Jeanette on the streets *May not be work safe*

[Ant]

An artists?

LOL. You've got to be joking. Have you seen some of the sh!t (sometimes quite literally) that so called artists pass off as art these days?

 

[TheBodyShot]

Well the majority of the shots do not have that artsy look to them. The objective of these pictures are to look at the chicks chest and other areas. I dont think the photographer exactly had the mind set of Art over "I wana hit that". So posting these pictures for an artistic critique is a little inane.

I think for those who have posted just to say they dont like the subject are wasting everyones time and bandwidth.

Post some Art rather than a sad attempt at smut and people wont be so quick to pull the spam card.

From a post of yours...

"http://www.thephotoforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10585/normal_%236.jpg

and the photoforum females calendar begins!"

allow me to display the picture here:

The objective of this picture is to look at the chicks ass and other areas.

Hypocrite

 

[photogoddess]

Ok guys - let's play nice. For what it's worth, the art vs smut debate has been going on for years. Robert Mapplethorpe was an extremely controversial photographer and took photos that some could only describe as smut. Some of it was downright pornographic. Even his photos of flowers had a sexual tone to them. Regardless of how his work affected the tender sensibilities of the masses, it was still art.

While I personally believe that these photos were probably taken just for the T & A factor, TheBodyShot did ask for a critque.

My opinion of these photos is that they need to be better focused, the posing is pretty bland (although guys looking at a hottie probably wouldn't notice), the lighting needs to be more even - especially on the faces (diffuser?) and unless you want a girls arse to look huge, don't make it the focus of your shot. When you have a bright light behind your model, try to move around and use it as a hair light instead of letting it steal the thunder of your subject by glaring brightly as a hotspot in the photo.

btw - This is a friendly forum with many members that have been "together" for quite a while. Lots of newbies too. You took the shot of Terri washing her car completely out of context. Go back and read that entire thread and you will understand.

 

[Sharkbait]

You took the shot of Terri washing her car completely out of context. Go back and read that entire thread and you will understand.

Actually go back and read about the past six months of the off topic forum to get context. That was a pretty lame shot, bodyshot (no pun intended). :? Poor form, sir, poor form.

 

[photobug]

Gee, and it's only Monday!

 

[TheBodyShot]

Ok guys - let's play nice.
...
btw - This is a friendly forum with many members that have been "together" for quite a while. Lots of newbies too. You took the shot of Terri washing her car completely out of context. Go back and read that entire thread and you will understand.

it's ok...just pick on the new guy And yes...her ass was the focus of that shot

PS...you guys are awesome...most fun I've had on a board since...yea....

 

[Annette]

If this isn't your kind of thing then why did you even bother posting in this thread? I mean you haven't exactly said anything constructive have you?

No offense intended

Because whether the content is appreciated can be just as important as the technical aspects of the photos.

You can take a technically good photo of poo but if a percentage of people don't like it then maybe you don't want to take photos of poo any more.

Just my opinion.

 

[manda]

Alright ...
The BodyShot did in fact email us to ask whether the photographs were suitable to begin with and we cleared them for the reason that he is here to genuinely ask opinions. That is obvious by the amount of time he has wasted trying to explain that to everyone.

It is not nudity and if you do not feel that the photographs are "art", then close the thread. There are a lot of photographs that have been posted here that are also not "art" yet nobody ever calls the not arty enough thing on those.

The Bodyshot has done nothing wrong, especially since he asked permission first.
However, yes, pulling the pic of our beloved Terri who was not someone whom has critisized you, was a low blow. Her photograph was in fun and one that her husband took, not made for the same purpose yours are taken (which is the reason people here have got their knickers in a knot- pardon the pun).
That said, I can understand what point you were trying to make.

Overall everyone, thebodyshot was merely asking for opinions and he did get quite a few mature responses which is good to see.
If you do not agree with the photographs, then hit the back button on your browser.

 

[canonrebel]

An artists?

:lmao: :LOL: :smileys:

 

[StvShoop]

oh man, how did i pass over this thread before? its like a rollercoaster

yes, art definitely has to be understood along with the context in which it was made
if it's offensive, maybe the author intended offense as part of the communication?

and yeah... my ISP banned the photos in question...

 

[canonrebel]

Those images that you've posted here for critique were snapshots comparable to snaps made with a kodak 110 throw-away, but they are not porn. I thought the sequence of pictures had a central theme. I envisioned a streetwalker displaying her wares to prospective clients.

Members here have posted shots that were far more revealing of the nude body and more riske than any of those posted in this thread, but they were more artistic and transcended the rating of "snapshot".

I've just visited your forum and I was generally impressed with the talent displayed there. Some of those submissions were very tasteful. I would label them art by any means.

A few in most every crowd will complain about a porn flick being disgusting after watching it from beginning to end. They didn't have to watch it through its entirety if they found it so disgusting. But I don't believe any of our members on this forum fit that description. All of us here are "Artists" (even if self-proclaimed)

 

[Alison]

I've just visited your forum and I was generally impressed with the talent displayed there. Some of those submissions were very tasteful. I would label them art by any means.

I agree, I took a look at your forum and there are some really nice images there. I don't think the ones you posted here are representative of the work at your forum. The pictures here lacked depth and I felt the poses were no flattering to the model.

 

[Ant]

If this isn't your kind of thing then why did you even bother posting in this thread? I mean you haven't exactly said anything constructive have you?

No offense intended

Because whether the content is appreciated can be just as important as the technical aspects of the photos.

You can take a technically good photo of poo but if a percentage of people don't like it then maybe you don't want to take photos of poo any more.

Just my opinion.

Yes, that's a good point and I agree to some extent, but there's a line between putting forward valid constructive criticism and just posting an opinion because you want to make a personal point or a moral judgement, which may not be at all constructive to the subject at hand.

In your example of the poo photo (good one ) telling the photographer that poo isn't a very good subject is perfectly valid criticism, because chances are that most people will feel the same way as you and so the photographer will move on to taking pics of more pleasing subjects, which will reach a larger potential audience. So you've helped him/her in a way.

However, in this case it's quite obvious that many many people....most men in fact, are rather partial to photos of attractive women and always have been, so your criticism of the subject matter is totally non-constructive, because you're not only going against the grain of mass opinion, but you won't make the photographer change the subject matter either.....you haven't helped anybody with your criticism!

For example, landscape pics mostly just don't do anything for me at all. No matter how well they're shot or how technically competent they are I just think most of them are boring....that's just me. So if I see a thread with a landscape photo in it I just don't comment, unless I can say something constructive, because I know that many people do like landscape photos and no matter what I say people aren't going to stop taking them.

It's the difference between genuine constructive criticism and just being negative about something because it's not to your personal taste. Your initial post just came across to me as the latter rather than the former.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion of course, but one thing I've learned about internet discussion forums (fora?) is that if you post your opinion then expect somebody to occasionally challenge it.

Besides, if everybody always agreed with everybody else then places like this would be really boring and nobody would learn anything.

 

[Ant]

All of us here are "Artists" (even if self-proclaimed)

Oh no, I'm definitely not an artist.

 

[StvShoop]

In your example of the poo photo (good one ) telling the photographer that poo isn't a very good subject is perfectly valid criticism, because chances are that most people will feel the same way as you and so the photographer will move on to taking pics of more pleasing subjects, which will reach a larger potential audience. So you've helped him/her in a way.

However, in this case it's quite obvious that many many people....most men in fact, are rather partial to photos of attractive women and always have been, so your criticism of the subject matter is totally non-constructive, because you're not only going against the grain of mass opinion, but you won't make the photographer change the subject matter either.....you haven't helped anybody with your criticism!

there's more to content than can be effectively determined by a publicity survey; the value of how it is received publicly depends on the intended use of the photo also. art doesn't have to be appreciated to be art.
most people don't know what the hell they want or like anyway, so their preference is dust in the wind

i realize that's a little bit of a tangent off of the main discussion. i really wish i could see the pics so i could understand it all better :?