PDA

View Full Version : Should nudes be allowed in Portrait threads?



Ken Lee
13-Jun-2013, 06:42
Should we allow nudes in the Portraits thread ?

Leigh
13-Jun-2013, 06:48
I don't think the costuming or lack thereof changes the subject of the image.

If it's a portrait, it's a portrait.

- Leigh

Tobias Key
13-Jun-2013, 06:50
I don't know if we should use Model Mayhem as a bastion of good sense, but in their forums you are not allowed to post nude images directly into any thread but you are allowed to provide a link with a 18+ warning. I think that would make sense for threads that are not explicitly NSFW.

It is also worth bearing in mind that some websites can be blocked by educational or government institutions if they feature nudity. That could mean that all the accumulated knowledge on this forum could be hidden from student photographers, which would be a very bad thing IMO.

Corran
13-Jun-2013, 07:09
Is there a PHP script that could hide images unless you specifically clicked on something, if they are marked as "NSFW"?

Corran
13-Jun-2013, 07:15
And to specifically respond to the immediate question:

I believe all nude images should stay in the Nude thread (or the Small Format Nude thread that was made). There are a myriad number of reasons that one would be looking at this site and not want to be surprised at a nude- at a public library, at the airport, on your phone at any time, at home with your family, at your office (on break, of course), at school, etc.

I've mentioned it several times but was derided for it. But let's use common sense. The blanket response was "you shouldn't be browsing the forum at work!" but that is not the only public place one looks at the computer! And this forum is not a "museum." When you are viewing images in a museum, everyone there understands where they are and there is no expectation of nudity being censored. We are on the internet, and I'm sure most of you know the Broadway tune describing what that means. Let's not make users have to answer embarrassing questions. Yes, most of the nudes are innocuous, but frankly some of them, especially in the Alt. Process thread, are not.

Pete Watkins
13-Jun-2013, 07:35
Corran,
I hadn't even read most of the other threads, I just answered the question. I don't attack people for their beliefs, I was being flippant. It's still no problem to me. Has anybody bothered to moan about nudes in the Alternitave Processes thread? Can't see a problem there either!
Pete.

vinny
13-Jun-2013, 07:38
as long as they're not of frank petrino.

Corran
13-Jun-2013, 07:40
Fair enough.

Personally I stopped opening the Alt. Process thread in public because I knew what it likely had in it. I love the portrait threads so I'd hate to do the same with that. There'd be the same discussion if the landscape thread suddenly had a nude (within a landscape...).

Plus, come on, all nudes are portraits, but not all portraits are nudes, so shouldn't we just categorize these photos in the most relevant thread?

Peter Lewin
13-Jun-2013, 07:51
And to specifically respond to the immediate question:

I believe all nude images should stay in the Nude thread (or the Small Format Nude thread that was made). There are a myriad number of reasons that one would be looking at this site and not want to be surprised at a nude- at a public library, at the airport, on your phone at any time, at home with your family, at your office (on break, of course), at school, etc.

I've mentioned it several times but was derided for it. But let's use common sense. The blanket response was "you shouldn't be browsing the forum at work!" but that is not the only public place one looks at the computer! And this forum is not a "museum." When you are viewing images in a museum, everyone there understands where they are and there is no expectation of nudity being censored. We are on the internet, and I'm sure most of you know the Broadway tune describing what that means. Let's not make users have to answer embarrassing questions. Yes, most of the nudes are innocuous, but frankly some of them, especially in the Alt. Process thread, are not.
I think Corran summarized it very well. While I personally have no problem with nudes being posted in various threads, I respect the desire of some to be fore-warned about what will appear on their screen. Just as I support accurate food labeling so that the consumer can choose whether or not to purchase an item, I believe in accurate "thread labeling" so that a viewer can choose to visit the thread or not. By restricting the posting of nudes to the "Nudes" thread (or its counterpart in the small formats area) we are not censoring anyone, since they can still post, we are merely restricting the posts to a well-labeled area which anyone can choose to visit or avoid.

Merg Ross
13-Jun-2013, 08:18
How about simply starting a Nude Portrait thread?

Kirk Gittings
13-Jun-2013, 08:32
How about simply starting a Nude Portrait thread?

I could personally care less, but I also respect other's beliefs and problems so I voted no. But I think Merg has the answer.

cowanw
13-Jun-2013, 08:34
Part of the difficulty here is that Nudes are an integral part of the large format legacy and oeuvre. It would not be a surprise to see a DOF question illustrated by a nude or indeed any thread having a wee bit on display. It is not practical to segregate nudes although this reminds one of the old separate but equal concept. You can have your own thread (or bus seats, water fountains) and we will all not be forced to look. Sadly, it is still OK to segregate women. I do get very hot under the collar about this, partly my job and partly just me.
The other part is the Philosophy that the female nude needs explaining. I am less thrilled with wet plate images or portraits with out of focus ears; but there is no case for me to demand a separate thread so I am not forced to look at them or explain to the airport hangers on or the 11 year old or my co workers why the ears look so funny.
But it is the case for some repressed bits of our culltures, That the female nude is inherently lewd,questionable, requiring justification. That we should be protected from it specially as it may corrupt. Deep down this is a leftover of misogyny, that there is something bad about this.

Almost all of the objections to the nude so far are not personal, but that there are worries about how other non users of the LFPF will persieve evil.
Some countries are way more hung up about sexuality than others. This sort of self censorship for fear of recrimination is to be viewed with sadness.
The only honest option to my mind is to identify the entire site as not safe for work.
I just scrolled through the front page "portrait lens " article ACH! a nude

Corran
13-Jun-2013, 08:42
airport hangers on or the 11 year old or my co workers why the ears look so funny

Come on, classic straw man, this is irrelevant.

Doug Howk
13-Jun-2013, 08:51
When you can't show an Ed Weston image in a large format forum because someone may take offense, then this site becomes more of a gear site than a photography discussion site. And there are too many gear sites already.

Kirk Gittings
13-Jun-2013, 08:53
True also. This is not an easy question.

Corran
13-Jun-2013, 08:54
can't

No one said (or wants I think) to ban nudes altogether.
Just keep them in a well-marked area.

Leigh
13-Jun-2013, 08:55
This is not an easy question.
It's a very easy question.

Post a note that the thread/sub-forum may contain nude images.
People who don't wish to view same can simply avoid it.

If we ban everything that might offend anybody, we'll be left posting breakfast menus (and being criticized for doing so).

- Leigh

Kirk Gittings
13-Jun-2013, 08:59
a sheet of HP4+ over easy with a side of developer and fixer.........

cowanw
13-Jun-2013, 09:05
Come on, classic straw man, this is irrelevant.

"here are a myriad number of reasons that one would be looking at this site and not want to be surprised at a nude- at a public library, at the airport, on your phone at any time, at home with your family, at your office (on break, of course), at school, etc."
The 11 year old quote has dissappeared
A straw man is usually brought up and taken down by the same poster.
If previous posts are being responded to which have referenced the issue, then i don't accept you proposition
Indeed the straw man post is the straw man post.

Corran
13-Jun-2013, 09:08
Bill, you are misidentifying what I'm calling a straw man.

NO ONE cares if you are looking at a portrait with OOF ears. This site will not be blocked from school/work computers because of OOF ears. That point is irrelevant (and I highly doubt ANYONE would actually ask about OOF ears).

NUDITY is what will get things blocked. I've already been on various public WiFi access points, like at restaurants, that had this site marked as pornographic.

Leigh
13-Jun-2013, 09:13
NUDITY is what will get things blocked. I've already been on various public WiFi access points, like at restaurants, that had this site marked as pornographic.
Nudity is a very legitimate topic for any photographic site that covers general subject matter.

It is present here in various threads and sub-fora. I very much doubt that will change.

Therefore, the answer to the question in this thread is not relevant to that categorization.

Some people don't understand the difference between art and pornography.
Others claim that there is no difference in the first place.
They're certainly welcome to avoid this site (not speaking for the management :D).

- Leigh

Scott Walker
13-Jun-2013, 09:16
I'm sure you could find many people that would have no problem surfing through the nudes at work or where ever, unless they came upon an image of a male nude. Imagine the horror, all your co-workers would think you were gay.


If you are offended by nudes or if you are too worried about what others may think about you if you get caught viewing nudes, start your own portrait thread that specifically states that no nudity is acceptable.

Corran
13-Jun-2013, 09:19
That's true enough Leigh, but I assume (maybe wrongly) that the block comes about when the nude images start popping up in the internet caches of accessed pages. If they are avoided, by being in designated threads, that risk is alleviated.

I don't open the Nude thread in public access areas or at school/work, regardless of whether people are around or not. I don't want those images being accessed at all.

cowanw
13-Jun-2013, 09:25
Yes I misunderstood, Corran.
The fact remains that you are worrying about how others react to the site, as I referred to in the last paragraph of that post; and your concern, about the site being blocked, will only be addressed if there is no nudity any where on the entire site.
Don't think I can support that.
My Hospital has just recently blocked LFPF for nudity. I had to get the IT person to unblock it for me.

Marc B.
13-Jun-2013, 09:39
As we travel down the 'politically correct' or 'socially acceptable' highway, I have to ask what brought this question/poll to light?
Were there complaints...ie; complaints from the same gender, or opposite gender, of certain offending images?
Maybe, some complaints towards certain images, possibly from the parenting or employer side of life?
Are the Mod's being overwhelmed with too many images crossing the boundary-line between nude, or pornographic?
Just wondering!

Marc

Vaughn
13-Jun-2013, 09:44
I could personally care less, but I also respect other's beliefs and problems so I voted no...

Same here...but I think nudes portraits can easily stay with the rest of the nudes. Of course this then leads to the discussion of what is a nude. Nipples? Nasty bits? Pubes?

Corran
13-Jun-2013, 09:45
To quote myself, Bill:


...I assume (maybe wrongly) that the block comes about when the nude images start popping up in the internet caches of accessed pages. If they are avoided, by being in designated threads, that risk is alleviated.

As I work at a gov't institution I doubt I could just ask our IT nicely to unblock it if it came to that. But again, why can't we just have them in the right thread? I don't understand the problem with that.

I'm not worried about what others think per se (I work in the College of the Arts here, so trust me, nudity is not uncommon) it's just common courtesy in my opinion to have it in the proper place.

Otto Seaman
13-Jun-2013, 09:54
Nudity is as much a part of photography as politics... so to be consistent with this forum's rules we shouldn't be discussing it or doing it.

jnanian
13-Jun-2013, 10:01
isn' there already a nudes thread ?
i don't see the difference between a nude and a nude portrait ..
seems kind of redundant

personally, i think
the threads should be separated by film and developer

Andrew O'Neill
13-Jun-2013, 10:08
No. Make a thread specifically for it. There are some awesome portraits on this forum and I often show them to my high school students.

Andy Eads
13-Jun-2013, 10:13
I'm in the same situation as Andrew O'Neill. I often show photos from LFPF to my classes. I teach in a conservative community and appreciate that most of the nudes are displayed in threads clearly labeled nude.

Doug Howk
13-Jun-2013, 11:03
Is the site to cater to the most extreme conservative viewpoint on nudes, or should it be open to discussions of photography? If an image is created with a large format camera, is non-violent and is germane to the discussion at hand, then why not allow it to be posted to whatever thread the discussion is involved with? Segregating nudes behind some barrier, whether called nudes only, etc., I find offensive. I personally would put a disclaimer at the beginning of the forum stating that nude images may be included in any thread irrespective of label. I realize it is a bit naive but maybe if we were open to beauty in all its manifestations then we would be a healthier society.

sanking
13-Jun-2013, 11:13
I voted no because there should be a thread for nudity, it should not be allowed to just pop up anywhere. As one person commented, it is just common courtesy to have it in the proper place. And as a teacher, you don't want a nude to pop up when you are talking about portraits or landscapes, could cause a lot of trouble.

We also need to be sensitive to the fact that there are quite a number of people on this forum who live in countries where there is little or no cultural tradition of the nude as art, and a nude might even be seen as an insult to the culture.

So I say yes, there should be a place here for nudity. But give it its own place, please.

Sandy

redrockcoulee
13-Jun-2013, 11:31
If a nude portrait is taken in the outdoors could it be then in the landscape thread as well? I think that nudes should be in a separtate thread as well for various reasons for a similar reason that there are separate threads already for different subject matters. Sandy's last paragraph states what exactly my own sentiment.

David A. Goldfarb
13-Jun-2013, 11:32
No problem with nudity here, but I'd be concerned about the site being blocked for nudity showing up in places where it isn't expected, so I voted "no."

A bit of a tangent, but I wouldn't agree that all nudes are portraits. One of the common criticisms of formalist nudes is that they can be dehumanizing; heads are cut off; bodies can be segmented and visually dismembered. Sometimes a nude can be formally interesting and can try to convey the character of the subject at the same time, as in a portrait, but I wouldn't say that this is always the case.

Wayne Aho
13-Jun-2013, 11:39
I vote NO. I am definitely not opposed to nude photography, having subsribed to shutterbug, popular photography, and national geographic over the years. The issue is viewing on the computer, and not expecting it to pop up in various other threads. The picture that started this thread is lovely, and I am glad it was shared with the LFF, but I sometimes check the forum on the road (in public) or at work during a short break.

My issue is it may be seen by others. I have submitted wet-plate photos for World Wet Plate day in the past, which included my younger son, who wanted to show them off at his elementary school. But I had to forwarn the teachers what to expect in other photos when opening the site.

BrianShaw
13-Jun-2013, 11:41
As we travel down the 'politically correct' or 'socially acceptable' highway, I have to ask what brought this question/poll to light?
Were there complaints...ie; complaints from the same gender, or opposite gender, of certain offending images?
Maybe, some complaints towards certain images, possibly from the parenting or employer side of life?
Are the Mod's being overwhelmed with too many images crossing the boundary-line between nude, or pornographic?
Just wondering!

Marc

For the background... look at this month's portrait thread. A very nice image of full frontal nudity that was accessed "inadvertently" by some in situations where it may have been better not to have been. Nobody seems to be on a politically-correct or homophobic bandwagon... mostly just trying to avoid accidental viewing in inappropriate environments.

Pete Watkins
13-Jun-2013, 11:45
I'm tempted to suggest that if a lot of forum members actually got on with the work that they are paid to do in their paid working hours and left their hobbies/interests until they got into the privacy of their own home the contents of this website would not be a problem.
I'm retired and can access this site whenever I feel like it. When I was still employed I was driving a van (at the end of my working life) far too quickly, nationwide, checking websites during my working hours was neither possible or practical.
In the thirteen years that I've been a member of this community I have only complained once about the content of a thread, and that was years ago, and I'm still convinced that I was right in that instance. Since then I've had no reason to complain.
This site is about Large Format Photography not what your employers think is suitable to download in their time.
Pete.

BrianShaw
13-Jun-2013, 11:55
Speaking only for me and my employer, Pete... it's not quite that black and white. Where I work the internet access policy is about Zone 8. :D

Corran
13-Jun-2013, 12:06
I'm tempted to suggest that if a lot of forum members actually got on with the work that they are paid to do in their paid working hours and left their hobbies/interests until they got into the privacy of their own home the contents of this website would not be a problem.

Places which have WiFi and one might browse LFPF that are not "work":

Restaurants
Libraries
Schools (elementary through collegiate)
Airports
Hotel business computer terminals
Your phone at any time of the day in any place with wifi

Please don't start the "you shouldn't be browsing the internet at work" business. It's not 1995 anymore, the internet is now available everywhere, not just your home and your office.

Leszek Vogt
13-Jun-2013, 12:17
Don't have an issue with nudity, but I reflect exactly what Sandy said. There may be peeps that would avoid "nudes" altogether. Sooo, it wouldn't be fair to have 'them' included in the portraits.


Les

mdm
13-Jun-2013, 12:21
Personally, I think the nude thread should be deleted and everything should go through the portrait thread. There are a lot of really inapproriate comments and also stupid inappropriate photos in there. If you force it all through the portrait thread then the porn will stay away and the dirty old men will be more reticent with their inappropriate comments. The model deserves respect. People will think more before they post and quality will improve.

marfa boomboom tx
13-Jun-2013, 12:32
I vote yes, but I live in a place full of drunken artists, and naked landscape.





boomboom is the sound that ! makes.

Ron Stowell
13-Jun-2013, 12:39
Why is anybody how is employed, and at work using company property to browse the Large Format Photography, as I remember it when I was employed that was contrary to company policy. Yes the I T department did monitor our computer usage.

Greg Y
13-Jun-2013, 13:48
I'll say I don't really mind either way. I think more time & attention should be made to blocking inappropriate comments than we've already spent on this angle

Brian Sims
13-Jun-2013, 14:24
Some people don't understand the difference between art and pornography.

- Leigh

Well, Woody Allen said the difference between erotica and pornography is "lighting."
Since erotica is obviously art, the difference between art and pornography must be lighting.:)

More seriously, I think this is a tough question. It gets into a lot of fuzzy boundaries. What is nude? Does it include a body draped in sheer fabric? What parts of the body have to be exposed to be defined as nude? Does it include a nursing mother with an exposed breast? What about the landscapes that are mostly landscape with a tiny nude figure for point of reference....are they banned from the landscape threat.

I vote for a "rule" that says "Be sensitive to your audience and use common sense. Don't force a hard and fast AND arbitrary boundary on this issue."

Kirk Gittings
13-Jun-2013, 14:30
From a moderation POV this is probably a response to a complaint(s). But its kind of a no win dilemma-look at the poll results.

Corran
13-Jun-2013, 14:40
I did some quick Google searching and found this random example of a "spoiler" tag that should be able to be implemented here (http://www.dawgsaloon.com/showthread.php/72919-How-do-I-use-NSFW-tags-here?p=4453843&viewfull=1#post4453843). You would have to click "show" to get the image.

And of course the technology-handicapped will never figure out how to do it but whatever. It would give both sides what they want. Mods? (Obviously not currently implemented!)

BrianShaw
13-Jun-2013, 14:41
Ya... given the results maybe there should be a compromise. Like:

a) Nudes allowed in Portraits threads Sat and Sun, but not Mon to Fri
b) Nudes allowed in Portrait thread only on odd days of the month
c) Nudes allowed in Portrait thread only on odd months of the year
d) Nudes allowed in Portrait thread only on odd years of the century
e) Nudes allowed in Portrait thread only if the lower 50% is covered by ivy, grape, or fig leaves
f) Nudes allowed in Portrait thread only if in B&W, but not if in color (or colour either)

Oren Grad
13-Jun-2013, 14:59
I vote for a rule that says if you want to post this material, please do so in threads clearly labeled "NSFW".

I agree with Bryan and Sandy that given cultural realities, this is a matter of common courtesy.

Leigh
13-Jun-2013, 15:50
I agree with Bryan and Sandy that given cultural realities, this is a matter of common courtesy.
Courtesy to whom?

How about being courteous to the poster who has put time and effort into making an image that he thinks is good enough to be displayed for peer review.

Why should he be constrained by some rule that caters to biased members who might never view his image in the first place?

- Leigh

benrains
13-Jun-2013, 16:11
The thing I take away from these discussions is that people want to be able to have control over the content they view, subject to whatever governs their own comfort level with nudity. And I don't think it's unreasonable for people to want or to have control over that, especially given how equally divided the poll results are on the matter. (It's not unlike the sort of control we have over being able to block specific users posts from showing up when then make a nuisance of themselves.)

So I think the debate should probably be shifted more toward what's the best way to provide that sort of filtering or control. Forcing everything into the "Nudes" thread is of course the easiest option, but I feel like it's overly restrictive. And as someone else pointed, that thread is really sort of comment cess-pool and I tend to not like to post stuff there because a lot of my models are actually close friends, and I don't particularly care to have people talking about them in disrespectful ways. But that's a separate issue.

The ideas of things like "hidden cuts" (like the spoilers thing mentioned above) is appealing, or some sort of self-moderated system (like what Model Mayhem and Flickr offer) where submitters are responsible for tagging their content as NSFW and viewers have to opt in to see NSFW content. That's probably the most ideal compromise, but the tagging would require modifications to the forum system--and that may be beyond what the site maintainers are willing or are able to provide. One way to implement the "hidden cuts" is to, as a submitter, not directly attach images and to not inline them in the posts. You could just post a link to the image, and then label the link as leading to NSFW content (click at your own risk) that's hosted off-site.

Segregating the content within the existing system is another alternative. Maybe, instead of at the discussion thread level, to create a second "Image Sharing [NSFW]" forum which could contain nude imagery. I'm not a huge fan of segregating the content like that as I think it fragments the forums and reduces their usefulness.

Randy Moe
13-Jun-2013, 16:30
I'll be right over.



I vote yes, but I live in a place full of drunken artists, and naked landscape.





boomboom is the sound that ! makes.

Oren Grad
13-Jun-2013, 17:06
How about being courteous to the poster who has put time and effort into making an image that he thinks is good enough to be displayed for peer review.

Nobody is saying that such posts should be forbidden.

jnanian
13-Jun-2013, 17:24
I vote for a rule that says if you want to post this material, please do so in threads clearly labeled "NSFW".

I agree with Bryan and Sandy that given cultural realities, this is a matter of common courtesy.



LOL oren
by the time one read's the tag it will be like the 70's song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtzoUu7w-YM

" ethel don't look ! " ...

Oren Grad
13-Jun-2013, 17:34
LOL oren
by the time one read's the tag it will be like the 70's song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtzoUu7w-YM

" ethel don't look ! " ...

:)

Let's substitute "EDL" as the tag...

David A. Goldfarb
13-Jun-2013, 18:09
Why should he be constrained by some rule that caters to biased members who might never view his image in the first place?

- Leigh

I don't see this as the issue so much as the possibility that the forum could end up on an "adults only" list and then get filtered out of places like schools and public libraries, workplaces or homes where families have content filtering software. Fortunately, I've worked mostly in creative and academic environments where I wouldn't have to worry about artistic nudes being "NSFW," and where there aren't issues about browsing a forum like this one in the office.

Flauvius
13-Jun-2013, 18:57
Ask yourselves, and if you claim to think for yourselfs, precisely what is harmful with "naked" forms; - either human or animal?

If you can not think for yourself, follow the beliefs of others. Conversely, if you can think for yourself and are confident in your beliefs, you are not going to care what anyone thinks about when, or how, you show your work.

For those who believe in the need for nudity warning labels and social censorship, just imagine how much poorer we would be aesthetically had Edward Weston, Ruth Bernhardt, Robert Mapplethorpe or Pablo Picasso had followed the social inhibitions of their time. As with the noted masters of the nude genre, it all comes down to whether you truly believe that all people should be free to express themselves to the world at large, and without any restrictions unrelated to physical safety.

No progress has ever come from following in well worn tracts, especially when the tracts were made by social institutions to promote to own ends. For me, I think the vague social and artistic mores of the superstitious past need to be replaced with rational thought.

Regards,

Flauvius

Leigh
13-Jun-2013, 19:01
I don't see this as the issue so much as the possibility that the forum could end up on an "adults only" list and then get filtered out of places like schools and public libraries, workplaces or homes where families have content filtering software.
That statement is not germane to the topic of this thread.

If the presence of nudes on the site will result in it being filtered, then it will be filtered.
There are numerous nudes, and they're not going away.

- Leigh

Randy Moe
13-Jun-2013, 19:07
I thought Facebook censored nudes, until last night, when a young lady friend of mine posted a naked body midsection of herself, with beads glued only to the labia area. 24 hours later it remains.

Doesn't bother me, but it was surprising to see it.

I expect nudes in art of all kinds, the human form has been revered for millennia, ever see the ancient Egyptian S&M pottery? Most museums do not show it. They keep it for themselves...

Peter Lewin
13-Jun-2013, 19:09
I've already voted and posted my views earlier, but I am puzzled by the many posts about censorship, or the comments about Weston or Mapplethorpe, etc. The question behind this thread isn't forbidding any images, merely keeping nudes in the "Nudes" thread. Does anyone think Mapplethorpe would have been offended had he been asked to post his nudes in the appropriate thread rather than "Portraits?" Similarly, I imagine Ms. Bernhardt wouldn't have felt a need to post her best known image in the "Landscape" thread simply because it was taken in the woods. It merely seems to me we are conflating (always wanted to use that word in a sentence) the issues of labeling and censorship.

Flauvius
13-Jun-2013, 19:34
Peter:

If you think about it, labeling is the handmaiden of censorship.

Flauvius

Kirk Gittings
13-Jun-2013, 19:43
I thought Facebook censored nudes, until last night, when a young lady friend of mine posted a naked body midsection of herself, with beads glued only to the labia area. 24 hours later it remains.

Doesn't bother me, but it was surprising to see it.

I expect nudes in art of all kinds, the human form has been revered for millennia, ever see the ancient Egyptian S&M pottery? Most museums do not show it. They keep it for themselves...

Just means no one has reported it yet.

BrianShaw
13-Jun-2013, 20:32
Just means no one has reported it yet.

... and before they do, please post a link for us all to revere.

Corran
13-Jun-2013, 21:03
Peter:

If you think about it, labeling is the handmaiden of censorship.

Flauvius

You're the one labeling it censorship. No one has promoted censorship of any kind.

Leigh
13-Jun-2013, 21:20
No one has promoted censorship of any kind.
Placing restrictions on lawful content is censorship.

- Leigh

polyglot
13-Jun-2013, 21:21
I voted no out of pragmatism. I agree that society (which one, eh? LFPF isn't just where you live and I pity anyone trying to browse the portrait section from Malaysia or Pakistan, let alone Saudi Arabia) would be far better off for not caring about this kind of thing, but sadly most western societies have a prudish streak rivalled only by some those in the middle east. LFPF isn't going to be able to change societal attitudes overnight (globally no less!) even if some posters hold sacred a couple of Weston images as examples of high art.

In order to prevent LFPF being blocked by proxies and/or completely unavailable through some public internet services or in some countries, I think labelling is a reasonable thing. Flickr has a pretty good policy: you can post just about anything that's not illegal in most places if you label it correctly and people who are viewing from places where such images are problematic can make sure that they don't see them, or at least aren't seen to be seeing them. If you don't follow the labelling rules, they mark your whole account as unsafe.

I think the easiest option is to put "NSFW" or "Safe Only" into some thread titles as a warning to viewers and have mods ensure that posters respect those labels. The only difficulty then is defining clearly what constitutes NSFW; again I refer you to flickr who seem to have it fairly right with their three levels of safe/moderate/filthy. The flickr policies are worth reading if only as food for thought, I don't expect everyone to agree with them.

Nicest option is to upgrade the forum with custom [spoiler] tags, but that requires admin work and/or forum-code hacking so it's a bit much to ask. Forking the code is a Very Bad Thing for causing maintenance headaches at upgrade time. It would however be great to mix the nudes in with the portraits so that those who want to see them can do so (maybe with a "show all" option in their preferences so they don't even have to click the button to reveal) and those who fear repression can avoid the problem. We could ditch the Nude thread full of dirty old men and have the good stuff presented with all the other portraits without the bullshit lascivious commentary. If we had such a feature, obviously I would've voted yes instead.

jharr
13-Jun-2013, 21:22
Ask yourselves, and if you claim to think for yourself, precisely what is harmful with "naked" forms; - either human or animal?
No one has claimed there is any 'harm' in posting nudes. Read the thread before posting in it.


If you can not think for yourself, follow the beliefs of others. Conversely, if you can think for yourself and are confident in your beliefs, you are not going to care what anyone thinks about when, or how, you show your work.
One of the reasons for posting in a forum is to get feedback on your art. Ergo, you 'care' about what others think. That doesn't mean you aren't thinking for yourself/aren't confident in your beliefs.


For those who believe in the need for nudity warning labels and social censorship, just imagine how much poorer we would be aesthetically had Edward Weston, Ruth Bernhardt, Robert Mapplethorpe or Pablo Picasso had followed the social inhibitions of their time. As with the noted masters of the nude genre, it all comes down to whether you as a photographer are a leader or a follower.
Labeling does not equate to conforming to censorship. Just imagine how much poorer we would be as a culture if people were forced to believe what Weston, Bernhardt, Mapplethorpe or Picasso (or you, or me) believed about art.


No progress has ever come from following in well worn tracts, especially when the tracts were made by social institutions to promote to own ends. For me, I think the vague social and artistic mores of the superstitious past need to be replaced with rational thought.
There are no institutions at work here, just the membership of this forum expressing an opinion on how the art should be displayed. If it is a completely flat playing field you want then there should be just one thread called "Posts". On the other hand, if you want to have some control over what you view (I like still life and landscape) then there should be threads that describe explicitly what is in them. And VIOLA! We have that. There is a Landscapes thread, and a Still Life thread and a Nudes thread and a Portraits thread, etc. If I post a Portrait of myself fully clothed and put it in the Nudes thread, the Mods would figure out it was in the wrong place and move it to the Portraits thread. Why? My face is not clothed! From the neck up I am completely nude! It is because everyone understands the difference between a figure study or nude portrait and a "portrait". All that is being requested is that we use the categories that are already in place. No harm at all.

Regards,

James

Wayne
13-Jun-2013, 21:23
Its not that I think nudes should be allowed in the portrait thread; its that I don't think they should be disallowed from the portraits thread because well, some nudes are portraits. Not all nudes are portraits, but I still don't want to tell those creators of good portraits that happen to be nude that they need to stand over there in the corner and hang a "Nude" sign around their necks. Its unfortunate that people who would bring us gratuitous boobie shots (and I am grateful!) that just happen to show a face can't be shuffled to the corner by themselves. But they can't, and the law-abiding nude portraitists shouldn't have to stand in the corner with them.

polyglot
13-Jun-2013, 21:23
Placing restrictions on lawful content is censorship.

Labelling is not censorship. It can enable it, but it is a quite separate thing with distinct benefits like allowing viewers to limit their legal liabilities in places that don't have the same laws that you do.

If you can't avoid conflating two separate things like that, you're just spouting hyperbole.

Jody_S
13-Jun-2013, 22:32
Perhaps I'm missing something, but aren't there quite a few nudes already on this forum, outside of the 'Nudes' thread? Alt process, tiny formats, and I'm sure a few elsewhere. Unless you're going to 1) make a rule that all nudes must be posted in one thread clearly labeled NSFW, and 2) go through all the old threads and move/delete/rename all threads containing nudes, I don't see how this is going to be workable.

I personally have no objection to a nude popping up now and then, and more importantly my wife hasn't had any objections when it happens and she's in the room. As others have pointed out, nudes are a very important part of the LF tradition, both historically and with current practitioners.

Corran
14-Jun-2013, 03:29
Placing restrictions on lawful content is censorship.

- Leigh

No, suppressing content is censorship. Having a designated place for content is common sense.

Might I remind everyone shouting "censorship" that this forum already disallows certain topics?

Jody, you bring up a good point when browsing older threads, but a policy going forward will still be a good thing.

Doug Howk
14-Jun-2013, 03:29
I have yet to see one person on this forum who says they are offended by seeing nudes. So who are we protecting? Maybe we need a new poll : do you find nudes offensive?

As far as governmental/institutional banning of a site, I doubt whether they will allow LFPF to be available just because we've segregated nudes into some ghetto area of the site.

And what criteria would be used and who would decide on that criteria? Would a mother nursing a child be offensive? How about the one that featured a somewhat older boy still nursing? After-all, each society has norms that may differ from our criteria. And not all within those societies would agree with the norms imposed by the society at large. Its part of the freedoms we'd like all societies to enjoy - the use of the language of photography to express your creative ideas.

cowanw
14-Jun-2013, 05:07
Stieglitz refused to hang photographs in the Arts and crafts gallery of exhibitions and demanded a presence in the Fine Arts gallery for a reason. Labeling is censorship.

Corran
14-Jun-2013, 05:19
Others here are much more eloquent than me, so I'll leave it to them. I'll just say that I think both of you are so disconnected from reality as to be delusional.

eddie
14-Jun-2013, 05:41
Places which have WiFi and one might browse LFPF that are not "work":

Restaurants
Libraries
Schools (elementary through collegiate)
Airports
Hotel business computer terminals
Your phone at any time of the day in any place with wifi

Please don't start the "you shouldn't be browsing the internet at work" business. It's not 1995 anymore, the internet is now available everywhere, not just your home and your office.

"they" must be after you. i have used this forum in all the places you list above. i have NEVER been denied access.....well i lied, i was denied access in Burma in 2005 to 2009....but basically the entire internet was banned and most all e mail carriers. i had to go through a state operated e mail system to get mail in and out. AND i had to sign a paper about following the per-described rules on what to send and receive....or risk arrest and deportation.

cowanw
14-Jun-2013, 05:44
Others here are much more eloquent than me, so I'll leave it to them. I'll just say that I think both of you are so disconnected from reality as to be delusional.

I am sure there is a word for this debate tactic; not straw man, but something?
Anyway I am expecting Godwin's law to kick in soon.

Leigh
14-Jun-2013, 05:49
Anyway I am expecting Godwin's law to kick in soon.
Nude photos of Hitler???

They would likely be banned as political.

- Leigh

Corran
14-Jun-2013, 05:56
Bill,

I'm sorry but labeling is not censorship. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. We already have labeling in the Image Sharing Forum, all we are asking is to use the appropriate thread. Is that really difficult? Would not people start to complain if some users posted outdoor portraits in the landscape thread?

Do you cry "censorship!" when photographs aren't allowed in the painting section of a museum? That's a label!

Leigh
14-Jun-2013, 06:03
I'm sorry but labeling is not censorship.
Saying that an image cannot be posted in the appropriate thread because the subject is naked certainly is censorship.

You seem to think that whether or not the subject is clothed is the most important criterion for selecting the appropriate posting thread. That's nonsense.

- Leigh

Corran
14-Jun-2013, 06:08
Tell me how allowing it in the most appropriate thread (NUDE!) rather than a generalized "Portrait" thread is censorship? Not allowing it on the forum at all would be the only possible definition of censorship.

I would put forth the opinion that the "Nude" thread is a bit open-ended, and might benefit from having multiple threads created - "Alt. Process Nudes," "Outdoor Nudes," "Male Nudes," etc.

Leigh
14-Jun-2013, 06:12
Tell me how allowing it in the most appropriate thread (NUDE!) rather than a generalized "Portrait" thread is censorship? Not allowing it on the forum at all would be the only possible definition of censorship.

I would put forth the opinion that the "Nude" thread is a bit open-ended, and might benefit from having multiple threads created - "Alt. Process Nudes," "Outdoor Nudes," "Male Nudes," etc.
Again, your error lies in considering the costuming of the subject to be of paramount importance for categorizing the image.

It's not.

- Leigh

Corran
14-Jun-2013, 06:16
Then why have a nude thread at all? If it's not important.

Leigh
14-Jun-2013, 06:21
Then why have a nude thread at all?
The thread is for those images whose primary purpose/goal is to present the figure as the artist desires.
The form and its rendering are the goals of the exercise, so a dedicated thread is appropriate.

Other images which focus on other aspects of the subject (like portraits) are most appropriately posted in a relevant thread.

- Leigh

Corran
14-Jun-2013, 06:27
Semantics in my opinion. If the purpose of the photo is not the nude form, then why even be nude? Unless the sitter is a nudist and does not wear clothes, most likely the nudity is deliberate.

jnanian
14-Jun-2013, 06:28
it was much easier back in the days when there were no image sharing threads
and people shared images through the mail.

Leigh
14-Jun-2013, 06:31
If the purpose of the photo is not the nude form, then why even be nude? Unless the sitter is a nudist and does not wear clothes, most likely the nudity is deliberate.
What about a photo of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (modern image).
They would be naked, but that's not the focus of the shot.

There are innumerable documentary images of native tribes around the world who are unclothed, but that's not the reason for
taking the picture. Of course this is more commonly encountered in the Amazon than in Alaska. :D

- Leigh

Corran
14-Jun-2013, 06:35
An extremely narrow possibility that would not even be a "portrait" of a person really (a historical reenactment, if you would).

I would challenge you to find one example image on this forum that would fit the description of "nude, but not for the purpose of nudity."

Otto Seaman
14-Jun-2013, 06:38
Frank Petronio's work....

ataim
14-Jun-2013, 06:38
How about make a sub directory like this?

Tobias Key
14-Jun-2013, 06:38
The thread is for those images whose primary purpose/goal is to present the figure as the artist desires.
The form and its rendering are the goals of the exercise, so a dedicated thread is appropriate.

Other images which focus on other aspects of the subject (like portraits) are most appropriately posted in a relevant thread.

- Leigh

To me the decision should based on what an average reasonable person would expect to see if they clicked on a thread title. I'm not a prude, I have shot nude photos myself but I can understand why people would like a modicum of control over what appears in a particular thread. Personally, I would never presume it was OK to post a nude photo in a portrait thread, just seems like poor forum etiquette to me.

Sevo
14-Jun-2013, 06:39
It really boils down to "whose standards?" - personally I have never encountered a single image on this forum (including the nude thread) which I would not show to my children, let alone my staff. So what is "not safe for work"?

Leigh
14-Jun-2013, 06:40
An extremely narrow possibility that would not even be a "portrait" of a person really (a historical reenactment, if you would).
Correct. It's not a "portrait". Neither is it a "nude", so why would you put it in either thread.
I would vote for "pictorialism" in this particular case.


I would challenge you to find one example image on this forum that would fit the description of "nude, but not for the purpose of nudity."
I have neither the time nor the interest required to inventory all images on this (or any other) site.

So I challenge you to do so and confirm your assertion that all are "nudes for the purpose of nudity".
You made the claim. It's up to you to support it.

- Leigh

cowanw
14-Jun-2013, 06:41
To label something is to tell you what it is. It also tells you what it is not. This forum may well be the largest association of Large format photographers in the world.
If we decide a nude cannot be hung in the portrait gallery, despite the photographer's intent it is a portrait, I think that is a pretty significant restriction.
Consider this portrait of Canada's 19th Prime minister. It is a nude.
97032
but it is intended most certainly as a portrait.
oops now I have done it. There is a nude in this thread NSFW!

Corran
14-Jun-2013, 06:47
Leigh, my assertion seems to me to be a basic understanding of what nudity brings to the world of art. Of course that could be classified as an opinion - well so could anyone's statements here beyond lens specifications which are simple facts. I have nothing more to add but the same statement I've made before - that classifying something as "nude" is just common courtesy, or simple forum etiquette as mentioned by Tobias above.

Bill, that image in my mind is not nude. Unless you would consider a photo of women in bikinis nudity too, as that shows a lot more skin than that. I doubt anyone here is arguing having to be warned about anything other than genitalia and female breasts.

Leigh
14-Jun-2013, 06:53
that image in my mind is not nude.
And your opinion is just that... your opinion.

Apparently you hold it in higher esteem than other posters here do.

- Leigh

Peter Lewin
14-Jun-2013, 06:54
The thread is for those images whose primary purpose/goal is to present the figure as the artist desires.
The form and its rendering are the goals of the exercise, so a dedicated thread is appropriate.

Other images which focus on other aspects of the subject (like portraits) are most appropriately posted in a relevant thread.
- Leigh
I'm confused by what makes a photograph a portrait versus a nude (assuming that there is at least a portion of a naked body in the image). Let's go back to the original image of Sierra by Ben Rains in the Portraits thread. If the image is in the correct thread, what makes this a "Portrait" versus a "Nude?" Or lets look at Gandolfi's Bromoil images in the Alternative Images thread. Are they portraits because the viewer's eye is drawn to the faces, or are they nudes because Gandolfi chose to include the naked breasts in the image? Is the inclusion of the naked breasts gratuitous, or do they add to the "portraits" (if that is what the images are), or are the images well-made alternative-process nudes?

Unfortunately, and in contrast to Leigh, it seems to me that the clothing of the figure does become the dominant criteria for categorizing the image. That isn't to say that nakedness or clothing was of primary importance to the photographer (whether the photographer's intent can be inferred from the image is a whole philosophical debate in itself), but if one must categorize the image, it does become primary. If any of you have anthologies of photographs on your bookshelves, many of which group photographs by theme, take a look at how the editors have chosen to define nudes. Unless I'm badly mistaken, it is by the absence of clothing.

Corran
14-Jun-2013, 07:11
And your opinion is just that... your opinion.

Apparently you hold it in higher esteem than other posters here do.

- Leigh

To be frank, it seems like you think your opinions are the guiding light of this forum.

Does anyone who voted "no" on the poll think the image posted is what we want marked as "NSFW?"

Leigh
14-Jun-2013, 07:16
To be frank, it seems like you think your opinions are the guiding light of this forum.
Not at all. I'm merely countering your position.

- Leigh

Corran
14-Jun-2013, 07:20
Countering my position would be explaining why you think that photo is a "nude," which is what I rejected.

"Apparently you hold it in higher esteem than other posters here do" is bordering on a personal attack.

I have nothing more to say in this debate as we've gone wildly around with neither of us taking into consideration the others' points anyway, so there is no point to the discussion.

jharr
14-Jun-2013, 08:04
I'm confused by what makes a photograph a portrait versus a nude (assuming that there is at least a portion of a naked body in the image). Let's go back to the original image of Sierra by Ben Rains in the Portraits thread. If the image is in the correct thread, what makes this a "Portrait" versus a "Nude?" Or lets look at Gandolfi's Bromoil images in the Alternative Images thread. Are they portraits because the viewer's eye is drawn to the faces, or are they nudes because Gandolfi chose to include the naked breasts in the image? Is the inclusion of the naked breasts gratuitous, or do they add to the "portraits" (if that is what the images are), or are the images well-made alternative-process nudes?

Unfortunately, and in contrast to Leigh, it seems to me that the clothing of the figure does become the dominant criteria for categorizing the image. That isn't to say that nakedness or clothing was of primary importance to the photographer (whether the photographer's intent can be inferred from the image is a whole philosophical debate in itself), but if one must categorize the image, it does become primary. If any of you have anthologies of photographs on your bookshelves, many of which group photographs by theme, take a look at how the editors have chosen to define nudes. Unless I'm badly mistaken, it is by the absence of clothing.

I agree with Peter. Maybe we need to get away from the "Nude" label in describing what we mean since that seems to have different connotations to different people. Maybe we should talk about whether the photo "contains nudity" and by that, I mean visible genitals or naked breasts (as has been stated before). So then we can separate ourselves from the intent of the artist and just talk about the content of the image. The image above of the Canadian PM contains no more nudity than a photo of a bare hand. The nudity is implied, so you could (by a certain stretch of the term) call that a 'nude', but it contains no nudity (please don't come back with some silly argument about body paint). In the same way, the term "Portrait" has connotations of a photograph of a living (or once living) thing, but the term can be applied to a vast assortment of images (nude is then in fact a sub-category of portrait). The point is that those images may be better described with another word. I think if most of us are honest with ourselves, the instant we see an image of an unclothed person, our first thought is something like "That person is nude." not "I wonder if the artist intended that person to have clothes on or not?". The artist's intent shouldn't even come into a discussion like this because it is irrelevant. We are talking about being courteous to viewers, not stroking an artist's ego. Someone would have to have some masterful power of persuasion to convince me that a photo containing nudity should be labeled with the more general term 'portrait' rather than the more accurate term 'nude portrait'. Labeling things accurately is not censorship (as has been said), it is just good organization.

Leigh
14-Jun-2013, 08:08
I have nothing more to say in this debate as we've gone wildly around with neither of us taking into consideration the others' points anyway, so there is no point to the discussion.
Agreed.

That was not a personal attack. It was a simple statement of fact, as can be confirmed by reading the thread.

Rest assured that if I chose to attack you personally, there would be no doubt in your military mind. :D

- Leigh

marfa boomboom tx
14-Jun-2013, 08:16
'though I voted yes, it wasn't because I have any expectation...
Images posted to this (most) online BBS provide little. Most could easily be replaced with their caption --- just need more words -- camera, film, etc -- and most boarders would be satisfied.

Although I do find many pictures on the net that stimulate, some even induce samvega. However, I doubt that most of the discussants on this forum gain even small growth from pictures posted.

big thread that lays the fora naked, and rubbed raw.


understanding is the biggest thing you aren't going to do today.

--

' nough

BrianShaw
14-Jun-2013, 08:24
... We are talking about being courteous to viewers, not stroking an artist's ego. Someone would have to have some masterful power of persuasion to convince me that a photo containing nudity should be labeled with the more general term 'portrait' rather than the more accurate term 'nude portrait'. Labeling things accurately is not censorship (as has been said), it is just good organization.

So how about this proposal: relabel the 'portrait thread" to "Portraits, clothed". Leave the 'Nudes thread' as is. Set up another thread called "Portraits, unclothed".

I really don't care where body paint goes.

Leigh
14-Jun-2013, 08:38
If we restrict a "portrait" to its narrowest definition, it would include only head shots.

Heads are normally naked, so the problem goes away.

- Leigh

Corran
14-Jun-2013, 08:44
Actually, I wouldn't mind a specific thread for head shots. It's a specific technique. Environmental portraits, for example, are very different in technique. Not to start another debate though, but since when has portrait been narrowly defined as a head shot??

In fact more specific or user-centric threads would be nice. Sometimes photos get buried quickly. If I don't check a thread for a few days, some of the popular ones might have 10-20 new posts, and some posters' photos I find more interesting than others, so I'd be more likely to look at those specifically if they had a thread. Or on-going project threads.

BrianShaw
14-Jun-2013, 08:44
If we restrict a "portrait" to its narrowest definition, it would include only head shots.


Why would anyone do that? Leigh... don't you have enough to do today? If not, I could use some help with chores... or a decent lesson in nude portraiture. You could be my model. :o

Doug Howk
14-Jun-2013, 08:47
I thought Arnold Newman was a portrait photographer, or do we need even more categories;-(
I remember years ago there was a cellist who performed topless. Hm? Where does she fit?

cowanw
14-Jun-2013, 08:53
[Seems that the important bit are the knobbly bits. Here is a self described "self portrait"
ATTACH=CONFIG]97052[/ATTACH]

BrianShaw
14-Jun-2013, 09:01
A jury of your peers has convened, and concluded the following: that is a portrait. Had there been visible pubic hair or a lens of longer focal length it would have been a nude.

Ron Stowell
14-Jun-2013, 09:20
Just over at APUG and the first page I opened has a thing called Latest Photo and guess what? Yup she is naked and nobody seems to be offended.
Maybe they know something we don't.

Randy Moe
14-Jun-2013, 09:27
You could have given us a link...


Just over at APUG and the first page I opened has a thing called Latest Photo and guess what? Yup she is naked and nobody seems to be offended.
Maybe they know something we don't.

bobwysiwyg
14-Jun-2013, 09:34
You could have given us a link...

It appears in the upper-left of the screen, but that photo spot is randomly filled with something from the forum galleries and changes. Just looked, already changed.

mono
14-Jun-2013, 09:38
http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showimage.php?i=72515&catid=newimages

I hope no one is offended...

BrianShaw
14-Jun-2013, 09:42
Nope.

Randy Moe
14-Jun-2013, 09:46
Nope, and that is the one I found, poor model, looks very uncomfortable.



http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showimage.php?i=72515&catid=newimages

I hope no one is offended...

al olson
14-Jun-2013, 11:01
This issue is not about censorship. It is about respect! We need to respect the situations and the views of others. Politeness in society has taken a back seat to rudeness and lack of respect for the opinions and views of others. The moderators unfortunately spend much of their time dealing with the lack thereof.

I have been making photos of nudes for years, some models were paid and some were friends. I have posted some of these nudes in the Nude thread and I started the Nudes with Small Format thread in the Lounge so that viewers would be aware of what to expect. I do this out of respect for the viewer.

I have many photos that could suitably be posted in the Large Format Landscape or the Old Things threads, but because of the shock value created by a nude appearing unexpectedly or inappropriately, I think it is only fair that the viewer be forewarned. This can be clear from the title on the thread.

I try to keep my nudes within good taste, not erotic and certainly not pornographic. The only negative reaction I have had is from the Feminists who complain that I am 'objectifying women' and presenting them as 'sexual objects.'

ghostcount
14-Jun-2013, 12:51
This issue is not about censorship. It is about respect!...

+1

jnanian
14-Jun-2013, 14:04
Just over at APUG and the first page I opened has a thing called Latest Photo and guess what? Yup she is naked and nobody seems to be offended.
Maybe they know something we don't.


hi ron

the difference is that apug has a collective gallery, a mixture of everything ..
it is not threads for image sharing that are separated by loosely defined subjects like " rural " or " portraits " or " nudes " or "old stuff " or whatever
where someone might post a nude in a landscape infront of a rustic barn on the side of the road and post it in the rural thread.

Wayne
14-Jun-2013, 15:33
I think the respectful thing to do would be start a thread "Portraits (fully clothed please)" and be done with it. Then the "rights" of those who don't want to see nude portraits will be respected and the "rights" of those who don't mind will also be respected, and the only ones who will be "separated out" will be those who feel there should be a "separating out".

Corran
14-Jun-2013, 16:44
126 votes and dead even. That's interesting, at the very least.

BrianShaw
14-Jun-2013, 16:46
... and it is statistically valid too!

Randy Moe
14-Jun-2013, 16:47
I wanna change my vote...

Leigh
14-Jun-2013, 16:48
126 votes and dead even. That's interesting, at the very least.
What's more interesting is that none of those who voted NO (and explained same) did so because of their own views, but
rather because of their assumptions of how other people would view the images.

- Leigh

Randy Moe
14-Jun-2013, 16:50
Yes, that's correct.


What's more interesting is that none of those who voted NO (and explained same) did so because of their own views, but
rather because of their assumptions of how other people would view the images.

- Leigh

BrianShaw
14-Jun-2013, 16:53
I voted "no" because of the way I view the images, not how others view them.

Brian C. Miller
14-Jun-2013, 17:57
We have a nudes thread. AFAIK, all of the nudes are "portraits." Thus, we already have a nudes and non-nudes portrait threads.

The real question is, why should nudes be posted in the non-nudes section?
Or are some nudes not portraying the subject of the photograph, and thus are not portraits?

David A. Goldfarb
14-Jun-2013, 18:34
Yes, I'm precisely concerned what others think, and I do think we have to take into consideration the possibility of the forum being filtered. If we make it easy to avoid nudity, then I would think we are less likely to be flagged by users as an adults-only site. If we make it difficult to avoid nudity, then obviously, more people browsing the site will encounter it, and some subset of those will object and possibly report the site for filtration purposes.

Consigning nudity to designated threads is no different from consigning nudity at the beach to nude beaches, and labeling is not too different from rating films for content. Yes, it is a form of censorship, and people who do this work used to be called censors, but there are some forms of censorship that are not unreasonable and give users more choice, not less.

IanG
14-Jun-2013, 23:40
While I can agree with David's points above, I voted Yes,. I think we have to remember that this isn't an image led website, it's a discussion group and as such images form a very small part of the site's content and images of nudes a tiny fraction of that small part.

Then there's the issue of the actual content of an image containing nudity, some will not offend anyone, other will. who's the arbitrator, which is why I'd leave things as they are.

Ian

mono
15-Jun-2013, 00:48
I voted "no" because we already have a nudes thread and I don´t want to see nudes in the portrait section.

Leigh
15-Jun-2013, 01:18
If I take a portrait of an undraped model, it's a portrait, regardless of your opinion of the image.

- Leigh

mono
15-Jun-2013, 02:22
And this still remains MY opinion, not yours!

Leigh
15-Jun-2013, 03:03
And this still remains MY opinion, not yours!
But if I took the photo, as previously stated, then my opinion is the only one that matters.

The artist is the only one who understands the intent and rationale for the image.

- Leigh

Flauvius
15-Jun-2013, 03:27
For the reasoned arguments I advanced in my last post, I voted Yes.

Unfortunately, the moderator deleted my well founded arguments as being "Political". But isn't this entire thread an expression of personal views and thus political?

As such, ask yourselves: Why should someone's "political" approach to an issue be deemed unworthy of consideration, when another's "political" approach is acceptable for consideration? The expression of a dogma conforming opinion does not equate to a reasoned discussion for doing anything.

Flauvius

Doug Howk
15-Jun-2013, 04:31
Flauvius , its really a cultural divide (with political ramifications) that is very evident in the USA but probably exists elsewhere too. From the poll's voting and some of the comments, it is a very divisive cultural issue with neither side being satisfied with a compromise. Unfortunate!

Flauvius
15-Jun-2013, 05:39
Doug:

While I agree that the issue of nudity is culturally divisive, I suggest that a reason based discussion might give people pause to reconsider their positions.

Unfortunately, if you start from the position that certain view points for not open for consideration, you are bolstering existing views. So, the question follows: Why have a discussion on this issue if the discussion limits its scope of options for consideration?

Flauvius

jnanian
15-Jun-2013, 06:08
If I take a portrait of an undraped model, it's a portrait, regardless of your opinion of the image.

- Leigh


hi leigh

so your thoughts are there shouldn't even be a nude thread, put everything in the portrait thread ?
that wouldn't be a bad idea.

i don't think there should be any separate themed threads for images at all, and they should all go into one thread
and be searchable by key word ..

Jim Jones
15-Jun-2013, 07:10
Having categories is better than having just one bloated thread. I don't have time to visit most of the threads. Searching by key word only works if one knows the key word the photographer preferred.

Jim Jones
15-Jun-2013, 07:57
But if I took the photo, as previously stated, then my opinion is the only one that matters.

The artist is the only one who understands the intent and rationale for the image.

- Leigh

Alas, that is often too true. However, regardless of the intent and rationale for the image, an artist who feels an obligation to the public should refrain from inflicting his art on others when it may be offensive unless there are compelling reasons. Sometimes the message in art should be promoted. Once religious art was instructive to the illiterate. Goya's depictions of the horrors of war were disturbing, but conveyed a valuable message. Other propaganda makes effective use of images. I remember a six-year-old being terrified at seeing Thomas Hart Benton's WWII propaganda images in a museum. However, gratifying the artist's ego should not be a compelling reason for offending others. Questionable photos can be displayed in threads not open to the casual browser. For example, http://photocamel.com/forum/ has open threads for Portraits / People, Kids and Family, Pinup, and Fashion / Models. For photos that may be inappropriate, there is a Glamour / Erotic site which is unavailable without registration.

Roger Cole
15-Jun-2013, 08:54
I am sure there is a word for this debate tactic; not straw man, but something?
Anyway I am expecting Godwin's law to kick in soon.

The term you are looking for is "ad hominem" - "against the man" versus the argument.

I can really see both sides of this issue. I lean toward putting them in their own threads.

goamules
15-Jun-2013, 08:59
This issue is not about censorship. It is about respect! We need to respect the situations and the views of others. Politeness in society has taken a back seat to rudeness and lack of respect for the opinions and views of others. The moderators unfortunately spend much of their time dealing with the lack thereof.

I have been making photos of nudes for years, some models were paid and some were friends. I have posted some of these nudes in the Nude thread and I started the Nudes with Small Format thread in the Lounge so that viewers would be aware of what to expect. I do this out of respect for the viewer.

I have many photos that could suitably be posted in the Large Format Landscape or the Old Things threads, but because of the shock value created by a nude appearing unexpectedly or inappropriately, I think it is only fair that the viewer be forewarned. This can be clear from the title on the thread.

I try to keep my nudes within good taste, not erotic and certainly not pornographic. The only negative reaction I have had is from the Feminists who complain that I am 'objectifying women' and presenting them as 'sexual objects.'

I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful practices. And I notice no one commented. The main posters on this thread are the 1 or 2 that really, really want to allow nudity, at any level, in a "regular portraits thread", no matter what.

This is standard for bogging down a decision, the most vocal will argue until the cows come home, and never give an inch. So instead, they start shifting the argument onto tangents like,
"what really is a portrait" and
"if you don't want to look, just don't" and
"Kids shouldn't be offended, they'll see nudity at some point in their life" and
"if you take nudity out, you need to also take out xyz shots..." and
"nudity is art, the body shouldn't offend....blah."

Rather than argue each of the above, I'll ask this; Why don't the moderators just make the most logical ruling, that is being asked for by a large portion of the members? That is, keep nudity in it's own thread, like "soft focus landscapes", "old barns", "post your waterfalls"....et al? Is it that hard, or do we want to please the few, most adept arguers, who have nothing else to do but continually fight this logical plan?

Preston
15-Jun-2013, 09:20
Why don't the moderators just make the most logical ruling, that is being asked for by a large portion of the members? That is, keep nudity in it's own thread, like "soft focus landscapes", "old barns", "post your waterfalls"....et al?

Agreed.

--P

Greg Y
15-Jun-2013, 09:23
"Rather than argue each of the above, I'll ask this; Why don't the moderators just make the most logical ruling, that is being asked for by a large portion of the members That is, keep nudity in it's own thread, like "soft focus landscapes", "old barns", "post your waterfalls"....et al? Is it that hard, or do we want to please the few, most adept arguers, who have nothing else to do but continually fight this logical plan?"

Garrett, If only it were that simple. But first, as the polls shows...it's not 'a large portion'...it's about 50/50. Second, it's not about 'putting' them anywhere...
Posters have chosen where they would place their images. So do you advocate having 'alt process nudes' 'small format nudes'? My last comment is that culturally in these times we see more nudity everywhere... ads, social media, & with wardrobe malfunctions during the singing of the national anthem, so why does this topic generate so much discussion....this is afterall a private forum we have the privilege of using, & not a public democratic forum?

Randy Moe
15-Jun-2013, 09:24
We tried to run our artist only condo building by consensus.

It was hell.

Impossible, finally we agreed to normal condo rule by a board.




Agreed.

--P

Corran
15-Jun-2013, 09:41
If I take a portrait of an undraped model, it's a portrait, regardless of your opinion of the image.

- Leigh

I know it's pointless to argue with you, but:

YOUR opinion on an image you make is the last opinion that matters. The ONLY opinion that matters in art is the viewers.

Greg Y
15-Jun-2013, 09:51
"The ONLY opinion that matters in art is the viewers." Corran

Did you really say that? :eek:

Corran
15-Jun-2013, 09:54
Maybe I shouldn't be so final.

My point was I personally believe the meaning/labeling/feeling/etc. ascribed to art should be more of the viewers' opinion.

I would assume some would have issues if I posted nudes with a window looking outside in the landscape thread all day.

Wayne
15-Jun-2013, 10:53
There is no "regular portraits" thread, there are only "Portraits" threads.

I don't really care that much about this because I am on dialup internet at home, and rarely read the images threads. I have only occasionally dipped into them when I had a LOT of time on my hands which is not often. Despite my earlier attempts at humor I have not even looked at the portraits or nudes thread in many months. It took me 3 days recently to view and read the 2 monstrous x-ray threads. So I think I'm probably one of the least emotionally involved and the most logically inclined in this matter. Whatever happens, I won't even notice the change. I haven't even voted. But I may.

It seems entirely logical from my rather detached, principle-based view that people who want change be the ones to change, rather than trying to force change of behavior on a solid 50% of others who disagree. I respect the right of people who don't want to see or be associated with nudity. If you don't want to see your portraits mingled in a thread with nude portraits, start a thread explicitly for non-nude portraits. If you don't want to see nude portraits at all, don't view the thread that isn't explicitly labeled non-nude. What could be more simple and logical? Its much more simple and logical and even respectful than trying to force change on others because of your personal sensitivities.







I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful practices. And I notice no one commented. The main posters on this thread are the 1 or 2 that really, really want to allow nudity, at any level, in a "regular portraits thread", no matter what.

This is standard for bogging down a decision, the most vocal will argue until the cows come home, and never give an inch. So instead, they start shifting the argument onto tangents like,
"what really is a portrait" and
"if you don't want to look, just don't" and
"Kids shouldn't be offended, they'll see nudity at some point in their life" and
"if you take nudity out, you need to also take out xyz shots..." and
"nudity is art, the body shouldn't offend....blah."

Rather than argue each of the above, I'll ask this; Why don't the moderators just make the most logical ruling, that is being asked for by a large portion of the members? That is, keep nudity in it's own thread, like "soft focus landscapes", "old barns", "post your waterfalls"....et al? Is it that hard, or do we want to please the few, most adept arguers, who have nothing else to do but continually fight this logical plan?

Marc B.
15-Jun-2013, 11:57
Sex definitely sells!
The highest % viewed [image] category on LFPF, is...Drum roll please......'Nudes.'

Since images listed as 'Portraits' are listed monthly...ie; JAN Portraits, FEB Portraits, MAR Portraits, etc...
(and, among other names), the Portrait category is tougher to nail down.
Compiled from the "Image Sharing & Discussion" forum. Here is a brief rundown of activity/viewership,
average-per-month, of those individual sub-categories with 200,000 views or more.

1st) 'Nude,' Started 6-Dec-2010 *(The youngest thread here).
Views: 714,276 - over 29 months = 24,600 vpm, (views per month).

2nd) 'Large Format Landscapes,' Started 27-Dec-2008
Views: 1,149,083 - over 55 months = 20,900 vpm

3rd) 'What did you compose at Water’s Edge?' Started 5-Mar-2009
Views: 429,643 - over 52 months = 8,300 vpm

4th) 'Post your Trees,' Started 21-Jan-2008
Views: 492,173 - over 66 months = 7,500 vpm

5th) 'Post alternative techniques,' Started 17-Jul-2009
Views: 292,286 - over 48 months = 6,100 vpm

6th) 'Post your urban landscapes,' Started 15-Dec-2009
Views: 225,316 - over 43 months = 5,200 vpm

7th) 'Post your Architecture photographs,' Started 9-Jun-2008
Views: 287,360 - over 61 months = 4,700 vpm

8th) 'Flowers Anyone?' Started 8-Oct-2007 *(The oldest thread here).
Views: 314,273 - over 69 months = 4,600 vpm

To the Moderators...From the numbers above, be very careful not to make a 'Nude/Landscape' category. :)

Marc

Randy Moe
15-Jun-2013, 12:00
Change my vote. Nudity for everyone. I went to nudist family event once, it was horrible...



Sex definitely sells! The highest % viewed category on LFPF, is...Drum roll please......'Nudes.'

Since images listed as 'Portraits' are listed monthly...ie; JAN Portraits, FEB Portraits, MAR Portraits, etc...
the Portrait category is tougher to nail down.
Compiled from the "Image Sharing & Discussion" forum. Here is a brief rundown of activity/viewership,
average-per-month, of those categories with 200,000 views or more.

1st) 'Nude,' Started 6-Dec-2010 *(The youngest thread here).
Views: 714,276 - over 29 months = 24,600 vpm, (views per month).

2nd) 'Large Format Landscapes,' Started 27-Dec-2008
Views: 1,149,083 - over 55 months = 20,900 vpm

3rd) 'What did you compose at Water’s Edge?' Started 5-Mar-2009
Views: 429,643 - over 52 months = 8,300 vpm

4th) 'Post your Trees,' Started 21-Jan-2008
Views: 492,173 - over 66 months = 7,500 vpm

5th) 'Post alternative techniques,' Started 17-Jul-2009
Views: 292,286 - over 48 months = 6,100 vpm

6th) 'Post your urban landscapes,' Started 15-Dec-2009
Views: 225,316 - over 43 months = 5,200 vpm

7th) 'Post your Architecture photographs,' Started 9-Jun-2008
Views: 287,360 - over 61 months = 4,700 vpm

8th) 'Flowers Anyone,' Started 8-Oct-2007 *(The oldest thread here).
Views: 314,273 - over 69 months = 4,600 vpm

Marc

Ken Lee
15-Jun-2013, 12:19
The highest % viewed category on LFPF, is...Drum roll please......'

To sell more prints, let them be urban sea-side landscapes with nudes, flowers and trees, printed with alternate methods.:)

Randy Moe
15-Jun-2013, 12:34
like!


The highest % viewed category on LFPF, is...Drum roll please......'

To sell more prints, let them be urban sea-side landscapes with nudes, flowers and trees, printed with alternate methods.:)

Marc B.
15-Jun-2013, 12:36
To sell more prints, let them be urban sea-side landscapes with nudes, flowers and trees, printed with alternate methods.
+1 :)

Jody_S
15-Jun-2013, 12:43
The highest % viewed category on LFPF, is...Drum roll please......'

To sell more prints, let them be urban sea-side landscapes with nudes, flowers and trees, printed with alternate methods.:)

If you build it, they will come....

Leigh
15-Jun-2013, 12:52
If you don't want to see your portraits mingled in a thread with nude portraits, start a thread explicitly for non-nude portraits.
If you don't want to see nude portraits at all, don't view the thread that isn't explicitly labeled non-nude.
Excellent solution.

- Leigh

cowanw
15-Jun-2013, 13:23
This issue is not about censorship. It is about respect! We need to respect the situations and the views of others. Politeness in society has taken a back seat to rudeness and lack of respect for the opinions and views of others. The moderators unfortunately spend much of their time dealing with the lack thereof.

I have been making photos of nudes for years, some models were paid and some were friends. I have posted some of these nudes in the Nude thread and I started the Nudes with Small Format thread in the Lounge so that viewers would be aware of what to expect. I do this out of respect for the viewer.

I have many photos that could suitably be posted in the Large Format Landscape or the Old Things threads, but because of the shock value created by a nude appearing unexpectedly or inappropriately, I think it is only fair that the viewer be forewarned. This can be clear from the title on the thread.

I try to keep my nudes within good taste, not erotic and certainly not pornographic. The only negative reaction I have had is from the Feminists who complain that I am 'objectifying women' and presenting them as 'sexual objects.'

This post has in fact been roiling around in my head for several days. There is anger in it, both to societal changes and to "the Feminists"
It speaks to respect for the viewer. This has validity of course, as does respect for the subject and for the photographer.
The poster of the original image in question, who has responded in a most gentle and gentlemanly manner, may well have had the same concerns that Al has mentioned in the past regarding posting in the Nude section and exposing the subject to unwanted comments.
Posting a nude portrait in the portrait section will more likely avoid the inappropriate comments. And the photographer may well choose to put a nude portrait there for those very reasons
Leigh has spoken to the respect for the photographer.
I don't know the answer here although I really like the idea that a safe for work portrait thread could readily be started by anyone.
I admit I am astounded by the 50/50 split of those who feel moved to vote.
Garret's post prompted me to finally writeabout Al's . Apparently not having a post responded to means something; I'm not sure what. Perhaps silence is meant to be consent. If so then around 2600 members do not want a change to the rules.
As to the rest of that post.
I do not really really want to allow nudity in the portraits thread (it is allowed)
I really really don't want a whinocracy or a mob democracy to decide what is "most logical".
I don't want LFPF decisions made by anonymous filtering program managers.
And I really really don't want any category (such as artistic expression of peoples knobbly bits) being placed in a "separate but equal" category of artistic expression.
At risk of bogging down decision making, I will present a self portrait from 1840 which would be quite nude and shocking in its time.
97100
and here's one from Oct 2011
97101
I hope Stephane doesn't mind.

goamules
15-Jun-2013, 13:27
...This is standard for bogging down a decision, the most vocal will argue until the cows come home, and never give an inch. So instead, they start shifting the argument onto tangents like,
"what really is a portrait" and
"if you don't want to look, just don't" and
"Kids shouldn't be offended, they'll see nudity at some point in their life" and
"if you take nudity out, you need to also take out xyz shots..." and
"nudity is art, the body shouldn't offend....blah."...




There is no "regular portraits" thread, there are only "Portraits" threads.
I don't really care that much about this... Whatever happens, I won't even notice the change. I haven't even voted. But I may.

Good example of the kind of parcing words I was talking about.


It seems entirely logical from my rather detached, principle-based view that people who want change be the ones to change, rather than trying to force change of behavior on a solid 50% of others who disagree. I respect the right of people who don't want to see or be associated with nudity. If you don't want to see your portraits mingled in a thread with nude portraits, start a thread explicitly for non-nude portraits. If you don't want to see nude portraits at all, don't view the thread that isn't explicitly labeled non-nude. What could be more simple and logical? Its much more simple and logical and even respectful than trying to force change on others because of your personal sensitivities.

You've got to be kidding me. By your psuedo logic anything goes. Sexual content is not allowed in many, many places. It is often accompanied by warnings, firewalls, and such. You cannot post a nude picture on a wall at work, in a library, on a street corner, in a grocery store. But you're saying we should make a special, non-nude only portraits thread???? I guess in your bizarro would we'd need special non-nude schools, libraries, malls, and workplaces? A "safe zone" bubble for the few who don't want to live in a nudist colony? Posh.....

Corran
15-Jun-2013, 13:33
Proposing a "non-nude portrait" thread is the same thing as proposing a "nude portrait thread." Except that's labeling and therefore censorship.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

goamules
15-Jun-2013, 13:33
"Rather than argue each of the above, I'll ask this; Why don't the moderators just make the most logical ruling, that is being asked for by a large portion of the members That is, keep nudity in it's own thread, like "soft focus landscapes", "old barns", "post your waterfalls"....et al? Is it that hard, or do we want to please the few, most adept arguers, who have nothing else to do but continually fight this logical plan?" [my quote]

Garrett, If only it were that simple. But first, as the polls shows...it's not 'a large portion'...it's about 50/50. Second, it's not about 'putting' them anywhere...
Posters have chosen where they would place their images. So do you advocate having 'alt process nudes' 'small format nudes'? My last comment is that culturally in these times we see more nudity everywhere... ads, social media, & with wardrobe malfunctions during the singing of the national anthem, so why does this topic generate so much discussion....this is afterall a private forum we have the privilege of using, & not a public democratic forum?

Yep, that's what I was talking about, you also must be someone who wants to argue semantics, of what a "large portion" versus "50/50" is, or what the word "putting..." means, or anything except the truth: Sitting in an airport, school, or workplace is no place to "discover" a giant screenshot of a hot, totally nude woman showing all her parts. You can say it's OK for you. But you cannot say it's OK for everyone. Because in a lot of those places it's against the law.

Argue, argue, argue, but you cannot argue the above is incorrect.

Leigh
15-Jun-2013, 13:35
A "safe zone" bubble for the few who don't want to live in a nudist colony?
Excellent idea.

Although in my relatively long life I don't recall ever seeing a non-nude bubble.

- Leigh

Leigh
15-Jun-2013, 13:38
Proposing a "non-nude portrait" thread is the same thing as proposing a "nude portrait thread."
Not true at all.

Nudes are currently allowed in the Portraits thread, and there's no valid argument for changing that.

Adding a new thread that explicitly disallows nudes would give posters the opportunity to choose whether or not to use the new restrictive thread. This is quite different from changing the rules on an existing thread.

- Leigh

Corran
15-Jun-2013, 13:43
I disagree that the rules are being changed. Rather, they are being defined more specifically.

The argument I am making is that the Portraits thread is already more or less understood to be non-nude, as a nude portrait would go in the nude thread. It also seems that the majority of people opposed to posting nude portraits in the nude thread are due to comments posted in poor taste. I would also say that if we are changing rules, rude and lascivious comments should be not allowed.

goamules
15-Jun-2013, 13:46
Quick rhetorical question for those that take nude portraits:

Do you have your model strip down and pose nude in a public place like a business, street corner, school, airport, etc? If not, why not?

Corollary rhetorical question for those that want nudes to randomly appear in the Portraits thread:

If it's wrong to pose and photograph a nude in public, why do you think nude portraits should pop up in threads unannounced?

I've said my piece in my 3-4 posts above, so I'm leaving this thread to whoever the decision makers are. I'm not going to read any more lame rebuttals, off topic tangents, or art philosophy rationale from the 2-3 posters can't answer my points.

Leigh
15-Jun-2013, 13:54
Do you have your model strip down and pose nude in a public place like a business, street corner, school, airport, etc? If not, why not?
Yes, if/when such is appropriate to the work.

As an example, New York has an express provision in their public nudity law that allows nudity for artistic work.

- Leigh

Peter Lewin
15-Jun-2013, 14:12
What I find fascinating here is the issue of who are posting comments. I think every one of us who has contributed to this thread is doing so on philosophical grounds, evenly split between the yesses and the nos. But the people who regularly post in the Nudes thread are silent. They, as far as I can tell, haven't been tempted to post their "naked" photos in any other thread, save possibly the alternative processes thread (which would be appropriate for much of the work, had the photographers chosen to go that way). Also, the one photographer who regularly posts in the Portraits thread and whose single nude posting triggered these 17 pages, Ben Rains, hasn't participated. And I think it is worth noting that Ben's images, which many of us have complimented him for, have all been clothed portraits, save one. I don't think there have been any other examples. So we, who don't really "have a dog in this fight" are the ones going on and on...

Marc B.
15-Jun-2013, 14:30
Also, the one photographer who regularly posts in the Portraits thread and whose single nude posting triggered these 17 pages...
So, was the complainant internal to the LFPF or external? (I don't know if that really matters at this point).

Marc

benrains
15-Jun-2013, 14:34
Also, the one photographer who regularly posts in the Portraits thread and whose single nude posting triggered these 17 pages, Ben Rains, hasn't participated. And I think it is worth noting that Ben's images, which many of us have complimented him for, have all been clothed portraits, save one. I don't think there have been any other examples. So we, who don't really "have a dog in this fight" are the ones going on and on...

I said my bit a few pages back (here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?104316-Should-nudes-be-allowed-in-Portrait-threads&p=1037016&viewfull=1#post1037016)), and I think the technical solution I proposed in the correct way to solve the problem for everyone, but it just may not be a feasible one. And I haven't voted yet though because I'm curious to hear out the various arguments.

From a personal philosophical standpoint on the matter, my own feelings are probably closest to what Flavius has said in the thread. I really don't think there's anything wrong or harmful in showing nudity and categorizing nudes as portraits. But from a practical standpoint, I know I'm not going to single-handledly change the collective views of society, or even the more conservative minded individuals in the forum, and that's ok.

benrains
15-Jun-2013, 14:47
Rather than argue each of the above, I'll ask this; Why don't the moderators just make the most logical ruling, that is being asked for by a large portion of the members? That is, keep nudity in it's own thread, like "soft focus landscapes", "old barns", "post your waterfalls"....et al? Is it that hard, or do we want to please the few, most adept arguers, who have nothing else to do but continually fight this logical plan?

I don't think this correctly represents the sentiments of those who've participated in the poll. Very clearly 50% of people have voted that they think it's ok for nudes to be posted in the portraits threads. And then some percentage of those who voted "no" said they've personally no problems with it, but that they voted "no" out of consideration to others. What percentage of the "no"s, I can't say, but certainly many of them have spoken up to qualify their "no" votes in the thread. So, if anything, I feel confident in stating that the majority of the forum's participants either avidly support, or somewhat support, nudes being in the portrait thread.

But I also don't think that's enough reason to ignore the wishes of the significant minority of members who don't want to see nudes, potentially, in any discussion thread. Beyond the nudes issue, in general, I think the LFPF should try to be as inclusive as possible because we're a relatively small community of photographers and there's no benefit in fragmenting it unnecessarily (or discouraging members from participating who are on either side of the "nudes" debate.)

Wayne
15-Jun-2013, 15:42
Good example of the kind of parcing words I was talking about.
I thought I represented your intended meaning accurately, that you believe there is a "regular" portraits thread that by some unwritten definition includes only fully clothed people. If you meant something else, please explain.




You've got to be kidding me. By your psuedo logic anything goes. Sexual content is not allowed in many, many places. It is often accompanied by warnings, firewalls, and such. You cannot post a nude picture on a wall at work, in a library, on a street corner, in a grocery store. But you're saying we should make a special, non-nude only portraits thread???? I guess in your bizarro would we'd need special non-nude schools, libraries, malls, and workplaces? A "safe zone" bubble for the few who don't want to live in a nudist colony? Posh.....

This is a sillly extension of what I said. Most places are already off limits to nudity. What you are asking is akin to walking into a clothing optional beach and telling the unclothed people they must only use a portion of that clothing optional beach-the portion where you aren't. Its not enough that nudity is already banned most places, and nobody forces you to enter those places, you want to restrict it even more, on a privately owned forum.

Do you want to have a safe place for clothed portraits, or are you only interested in controlling what others do? The first is as easy as creating a thread.

benrains
15-Jun-2013, 16:06
I'm confused by what makes a photograph a portrait versus a nude (assuming that there is at least a portion of a naked body in the image). Let's go back to the original image of Sierra by Ben Rains in the Portraits thread. If the image is in the correct thread, what makes this a "Portrait" versus a "Nude?"

I don't think the categories are mutually exclusive. In the case of my image, I see it as a portrait that happens to be a nude. Someone else in the thread said something about showing him an example of any nude images posted on LFPF that weren't just nudes for the sake of being nude. I nearly all of my nudes are just a subset of the portraiture I do. There are some examples where I've done it in the spirit of abstract nudes, and other where it's not portraiture because it's not saying something directly about the person being photographed (e.g. they're acting in the role of some character that the image is about.) But 9 times out of 10 for me, my nudes are first and foremost portraits.

In the specific case of the image I posted of Sierra, it's a portrait because it represents something inherent about who she is... or at least it represents my understanding of who she is. Sierra is a freelance model who often poses nude, so at least at superficial level, my image is quite literally depicting that aspect of who she is. My intentions go beyond that, though, because she's not a complete stranger to me. If you follow her work and her Tumblr blog, or you happen to know her from real life, you quickly learn that she's incredibly intelligent (a bit nerdy even), open, comfortable with herself, and very direct. She's also someone who is strong and determined to do her own thing in life. And if you've eyes in your head, you know that Sierra is not one of the slender "size 0" female models that our culture bludgeons everyone, particularly women, over the head as some sort of "beauty ideal". Yet, I think most people who see her wouldn't hesitate to say that she is stunning.

The portrait I posted of her was meant to show many of those characteristics of who she is. And I literally put her on a pedestal and framed the shot in my arched doorway to lend the image a quality of reverence by giving it sort of the feel of a religious icon. It's meant to celebrate and elevate her as someone who I think is beautiful for many reasons. And I also hope that women, or even girls who see it, will take away the sense that they don't have to be as thin--or fit the precise dimensions of an industry standard fashion model--to think of themselves as beautiful or desirable.

Mark Sawyer
15-Jun-2013, 16:24
Throwing in my thoughts after most of the voting has gone by...

When I was a high school photography teacher, I never showed the forum threads to students, never knowing where nudes would pop up and perhaps get me fired. Similarly, I never introduced students to the forum even though many were doing large format work. And while I posted quite a few portraits of students over the years, I always had a nagging fear some parent could run across a portrait of their kid followed by a nude, and be upset.

And I suspect some have reservations about posting portraits of children knowing they may be followed by rather explicit nude images.

And it could certainly be uncomfortable (or worse) looking through the forum in a public place or work place and having such images pop up on your screen unexpectedly.

Given the reality of the world we live in, it seems a small enough sacrifice to have images of nudes be placed in threads labeled as containing nude images. I respect and admire many of the nudes I've seen posted here, but a little respect from posters of nude imagery for the concerns and situations of others would, I think, be appreciated.

Kirk Gittings
15-Jun-2013, 16:25
I see it as a portrait that happens to be a nude.

How does that happen exactly. You ask someone if you can take their picture and magically their clothes fall off? :) It seems to me that it would tend to be rather intentional and if its intentional it doesn't just "happen".

benrains
15-Jun-2013, 16:41
How does that happen exactly. You ask someone if you can take their picture and magically their clothes fall off? :) It seems to me that it would tend to be rather intentional and if its intentional it doesn't just "happen".

Er, that's just semantics or maybe not a precise enough choice of words on my part. It's a portrait that is also a nude.

Although, I do have at least one model friend who, as soon as the door closes behind her, immediately disrobes unprompted. That's just how she is. I guess in that case the nude part of it just "happens" from my viewpoint, though it's obviously intentional on her side of things.

Greg Y
15-Jun-2013, 16:56
Yep, that's what I was talking about, you also must be someone who wants to argue semantics, of what a "large portion" versus "50/50" is, or what the word "putting..." means, or anything except the truth: Sitting in an airport, school, or workplace is no place to "discover" a giant screenshot of a hot, totally nude woman showing all her parts. You can say it's OK for you. But you cannot say it's OK for everyone. Because in a lot of those places it's against the law.

Argue, argue, argue, but you cannot argue the above is incorrect.........

"Good example of the kind of parcing words I was talking about. "

At least some of those of us who ostensibly don't understand you, can conjugate the verb to parse....

Corran
15-Jun-2013, 18:05
Ben, a question if I may. If there was a thread titled "Nude Portraits," would you have posted it there instead?

I think the suggestion of "just create a non-nude portrait thread" is a really dumb idea. 95% of the portraits posted are clothed. Why would we create a specific thread for that when we have the monthly portrait threads? Would you create a "Landscape with no trees" thread specifically for desert, ice, etc. landscapes? No, you'd create a "Desert Images" thread.

I still hold the opinion that most nude images posted are generally inherently portraits. I don't know what the intent of the original Nude thread creator was, but clearly there should simply be a "Nude Portraits" thread. That makes way more sense.

Otto Seaman
15-Jun-2013, 18:22
Well unless the moderators delete all the old threads wherever there might be a nude image posted, whether it is "Portraits" or "How is the 240 Xenar's Bokeh?" it's all meaningless. This forum is hopelessly polluted with nudes and if an American school board member or corporate IT nerd stumbled upon this site, dollars to donuts that the first or second random thread they pick to look at will have some juicy crotch shot at 1600-pixels wide.

Really the only way to clean it up is to have the moderators go through the last 15-18 years of threads and delete things.

Or start over.

The better policy is not to use this site at a sensitive work or school site. Consider it about the same as Tumblr or an R-rated movie. You don't watch porn at work do you?

BrianShaw
15-Jun-2013, 18:34
Ya, yer rite. Itz hopeless. Si how iz der bokay on an Xenar 240?

Corran
15-Jun-2013, 18:40
Disagree.
First, the portrait threads are now monthly. So, starting in July, you would have a clean slate. Secondly, yes if you are diving into the archives you will have nudes in old portrait threads. Fine, they're there, but that doesn't mean we should just keep on with the trend.

welly
15-Jun-2013, 18:57
I've not read all the posts so apologise if I'm bringing up the same arguments but clearly no one is against nudes. There is no issue with nude images on this site whatsoever but for those of us who browse the site at work, and please don't start with your "you shouldn't be browsing the internet at work argument!" - what I do at work is my business not yours, or in other public places, it can easily become a problem when nudes appear in threads that aren't marked as such. If nothing else, can we just be informed that a nude image is about to appear on the horizon? No one is being uptight, it's just that we need to know.

TXFZ1
15-Jun-2013, 18:59
Only in America is where nudity is obsessed to such a prudist level.

David

Kirk Gittings
15-Jun-2013, 19:11
That's a myth. Are there less prudish countries? Absolutely. Are there worse? Absolutely.

TXFZ1
15-Jun-2013, 19:14
No, it is my experience and opinion.

David

Tim Meisburger
15-Jun-2013, 19:24
I voted okay, but have changed my mind. If it is a problem for some people to have nudes in the portrait thread, I have no problem at all if they are confined to threads with "nude" in the title. That is just common courtesy and manners.

Kirk Gittings
15-Jun-2013, 19:24
No, it is my experience and opinion.

Been to any Islamic countries?

benrains
15-Jun-2013, 19:52
Ben, a question if I may. If there was a thread titled "Nude Portraits," would you have posted it there instead?

Sure... I'd have probably posted it there, in the Nudes thread, and in the regular monthly Portraits thread!

My smart-assed-ness aside, had there been a established policy on the site regarding content featuring nudes I'd have complied with it. And when a few people complained about the image of Sierra in this month's portrait thread, I said I'd defer to the moderators on the matter. They could've either deleted it themselves, asked me to delete it, or said it was "ok". Any of those outcomes would've been fine by me. But, and I think probably wisely, they (or Ken Lee) decided to defer to the broader LFPF community by setting up this thread and the associated poll to let us all beat it to death. I'm not surprised by there being a lot of strong opinions on both sides, although I am amazed at how evenly the results have tracked over the past few days.

What I would like to do is something like what I've demonstrated below. I'd like to still be able to post to general discussion threads with NSFW content, but instead of inlining or attaching the images I'd just reference them by a link. That way people who don't want to be surprised by that kind of image aren't made to see it. For those people who are ok with it, then they just need to click through the link. The other benefit is that whether you click it or not is situationally dependent. If you're at work, maybe you don't want to click it; when you get home, maybe you do.


(NSFW image: Sierra (http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7426/8983782992_1bb06850c6_b.jpg))
sierra (http://www.flickr.com/photos/benrains/8983782992/) by Ben Rains (http://www.flickr.com/people/benrains/), on Flickr

Century Studio 10A w/8x10 back
Wollensak Vesta 14"/5
Ilford HP5 Plus / Rodinal 1+50
Cropped

For discussion threads where the title of the thread contains things like Nude or NSFW, those could contain posts with inlined images because the title of the thread gives you ample notice to avoid the entire thread if that sort of thing doesn't interest you.

Greg Davis
15-Jun-2013, 20:17
Only in America is where nudity is obsessed to such a prudist level.

David

The Japanese find it extremely rude to show genitalia.

al olson
15-Jun-2013, 20:19
. . .
But the people who regularly post in the Nudes thread are silent. They, as far as I can tell, haven't been tempted to post their "naked" photos in any other thread, save possibly the alternative processes thread (which would be appropriate for much of the work, had the photographers chosen to go that way).
. . .

That's not true. I said my piece in post #117. I also voted 'no'. I have posted some of my nudes in the Nudes thread and I have posted others in the Nudes with Small Formats which I started in the Lounge. I have done this to ward off a potentially awkward situation for the viewer.

I would post more but I am put off by the rude, derogatory, and salacious remarks made by some (just a few) of our Forum members who can't seem to act like grownups. I concur with Ed Bray's reluctance to place his work in the Nude thread because of that.

However, because even the most open-minded viewer looking over your shoulder initially tends to equate nude with pornography I think that it is important for the user not to be embarrassed when showing the site to others.

benrains
16-Jun-2013, 05:31
Should we allow nudes in the Portraits thread ?

I've voted yes, but on the condition that people who don't want to see them don't have to. This could be implemented in a number of ways, but the simplest would be for the poster to not directly attach the images or display them inline. Instead provide a clearly labeled link to the images hosted offsite.

For discussion threads with titles that are clearly labeled as containing nudes or "not safe for work" content, attached and inlined photographs would be fine. In those instances the title of the thread would provide users with the warning they needed to avoid the content. And I suppose, to be fair, if someone wants to create a thread with a title that indicates "no nudes" or "work safe", then posters to those threads should respect that and not post any nude content, or links to such content, in them.

BrianShaw
16-Jun-2013, 05:52
... What I would like to do is something like what I've demonstrated below. I'd like to still be able to post to general discussion threads with NSFW content, but instead of inlining or attaching the images I'd just reference them by a link. That way people who don't want to be surprised by that kind of image aren't made to see it. For those people who are ok with it, then they just need to click through the link. The other benefit is that whether you click it or not is situationally dependent. If you're at work, maybe you don't want to click it; when you get home, maybe you do.
...

That is a very considerate approach, Ben. :)

Doug Howk
16-Jun-2013, 06:33
At what level of revealing does a portrait become NSFW? To some, anything more explicit than a chadri is unacceptable, while for others its a particular part of the body that would be used for categorization. Whose definition do we follow? Let's say that we utilize the viewpoints of the more conservative states/regions of USA, then others in the international community might claim that their viewpoints are being ignored. It is possible to make a site multi-lingual. One could also make it multi-cultural by having it conform to local standards of decency. Any contributions for the coding effort;-)
If photography is truly an art form, then utilize the world of art as a guide. Its an Open Society (re Popper)

cowanw
16-Jun-2013, 06:52
I've voted yes, but on the condition that people who don't want to see them don't have to. This could be implemented in a number of ways, but the simplest would be for the poster to not directly attach the images or display them inline. Instead provide a clearly labeled link to the images hosted offsite.

For discussion threads with titles that are clearly labeled as containing nudes or "not safe for work" content, attached and inlined photographs would be fine. In those instances the title of the thread would provide users with the warning they needed to avoid the content. And I suppose, to be fair, if someone wants to create a thread with a title that indicates "no nudes" or "work safe", then posters to those threads should respect that and not post any nude content, or links to such content, in them.
From other threads here, there are many who choose not to post off site, for good reasons.
Adding a layer of difficulty, will also inhibit those who, as a by product of using the old ways, are not very computer literate.
Titleing threads as safe for work would work and be at the discretion of the OP
Doug Howk's point is well taken, though

Jody_S
16-Jun-2013, 07:11
After reading through this thread, it seems obvious that a forum such as this cannot be run based on consensus of opinion, and the mods will simply have to decide what to do (if anything).

Otto Seaman
16-Jun-2013, 08:05
Unless they delete or segregate every past nude that's ever been posted throughout this site, this site will still be considered "dangerous" by the arbiters at work and school... so it seems pointless. Eliminating future nudes isn't going to clean this place up in their eyes, it will always be a dangerous website. If an art teacher shows his students a "safe" thread on this forum and then the curious student goes digging and finds other threads with naked body parts - who is at fault in the eyes of the school board? The art teacher might as well be showing the kids an interview on Playboy.com but telling the kids not to look elsewhere on the site, especially not looking at the pictures, lol.

They aren't going to care about some new policy enacted in 2013 when they could look at a thread from a few years back that would still have nudity posted. Search engines will still see those too, and after all, this forum is supposed to be a repository of large format photo knowledge... not just a social media chatting and picture posting outlet. I find myself searching for and gleaning valuable info from some of the oldest threads and so do thousands of others.

It should be the viewer's responsibility to control where and how they view this forum.

Even with a rule in place, it still doesn't stop someone from posting a raunchy shot out of immaturity, spite, or in the name of free expression. The mods can't be on top of everything every second. So how about erring on the side of making their lives easier and sane by not imposing a bunch of vague rules that will only be disputed... imagine the whining if a photo with cleavage or bulges gets censored when another photo of buttocks isn't... it's as dumb a rule as no politics or religion and it will only result in arbitrary and inconsistent implementation.

I agree that we should be considerate of each other and all that but you can't control every aspect of what people will do so why pretend that you can?

Sorry if you can't enjoy this forum at work. Tough.

benrains
16-Jun-2013, 08:26
At what level of revealing does a portrait become NSFW? To some, anything more explicit than a chadri is unacceptable, while for others its a particular part of the body that would be used for categorization. Whose definition do we follow? ...

I think the definition of "not safe for work" is a separate issue from this one. It's also a whole lot more contentious if we're trying to solve the problem for everyone because it's extremely subjective. A reasonable goal would be to try to come up with some definition that's acceptable for a significant majority of the site's users. And I would guess that's something that could be more clearly determined with a poll.

Louis Pacilla
16-Jun-2013, 08:52
126 votes and dead even. That's interesting, at the very least.

Not anymore.

BrianShaw
16-Jun-2013, 08:57
Sorry if you can't enjoy this forum at work. Tough.

What an odd, insensitive, and inconsiderate conclusion to an otherwise somewhat rational posting. :D

Jim Jones
16-Jun-2013, 09:03
The Japanese find it extremely rude to show genitalia.

The Japanese are pragmatic about nudity. However, some of their erotica, while showing little or no genitalia, would be quite disturbing to many Americans.

benrains
16-Jun-2013, 09:04
From other threads here, there are many who choose not to post off site, for good reasons.
Adding a layer of difficulty, will also inhibit those who, as a by product of using the old ways, are not very computer literate.

That's a legitimate concern. I'd prefer an in-built solution to it for the site that could be readily used by anyone. That's probably easier said than done. The suggestion I threw out does require a little bit of technical know-how, but it doesn't require any changes the forum software.


Titleing threads as safe for work would work and be at the discretion of the OP Doug Howk's point is well taken, though

I have the same the problem with this approach as I do with, as a matter of site policy, the suggestion of segregating all nudes off into "nudes" threads. I can't in good conscience tell people they have to limit themselves in ways that I myself don't want to be limited.

benrains
16-Jun-2013, 09:14
The Japanese are pragmatic about nudity. However, some of their erotica, while showing little or no genitalia, would be quite disturbing to many Americans.

At the risk of being totally off-topic, for a practical example, do a Google search of the Japanese woodblock print master Hokusai's "The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife" from 1814. (Note: the search results are going to be NSFW.)

Corran
16-Jun-2013, 09:19
Not anymore.

53% to 47% is hardly statistically relevant. It's bounced back and forth a few points either way since the beginning.

rdenney
16-Jun-2013, 09:51
What about a photo of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (modern image).
They would be naked, but that's not the focus of the shot.

There are innumerable documentary images of native tribes around the world who are unclothed, but that's not the reason for
taking the picture. Of course this is more commonly encountered in the Amazon than in Alaska. :D

- Leigh

And which of those narrow cases motivated the nudity of the photos in the nude thread?

Everybody has different lines. Spouting off about where the lines should be isn't going to move them, especially when the people who draw lines where you don't aren't even participants here. But it might preclude participation from those who don't want to offend those who might be looking over their shoulder. I look at the forum every week in airport lobbies and public restaurants and coffee shops. I can't control who's looking, and they may be unwilling to accept my views on what art should allow. But if they complained, I could be fired--federal regulation governs my behavior while traveling on official business, which is much of the time, even when I'm off the clock. A perusal through recent headlines should enumerate potential consequences. Leigh, you should understand that, given where you live and the likely employment of many of your neighbors.

I do not open the Nudes thread except at home, or in places where I'm sure nobody will see it and misconstrue my intentions. I can't live in isolation from society, no matter what their views.

Rick "who was nevertheless not the one who started this line of discussion" Denney

marfa boomboom tx
16-Jun-2013, 12:32
As we age, we can grow a larger world. Most of us live in a world which diminishes us.

Marfa, where it is easy to be off the grid... 11 to 17 miles from concrete is what my driver said. If you go slowly, both get you there...

And offline for the next few months, wish you all a great time.

Michael_4514
16-Jun-2013, 15:17
All portraits are nudes, just in some there are clothes over the nude part.

Seriously, I just don't get the objection to nudes. If the nudity makes you feel uncomfortable, explore the source of the discomfort, it surely is not in the photo itself. More often than not, I find stupid comments about photos of nudes more offensive than any picture I've seen posted here.

Mark Sawyer
16-Jun-2013, 16:07
Michael, I haven't noticed anyone in this thread saying they were uncomfortable or offended by nude imagery. Over and over it's been noted that it simply isn't appropriate to have it on your screen in quite a few situations. Perhaps you're perfectly comfortable having images of a woman in crotchless black leather chaps spreading her vagina over a toilet (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?51656-August-Portraits&p=497653) on your monitor as friends, co-workers, small children, and strangers look over your shoulder, but it's reasonable for others to want to participate in this forum at work or in public places without such images popping up by surprise.

But if you really think all such images are appropriate at all times, perhaps you could load the image mentioned above as your monitor background at work and on your children's computer?

Peter De Smidt
16-Jun-2013, 16:08
I read this forum from many locations, some of which have people walking by. I don't want photographs with a naked person in it to pop up on the screen. For instance, right now I'm visiting my 81 year old mother, and I'm reading (and posting to) the forum from her computer. This issue does not involve nudes versus portraits versus labeling versus censorship..... No one here is suggesting banning pictures of naked people. It's about having some social grace.

bobwysiwyg
16-Jun-2013, 16:25
I read this forum from many locations, some of which have people walking by. I don't want photographs with a naked person in it to pop up on the screen. For instance, right now I'm visiting my 81 year old mother, and I'm reading (and posting to) the forum from her computer. This issue does not involve nudes versus portraits versus labeling versus censorship..... No one here is suggesting banning pictures of naked people. It's about having some social grace.

Well put. I agree.

Doug Howk
16-Jun-2013, 16:42
If we tried to develop community/forum standards for what is acceptable, the exercise would become absurd. For example:
Breasts are not allowed except when they are of a male who is not a transvestite.
Female breasts are not allowed unless the model/subject is of an Amazonian tribe (Salgado)
Under 18 female breasts not allowed unless they are your children and your last name is Mann
or its on a nudist beach and your last name is Sturges.
This is an exercise in absurdity.
Why not just make all images thumbnails, and the viewer would chose to see larger version? Technically, this may be easier to implement than someone having to determine community standards of decency.

BrianShaw
16-Jun-2013, 17:05
I read this forum from many locations, some of which have people walking by. I don't want photographs with a naked person in it to pop up on the screen. For instance, right now I'm visiting my 81 year old mother, and I'm reading (and posting to) the forum from her computer. This issue does not involve nudes versus portraits versus labeling versus censorship..... No one here is suggesting banning pictures of naked people. It's about having some social grace.

I wish folks would read this quoted posting before responding!

TXFZ1
16-Jun-2013, 17:28
Been to any Islamic countries?

Yes, I have been to Islamic countries.

David

TXFZ1
16-Jun-2013, 17:57
From what I understand; the rules about nudity in most countries are clear, just as it was written above about being rude in Japan to show pubic hair. In the US, a lot of people are obsessed with nudity but fear being seen at a airport looking at bare breast on their own laptop, or a co-worker walking by and seeing the same.

Sandy, I will not address your points as they are rude and discussing Islamic is irrelevant. Linking my statement with the woman being beaten is ludicrous.

David

TXFZ1
16-Jun-2013, 18:14
The Japanese find it extremely rude to show genitalia.

Yes they do, but they also have some outragous TV shows. They also find it rude if you sit on their business cards.

David

soeren
18-Jun-2013, 02:33
We can choke to death in courtesy and misunderstood attempt not to offend anyone. I don't recall any scientific study concluding that exposure to nudes is hazardous to your health. Maybe some countries or regimes are but thats another issue. given the character of the games kids are playing on WII, PS3, XBOX etc. and the movies/series shown on TV I really don't understand why nudes on a photographic forum turns out to be an issue.
Best regards

welly
18-Jun-2013, 03:31
We can choke to death in courtesy and misunderstood attempt not to offend anyone. I don't recall any scientific study concluding that exposure to nudes is hazardous to your health. Maybe some countries or regimes are but thats another issue. given the character of the games kids are playing on WII, PS3, XBOX etc. and the movies/series shown on TV I really don't understand why nudes on a photographic forum turns out to be an issue.
Best regards

It isn't an issue. No one is saying it's an issue. Where are you getting this from? All those who have voted against nudes in the portrait thread are saying is they want prior warning. Why does no one seem to understand this? There is no problem with nudes whatsoever. But like it or not, *to some!* having nude photographs appear in public can cause an issue. That's just how it is and even if all the nude photographs in the world appear on this forum, it's not going to change that.

Please, prior warning at the very least if you're not going to be reasonable and keep them out of the portrait thread. Just be respectful. It's not much to ask, is it?

soeren
18-Jun-2013, 04:42
It isn't an issue. No one is saying it's an issue. Where are you getting this from?
SNIP<
>SNIP
Please, prior warning at the very least if you're not going to be reasonable and keep them out of the portrait thread. Just be respectful. It's not much to ask, is it?

Well Latest from you :) By asking "is this ok" its made an issue and 22 pages of posts confirms it.
First some want to keep nudes out of the portrait thread even if its the most proper thread to post the image.
Next we'll have problems with the "Alternative.... thread, then the pictorial thread and "posts in Galli style" etc.
In the end we'll have one 18+ NSFW thread and people won't post there because they don't feel the images belong there. Its what could be called subtle censorship.
As noted earlier on APUG we don't have any issues with the nudes being posted and there youll run into them at random so why is it a problem here?
To me a person in a portrait might be nude without needing to catagorize the image as a nude. How about abstracts? How much or how little unclothed human body is ok? Youll end up with a lot of meaningless amputated threads if you cant post nudes in one or the other and youll end up with a lot of crossreferences etc. At last Im a bit tired of " I don't care/It dosn't bother me BUT......"
And "My kids........" The kind of nudes posted here will not harm your kids. They wont get a heart attack or have traumas for the rest of their lives, the worst thing that will happen is they get a bit more educated and they get to see their parents blushing
Best regards

Corran
18-Jun-2013, 05:29
No, read the thread, you are making a typical strawman argument. Well-marked threads, or "spoiler" tags, or simply having a link to the image rather than an inline image is what every last person has requested. Not a single person has posted that they are personally offended by nudes or that it is "hazardous to their health."

Video games are yet another red herring. I ask you sir, why do you have a problem with that artistic media, while simultaneously complaining about censorship?

jnanian
18-Jun-2013, 06:09
i'm still trying to figure out why it is such a big deal to put the nudes in the thread that was created for nudes (12/2010 ) ..

BrianShaw
18-Jun-2013, 06:21
Perhaps some are trying to cultivate a Petrino-like persona???

jnanian
18-Jun-2013, 06:35
i think i am going to start uploading architecture photographs to the portrait thread
because i don't make architectural photographs, i make building portraits ..

BrianShaw
18-Jun-2013, 06:51
Yes! I love the sumptuous curves and smooth tonal range of a good building... especially if there is some keystoning involved!

soeren
18-Jun-2013, 07:00
No, read the thread, you are making a typical strawman argument. Well-marked threads, or "spoiler" tags, or simply having a link to the image rather than an inline image is what every last person has requested. Not a single person has posted that they are personally offended by nudes or that it is "hazardous to their health."

Video games are yet another red herring. I ask you sir, why do you have a problem with that artistic media, while simultaneously complaining about censorship?

I do not have a problem with videogames. I'm simply comparing games and series/movies some of which are showing death, destruction and violence with images showing nude people and ask why nude people in pictures are an issue. I still fail to see why a nude can cause so much disturbance. Yes you could ban nudes in all threads but one, easy but why? If you have a discussion in the alternative thread and a nude is an appropiate illustration why shouldn't it be posted in that discussion? If a person portraited is nude and nudeness is not the theme of the image but simply helps in portraing personality, vulnerability or something else, the image is very succesfull as a portrait and the artist want to share it as a portrait then whats wrong with it showing a nude person?
I get the arguments re NSFW and courtesy I simply just dont get why "Nude" has to be the theme of an image just because the subject is more or less undraped.
And I did read most of the thread ;)
best regards

Louie Powell
18-Jun-2013, 07:11
Come on - one of the most frequent criticisms of camera clubs is that they get so wrapped up in their 'rules' that they lose focus on photography. Do we want to let that happen here?

The only situation where forcing photography of nudes into a special category has ever made any sense is where there is a concern that the subject might be offensive to some viewers. I would hope that a forum that is designed for mature participants who can make up their own minds about things would not need that kind of 'adult supervision'.

redrockcoulee
18-Jun-2013, 11:18
Saying that an image cannot be posted in the appropriate thread because the subject is naked certainly is censorship.

You seem to think that whether or not the subject is clothed is the most important criterion for selecting the appropriate posting thread. That's nonsense.

- Leigh


So we can now post images of trucks and or even portraits done with a digital camera in the portrait thread. Rules may not be censorship. I think back at the uproar with the Janet Jackson Super Bowl thing and that CBC kept playing the video over and over again without any "covering up" and speaking of the uproar. As it was a newscast the video was appropiate, if it was played during the weather report or even sports it would not be. That is not censorship.

Perhaps the best that should be done is a warning on the front of the entire image forum that there may be nudity so that if you are in a public place or with people who you do not know if they would feel comfortable with unexpected nudity, you simply do not view ANY large format images. Nudity does not offend me but I would not want to show nudity to those it may without it being MY decision and not some one else's.

Doug Howk
18-Jun-2013, 12:05
The problem with nudity for some is their surfing the site in a non-secure or public location; and want to avoid the complaint of others if such images did appear.
Might I suggest the use of a text-only browser such as Lynx. It would bring back fond memories of the internet prior to Netscape & Mosaic ;-)

Leigh
18-Jun-2013, 12:54
Perhaps the best that should be done is a warning on the front of the entire image forum that there may be nudity..
Yep. Works for me.

- Leigh

sanking
18-Jun-2013, 14:53
The problem with nudity for some is their surfing the site in a non-secure or public location; and want to avoid the complaint of others if such images did appear.
Might I suggest the use of a text-only browser such as Lynx. It would bring back fond memories of the internet prior to Netscape & Mosaic ;-)

There are really several problems.

First, the type of nudity seen here, nearly all of female breasts, boobs and pubic hair, while basically vanilla, does offend some people, even in the US. And more women than men for that matter. That does not make it necessarily good or bad, but it is a fact that in the same way some people don't want to have to look at engorged and erect penises, others don't want to look at big boobs and butts.

Second, the type of nudity in art seen here is neither eternal nor international in scope. It is primarily western in origin and is not embraced in many other parts of the world, Islamic countries for example. Not in many other countries in Asia either. For example, except when used for erotic purposes one rarely sees nudity in the art from China.

Third, while the membership of this forum seems be mostly western in origin I have seen posts from members who live in countries where any association with nudity could definitely be a problem. Yes, these folks probably are smart enough to protect themselves, but why not extend to them the basic respect that some of us would like, i.e. if there is nudity in one of the image galleries please extend the courtesy of making us aware of it before we open the image.


Sandy

Leigh
18-Jun-2013, 14:58
Sandy,

We cannot conform to all tastes from all places. It's an impossibility.

The Brits drive on the right-hand side of the road. Should we allow them to do so when they visit the US?

People who don't want to see nudes are free to start threads where nudes are forbidden.
Nobody is attempting to restrict that ability in any way.

- Leigh

sanking
18-Jun-2013, 15:18
Sandy,

We cannot conform to all tastes from all places. It's an impossibility.

The Brits drive on the right-hand side of the road. Should we allow them to do so when they visit the US?

People who don't want to see nudes are free to start threads where nudes are forbidden.
Nobody is attempting to restrict that ability in any way.

- Leigh


What we can, and should do, is exercise some modicum of respect on this forum for the views of others on sensitive issues. Is the concept of respect for the opinions of others alien to you?

Sandy

TXFZ1
18-Jun-2013, 15:31
What we can, and should do, is exercise some modicum of respect on this forum for the views of others on sensitive issues. Is the concept of respect for the opinions of others alien to you?

Sandy

Sandy,

Bull. Please go back and reread your post between #209 and #210

David

sanking
18-Jun-2013, 15:46
Sandy,

Bull. Please go back and reread your post between #209 and #210

David

David,

I deleted those messages because they were rude. I found your comments ignorant and reacted emotionally without due consideration, which I regret. However, my basic instinct is that you do not have any real experience in Islamic countries, other than perhaps in a military operation. Your comments on this list show a deep lack of understanding, IMO, of the world we live in. And my personal understanding is based on rather extensive experience in travel and study in every continent on the planet, except Antarctica.

So the basic fact is that I retracted posts because I felt they were rude. But the other fact is that I have several thousand posts on this forum of substance. People know who I am, they know my full name. And I am sure that many here have respect for my opinions.

Sandy

Mark Sawyer
18-Jun-2013, 15:49
Perhaps rather than a hard rule, a request could be posted in the forum's "Basic Usage Guidelines" to the effect of,

"As many users from different cultures view this forum in public, educational, work, and family places, it is requested (or suggested) images containing nudity be confined to threads designating such images in the thread title."

Randy Moe
18-Jun-2013, 15:56
I prefer this be decided by our 'Philosopher King's', meaning the site's owner and the chosen and well balanced moderators.

No matter the vote, discussion or participants histories, ultimately the mods keep all of us on a useful path.

The owner and mod's have my full support.

Jim Jones
18-Jun-2013, 16:29
I prefer this be decided by our 'Philosopher King's', meaning the site's owner and the chosen and well balanced moderators.

No matter the vote, discussion or participants histories, ultimately the mods keep all of us on a useful path.

The owner and mod's have my full support.

Yes, indeed. With much effort they do a fine job of maintaining my most useful photographic site. It takes little effort for us to refrain from complicating their task.

TXFZ1
18-Jun-2013, 18:59
David,

I deleted those messages because they were rude. I found your comments ignorant and reacted emotionally without due consideration, which I regret. However, my basic instinct is that you do not have any real experience in Islamic countries, other than perhaps in a military operation. Your comments on this list show a deep lack of understanding, IMO, of the world we live in. And my personal understanding is based on rather extensive experience in travel and study in every continent on the planet, except Antarctica.

So the basic fact is that I retracted posts because I felt they were rude. But the other fact is that I have several thousand posts on this forum of substance. People know who I am, they know my full name. And I am sure that many here have respect for my opinions.

Sandy

Sandy, you have projected your ignorance onto my posting with no basis in reality.

David

JW Dewdney
18-Jun-2013, 19:13
Seems to me that a portrait is about inner character and 99.9% of nudes are about anything but. Just an angle that I thought of. Not that I don't appreciate a good nude but I think it's a pretty slippery slope into the world of porn.

sanking
18-Jun-2013, 19:22
Sandy, you have projected your ignorance onto my posting with no basis in reality. Only after being called did you offer a minimum explanation.

David

David,

You have a total of 23 posts to this forum. Most of those have been about this thread on nudity, a number of others about espresso coffee. You have made assertions about your experiences abroad, with no proof, and since you don't go by a real name other than David/TXFZ1, who knows for sure who you are, or where you have been?

Truth be told, I believe you have lied about your experiences. But if that is not the case you could prove me wrong.

Cheers,

Sandy

Colin Graham
18-Jun-2013, 19:30
I read this forum from many locations, some of which have people walking by. I don't want photographs with a naked person in it to pop up on the screen. For instance, right now I'm visiting my 81 year old mother, and I'm reading (and posting to) the forum from her computer. This issue does not involve nudes versus portraits versus labeling versus censorship..... No one here is suggesting banning pictures of naked people. It's about having some social grace.

How's this for social grace: visit with your mother instead of surfing the web! Kidding, sort of- but using such devices in public places is hardly a 'social grace' to being with, so that argument is difficult to take seriously.

I'd prefer not to be imposed upon by any mobile media when in public. Yeah, society has already passed critical mass on this point so I'll crawl back in my cave.

Anyway, at least nudes are quiet.

TXFZ1
18-Jun-2013, 19:33
Sandy,

What evidence do you need for proof? Since you have searched me, look at my Flickr and you will find photos of Malaysia. What does this prove? You still projected your assumptions onto me before hearing my answer. You assumed I lied before you asked the question. That is not showing respect for another person's opinion.

Post count is just a number.

David

Peter De Smidt
18-Jun-2013, 19:54
How's this for social grace: visit with your mother instead of surfing the web! Kidding, sort of- but using such devices in public places is hardly a 'social grace' to being with, so that argument is difficult to take seriously.

I'd prefer not to be imposed upon by any mobile media when in public. Yeah, society has already passed critical mass on this point so I'll crawl back in my cave.

Anyway, at least nudes are quiet.

That's amazingly judgmental. I was staying with my mom for a week, helping her with various things, but somehow it was rude of me to spend a few minutes on the computer that I just bought for her. She'll no doubt be touched by your great concern for how she's treated.

sanking
18-Jun-2013, 19:58
Sandy,

What evidence do you need for proof? Since you have searched me, look at my Flickr and you will find photos of Malaysia. What does this prove? You still projected your assumptions onto me before hearing my answer. You assumed I lied before you asked the question. That is not showing respect for another person's opinion.

Post count is just a number.

David

Lord, I did not search you! Certainly not on Flickr, which is about as meaningless to me Tumblr. I simply look at your posts on this forum, the Large Format forum.

But, were you in Kuala Lumpur? I did a workshop recently with a student from there and she was very adamant about the dangers for her and her models in doing nude photography. Did you not see any of this in your visit to Malyasia? She has lived there for a long time so I took her views seriously.

Also, you dismissed my comment about a woman being beaten to a coma in an Islamic country for distributing documents supporting women rights. That was in Tunis, Tunisia, and the woman was a friend of ours with a doctorate form the Sorbonne. Why do you think it is OK to unlink the issue of women's right in Islamic countries from exploitation of women via nudity and pornography? Was it not you who proclaimed that you had been in Islamic countries, in response to question by Kirk?

I don't show disrespect to people by chance. They earn it. To this point I have ZERO reason to show you respect, and it ain't about your count number. It is about arrogant ignorance.


Sandy

Colin Graham
18-Jun-2013, 20:03
You can tell her I said you're welcome. ;-D
The 'Kidding' part in my post was perhaps noncommittal, but I was only half-joking. Oops, there I go again...


That's amazingly judgmental. I was staying with my mom for a week, helping her with various things, but somehow it was rude of me to spend a few minutes on the computer that I just bought for her. She'll no doubt be touched by your great concern for how she's treated.

sanking
18-Jun-2013, 20:14
Interesting thread, but nothing more from me for a while. Have a long plane ride I have to get ready for early tomorrow morning.

I don't anticipate seeing any nudity at the TSA check points and boarding, and probably not in flight.

Sandy

Brian Sims
18-Jun-2013, 21:07
When this thread was relatively new, I didn't vote yes or no. I recommended that there was ambiguity about what constituted nudity and so we should all use common sense and sensitivity to others in deciding whether to post to any thread an image that contained a nude or partially nude human figure.

Having followed this thread since my posting, I am now voting "No."

It appears that a significant portion of this online community must have the strong guidance of firm (even if they are arbitrary) rules. Does this say something about the demographics of this community? The stubbornness of large format photographers? Or does it say something about our behavior under the protection of the anonymity or semi-anonymity of an online community? I don't know. Maybe some of each. But I find it depressing.

polyglot
18-Jun-2013, 21:10
I don't anticipate seeing any nudity at the TSA check points and boarding, and probably not in flight.

Yeah, about (http://www.loweringthebar.net/2013/05/naked-tsa-protesters-appeal-to-be-heard-tuesday.html) that (http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/04/tsa-wants-to-see-you-naked-complains-when-you-get-that-way.html)...

soeren
19-Jun-2013, 00:31
When this thread was relatively new, I didn't vote yes or no. I recommended that there was ambiguity about what constituted nudity and so we should all use common sense and sensitivity to others in deciding whether to post to any thread an image that contained a nude or partially nude human figure.

Having followed this thread since my posting, I am now voting "No."

It appears that a significant portion of this online community must have the strong guidance of firm (even if they are arbitrary) rules. Does this say something about the demographics of this community? The stubbornness of large format photographers? Or does it say something about our behavior under the protection of the anonymity or semi-anonymity of an online community? I don't know. Maybe some of each. But I find it depressing.

?? Strong guidance? why? please elaborate. I woted yes because I find the arguments for excluding images portraiting a subject in the nude from the thread that the poster find to be the most apropiate on the basis of such being NSFW wrong.
1. restricting the the subject matter on the basis of clothing vs no clothing in a portrait-, Alternative techniques-, Pictorialism or any other thread will cause less flow, some pics will not be posted because the poster don't find the nude thread apropiate and discussion on the said subjects will be drawn into the nude thread where information will be lost among all the other stuff.
2. The Courtesy argument about those browsing this fora at work or in public is to me like you asking me to protect you from accidentally causing offense to a third person. A bit odd to me.
3.Taken to the exrtreme if we should conform to how all the most sensitive people in the world feel there wouldnt be much left to photograph.
I see no need to restrict posting of pics but maybe some should take up their internet use to revision if the live places where simple nudity displayed on a PC is a problem. This is a strictly moderated forum allready and on the basis on whats possible on other foras I think we need to lighten up a bit.
Best regards

DerIkonograph
19-Jun-2013, 04:53
After reading through this thread, trying to understand the point of view of the people who have concerns about nudes in the portrait thread, I'm a bit shocked by the tone of the argumentation.
Most people are mixing two different facts.
Even if everybody will post in the nudes thread, the whole forum will be rated 'sometimes pornographic content', because of there is a nude thread.

It seems to me those guys, talking of 'polluted with nudity' and 'cleaning', would gladly erase the nude thread too.

I'm new to the large format photograpy forum and to LF, not to photography, art and the web.
I post on different platforms, different styles of photography and was glad to have discovered this place, to find technical and photographic inspiration as well.
Started to post my first alternative process shots and was thinking of sharing more of my views.

Now I feel more than uncomfortable, knowing 50% might evaluate my photos in terms of their interpretation of morals.

So, sad to say, I will stop sharing pics and only stay in technical discussions.

rdenney
19-Jun-2013, 05:23
What is clear to me is that rational discussion of this topic is elusive, and that some who espouse respect for the situations in which others find themselves still struggle to put themselves in and understand those situations. I think we have heard all there is to hear, so I'm closing the thread. Thank you for your feedback.

Rick "closing the thread" Denney

Ken Lee
19-Jun-2013, 05:30
Now I feel more than uncomfortable, knowing 50% might evaluate my photos in terms of their interpretation of morals.

What we see here (as with all surveys) is not 50% of forum members, but 50% of a small number of members who saw the thread, and felt strongly enough to reply.

Nudes have appeared on the forum in a variety of locations for many years - with little incident. This poll was started out of courtesy to a member who was merely wanting to know where the nudes were, so he would not find them by surprise while showing the forum to children. The conversation which ensued, has explored the issue from a much broader perspective, and therefore got people into areas of strong feelings and beliefs.

Not surprisingly, a small number of members have strong opinions. A small percentage of them are probably better photographers than writers, and struggle to express themselves without being discourteous.

So if you look at the forum in general, you'll see that 99.99% of members and discussions are cheerful and friendly, with little controversy. Don't let a few eccentric members prevent you from sharing.