Surprising nudity at photo.net (not for the sensitive)

timeUnit · May 29, 2006

rfshootist,
What's up with the nasty tone? Please hop down from that horse of yours.

Andy K,
thanks for the links!

haris · May 29, 2006

livemoa said:
Ummm, define attractive and unattractive....

By mathemathic formulae, established by Leonadro da Vinci, and proved lately, beauty (or attractivness if you prefer that term) is ratio 1:1.618.

Right of this formuale was proven in way that there was made "mask" or "template" based of 1:1.618 ratio on transparent paper. Then were taken photographs of people who are commonly considered as beautifull, like Tom Cruise, Naomi Campbell, Cate Moss, Elisabeth Hurley, some unknown models... Photographs were of theire heads, en face, so that eyes, nose, mouth, jaws... was clearly visible, and taken same space on photo paper (all heads were same sized on I think 15x20 cm or A4 photo paper).

All heads perfectly mached 1:1.618 ratio based mask. Only Kate Moss as I remember had some tolerance, but insignificant.

Then it is proven on different live models, that mean actuall people were measured, not theire photographs.

That mask was made by plactic/corrective surgeon. His mother was deformed in one accident when he was 4 or 5 year old child. So, his whole life was dedicated to explain what beauty is. He made that mask. In his researching he found:

1. 1:1.618 ratio fits males and females, no difference.

2. This ratio is not valid only on human head parts, but also all body parts (arms, legs, fingers, etc...)

2. What is considered as beautifull, and 1:1.618 ratio is valid and is independent of cultural, economical, geographic, weather condition in which people live, or any other differnece between people, including race, religion, etc...

Conclusion is: attractive is 1:1.618 ratio between different human body parts.

df cardwell · May 29, 2006

Ed Sukach said:
.....edit....
Do you regard Gustave Courbet as a "classical" artist? ....edit.....

No, he was bitterly opposed to Classical Art. He was a Realist... at least that what HE called himself. He was sort of a pop star of the mid 19th century, a bad boy increasingly devoted to shock value. About as far from "classical" as one could get at the time.

Ed Sukach · May 29, 2006

df cardwell said:
No, he was bitterly opposed to Classical Art. He was a Realist... at least that what HE called himself. He was sort of a pop star of the mid 19th century, a bad boy increasingly devoted to shock value. About as far from "classical" as one could get at the time.

OK... What about Rembrandt? Need I mention Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema? - and the circumstances of his Knighthood?

Peter De Smidt · May 29, 2006

Ed Sukach said:
Do you regard Gustave Courbet as a "classical" artist? - I certainly do. The work I cited most closely resembles some of the work in question at Pnet.

I can give more intense examples of "work that would be banned here - and most probably on Pnet as well" ... one in particular comes to mind ... by Rembrandt van Rijn ... done in 1631. "Rembrandt + 1631". Sounds "classic" to me.

Hi Ed,

No Courbet and Rembrandt are not "classical" artists. "Classical" refers to ancent Greece and Rome. "Neo-classical" refers to art done at a later time but in the same general style.

smieglitz · May 29, 2006

George Papantoniou said:
Well, after careful examination of the pictures I can say the following:

The lady who shows her genitalia while holding a Schiele book is not so bad (I mean the picture, not herself, for I don't know her). It could've been better executed (if the photographer's intention was to create a homage to Schiele's nudes), for instance the dress she wears could be better suited to the Schiele's painting's philosophy. And her look could be closer to the one the ladies in Schiele's paintings have, although this could be really difficult to achieve.

...

Hmmm. I thought Running's image a very obvious and intentional homage to Schiele at a quick glance. And, I thought it rather well done especially in regard to matching the model, pose, and clothing in the image. (What would you have him do to approximate Schiele better? Use a scratchy-line filter in Photoshop? Get an inkjet print wet and smear it? It's a photograph and shouldn't look like another medium IMO.) I think the image fine as it is. He's obviously paying tribute to Schiele without outright copying a Schiele image (AFAIK). Why would anyone want to take an image that mimicked a famous painting or drawing closely? How many photos of "Girl with a Pearl Earring" can one stomach? (Actually I must confess to copying a Philip Pearlstein pose once in a photographic image. Once I printed it I grew to hate it and what I'd done, though it taught me a very good lesson. Ahh. "Confession is good for the soul.")

I do however agree with your assessment of the second photographer. That work appears to be done by someone very unsure about their vision and what they are trying to convey. But, I think we all go through that and so perhaps we are looking at an experiment or experience gone bad, very bad.

Joe

blansky · May 29, 2006

smieglitz said:
I do however agree with your assessment of the second photographer. That work appears to be done by someone very unsure about their vision and what they are trying to convey.

Joe

This begs the question, if someone was "sure of their vision" why would they be bothering to post pictures on sites like photonet.

Michael

Vahid Naziri · May 29, 2006

So, if some one has such images, where he/she should post them? Here, there, or nowhere? I am confused!

Vahid

blansky · May 29, 2006

Vahid Naziri said:
So, if some one has such images, where he/she should post them? Here, there, or nowhere? I am confused!

Vahid

Not to take this off in a completely direction, but I guess it comes down to what you want out of photography.

If you have a style/vision/calling and produce very nice work, I guess you'd have to decide what to do with it. Most people, I guess would be interested in selling them. If that were the case why post them on photonet? Why not set up a marketing plan and find a way to sell them.

If a person just took them for fun/hobby then what is the benefit to post them on photonet? To show off, an ego trip, for critique what?

There are a lot of people that post on photonet and continually post their pictures. What are they getting out of it.

You tell me.

Michael

Vahid Naziri · May 29, 2006

blansky said:
Not to take this off in a completely direction, but I guess it comes down to what you want out of photography.

If you have a style/vision/calling and produce very nice work, I guess you'd have to decide what to do with it. Most people, I guess would be interested in selling them. If that were the case why post them on photonet? Why not set up a marketing plan and find a way to sell them.

If a person just took them for fun/hobby then what is the benefit to post them on photonet? To show off, an ego trip, for critique what?

There are a lot of people that post on photonet and continually post their pictures. What are they getting out of it.

You tell me.

Michael

Thanks Michael.
Well, I guess, your reply says "NO" to the "POST IT THERE?" question. What about; here or nowhere? I once posted an image here, which I was almost crucified for! So, I suppose that was a “NO” to the "POST IT HERE?" question! That leaves us with the "POST IT NOWHERE"! Which might not be a bad idea! This way we all will live happily ever after!

Vahid

Dave Parker · May 29, 2006

I think the question of where to post it would come down to the policies of the particular website in question, I would have to say if you have pictures/images that you want to ensure you can post without being told you can't post them, then securing your own domain name and website would be the best solution, as the legal crew would be the only enity that could say anything and you would not have to worry about being crucified for your idea of what you want to post.

R.

Ed Sukach · May 29, 2006

Peter De Smidt said:
Hi Ed,

No Courbet and Rembrandt are not "classical" artists. "Classical" refers to ancent Greece and Rome. "Neo-classical" refers to art done at a later time but in the same general style.

Ah. So I'm wrong ... "Neo-Classical". I was not trying to teach a class in what was the precise niche for any art. The true classic artists of Greece and Rome - even easier to prove my point. Shall we include Etruscan? - and Crete?

I recently had a chance to view some OLD (ca. 500 BCE) Greek coins. Pornography with a capital P - in anyones' book, today. I mean -- they're going at it on those coins!!

Vahid Naziri · May 29, 2006

Roxi331 said:
I think the question of where to post it would come down to the policies of the particular website in question, I would have to say if you have pictures/images that you want to ensure you can post without being told you can't post them, then securing your own domain name and website would be the best solution, as the legal crew would be the only enity that could say anything and you would not have to worry about being crucified for your idea of what you want to post.

R.

Thanks Roxi331.
Perhaps you have a good solution, which I have done that already. But, doesn’t this negate the whole idea of having a common place for sharing ideas?

Vahid

jd callow · May 29, 2006

Vahid,
Post your images here. The worst that can happen is that Sean or a moderator will ask you to delete them. If some members go ballistic about your images, well that's part of the idea sharing isn't it?

blansky · May 29, 2006

Vahid Naziri said:
Thanks Michael.
Well, I guess, your reply says "NO" to the "POST IT THERE?" question. What about; here or nowhere? I once posted an image here, which I was almost crucified for! So, I suppose that was a NO to the "POST IT HERE?" question! That leaves us with the "POST IT NOWHERE"! Which might not be a bad idea! This way we all will live happily ever after!

Vahid

Vahid, APUG is like a community, where photonet is like a metropolis. So in my opinion, people that post there are mostly ego driven people wanting to show off their stuff for no real purpose.

I've never really seen the advantages of posting pictures here or anywhere that doesn't allow for a critique. And that being said, if it were me, I'd find the work of people I admire and ask them personally for a critique and not post to general galleries.

Before the internet, amateurs and pros too, would get together to shoot, or to discuss photography, but in most cases it was to teach or to learn or just hang out with their "own kind".

Now with the internet everyone needs a blog, everyone needs to express themselves in whatever way to the world, and photonet is one of those avenues.

But in my opinion, I don't see any great advantage in people posting hundreds of images into the great black hole of photonet.

Michael

bob01721 · May 29, 2006

blansky said:
"... If a person just took them for fun/hobby then what is the benefit to post them on photonet? To show off, an ego trip, for critique what?

There are a lot of people that post on photonet and continually post their pictures. What are they getting out of it..."

I often wonder.

I dabble in photography for my own enjoyment -- 35mm and 4x5. Although I consider myself "serious" about it, my photography is essentially for me! It's personal. And I'm secure enough in my work that I no longer care what others think, so I'm not looking for a critique.

Why, then, would I post my pics anywhere unless someone specifically asked to see one? As you asked... to show off? Ego? Good question, Michael. What are they getting out of it?

blansky · May 29, 2006

bob01721 said:
I often wonder.

Why, then, would I post my pics anywhere unless someone specifically asked to see one? As you asked... to show off? Ego? Good question, Michael. What are they getting out of it?

To start with, "ego" is not a bad or negative word. Everyone has an ego. When we are new and learning anything, we want feedback and usually positive feedback, even though that may not be forthcoming. But we learn from that and hopefully grow.

But there reaches a point when posting pictures on sites like that are just trolling for compliments and adoration and it all becomes irrelevant.

So, in my opinion, a person gets far more from a respected peer or mentor than they ever get out posting hundreds of images to sites like that.

Michael

JBrunner · May 29, 2006

I don't post many photos, but when I do, I'm pretty much looking for feedback, not the "you could have used more depth of field" kind, because I'm pretty much to the point where those kind of things are now creative decisions, but more for reactions, like "this does it for me, I like..." or "I don't get it, why is...."

I do my work for myself, but also for people who may appreciate it, and want to own it. Reactions help me examine my work, and sometimes a comment from somebody who is not vested in the work, as I am, helps me understand and clarify my own vision.

As to the photos in question, there is nothing remarkable about them in any way, and I feel that they are receiving unwarranted attention, based on the content. A sure fire way to encourage more mediocre work to find its way to market and a monitor near you.

bob01721 · May 29, 2006

blansky said:
"...'ego' is not a bad or negative word. Everyone has an ego..."

Sure. I don't associate a negative connotation with the word.

"... in my opinion, a person gets far more from a respected peer or mentor than they ever get out posting hundreds of images to sites like that..."

Or any site! Granted, sites like APUG or LFPhotography.info are smaller with a higher proportion of working/retired pros. So the feeback would be of higher value. But I think the same dynamic holds.

Fortunately for me, I have two close friends who are retired pros -- one a studio guy, the other a "fine arts" guy. They know who I am, what I'm all about, what I'm trying to achieve, how much I'm willing to commit... Brutal as they can be, I value their feedback. But some unknowns in cyberspace? Nah! What do I care what they think of my stuff!

bob01721 · May 29, 2006

JBrunner said:
"... As to the photos in question, there is nothing remarkable about them in any way, and I feel that they are receiving unwarranted attention, based on the content..."

The originator of this thread found them remarkable because of their content... and because of where they were. That's why he started the thread.

I have to respect the values of people who choose not to be confronted in "public" with nudity, obscene language, etc. If that's where their moral values are... then I don't want to be the one to "force them into temptation" or "expose them to evil" or whatever. If they want to sit around and "think pure thoughts" all day, I'm okay with that.

At the same time, I respect the values of those who don't feel so constrained. (I place myself in this group.)

But I'd hope that both groups respect each others' values and try to negotiate some solution to this dilemma. Saying, "That's evil," or "You're just a prude!" is only going to alienate us from each other.

timeUnit · May 29, 2006

bob01721 said:
The originator of this thread found them remarkable because of their content... and because of where they were. That's why he started the thread.

That was not my original intention, but I might not have been clear enough in my post. I'm not in any way surprised by their content, nor do I find them "remarkable". I was surprised to see them:

1. displayed openly on "standard" pages.
2. allowed space on such a large site, that I thought was very much controlled by people who see photographs of nudes as "filth".

I have now been informed of several threads answering or discussion the issues I was interested in.

bob01721 · May 30, 2006

timeUnit said:
"... I was surprised to see them:

1. displayed openly on 'standard' pages.
2. allowed space on such a large site, that I thought was very much controlled by people who see photographs of nudes as 'filth'..."

Isn't that what I said? That you were "surprised to see them" -- surprised enough to make a "remark" in the form of a thread -- ergo... you found them "remarkable." Et cetera.

Never meant to imply whether you were were offended or amused... only that you remarked on pics of nudity in an APUG forum.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Vahid Naziri · May 30, 2006

mrcallow said:
Vahid,
Post your images here. The worst that can happen is that Sean or a moderator will ask you to delete them. If some members go ballistic about your images, well that's part of the idea sharing isn't it?

Thanks mrcallow.
I won't turn my back to APUG, unless I need my behind kicked.

Surprising nudity at photo.net (not for the sensitive)

timeUnit

haris

df cardwell

Ed Sukach

Peter De Smidt

smieglitz

blansky

Vahid Naziri

blansky

Vahid Naziri

Dave Parker

Ed Sukach

Vahid Naziri

jd callow

Moderator

blansky

bob01721

blansky

JBrunner

Moderator

bob01721

bob01721

timeUnit

bob01721

Vahid Naziri

Surprising nudity at photo.net (not for the sensitive)

haris

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency