of
clothing worn by the model, but also by her facial expression and
the lighting selected by the photographer. If you do not believe
this, then you should read some books on sexuality. Men are highly
visual, think of sex often, and automatically take notice of an
attractive woman (heterosexuals).

This style of photography is very popular in our society, and is
very lucrative for the photographers and publishers, although
seldom the models. It should not surprise you, however, that
public placement of this picture would meet with less than
universal acceptance.

I do not judge you for taking the picture, or even for posting the
picture. But really, if you honestly expect NO ONE to be offended
by a picture that is seductive in nature, then you are not being
realistic.
Arlene said:
I'm being challenged as putting in a photo that isn't in good taste
and too provocative. I totally disagree. I think it is a tasteful
glamourous photo. Am I wrong. What do you guys think? Please read
some of the comments below the photo. Two of them are rather
negative. I was really surprised and dismayed by the reaction to
this photo. Here's the link:

http://www.pbase.com/image/1848364

Arlene
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--

Ogre - DSC-F707 - Just push the button and see what you get, it might surprise you.
 
I agree anyone has a right to challenge anything. However in order for it to be a challenge worth considering, or for that matter discussing here, a signature is required. No one individual has challenged anything. Without an identity there is no response required or deserved.
LindyLoo said:
I hear you, Joe. Remember, though, that this particular challenge
did come with a set of prequalifications (i.e, no "indecent"
shots), so the poster had as much of a right to challenge her entry
just as much as she had the right to post it.
Click to expand...
John
 
ZipperZ said:
If i remember right....Donald Duck cartoons was banned in some
countries because he didnt wear pants...lol (true story)
Click to expand...
You'd also get a smile from Harpo Marx' own brief preface to his autobiography. He writes of playing lots of golf with George Burns, and of the pair of them getting suspended for playing at the Hillcrest golf club without shirts in extreme heat. He continues:

"The day the suspension was up, we gave our word we'd never break the rule about shirts again. But on reaching the third tee, we took off our pants. We had checked and found there was no rule against it ... Fortunately for all concerned the weather turned cool before the next meeting of the Board of Governors.

Mike

:-))
 
I have no opinion about whether or not this pic should have been allowed in the challenge. That was my daughter's call, and whether or not you agree with her decision, she made it - end of story. Kind of ironic putting a 15 year-old in that position.

That being said I've followed this post on and off and have been amazed at the high number of posters that seem to be focusing the discussion on the fact that the model is more clothed than say beach goers, or the women modeling bras in some catalogue. To me, the question of whether or not the pic is "indecent" has little to do with nudity. After all, the vast majority of "reasonable and prudent" people would consider Michaelangelo's nude depictions as fine art. Likewise that same crowd would consider nudes as depicted in pornography as nothing close to art. Of course the extremes on either end of the spectrum will take issue with that statement. But to make the argument the pic is acceptable simply because she has more clothes on than some other common examples in our society makes no sense.

The difference between art and indecency in the depiction of nudity, as many others have pointed out is a gradation of tolerances and perceptions of individuals within the context of their experiences and their norms. To me, the difference is in the message. If the image seeks to exploit the subject's sexuality through an erotic pose and composition, then whether or not clothes can be seen, the photographer had more in mind than an artistic interpretation of the beautiful human form.

It also seems an odd choice of titles for these photos as "glamour" shots. I've never thought of glamour and suggestive/provocative/erotic as synonomous. Too bad we feel the need to glamourize women through focusing on sexuality.

I also found the references to children or "families" visiting this site interesting. Not only do my kids view the challenges and the posts in this forum, but I personally know 2 other families that, although not members of stf, routinely visit the challenge galleries. The children love them. These same families DID take offense at the photo in question. Before you call them names for being prudish or conservative, you should know that these families also have encouraged the exploration of fine art with their children that includes the nude classics. So it wasn't a matter of the amount of skin showing at all. It was the message attached.

CindyD

--
CindyD or SarahD
If one of us is laughing, and the other one isn't, one of us must be wrong...
 
I had hoped that you would not take any offense to any of my comments. But I think that I have failed in my attempt and I apologize. The written word is a difficult medium to express feeling and true meaning. I was trying to point out the fact that there are most likely people in this forum that will see things in their own way and that way is probably not that the challenges are necessarily a family oriented event. I would certainly not classify the regular participants in this category but there always seems to be entries that are questionable.

So when you say that the challenge galleries should be a family site and the same rules that apply to dpreview should apply to the challenges, I whole heartedly agree. But since some people will tend to take liberties, it is always best to have guidelines for content. No problem there since the challenges always have something about content. I'm really talking about the people who stumble upon STF, join the challenges and never read the dpreview rules for posting in dpreview.

Regarding the fact that your mother trusts your judgement for internet use and good art versus trash, I again must apologize if I souded as if I were questioning your judgement in art or the internet. I must admit that I was thinking more of my four year old who is just learning abut the computer and my six year old niece who is learning about the internet from her parents and older sister. I fully expected that your mother does not need to monitor your internet useage since you seem quite capable of making good decisions.

Now for the compliments. I again feel like these were taken the wrong way. They were not thrown in at the end to make you feel better about my comments, like people freely throw in "LOL" at the end of every sentence to make sure no one takes offense. I truly think that you and your mother are good role models for families. If this is too personal, I apologize. But I think that most people who know about you will agree.

I am by no means an expert on human behavior. But I disagree with your comment "To find people my age (or any age) that respectfully represent themselves, one has only to look." WhenI look around at the world, I see fewer and fewer people who have genuine respect for their fellow human beings. And I tend to blame parents for this since they are the only means that children truly learn what it means to be good.

Respectfully,
Larry
 
right on CindyD. I tried to stay out of this whining 'somebody-doesn't-like-my-pictures' post, but it's absurd. The photos in question are very well executed for what they are, but they are not portraits. And if the Challenge host says they go, then they go. When you win a Challenge, you get to make the rules!
1ofUs! said:
I have no opinion about whether or not this pic should have been
allowed in the challenge. That was my daughter's call, and whether
or not you agree with her decision, she made it - end of story.
Kind of ironic putting a 15 year-old in that position.

That being said I've followed this post on and off and have been
amazed at the high number of posters that seem to be focusing the
discussion on the fact that the model is more clothed than say
beach goers, or the women modeling bras in some catalogue. To me,
the question of whether or not the pic is "indecent" has little to
do with nudity. After all, the vast majority of "reasonable and
prudent" people would consider Michaelangelo's nude depictions as
fine art. Likewise that same crowd would consider nudes as
depicted in pornography as nothing close to art. Of course the
extremes on either end of the spectrum will take issue with that
statement. But to make the argument the pic is acceptable simply
because she has more clothes on than some other common examples in
our society makes no sense.

The difference between art and indecency in the depiction of
nudity, as many others have pointed out is a gradation of
tolerances and perceptions of individuals within the context of
their experiences and their norms. To me, the difference is in
the message. If the image seeks to exploit the subject's sexuality
through an erotic pose and composition, then whether or not clothes
can be seen, the photographer had more in mind than an artistic
interpretation of the beautiful human form.

It also seems an odd choice of titles for these photos as "glamour"
shots. I've never thought of glamour and
suggestive/provocative/erotic as synonomous. Too bad we feel the
need to glamourize women through focusing on sexuality.

I also found the references to children or "families" visiting this
site interesting. Not only do my kids view the challenges and the
posts in this forum, but I personally know 2 other families that,
although not members of stf, routinely visit the challenge
galleries. The children love them. These same families DID take
offense at the photo in question. Before you call them names for
being prudish or conservative, you should know that these families
also have encouraged the exploration of fine art with their
children that includes the nude classics. So it wasn't a matter of
the amount of skin showing at all. It was the message attached.

CindyD

--
CindyD or SarahD
If one of us is laughing, and the other one isn't, one of us must
be wrong...
Click to expand...
--
Faye
 
No offense was taken in the first place :-), that goes under "The written word is a difficult medium to express feeling and true meaning." But I won't get into the "I didn't mean what you thought I meant..." sort of thing. Thank you for your input, and compliments, look forward to more of your posts in the future. I hadn't seen any before this that I can remember. And the compliments were taken as they were meant, I appreciate it when anyone takes the time to tell me something (good or bad) on my work.
Sarah
LarryS said:
I had hoped that you would not take any offense to any of my
comments. But I think that I have failed in my attempt and I
apologize. The written word is a difficult medium to express
feeling and true meaning. I was trying to point out the fact that
there are most likely people in this forum that will see things in
their own way and that way is probably not that the challenges are
necessarily a family oriented event. I would certainly not
classify the regular participants in this category but there always
seems to be entries that are questionable.

So when you say that the challenge galleries should be a family
site and the same rules that apply to dpreview should apply to the
challenges, I whole heartedly agree. But since some people will
tend to take liberties, it is always best to have guidelines for
content. No problem there since the challenges always have
something about content. I'm really talking about the people who
stumble upon STF, join the challenges and never read the dpreview
rules for posting in dpreview.

Regarding the fact that your mother trusts your judgement for
internet use and good art versus trash, I again must apologize if I
souded as if I were questioning your judgement in art or the
internet. I must admit that I was thinking more of my four year
old who is just learning abut the computer and my six year old
niece who is learning about the internet from her parents and older
sister. I fully expected that your mother does not need to monitor
your internet useage since you seem quite capable of making good
decisions.

Now for the compliments. I again feel like these were taken the
wrong way. They were not thrown in at the end to make you feel
better about my comments, like people freely throw in "LOL" at the
end of every sentence to make sure no one takes offense. I truly
think that you and your mother are good role models for families.
If this is too personal, I apologize. But I think that most people
who know about you will agree.

I am by no means an expert on human behavior. But I disagree with
your comment "To find people my age (or any age) that respectfully
represent themselves, one has only to look." WhenI look around at
the world, I see fewer and fewer people who have genuine respect
for their fellow human beings. And I tend to blame parents for
this since they are the only means that children truly learn what
it means to be good.

Respectfully,
Larry
Click to expand...
--
CindyD or SarahD
If one of us is laughing, and the other one isn't, one of us must be wrong...
 
Dee, is this really true. I've never heard that before. Where is this posted?
Arlene
Dee Golden said:
Hi Arlene,

I can understand and relate to the comments left on pbase. I had
the same thought that in a family centered portrait challenge that
perhaps these glamour photos were out of place in the spirit of the
other photos posted and within the context (perhaps unspoken
because of the strict rules on dpreview) of unwritten expectations.
However, it wasn't that strong a thought that I felt moved to leave
a comment.

I remember when "glamour" photos were the rage in all the malls.
Every mall had a booth or small space where one could go in,
discuss make up, put on wigs, jewelry and costumes and pose and be
a model for the day! Of course one paid for the priviledge, but it
certainly lifted the morale and self-esteem of a lot of women who
had their moment of glory when they saw the finished photos.
Hopefully it gave them some insight into the amount of illusion
that goes into producing this type of photography. Even on Miami
Vice there was an episode on one of the characters becoming a
boudoir photographer overnight!

So is there anything wrong with your photos -- well, no... is the
portrait challenge the place for them? perhaps not, but you have to
consider that your photos, particularly 3 and 4 are meant to be
provocative, it was the model's intention, and your intention and
you were both successful, your proof is in the comment left by
someone. Take #3 and put the model in a turtleneck long sleeved top
and a pair of jeans in the same pose and lighting and most people
would wonder why she had such a strange expression on her face.
Change the outfit and it becomes "suggestive." It's all in how it's
preceived by the viewer, the intent of the model and how the
photographer captured it all. You yourself label them "Glamour
Series" but I'd consider 3 & 4 to be more in the boudoir category.

Glamour photography is prohibited on dpreview, and while not
prohibited on pbase, since this challenge is so closely connected
with dpreview, I can understand why someone would be a little put
off by your photos.

For the record, our entire family laughs at the Victoria's Secret
commercials aired on TV -- talk about borderline whatever. We
question who the ads are aimed at? Women to buy the underwear or
men who encourage their women to get the underwear? The fact that
men just can't wait for their "wife's" copy of Victoria Secret
Catalogs to arrive says it all.

Whether or not these ads are succesful, I don't know. Since they
are still airing in various forms and advertisers don't like to
waste money, I can surmise they must be successful indeed. We now
have jeans ads showing young teenagers taking off and trying on
jeans while showing off their abbreviated panties.

Then there are women like Britney Spears and others showing off and
acting and posing a lot worse than your glamour shots. Go to
photosig and which photos get all the points, comments and
attention?

So in writing this, I'm not really saying you were right or wrong,
not at all, I was just trying to explain how someone could be
turned off/upset/angry/annoyed/furious. They obviously were upset
enough to leave a comment but not their name. They may have
forgotten that they were signed in under Stfchallenge and not their
own pbase account name, or they may not even have a pbase account
of their own and only have the stfchallenge login. Or they just
wished to express their distaste without being challenged.

For what it's worth -- Dee
Click to expand...
 
Hi Faye,

I'm not whinning that someone doesn't like my photo. Im taking issue with it being called indecent. If a flirtatous look is indecent than you better not let your kids see that old G-rated movie "Bye Bye Birdie" with Ann Maragret or the G-rated musical Okalahoma or Damn Yankees or go to the Museum and see some of the works of the Realist Manet or Impressionists Degas or Cezanne.

By-the-way, glamour definitely comes under the heading of portraiture. It is not action or travel or landscape or photo-journalism. It is a photo of a person that is posed.

There are many types of portraiture - formal, informal, glamour, bridal, business, family, school, military, baby, children, candids and head shots. All come under the heading of portaiture.

Even though we don't agree, I still appreciate hearing your point of view.

Arlenee.
Faye said:
1ofUs! said:
I have no opinion about whether or not this pic should have been
allowed in the challenge. That was my daughter's call, and whether
or not you agree with her decision, she made it - end of story.
Kind of ironic putting a 15 year-old in that position.

That being said I've followed this post on and off and have been
amazed at the high number of posters that seem to be focusing the
discussion on the fact that the model is more clothed than say
beach goers, or the women modeling bras in some catalogue. To me,
the question of whether or not the pic is "indecent" has little to
do with nudity. After all, the vast majority of "reasonable and
prudent" people would consider Michaelangelo's nude depictions as
fine art. Likewise that same crowd would consider nudes as
depicted in pornography as nothing close to art. Of course the
extremes on either end of the spectrum will take issue with that
statement. But to make the argument the pic is acceptable simply
because she has more clothes on than some other common examples in
our society makes no sense.

The difference between art and indecency in the depiction of
nudity, as many others have pointed out is a gradation of
tolerances and perceptions of individuals within the context of
their experiences and their norms. To me, the difference is in
the message. If the image seeks to exploit the subject's sexuality
through an erotic pose and composition, then whether or not clothes
can be seen, the photographer had more in mind than an artistic
interpretation of the beautiful human form.

It also seems an odd choice of titles for these photos as "glamour"
shots. I've never thought of glamour and
suggestive/provocative/erotic as synonomous. Too bad we feel the
need to glamourize women through focusing on sexuality.

I also found the references to children or "families" visiting this
site interesting. Not only do my kids view the challenges and the
posts in this forum, but I personally know 2 other families that,
although not members of stf, routinely visit the challenge
galleries. The children love them. These same families DID take
offense at the photo in question. Before you call them names for
being prudish or conservative, you should know that these families
also have encouraged the exploration of fine art with their
children that includes the nude classics. So it wasn't a matter of
the amount of skin showing at all. It was the message attached.

CindyD

--
CindyD or SarahD
If one of us is laughing, and the other one isn't, one of us must
be wrong...
Click to expand...
--
Faye
Click to expand...
 
Joe,

Where are you exactly. Are you allowed to tell?

That's great that the US gov't approves of the photo for viewing. What a unique post this is.
Love, Arlene
Joe Izuzu said:
Thanks for the photos, Arlene. I am in the armed forces stationed
in a Muslim country. They put massive restrictions on what I can
and can't look at. Your photos have been approved by the US Gov't
for me to look at so.. I guess they are not too naked or indecent.
Arlene said:
I'm being challenged as putting in a photo that isn't in good taste
and too provocative. I totally disagree. I think it is a tasteful
glamourous photo. Am I wrong. What do you guys think? Please read
some of the comments below the photo. Two of them are rather
negative. I was really surprised and dismayed by the reaction to
this photo. Here's the link:

http://www.pbase.com/image/1848364

Arlene
Click to expand...
--
Joe
'Keeping Shooting, Your Bound To Hit Something'
Lens Cap: Danglin and janglin
Sticker: off Accesories: Hood, Wide Angle VCL-MHG07A, Telephoto
VCL-HG1758 , Flash, extra batteries, various filters. 7 sticks of
chewing gum in the pack.
Click to expand...
 
Ogre said:
woodsofthewest said:
That being said, the photo is clearly intended to be seductive, to
stimulate a man (or perhaps a woman too, I wouldn't know) to a
state of arousal. This is obvious not only in the style of
clothing worn by the model, but also by her facial expression and
the lighting selected by the photographer. If you do not believe
this, then you should read some books on sexuality. Men are highly
visual, think of sex often, and automatically take notice of an
attractive woman (heterosexuals).

This style of photography is very popular in our society, and is
very lucrative for the photographers and publishers, although
seldom the models. It should not surprise you, however, that
public placement of this picture would meet with less than
universal acceptance.

I do not judge you for taking the picture, or even for posting the
picture. But really, if you honestly expect NO ONE to be offended
by a picture that is seductive in nature, then you are not being
realistic.
Arlene said:
I'm being challenged as putting in a photo that isn't in good taste
and too provocative. I totally disagree. I think it is a tasteful
glamourous photo. Am I wrong. What do you guys think? Please read
some of the comments below the photo. Two of them are rather
negative. I was really surprised and dismayed by the reaction to
this photo. Here's the link:

http://www.pbase.com/image/1848364

Arlene
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ogre - DSC-F707 - Just push the button and see what you get, it
might surprise you.
Click to expand...
 
You must be kidding. I'm married with a 12yr old daughter and VERY happy :). Does this shot stir my pathitic body, naaaa. The shot does however stir my photographic side to see the beauty, not sexual, just beauty. The lighting, as I said in my earlier post, is what catches my eye the most. Very clever, soft and gorgeous lighting.

You are describing a pervert. Thats what makes me laugh. Some males can actually think above the waste line, especially those that love photography. She is gorgeous but thats the face and body and if she had a long coat on, would that change, naaaa.

Anyway, its interesting to see how some think, OMG.

All the best.

Danny.

--
Macro, what a world.
.............................
http://www.macrophotos.com
 
Arlene,

I am in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The standing order here forbids:

"Introduction, possession, transfer, sale, creation, or display of any pornographic or sexually explicit photograph, computer software, videotape, movie, drawing, book, magazine, or similar sexually explicit representations. For purposes of this order, the words "pornographic" and

"sexually explicit" means any medium which displays human genitalia, uncovered woman's breast or any human sexual act... "

Sorry.. I know that you are lauaghing so hard that you just blew snot bubbles, but I really can't make this stuff up. I can come over here and die for these ungrateful people.. but Allah forbid if i see a little skin in the process.

The internet ****'s and thought police that run things here did little more than yawn at your photo (not saying anything bad about your photo, they just are looking for violations of the above forementioned policy.. this was not such a violation). So there.. US Gov't seal of approval.
Arlene said:
Where are you exactly. Are you allowed to tell?

That's great that the US gov't approves of the photo for viewing.
What a unique post this is.
Love, Arlene
Joe Izuzu said:
I think this is all a massive publicity stunt that Arlene has
created to draw attention to her entries! :o)

Thanks for the photos, Arlene. I am in the armed forces stationed
in a Muslim country. They put massive restrictions on what I can
and can't look at. Your photos have been approved by the US Gov't
for me to look at so.. I guess they are not too naked or indecent.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Joe
'Keeping Shooting, Your Bound To Hit Something'
Lens Cap: Danglin and janglin

Sticker: off Accesories: Hood, Wide Angle VCL-MHG07A, Telephoto VCL-HG1758 , Flash, extra batteries, various filters. 7 sticks of chewing gum in the pack.
 
Thanks for filling me in. What you're doing is very interesting to me. And as an American, I appreciate that you're out there doing a tough and dangerous job.

Do they allow female soldiers to walk around in pants? Do the female soldiers have any restrictions on dress? Very curious. ---Arlene
Joe Izuzu said:
I am in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The standing order here forbids:

"Introduction, possession, transfer, sale, creation, or display of
any pornographic or sexually explicit photograph, computer
software, videotape, movie, drawing, book, magazine, or similar
sexually explicit representations. For purposes of this order, the
words "pornographic" and
"sexually explicit" means any medium which displays human
genitalia, uncovered woman's breast or any human sexual act... "

Sorry.. I know that you are lauaghing so hard that you just blew
snot bubbles, but I really can't make this stuff up. I can come
over here and die for these ungrateful people.. but Allah forbid if
i see a little skin in the process.

The internet ****'s and thought police that run things here did
little more than yawn at your photo (not saying anything bad about
your photo, they just are looking for violations of the above
forementioned policy.. this was not such a violation). So there..
US Gov't seal of approval.
Arlene said:
Where are you exactly. Are you allowed to tell?

That's great that the US gov't approves of the photo for viewing.
What a unique post this is.
Love, Arlene
Joe Izuzu said:
I think this is all a massive publicity stunt that Arlene has
created to draw attention to her entries! :o)

Thanks for the photos, Arlene. I am in the armed forces stationed
in a Muslim country. They put massive restrictions on what I can
and can't look at. Your photos have been approved by the US Gov't
for me to look at so.. I guess they are not too naked or indecent.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Joe
'Keeping Shooting, Your Bound To Hit Something'
Lens Cap: Danglin and janglin
Sticker: off Accesories: Hood, Wide Angle VCL-MHG07A, Telephoto
VCL-HG1758 , Flash, extra batteries, various filters. 7 sticks of
chewing gum in the pack.
Click to expand...
 
We live here in a little protected community. The rules have relaxed a little for us in the past 6-9 months. On "base", normal civilian attire is permitted, including shorts and tank tops when off duty. On duty is full military Battle Dress Uniform (BDU's) with equipment (Helmet etc..) reflecting current threat level. Woman soldiers are not permitted to drive off post, and until very recently, were required to where a full length black over garment and ride in the back seat of the vehicle when leaving the post. Currently, woman are permitted off base in civilian attire.. long sleeves and long dress or pants. The use of the ahbayah (I am sure that spelling is wrong) is still encouraged but is no longer required.
Arlene said:
Do they allow female soldiers to walk around in pants? Do the
female soldiers have any restrictions on dress? Very curious.
---Arlene
Joe Izuzu said:
I am in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The standing order here forbids:

"Introduction, possession, transfer, sale, creation, or display of
any pornographic or sexually explicit photograph, computer
software, videotape, movie, drawing, book, magazine, or similar
sexually explicit representations. For purposes of this order, the
words "pornographic" and
"sexually explicit" means any medium which displays human
genitalia, uncovered woman's breast or any human sexual act... "

Sorry.. I know that you are lauaghing so hard that you just blew
snot bubbles, but I really can't make this stuff up. I can come
over here and die for these ungrateful people.. but Allah forbid if
i see a little skin in the process.

The internet ****'s and thought police that run things here did
little more than yawn at your photo (not saying anything bad about
your photo, they just are looking for violations of the above
forementioned policy.. this was not such a violation). So there..
US Gov't seal of approval.
Arlene said:
Where are you exactly. Are you allowed to tell?

That's great that the US gov't approves of the photo for viewing.
What a unique post this is.
Love, Arlene
Joe Izuzu said:
I think this is all a massive publicity stunt that Arlene has
created to draw attention to her entries! :o)

Thanks for the photos, Arlene. I am in the armed forces stationed
in a Muslim country. They put massive restrictions on what I can
and can't look at. Your photos have been approved by the US Gov't
for me to look at so.. I guess they are not too naked or indecent.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Joe
'Keeping Shooting, Your Bound To Hit Something'
Lens Cap: Danglin and janglin
Sticker: off Accesories: Hood, Wide Angle VCL-MHG07A, Telephoto
VCL-HG1758 , Flash, extra batteries, various filters. 7 sticks of
chewing gum in the pack.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Joe
'Keeping Shooting, Your Bound To Hit Something'
Lens Cap: Danglin and janglin

Sticker: off Accesories: Hood, Wide Angle VCL-MHG07A, Telephoto VCL-HG1758 , Flash, extra batteries, various filters. 7 sticks of chewing gum in the pack.
 
Seconded.

Everyone has their own point of view and we should all respect each others POV.

If some religions/ nationalities decree that women should cover up, that's up to them and we shouldn't criticise "these people" and consider them as backward or wrong.

For the record, I think that they are excellent photos but number 3 is glamour and while glamour is a subsection of portrature this picture is provocative and (no.3) seems out of place.

If the next challenge was to be 'glamour' then it would be in with a chance of winning and no-one could complain/comment about the picture being in that category.

rgds
Adrian
Faye said:
1ofUs! said:
I have no opinion about whether or not this pic should have been
allowed in the challenge. That was my daughter's call, and whether
or not you agree with her decision, she made it - end of story.
Kind of ironic putting a 15 year-old in that position.

That being said I've followed this post on and off and have been
amazed at the high number of posters that seem to be focusing the
discussion on the fact that the model is more clothed than say
beach goers, or the women modeling bras in some catalogue. To me,
the question of whether or not the pic is "indecent" has little to
do with nudity. After all, the vast majority of "reasonable and
prudent" people would consider Michaelangelo's nude depictions as
fine art. Likewise that same crowd would consider nudes as
depicted in pornography as nothing close to art. Of course the
extremes on either end of the spectrum will take issue with that
statement. But to make the argument the pic is acceptable simply
because she has more clothes on than some other common examples in
our society makes no sense.

The difference between art and indecency in the depiction of
nudity, as many others have pointed out is a gradation of
tolerances and perceptions of individuals within the context of
their experiences and their norms. To me, the difference is in
the message. If the image seeks to exploit the subject's sexuality
through an erotic pose and composition, then whether or not clothes
can be seen, the photographer had more in mind than an artistic
interpretation of the beautiful human form.

It also seems an odd choice of titles for these photos as "glamour"
shots. I've never thought of glamour and
suggestive/provocative/erotic as synonomous. Too bad we feel the
need to glamourize women through focusing on sexuality.

I also found the references to children or "families" visiting this
site interesting. Not only do my kids view the challenges and the
posts in this forum, but I personally know 2 other families that,
although not members of stf, routinely visit the challenge
galleries. The children love them. These same families DID take
offense at the photo in question. Before you call them names for
being prudish or conservative, you should know that these families
also have encouraged the exploration of fine art with their
children that includes the nude classics. So it wasn't a matter of
the amount of skin showing at all. It was the message attached.

CindyD

--
CindyD or SarahD
If one of us is laughing, and the other one isn't, one of us must
be wrong...
Click to expand...
--
Faye
Click to expand...
--
A
http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4292326685&p=4264764195&idx=10
 
I would say that falls under the catagory of "bikini shots".
Arlene said:
I'm being challenged as putting in a photo that isn't in good taste
and too provocative. I totally disagree. I think it is a tasteful
glamourous photo. Am I wrong. What do you guys think? Please read
some of the comments below the photo. Two of them are rather
negative. I was really surprised and dismayed by the reaction to
this photo. Here's the link:

http://www.pbase.com/image/1848364

Arlene
Click to expand...
--
Find a job you like doing, and you'll never have to work a day in your life.
 
Arlene:

I would like to applaud you for standing firm on your views. I do not consider your thread to be whining. It’s a controversy, this is obvious. Most people would have lost their composure and twisted off by now, you have been very patient and professional in your responses.
I wish only to add/reinforce a couple of points:

a) Our local mall is a “family site” and I see photos like these at the mall. I think that my kids see more “provocative” and “semi-clad” photos on the side of buses!

b) the model’s flirtaceous expression captures her persona – people really do flirt – in real life - honest!

c) I wasn’t’ thinking “whoa baby what’s your number” like some of the unconstrained types – these ones give all us men a bad rap. My first thoughts were excellent lighting, no wrinkles – smooth skin, what a capture of expression…..guess I’m not the norm, just a photographer at heart.
d) I agree, glamour is a type of portraiture.

e) The eligibility of the photos in the challenge is determined by the one who hosts it. The host must ensure that rules within dpreview and pbase are observed. You asked and Sarah approved. So simple.

f) Maybe if North American society wasn’t so preoccupied with nudity issues, we wouldn’t be so uptight about it. It’s become like the forbidden fruit, it’s so taboo that when it’s seen men go ogley and their wives get offended. We would rather show a person machine gunned to death in the movies than a nude person. Ever told your kids not to look in that box in the garage – what is the result – their curiosity drives them – they eventually will look in the box! We have created this – tell them its taboo to look at and they only go looking for it (have you seen college spring break antics these days – crazy – what are we doing??). We could learn a thing or two from our European cousins.

g) I like your photographs for what they are, not what they aren’t or what they should be. Keep up the good work!
Regards
…Wes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top