Be honest- Do you love your own photography?

 

The Ghost said, 1732710624

Unfocussed Mike said

The Ghost said

Simon Carter said

MaristarOxley I often teach quite technical stuff. But I do like to remind people that in the end the technical stuff is just a detail: it’s all about what you point it at :)

It's not even that, it's a means to an end not an end in itself.

One can take good photos with poor technique but you can have all the technique in the world but a bad idea will still make bad photos (this applies to a lot of images here.)

Ansel Adams is supposed to have said something like "there's nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept". 

Personally I think the technical qualities of one's images are all ultimately only of any value in service to all their other qualities. (So in my case.... largely worthless!)

One can be a good photographer in a technical sense and be a terrible photographer in an aesthetic sense.


Huw said

Gerry99111 said

....That would be incredibly irritating to all the art nude photographers and models who shoot full frontal nudes but do not wish to be associated with adult.

...


Absolutely.

I'm not about to start pixellating stuff, or putting blobs over genitalia, but I'd be unhappy with an "Adult" label. Misses the point of the photos I think.

If I have to, I might start photoshopping pubic hair on where there isn't any....

Edited by Huw

I found a good LoRA for Stable Diffusion that covers the skin in leaves & vines, considerably more artistic than blurry blobs.

tandi said, 1732711478

Gerry99111 said

tandi would like to see filters based upon Page 3, then full nudity no genitalia, then everything else Adult, I realise that isn't going to happen so I get on with it."

That would be incredibly irritating to all the art nude photographers and models who shoot full frontal nudes but do not wish to be associated with adult.

I cannot see the site adopting more than three bands - people get confused with what we have.

The site is designed around the majority viewpoint and as with a lot of things, it is best to ignore the extremities wants otherwise the main site users will either be shamed or overtaken by readers wives porn

I don't want to take over this valuable post with off topic posts, but I will reply. If you agree people get confused with what filters there currently are, then you must agree that there is blurred line between adult and NSFW, because how can you show genitalia and it be NSFW, but open leg or genitalia from below of behind is adult.

There are models who only do safe for work, models who may do implied, topless, some may do nude but no genitalia, others may do open leg etc, these are all styles/levels so why can't the viewers filter by these styles/levels.

Groups are not really a place to hold a discussion on the majority of peoples requirements of the site, because only a minority of site users voice an opinion and anyone who with a different perspective is often ridiculed, berated and told that the site is as it is, it will not change! That only means that people have to put up with a never changing or growing site or leave.

I'm afraid that IMHO, readers "somebody else's wife" porn is already rife on this site, and who am I to say that they should stop it, I DO NOT. I only ask for a filter so I can surf content I prefer to see. I'm afraid numerous people on here will never agree with me and that's fine, as i have said previously, I LIVE WITH IT :-)

Marissa _PH1 said, 1732711631

Models in the Landscape

Quote:

It is easier to judge more impartially with time.

I am a long way from some of the true masters on here but, perhaps too honest, I see some images /

I totally get that.

I do delete images from a shoot that are not useable, so my archives are not too large. I do go over old shoots and re-edit things and I enjoy doing that a lot nowadays.

tandi said, 1732711680

Huw said

Gerry99111 said

....That would be incredibly irritating to all the art nude photographers and models who shoot full frontal nudes but do not wish to be associated with adult.

...


Absolutely.

I'm not about to start pixellating stuff, or putting blobs over genitalia, but I'd be unhappy with an "Adult" label. Misses the point of the photos I think.

If I have to, I might start photoshopping pubic hair on where there isn't any....

Edited by Huw


Photoshopped hair, that would work for me :-) Hey think positively, more filters and better content labelling might even encourage more models on here that do lower levels and once they are bored with that they may wish to do nude. If we are never open to new ideas, we should have stayed in the Cave ;-)

Marissa _PH1 said, 1732711697

Simon Carter

Quote:

But I do like to remind people that in the end the technical stuff is just a detail: it’s all about what you point it at.

Totally agree 👍🏽

Huw said, 1732711797

Maybe a Photoshopped Urn.

"It's definitely Art if there's an Urn somewhere."

- Fred Colon.

Marissa _PH1 said, 1732711809

Allesandro B

I've been working on it, as it's a good subject.

Although it's very open to going down a bad avenue.

Huw said, 1732711921

Found it:

Nude women are only Art if there's an urn in it,' said Fred Colon. This sounded a bit weak even to him, so he added, 'or a plinth. Both is best, o'course.

Marissa _PH1 said, 1732712239

Orson Carter

Quote:

IMO the pursuit of technical perfection can sometimes strangle the life out of a picture. The pic can become too sterile.

No flack from me, there. And it's not to say that technical is irrelevant. It needs to be there for a reason that warrants perfection, say a beauty campaign for Pat McGrath labs etc

between_beyond (Dan) said, 1732712257

Huw "If I have to, I might start photoshopping pubic hair on where there isn't any...."

Shoes from Clarks.

Merkin, model's own.

MaristarOxley said, 1732713263

tandi

Quote:

more filters and better content labelling might even encourage more models on here that do lower levels and once they are bored with that they may wish to do nude.

I can't say id ever get bored of being clothed in shoots. I Love Fashion because it's an endless supply of clothes, styles that I can do.

Filtering what you want to see is possible, but takes some work. I do see stuff that's perhaps more towards top shelf publications of the 60s and 70s, but I move on quickly. The site does need an update that makes it easier for the different genres to see each other.

Gerry99111 said, 1732713383

tandi precisely. The site has all the tools at it's disposal to set the site constraints how it feels most suited yet you choose to lobby for that to be changed regularly. Whilst already admitted as being a minority viewpoint as forum members are just a vocal minority.

As to being qualified to comment on levels way beyond what you are happy with, then perhaps you should leave that to people who are comfortable and are actually interested

tandi said, 1732716735

Gerry99111 said

tandi precisely. The site has all the tools at it's disposal to set the site constraints how it feels most suited yet you choose to lobby for that to be changed regularly. Whilst already admitted as being a minority viewpoint as forum members are just a vocal minority.

As to being qualified to comment on levels way beyond what you are happy with, then perhaps you should leave that to people who are comfortable and are actually interested

I've moved my filter stance to one of my own posts rather than have people argue the point on this post. I have no idea how we got so off topic and will start reading back to find out :-)

Gerry99111 said, 1732718440

tandi said

Gerry99111 said

tandi precisely. The site has all the tools at it's disposal to set the site constraints how it feels most suited yet you choose to lobby for that to be changed regularly. Whilst already admitted as being a minority viewpoint as forum members are just a vocal minority.

As to being qualified to comment on levels way beyond what you are happy with, then perhaps you should leave that to people who are comfortable and are actually interested

I've moved my filter stance to one of my own posts rather than have people argue the point on this post. I have no idea how we got so off topic and will start reading back to find out :-)

It is not the only thing that went off topic, the subtle or not so subtle shaming of photographers choice of models via age or other factor also doesn't have an awful lot to do with a question asking if you love your own photography. It is almost like there is a stock series of things that some members want other members to do differently that will at some point rear it's ugly head at some point if a chink of light appears to shoe horn it in. There are a number of topics that particularly entitled photographers seem to gripe over as well.

Anyway, I should have left that to the art nude photographers to argue, there are literally 1000s of them prepared to die on a hill over not having to label some of their work as adult, particularly when it has nothing to do with "industry" definitions of adult or artist perception of what a nude image entails

tandi said, 1732719256

Gerry99111 said

tandi said

Gerry99111 said

tandi precisely. The site has all the tools at it's disposal to set the site constraints how it feels most suited yet you choose to lobby for that to be changed regularly. Whilst already admitted as being a minority viewpoint as forum members are just a vocal minority.

As to being qualified to comment on levels way beyond what you are happy with, then perhaps you should leave that to people who are comfortable and are actually interested

I've moved my filter stance to one of my own posts rather than have people argue the point on this post. I have no idea how we got so off topic and will start reading back to find out :-)

It is not the only thing that went off topic, the subtle or not so subtle shaming of photographers choice of models via age or other factor also doesn't have an awful lot to do with a question asking if you love your own photography. It is almost like there is a stock series of things that some members want other members to do differently that will at some point rear it's ugly head at some point if a chink of light appears to shoe horn it in. There are a number of topics that particularly entitled photographers seem to gripe over as well.

Anyway, I should have left that to the art nude photographers to argue, there are literally 1000s of them prepared to die on a hill over not having to label some of their work as adult, particularly when it has nothing to do with "industry" definitions of adult or artist perception of what a nude image entails


Well Gerry, i originally replied to this:-

QUOTE "PP has a very wide spectrum of talents and there are some that are objectively fantastic,some that are great, some are competent and some that are not possessing the skills to model. This applies to Photographers as well.

This is life. Everyone cannot be great. I have my requirements for models that are just my requirements. I don't shoot with everyone that may want to shoot with me, whether they are fabulous or not. It's not a personal diss on the model and the model should not be affected by my decisions."

As Marissa is a photographer and model, the model account started the post and the photographer account stated the above, I was intrigued to understand what some of those requirements for a model were. So I enquired whether as a photographer she would photographer herself at her age if she was another photographer. It was not meant to be a ageist question because I already expected a specific response, that being positivity towards shooting older models, should they be suitable for the project. 

I'm not asking them to label their artwork ADULT, just add another label especially for those lovely genitalia shots we all love, that would be fine :-)