Commenting on nudes: When is it "ogling" and what are its consequences?

[bill schwab]

Aggie (remember
Aggie?) once laid into one of my subjects with a harangue (untrue)
that she had breast implants, and she, Aggie, knew this for a fact
because she, Aggie, had been shopping for a pair and knew them
when she saw them. Too much.

Man... This is one whacked-out thread.

 

[copake_ham]

Man... This is one whacked-out thread.

Yeah, but you have to admit that it got everyone's juices flowing during what is usually the snooze, end of Summer, week just before Labor Day.

Now, here in the US and Canada, it's a three-day, end of Summer, holiday weekend. One last chance us guys to head to the beach and ogle some scantily-clad hotties!

Oh, and guys, "don't forget the Kodak".

 

[dmr]

Now, here in the US and Canada, it's a three-day, end of Summer, holiday weekend. One last chance us guys to head to the beach and ogle some scantily-clad hotties!

LOL! This very much reminds me of days gone by when my brother, one of those who got me interested in photography, had a Pentax HV (a pre-Spotmatic one with a non-TTL meter mounted above the prism) and this huge honking cheap 300 or 400mm lens from the Spiratone shop on 31st in the city. He called this his "beach lens" and he and a couple of his buds would go to the beach, set up a "blind" behind a huge beach umbrella, take along a thermos jug of "kool-aid" (yeah, right, lol) and they would enjoy the scenery and the refreshments.

This was back in the late 1960s, a more innocent time, and swimwear of those days was not nearly as revealing as it is now. We just kinda laughed this off as a "boys will be boys" thing. They were, of course, too shy to actually approach and get to know any of the girls they were admiring.

Anyway, this lens was the most clumsy thing I've ever seen. To set the exposure you had to take a more or less manual meter reading, set a ring on the lens to your desired F-stop, focus on your subject, then turn a second ring to set the real f-stop, then shoot.

Oh, and guys, "don't forget the Kodak".

The funny thing is, sad thing, actually, if somebody would do this today, they would probably be arrested or at least confronted.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Anyway, this lens was the most clumsy thing I've ever seen. To set the exposure you had to take a more or less manual meter reading, set a ring on the lens to your desired F-stop, focus on your subject, then turn a second ring to set the real f-stop, then shoot.

Yes, this was called a "preset" lens, because you preset the f:stop, but had another ring to open the iris quickly to focus. It made it easy to design long teles with interchangeable heads, without having to set up the auto aperture linkages. Komura made them for Bronica (I have a 300-400-500 set), Nikon, and probably other mounts. I wouldn't be too surprised if they were OEM'ed by Komura for Spiratone.

 

[DrPablo]

You did sound VERY serious - and authorative when you cited a report from the Center for Disease Control.

I'm an infectious disease specialist, so I often do cite things from the CDC. I guess I should have cited something I'm less familiar with.

We have a few Fishermen here and in Gloucester, MA (origin of "The Perfect Storm). They have largely abandoned their intuition (which was, all in all, surprisingly accurate) for satellite and NOA.

I've just moved after 3 years in Boston, and I went shooting on Cape Ann maybe once a month. I would imagine that intuition doesn't get you far there.

 

[jovo]

This was back in the late 1960s, a more innocent time, and swimwear of those days was not nearly as revealing as it is now. We just kinda laughed this off as a "boys will be boys" thing.

Not many years prior the Sears (and Roebuck) catalog, that had its women's underwear modeled by women rather than just being illustrated, was the de facto erotica that everyone had a household copy of, and every adolescent boy enjoyed some private moments with. Geez...have things ever changed!

 

[MattKing]

Aggie (remember
Aggie?) once laid into one of my subjects with a harangue (untrue)
that she had breast implants, and she, Aggie, knew this for a fact
because she, Aggie, had been shopping for a pair and knew them
when she saw them. Too much.

Sanders

I don't know what this might signify, but as I read through the posts on this thread, the first thing I thought about was the exchange between Sanders and Aggie that Sanders refers to here. At the time I thought it was one of the strangest threads/series of comments I had ever observed.

Oddly enough, I retain a slightly different recollection of it though. I thought it was Aggie at her absolutely most sarcastic, because she didn't like Sanders' photograph and choice of subject.

:confused:

Matt

 

[copake_ham]

LOL! This very much reminds me of days gone by when my brother, one of those who got me interested in photography, had a Pentax HV (a pre-Spotmatic one with a non-TTL meter mounted above the prism) and this huge honking cheap 300 or 400mm lens from the Spiratone shop on 31st in the city. He called this his "beach lens" and he and a couple of his buds would go to the beach, set up a "blind" behind a huge beach umbrella, take along a thermos jug of "kool-aid" (yeah, right, lol) and they would enjoy the scenery and the refreshments.

This was back in the late 1960s, a more innocent time, and swimwear of those days was not nearly as revealing as it is now. We just kinda laughed this off as a "boys will be boys" thing. They were, of course, too shy to actually approach and get to know any of the girls they were admiring.

Anyway, this lens was the most clumsy thing I've ever seen. To set the exposure you had to take a more or less manual meter reading, set a ring on the lens to your desired F-stop, focus on your subject, then turn a second ring to set the real f-stop, then shoot.



The funny thing is, sad thing, actually, if somebody would do this today, they would probably be arrested or at least confronted.

dmr,

Great memories - sounds a bit like my days at West End 2 at Jones Beach on Long Island, NY!

You know, I don't think it's really all that different nowadays for kids who are the age we were then (I'm 56 y.o. and guess we're near contemporaries). I think they still have all the fun we had - and really don't care what we now think about "propriety".

It's kind of what I meant in the earlier post about this site being a bit of a photographers senior citizen center. Imagine, we've got here a bunch of "born to be wild" baby boomers now turning into a bunch of scolding "old farts". Well, anyway, that's what this thread reads like!

If there's one thing I promised myself years ago, it was that when I became an old fart, I would remember not to act like an old fart!

This whole thread has been dominated by a bunch of scolding old farts who don't remember that "wink wink, nudge nudge" is a part of life!

 

[dmr]

Yes, this was called a "preset" lens, because you preset the f:stop, but had another ring to open the iris quickly to focus. It made it easy to design long teles with interchangeable heads, without having to set up the auto aperture linkages.

I've never seen another lens like this. I just assumed it was this way because it was much cheaper than putting in the linkage stuff.

Curiosity got me, so I searched on E-Pray:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Camera-Lens-Spi...oryZ4702QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

This has to be the one! You can clearly see the two rings in the photo.

Komura made them for Bronica (I have a 300-400-500 set), Nikon, and probably other mounts. I wouldn't be too surprised if they were OEM'ed by Komura for Spiratone.

This particular lens was incredibly cheap, even in 1969 dollars! IIRC he paid $29.95-ish for it. It was huge and impressive looking, I will admit. I always thought of Bronica as a cheaper Hasselblad, but still a bit spendy. I don't know if these would be what a self-respecting Bronica user would want.

 

[Dinesh]

Bill- the moderators deleted said death threat.

Scott, IIRC it wasn't an actual "death threat", but a comment from one members interpretation of what the bible states is the result of homosexuality. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Further, I find it odd that people are stating that everyone has a right to post whatever pictures they want to (regardless of whether they are trying to provoke the membership), but must show some sort of restraint when it comes to commenting in those same galleries.

 

[copake_ham]

....

Further, I find it odd that people are stating that everyone has a right to post whatever pictures they want to (regardless of whether they are trying to provoke the membership), but must show some sort of restraint when it comes to commenting in those same galleries.

Well put.

I too find it somewhat bizarre that this "derived thread" was started as a scold about the Gallery commentary of others from one who "pushed the envelope" on "acceptable" uploads to the Gallery.

Seems to me that if you want acceptance; you are obliged to grant it to others.

 

[dmr]

Great memories - sounds a bit like my days at West End 2 at Jones Beach on Long Island, NY!

Our gang used to do Rockaway ("Rock-rock Rockaway Beach") and the place my brother did his thing was not too far from the old Playland amusement park. (RIP Atom Smasher!)

You really needed a car to do Jones. Rockaway was a fairly easy train ride and we thought of it as a bit more upscale than Coney.

People are getting very nostalgic for Coney now that they are gonna make it over, but there were a lot of fun times at Playland and Palisades and such. (Anybody remember Freedomland?)

It's kind of what I meant in the earlier post about this site being a bit of a photographers senior citizen center. Imagine, we've got here a bunch of "born to be wild" baby boomers now turning into a bunch of scolding "old farts". Well, anyway, that's what this thread reads like!

Traditional photography seems to be the realm of those of us who grew up with it.

The latest generation of 20-boppers never knew film. They think of a camera that is not part of a cell phone as being soooooo yesterday.

If there's one thing I promised myself years ago, it was that when I became an old fart, I would remember not to act like an old fart!

Yeah, I don't like to admit it, but I passed the big one a few years back.

For this age I do think I'm fairly well preserved, healthy so far (knocking on wood), and until the past few years I thought I was still sufficiently "with it", but I really feel the generation gap with the current wave of 20-somethings. I think I realized I was getting old when I looked at a Top-40 list and didn't recognize a single tune.

This whole thread has been dominated by a bunch of scolding old farts who don't remember that "wink wink, nudge nudge" is a part of life!

It's my impression that on this system, and on the other traditional-method photo boards, we have a crowd mostly from pre-boomer to gen-X. Those older tend to not use the net and those younger don't give a {s-bomb} about traditional photography.

We do, however, cross quite a few value boundaries. I daresay we have a good mix of all political views, all lifestyles, and all belief systems. (Is "good" the correct term here?) Just look at the thread on the GLBT thing if you want some insight here.

Oh well, so it goes ... (and so do I)

 

[copake_ham]

Our gang used to do Rockaway ("Rock-rock Rockaway Beach") and the place my brother did his thing was not too far from the old Playland amusement park. (RIP Atom Smasher!)

You really needed a car to do Jones. Rockaway was a fairly easy train ride and we thought of it as a bit more upscale than Coney.

People are getting very nostalgic for Coney now that they are gonna make it over, but there were a lot of fun times at Playland and Palisades and such. (Anybody remember Freedomland?)



...

We do, however, cross quite a few value boundaries. I daresay we have a good mix of all political views, all lifestyles, and all belief systems. (Is "good" the correct term here?) Just look at the thread on the GLBT thing if you want some insight here.

Oh well, so it goes ... (and so do I)

Yeah!

Remember: "Come on Mom, come on Dad, take my hand and let's go to Freedomland!" ?

Never got there before they turned it into Co-op City!

I remember Palisades Park - that was ALL the way over in Joisey.

Still waiting for them to "fix up" Coney. Also still waiting for the Second Avenue Subway!

About the only one left that I remember from school day trips via a special boat ride that's still around is Rye Playland.

Oh, as to the GLBT thread. Yes, that's where this one "spun" off from - I posted a few supportive comments there - hope they all have a good time.

Oh, know what you mean about just recently feeling the "gen gap". It's becoming a big workplace thing too.

My aim is to try and not become an old fart even as I become old - but to also recognize that no youngin' is "thrilled" when an old fart tries to act young! :confused:

 

[BWGirl]

OK, I'll accept that you saw these comments. And I agree they would be excessive and inappropriate for a well mannered community. But your last statement, "It's not your fault for not knowing that. You'd have had to have been here.", either means that the comments were made more than two and half years ago, or was just plain rude.

...

Ian, I was not being rude. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I did not check to see if you were here, but I figured that if you were doubting my word then it must be that you were not here at the time or not aware of the whole incident... it was the only reason I could think of that someone would suggest that I didn't really read what I read.

 

[Flotsam]

Yeah!

Remember: "Come on Mom, come on Dad, take my hand and let's go to Freedomland!" ?

Sounds like we stomped the same grounds back in the day,George.

I made it to Freedomland a couple of times (really young). It was laid out like a map of the USA with ride-through rides like the Chicago Fire and the San Francisco Earthquake. It was impressive to a kid but probably unmercifully cheesy to the poor parents.
Palisades... a couple of times but it was just an amusement park. I prefered the Joisey boardwalks, "down the shore".
When I was Ten, my Brother and I and the neighbor girls washed cars and did odd jobs for a month in order to pay our way for a visit to the '64 World's Fair. Now that was cool.

Back on topic. Sometimes I find myself ogling women and sometimes admiring well photographed nudes. I've never considered it a conflict.

 

[haris]

I'd like to comment as a female to this line. I have been uncomfortable with the trend in the nudes seen here to be 90% young, thin to anorexic, sexualized objects shot by men. I have seen nudes I liked, and I posted a few of my own just to break up a string of nudes that was going on at the time with scrawny young women. I'm not a prude, am comfortable on clothing optional beaches, or hot tubbing sans suits with friends. 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. There are many of those images on display in my office, with their consent, and that feels fine. I guess it is the possibility of "nudge nudge wink wink" that keeps me from posting any of those images here. Sly

This post made me to write next:

Comment like "nudge, nude, wink, wing" is expected to see. This is not justification for those comments, but that is something everyone who post or wach nude images should be ready to see even before post image or go to gallery to see image. Simply, that is life, and however you could be angry about it, learn to live with it. Human nature, we can hate it, but that is that.

Next, in my town's bookstores, those small number of photo books, and even smaller number of nude photography books, and also sufring internet, both of those things leave to me next impression: Female photographers are more explicit, more raw, more erotic and more pornographic tham male photographers when both photographing female models. Like male photographers are afraid to be seen as "old, impotent, exploitating perverts, etc..." and they try to "hide" "sensitive" parts, using posing, lights, and try to avoid "gynecological" view or "political incorrect" posing upon theire models. On the other side, female photographers don't have that kind of limitations and are more explicit than male photographers, like female photographers don't think they would be seen as they "exploiting females" when photographing them, and establish poses and make photographs which not many male photographers will be "brave enough" to make.

Of course I can be wrong, this is just impressions I got over time.

Regards.

 

[dmr]

Still waiting for them to "fix up" Coney.

Well, from what I hear, Astroland has been sold and the new developers plan to wipe out almost all of it to build a more contemporary "entertainment complex" or something like that.

They say that the Cyclone will remain. I think the Wonder Wheel is still independent. so that's probably safe as well.

For a bit of nostalgia, try this one:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=16466

I was still in high school back then, and this shows all three of the big coasters. The Tornado was still operating then and the Thunderbolt is clearly visible. The Cyclone (and a wee glimpse of the Wonder Wheel) is on the very left side.

Also still waiting for the Second Avenue Subway!

Uh, supposedly they have once again broken ground for that project. Time will tell.

We now return you to the regularly scheduled thread ...

 

[Ranger Bob]

32 pages...of what? This is worse than the guff I recieved and heard in art school, and one of the reasons I didn't finish.

 

[DrPablo]

32 pages...of what? This is worse than the guff I recieved and heard in art school, and one of the reasons I didn't finish.

Well, you've certainly elevated the discussion. Thanks!

 

[PhotoHistorian]

32 pages...of what? This is worse than the guff I recieved and heard in art school, and one of the reasons I didn't finish.

Ranger Bob,
Let's hope someone nails the lid on this thread pretty soon and puts everyone out of their misery. Then all can move on to photographic issues that have some importance.

Walker

 

[Ranger Bob]

I should hope so...

 

[Dave Wooten]

Bob are you still in DV?

 

[Ranger Bob]

...physically yes, mentally, no...

 

[Ed Sukach]

OK Dave, here ya go ...

Re: Venn diagram.

I LOVED this!! Complex. convoluted - and right on the money!! Even through the humor of it all, there is an accuracy here that is very nearly at the "genius" level.

One suggestion - (strength level of ~ 1 on a scale of 1 - 10): Add an icon of a topless female soccer player slashing a Samurai sword into the "Pig" circle... :rolleyes:

 

[2F/2F]

Here is how I feel about it: If you do not want comments from the Peanut Gallery, then do not post pictures in the Peanut Gallery.

If you don't want people to react to your photos in their own way – if you want to limit reactions to only certain things – then do not show your work. You cannot control what people think or say, so why even bother getting upset about these things when you show your work? Just call them losers if you must, say they do not "get it," and move on doing what you want to do. If you are going to display visual work for others to look at, then you need a certain amount of "FUGGEM" in you.

Now, I am not saying that I do not agree with you about the disgusting ogling and sexism, but you have to realize that that is how people are, and you do not have any control over that, except by raising your own child not to be that way.