Well, Scott... I get what you are saying here. I had a very good friend who was Deaf, and that is definitely a "closed society" type of culture. Our friendship ended because her Deaf friends did not want her to associate with a "hearing" person.No matter how much we had in common... no matter that we were like sisters born to different families.... nope... we were "different."
I can understand wanting to socialize with people who are "like you" (no matter what that means) but I also tend to think that if you limit yourself to just people who are "like you" you miss a great many people who might be even more "like you" than sexual orientation or Deafness or any of the other things that separate us can offer. Should you set up a get together for people who are "like you"... sure! There should be an opportunity for us ladies to get together, or LF shooters, or people with facial hair, or what-ever. But don't restrict yourself to that box, Scott! There are plenty of us out here who are pretty fun people... regardless of how we define ourselves.
... It just gets a bit tiresome at times having to listen to the sexist jokes in the joke forum, the ogling of the breasts-on-parade in the Gallery, among other things. It would be nice to meet a group of folks who understand where I'm coming from, and to talk to them IN ADDITION. See my earlier explanation of "Safe Space" in this thread.
I am, however, having a rough time "handling" the characterization of nudes in the galleries as, " ... the ogling of breasts on parade in the Gallery."
If 'number of views' is any indication (which it almost certainly is), then nudes command far more attention than well made photographs of rocks, trees and water. Whether or not that constitutes 'oogling' I leave to others to decide, but for me, oogling is certainly a part of it.
I have no problem with "ogling". Ogling is good - see "fascination".
It is the "parade of breasts" bit - and the inferred sense of "lack of aesthetics" that frosts my cookie.
...I specifically meant the comments that are the kind of stuff you expect to hear in the locker room or a smoke-filled lounge at the "gentlemans' club"....The comments that many people leave - the sort of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, isn't SHE a hot one!"...
... The comments that many people leave - the sort of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, isn't SHE a hot one!" kind of comments, are a real distraction from appreciation of a work of art. It also detracts from it as a work of art (even if it is) and turns it into a work of titillation, which is uninteresting to observe. I don't want to share what twists someone else's knickers, and I don't want verbal confirmation that it has twisted the same knickers of a dozen other people. Especially when it's men commenting on women and objectifying them. Observe the ratio of men commenting on female nudes vs women commenting, and observe the comments. Most of the comments on the female nudes are not about the image, but about how pretty the model is. Pretty models are nice, but unless you're shooting softcore, how pretty the model is should be irrelevant to the quality of the image.
Two things here Scott...
Many people leave such comments? Maybe I need to read more comments. I confess that I don't read comments for images unless I'm one of the commentors. So I'm sincerely asking...is this really a pervasive thing here. If it is, I find that surprising and discouraging.
Second...if it's so...I can understand how that would tend to inform an argument for a "safe zone" for women but I'm not sure that i understand how it oppresses gay men. To the extent that any viewer may choose to perceive any given nude as porn or cheesecake, it's understood that men are greater "consumers" of erotica than are women. But I'm not led to believe that straight men are more directed in thjis way than are gay men. So I would have assumed that any given gay man would be as likely to have that kind of reaction to a male nude as would any given straight man to a female nude. Am I way off base?
I aplogize for the continued diversion but I find this really interesting and can't resist the inquiry.
If 'number of views' is any indication (which it almost certainly is), then nudes command far more attention than well made photographs of rocks, trees and water. Whether or not that constitutes 'oogling' I leave to others to decide, but for me, oogling is certainly a part of it.
Two things here Scott...
Many people leave such comments? Maybe I need to read more comments. I confess that I don't read comments for images unless I'm one of the commentors. So I'm sincerely asking...is this really a pervasive thing here.
Thats your personal viewpoint which I respect (I adore your fingernails photo BTW), and its also a consideration for some of my photos. But I suspect that most of the nudes posted on APUG are paid models who are fully aware that the photographer will post images online. And actually APUG is one of the less public forums (fora? OMG, another dead horse!), which in my opinion, is one of the reasons theres much less grandstanding, mate rating, and general competitive nonsense than elsewhere.I've done a lot of nude and semi-nude photography, but I would be uncomfortable posting most of it here. I feel it would be breaking the trust I developed with the women (and their partners/families) to post those images on such a public forum.
I try very hard to portray beauty. Some of my models are stunningly attractive, but some would never be described as beautiful in the real world or dont see themselves that way. And as anyone whos taken a photo of a beautiful person knows, its incredibly easy to take a bad photo of a beautiful person. So leaving a comment that a model is beautiful can be a very positive thing to say....Most of the comments on the female nudes are not about the image, but about how pretty the model is. Pretty models are nice, but unless you're shooting softcore, how pretty the model is should be irrelevant to the quality of the image.
With respect, this is neither surprising nor relevant. If the only measure of photographic merit was how many times people have looked at the picture (or how many comments were left), then it would be a very sad world indeed. Thankfully the folks here are, on the whole, more sensible than that.Actually, I compiled some statistics on this a while back
Subject matter Average number of views
____________________________________
Portrait 111
Urban/Industrial 94
Landscape 100
Cars 94
Abstracts 99
Nudes 238
As with all genres some people are good at it and some aren’t, but some who aren’t good at it today may be very good tomorrow. But how are these people going to learn and develop their own artistic vision if they’re slammed when they’re learning? Do people who post poor or unoriginal pictures of trees and barns get slammed? No, of course they don’t. So lighten up folks, and maybe even help people learn constructively rather than slamming them.
Actually, I compiled some statistics on this a while back, just out of curiosity, and the tabulations are still sitting here by my elbow, since I don't clean off my desk very often. I looked at the most recent 1,000 images, starting backward from whatever date it was that I did the tabulation (a couple of months ago) and found the following:
Subject matter Average number of views
____________________________________
Portrait 111
Urban/Industrial 94
Landscape 100
Cars 94
Abstracts 99
Nudes 238
Ed- I'm not trying to pick a fight with you here.
And I'm also not the only one who has noticed a trend in comments regarding images
Ask Suzanne, or Jeanette, or heck, even Sanders McNew.
I suspect, Ed, that any example I could point to, or even group of examples, you and I would disagree on.
I
With respect, this is neither surprising nor relevant. If the only measure of photographic merit was how many times people have looked at the picture (or how many comments were left), then it would be a very sad world indeed. Thankfully the folks here are, on the whole, more sensible than that.
Ed- I'll be happy to provide you with some examples if you can wait a few days so I can hunt down the nudes in the galleries and pull quotes from comments. There are, after all, over 15,000 images in the galleries...
Ok- here's an example-
from (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
"umm, bokeh wasn't the first thing I noticed. David you need to get out more LOL."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?