A few more shots from recent.

[Geaux]

Is this from your daughters friends sleepover from the other thread?

if #3 isn't your daughter..how did the idea of swimsuit shoot even come up? Very weird and makes me feel a bit uncertain. I'm usually not like this but it stands out like a sore thumb among the others.

 

[Indofred]

#3 I don't like - Maybe I'm paranoid but a preteen in a bikini in a studio sets off far too many alarms in my head. If she was my daughter that one would be pulled from the 'net before you could say paedophile.

I have to agree. I have no problems with shots of kids but anything with a potentially sexual element has to be a bad idea.
I wouldn't have taken such a shot; regardless of the parent's opinion.
Of course, it's clear there was no bad intent but that doesn't make it a good idea.
As a note, I just checked on what would be considered to be porn.

indecent images

Grade 1: Images depicting nudity or erotic posing, with no sexual activity
Grade 2: Sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child
Grade 3: Non-penetrative sexual activity between adult(s) and child(ren)
Grade 4: Penetrative sexual activity between child(ren) and adult(s).
Grade 5: Sadism or bestiality

That image doesn't hit even the lowest scale.

 

[Geaux]

I don't think anyone said this was porn....lol

just a tad unnerving.

 

[Juga]

It isn't what or how we all feel or deem as possibly sexual. The problem is the sickos out the in the world that find that imagery sexually attractive. I have several family members that study law and have even heard of pedophiles being sexually attracted to pageant girls. So to me the image in question isn't inappropriate for the family but I would not feel comfortable broadcasting it to the world due to all the gross people that would be sexually stimulated by the image.

 

[tecboy]

She is eighteen. Right?

 

[Tiller]

Without knowing the circumstances, I'll withhold my opinion about #3.

I agree with amolitor though. #5 is groovy.

 

[ShooterJ]

I like the set overall... still learning lighting myself, so I don't have much to contribute in that department. And, agreed... people are reading too much into #3. There are a thousand commercial uses involving kids that people glance at and don't give a second thought to every day. The really dangerous predators don't need you to post anything on the internet. The photo was not sexually suggestive and pixmedic was correct, this is common attire these days.

How many of you have actually dealt with a real predator of that nature? How many have you spoken with? Interviewed? Interrogated or taken into custody? I don't think any of the people who made a big deal out of this photo have EVER dealt with those predators on that level. If they had, they'd understand a great deal more about how those people operate, think and behave.

Again, nice set.

 

[DanOstergren]

It isn't what or how we all feel or deem as possibly sexual. The problem is the sickos out the in the world that find that imagery sexually attractive. I have several family members that study law and have even heard of pedophiles being sexually attracted to pageant girls. So to me the image in question isn't inappropriate for the family but I would not feel comfortable broadcasting it to the world due to all the gross people that would be sexually stimulated by the image.

Big deal. I have a sexual reaction any time I see a men's shaving commercial on television. People are making WAY too big of a fuss over a photo that they don't even know the circumstances over and that has absolutely no sexual innuendo to it. None whatsoever. It's a photo of a girl in a swimsuit; anyone can go to a public pool and see it or turn on the television and see it in a kid's swimsuit commercial for Old Navy.

 

[ShooterJ]

I really don't think the thread needs to be about how "inappropriate" #3 is. It's photography, take it for what it is and don't blow it out of proportion. If you were living next to a serial killer or pedophile who was currently active, you wouldn't know it. You'd still let your kids go out to play, you'd still go on about your lives. People see too much on TV or read too much and get the wrong idea about criminal mentality. This isn't an episode of Criminal Minds... don't turn someone's art into a reason for "accusing" them of inappropriate behavior (which is essentially what a lot of this thread has done) when it wasn't such. I still stand by what I said.. most who DO blow it out of proportion have probably never interrogated anyone like that.

I have, and they don't think or work the way people seem to think they do. It's a set of photos from a studio, and a pretty good set. That's all it is.

 

[Juga]

It isn't what or how we all feel or deem as possibly sexual. The problem is the sickos out the in the world that find that imagery sexually attractive. I have several family members that study law and have even heard of pedophiles being sexually attracted to pageant girls. So to me the image in question isn't inappropriate for the family but I would not feel comfortable broadcasting it to the world due to all the gross people that would be sexually stimulated by the image.

Big deal. I have a sexual reaction any time I see a men's shaving commercial on television. People are making WAY too big of a fuss over a photo that they don't even know the circumstances over and that has absolutely no sexual innuendo to it. None whatsoever. It's a photo of a girl in a swimsuit; anyone can go to a public pool and see it or turn on the television and see it in a kid's swimsuit commercial for Old Navy.[/QUOTE]

That was my point I suppose I didn't clearly state it. This situation can't be avoided because what the OP saw and what you obviously see is a harmless photo which at its core is all it is. Remember we are on a forum and 90% of the crap that gets thrown up for discussion is based on opinion. You obviously see no harm done but I would say most parents would feel the same as the majority in here that they wouldn't appreciate a photo like this being posted of their childen As for your shaving fetish...interesting.

I really don't think the thread needs to be about how "inappropriate" #3 is. It's photography, take it for what it is and don't blow it out of proportion. If you were living next to a serial killer or pedophile who was currently active, you wouldn't know it. You'd still let your kids go out to play, you'd still go on about your lives. People see too much on TV or read too much and get the wrong idea about criminal mentality. This isn't an episode of Criminal Minds... don't turn someone's art into a reason for "accusing" them of inappropriate behavior (which is essentially what a lot of this thread has done) when it wasn't such. I still stand by what I said.. most who DO blow it out of proportion have probably never interrogated anyone like that.

I have, and they don't think or work the way people seem to think they do. It's a set of photos from a studio, and a pretty good set. That's all it is.

Again the exact point I was trying to make.

 

[ShooterJ]

And I would say most of those parents haven't interrogated a predator like that. My point was that being a parent and worrying about your children doesn't give you license to make half hinted accusations about someones work in photography. That actually happened in this thread and it was the only inappropriate thing I saw.

Again... not an episode of Criminal Minds. I've spent a decade in LE. Be happy to compare notes with any parent who's been in an interrogation room and knows what they should REALLY be concerned about.. because this isn't it.

 

[DanOstergren]

Oh the madness of it all!

 

[ShooterJ]

Oh the madness of it all!

LOL.. I think if more people understood the madness of it all they wouldn't spend ANY time worrying about a studio shot in a photography forum. There are much darker things to contend with. But hey, what do I know.. I'm a blunt instrument. To get back to the thread, I do like the set. I think they're some pretty nice portraits. Hope to see some more work.

 

[sashbar]

Great, great shots and an interesting "thick" ambience created by warm brown colors. It does help No 4 which is a clear winner - fantastic shot. I like No 5 the only thing that bothers me - I would prefer a bit lower key with this character, but her eyes are in a shade under the brim and will get too dark. And I would probably risk it and cut it below up to the elbow to get rid of that diagonal line. Other than that nitpicking - love it. No 3 - great posture and expression, lovely girl, still this one is a bit discordant to me to be completely honest with you - a child in a bikini in a studio? Why? Is she going to swim there? To put it blunt, bikini serves two purposes that I can possibly think of - to swim in it or to look outright sexy. I hope you get my drift. Nothing criminal here at all of course, but the question inevitably pops up here - why bikini? Artistically it does not work to me.
O yes, and there is one thing that to me is distracting on all photos - the signature is too large.

PS did not read other comments, so probably I am repeating some.

 

[sashbar]

OK, I read the thread and surprise surprise I am not the only one to find the bikini shot contradictory. I think it is a valid discussion btw. In my opinion to say that it may attract pedophiles etc is way too much. It is a perfectly legitimate shot. But if we look at it from an artistic point of view, it a completely different proposition. Bikini just looks odd. Some say - we see underage girls in bikinis all the time at pools, on a beach, in swimsuit commercials.. Sure. But all these pictures have an appropriate context. The girl is in a bikini in a pool because that is exactly what bikini is for - to swim. So she is swimming, sunbathing, others make her photos - perfect. This is all perfect because the context is right. If this shot was a bikini commercial - with some minor alterations it would be fine as well, probably. Nice girl , nice bikini, again perfect. But it is a shot made in a studio with a completely different purpose. Every good shot has its purpose, some intellectual luggage if you wish. And this is clearly a very good shot. So it warrants a bit of thinking. The photographer wanted to show the girl, her character, her inner self, methinks. It is a portrait after all. Right? So he chooses to shoot her in a bikini. Why? What is the artistic idea behind it? Is she an avid swimmer? Does bikini suits her character better than anything else? Did he want to show the lines of her body or her sun tan, probably some bodybuilding efforts? Has she been on a diet and lost five stones? I am just trying to understand why this composition? As I said there are two primary purposes of a bikini - swimming and looking sexy. Sunbathing probably. Anyway, to wear when it is hot or to look hot. Do you want it or not but this is a fact. Millions of girls want their photos in bikini with one single purpose - to look sexy. And you just cannot get around it with all those magazines we see on every corner the connotations are too strong. Again, to raise this problem to a pedophile level is a bit ridiculous, but artistically as a studio shot with all this lighting to me personally the idea is a bit dubious. If the girl likes it, if parents like it - no problems whatsoever. But I think the same shot in a slightly different dress and lighting would be much much better. Simply because it would project a much clearer message. But it is a good shot anyway. That's my 2 p.