A few more shots from recent.

[cgipson1]

Thousands upon thousands of portraits of young girls (and boys) in all manner of outfits are shot every day in professional studios around the world in the hopes of that child getting an acting or modeling job. I would imagine that all manner of posing is used.

Maybe this is a portfolio piece. Maybe it is strictly for the parents. Maybe the girls mother is a swimsuit model for sports illustrated and her daughter just wants to be like her.

Funny enough, i dont hear anyone complaining about the rapists being incensed by all the boudoir shots being posted on the forum... forget about the animal photos, i wont even go there.

Personally I find the images mildly disturbing, because they are children being shot like they were adults... when they aren't. I see no childlike innocence here, more a suggestion of the onset of maturity (with some sexual reference). Poses are probably not the best for a child... too mature. (my girlfriend agrees, and she is very open minded about such things. Neither one of us is religious either... so not coming from that sometimes skewed perspective).

The girls appear to be imitating what they have seen in magazines, and such... of mature models. Might be fun, but may not be appropriate, depending on the audience. A lot of girls seem to want to grow up too fast, and be women before they have to be... it seems to be part of our culture. This is reminisicent of the JonBenét Ramsey stuff...

Not a bad set except for a few small things (mostly already mentioned, like cropped fingers in #1).

 

[DanOstergren30 5]

I think my weirdness stems from his prior thread saying his daughter had friends sleeping over and they wanted a "photoshoot" done. Where and how does a young friend or your daughter end up in a bikini during a harmless "photoshoot"

its the the sleepover friend part of the photoshoot that irks me the most I think, being that this was not stemmed from any parental interaction wanting these shots done.

Could it be that it was a hot day and they were swimming? Who knows? Every response so far here is based on speculation. In my experience, making an assumption is never a good idea, and assuming that there is an underlying perverse reason for her to be in a bikini isn't ok in my opinion. There are a thousand reasons as to why she could be in a bikini, but either way to me it is simply just a girl in a bikini. There isn't anything overtly sexual about it unless someone makes it sexual [which it seems to me that the only people who are putting any sort of sexual connotation to it are the people making a fuss over it]. I just don't see what the huge deal is here, because it's simply what it is. Her hand isn't on her crotch, she isn't giving bedroom eyes, isn't in any sort of sexy pose. It's just a girl in a bikini giving a fun attitude. Sweet Jesus watch out!

 

[Buckster]

Buckster -

Nakedness and sexiness are not synonyms. Just think about it.
Catalogue images are not sexy - it is just dress worn by men and women, girls and boys.

Context makes a woman or a man more or less sexy, and quite dramatically, - not just his/ her appearance. Just think why a bikini girl on a beach is not sexy or disturbing at all. But if you see the same girl in a bikini at a secretary desk in an office you would feel quite differently.

You seem to be saying that if you saw this girl in this outfit at the beach you would be just fine with it, but seeing her in this photograph induces thoughts of sexuality in you. Therefore, it is wrong. Don't you think that says something about you and your private thoughts that might be questionable?

Are the catalog shots of young girls and boys in beach attire shot or depicted at the beach? Not necessarily. They're very often studio shots against plain backgrounds or other studio-style backgrounds. And what of the underwear shots? They're always depicted in a private setting or studio. Do you see any of them in a sexual manner? Do they titillate you? If not, why is this photo any different? Either that sort of image does or does not sexually excite a person who is not thought to be a pedophile.

Do you fear that pedophiles will see those shots in those catalogs and be titillated whether they're depicted at a beach or not and, if so, don't you think something should be done about it? How far are you willing to take this charade of the necessity to curtail the impurity of thought in some individuals that might be induced by photographs?

Perhaps there should be a campaign against photos of young people fully clothed but barefoot, in case those with foot fetishes get off on them?

Where does it end? Where do you draw the line? Where are the standards, and who appointed any of you Czar of Maintaining Sexual Decency in Photography based on them?

 

[sashbar]

Personally I don't see anything sexy about the photo. If it were actually suggestive and the pose and mood inappropriate that would be one thing, but in the case of this photo it's simply just a girl in a bikini.
Perhaps this forum is a little too conservative for my tastes...

You know what - I too do not see anything sexy there. I am just curious: why the bloody bikini ??

 

[Buckster]

Personally I don't see anything sexy about the photo.

Same here, which is probably why I don't understand the uproar over it.

If it were actually suggestive and the pose and mood inappropriate that would be one thing, but in the case of this photo it's simply just a girl in a bikini.

Exactly. The fact that so many here see it in a sexual way disturbs me much more than the photo itself.

 

[Buckster]

Personally I don't see anything sexy about the photo. If it were actually suggestive and the pose and mood inappropriate that would be one thing, but in the case of this photo it's simply just a girl in a bikini.
Perhaps this forum is a little too conservative for my tastes...

You know what - I too do not see anything sexy there. I am just curious: why the bloody bikini ??

Why NOT?

What is it about beach attire that you find offensive or objectionable, if not that you see it as sexual?

 

[kathyt]

All I am saying is if someone posted a shot of my child like this then they would get my foot up their a**! That's all.

 

[sashbar]

Buckster -

Nakedness and sexiness are not synonyms. Just think about it.
Catalogue images are not sexy - it is just dress worn by men and women, girls and boys.

Context makes a woman or a man more or less sexy, and quite dramatically, - not just his/ her appearance. Just think why a bikini girl on a beach is not sexy or disturbing at all. But if you see the same girl in a bikini at a secretary desk in an office you would feel quite differently.

You seem to be saying that if you saw this girl in this outfit at the beach you would be just fine with it, but seeing her in this photograph induces thoughts of sexuality in you. Therefore, it is wrong. Don't you think that says something about you and your private thoughts that might be questionable?

Are the catalog shots of young girls and boys in beach attire shot or depicted at the beach? Not necessarily. They're very often studio shots against plain backgrounds or other studio-style backgrounds. And what of the underwear shots? They're always depicted in a private setting or studio. Do you see any of them in a sexual manner? Do they titillate you? If not, why is this photo any different? Either that sort of image does or does not sexually excite a person who is not thought to be a pedophile.

Do you fear that pedophiles will see those shots in those catalogs and be titillated whether they're depicted at a beach or not and, if so, don't you think something should be done about it? How far are you willing to take this charade of the necessity to curtail the impurity of thought in some individuals that might be induced by photographs?

Perhaps there should be a campaign against photos of young people fully clothed but barefoot, in case those with foot fetishes get off on them?

Where does it end? Where do you draw the line? Where are the standards, and who appointed any of you Czar of Maintaining Sexual Decency in Photography based on them?

You are asking an interesting and a very big question. And this question is not about the nature of sexuality but about the nature of art. Why one picture leaves us completely indifferent and the other opens our imagination? It has nothing to do with my "private thoughts" or such, so cool down a bit on this front.

As I pointed already, the catalogue shot is not about a person, it is about a dress, it is not sexy by definition. The portrait is about a person. This is the difference, great portraits are intimate - again, by definition. They tell you things about the person. That's why portraits are able to capture imagination.

The sexiness in an Art is a huge, serious and even an academic topic, there are tons of books about it, and I see no sense to discuss it seriously within the frame of a forum.

And I have to repeat myself again - I DO NOT find this picture indecent or inappropriate, it is a perfectly legitimate, good picture. I am questioning the creative side. I have never mentioned "padophile" subject, it never even crossed my mind before others started to write about it.

 

[sashbar]

You know what - I too do not see anything sexy there. I am just curious: why the bloody bikini ??

Why NOT?

What is it about beach attire that you find offensive or objectionable, if not that you see it as sexual?

OK..last time.. My question was "Why the bloody bikini?"
Your answer - "Why NOT?" Sorry. This is NOT an answer. This is just another question.
So my question is unanswered. I still would like to know - what was the creative idea behind this bikini ?
And if the answer is just "Why not?" I have no further questions. I rest my case.

 

[Buckster]

Why NOT?

What is it about beach attire that you find offensive or objectionable, if not that you see it as sexual?

OK..last time.. My question was "Why the bloody bikini?"
Your answer - "Why NOT?" Sorry. This is NOT an answer. This is just another question.
So my question is unanswered. I still would like to know - what was the creative idea behind this bikini ?
And if the answer is just "Why not?" I have no further questions. I rest my case.

Why the bloody hair pulled to one side? Why the bloody smile? Why that bloody color of bloody backdrop? Why the bloody questions about it? It is what it bloody is. Don't like it? That's fine too. But do you need an explanation for the choice of every article of clothing on every model, or just bikinis?

 

[sashbar]

OK..last time.. My question was "Why the bloody bikini?"
Your answer - "Why NOT?" Sorry. This is NOT an answer. This is just another question.
So my question is unanswered. I still would like to know - what was the creative idea behind this bikini ?
And if the answer is just "Why not?" I have no further questions. I rest my case.

Why the bloody hair pulled to one side? Why the bloody smile? Why that bloody color of bloody backdrop? Why the bloody questions about it? It is what it bloody is. Don't like it? That's fine too. But do you need an explanation for the choice of every article of clothing on every model, or just bikinis?

You see - now my simple question led to SIX questions from you. And yet you can not come with an answer..

No seriously, if you refuse to see any difference between a smile, a backdrop and a bikini - just tell me: will you have a nerve to say to your client - a mother of an underage girl - "Lets shoot her in a bikini".
And if she asks you why, to tell her "WHY NOT?"
Would you have a nerve to do it?
No?
WHY NOT??

 

[kundalini]

I only read part of the first page and Phoowhey on the Negative Nancy's, Noel. Keep shooting dude. Great stuff as usual.

 

[amolitor]

Thing is, we still think the camera takes something away from people. It's a vestige of sympathetic magic, of the belief that an image contains a literal part of the thing depicted. It's a vestige of "the camera steals my soul" superstition.

At least, I've been thinking about this off and on for a few months at least, and I don't see how else to explain how irrational we get about pictures of kids.

I haven't any interest in getting into a discussion about this, mind you. That would be tedious, and anyways you can do the work yourself to see why it's true or not true.

 

[Buckster]

Why the bloody hair pulled to one side? Why the bloody smile? Why that bloody color of bloody backdrop? Why the bloody questions about it? It is what it bloody is. Don't like it? That's fine too. But do you need an explanation for the choice of every article of clothing on every model, or just bikinis?

You see - now my simple question led to SIX questions from you. And yet you can not come with an answer..

I simply don't see any need to come up with an answer. I don't see the point of the question to begin with, just like I don't see the point of asking any of the other questions I posed, which was the point of posing them to you. And you haven't got an answer to any of them, though you're eager to pose the question, "why a bloody bikini?" as though that's somehow valid but the others are not.

Again, do you question every article of clothing on every model, or just bikinis? What is it about bikinis that offends you?

From my own personal POV, the only ones who should be having strong reactions and questions like yours to an image of a girl in a bikini are extreme prudes and pedophiles. I'm neither, so I don't have any actual questions about why, and I'd hazard a guess that there's not an answer I could give to satisfy you in any case, so why bother? I'll just rest on my previous answer, "why not?"

No seriously, if you refuse to see any difference between a smile, a backdrop and a bikini

It's not that I "refuse" to see a difference - it's quite simply that I just don't see why any of them require explanation, nor why any of them should be considered risque or sexually charged or whatever is going on with the folks in this thread that are having such a problem with the image in question.

- just tell me: will you have a nerve to say to your client - a mother of an underage girl - "Lets shoot her in a bikini".
And if she asks you why, to tell her "WHY NOT?"
Would you have a nerve to do it?
No?
WHY NOT??

Seeing as how I don't provide wardrobe for my clients, nor even advise them on what to wear other than, perhaps, "don't wear black (or white, depending) because I'll be shooting you against a black (or white, depending) backdrop for the composite you want me to do", it would mean that they'd have to have brought a bikini with them to the shoot. I would infer from that action on their part that they'd like to use it.

So then, if I said "no, I can't shoot her in that beach attire you've brought specifically to get photos of her in", the mom would probably be the one asking, "WHY NOT???" And then I'd have to explain that prudes on the internet might be offended by it, and pedophiles might get off on it - apparently more-so that the images they see in catalogs or the live bodies they see at beaches and playgrounds and so forth.

Frankly, I'd be more comfortable just going ahead with the bikini shoot than to try to have that conversation with them.

Suppose I set up a photo booth on a busy boardwalk by a warm, sunny beach somewhere, and use a green screen and a book of digital backgrounds. I let the clients choose their background, and even have an assistant that prints the photo at whatever size they like on the spot. Chances are, a lot of the people that walked in on impulse to get their photos taken would be in beach attire.

Then, here come some young girls who've been frolicking all over the beach in the sun and surf in their bikinis in front of thousands of strangers, and nobody has a problem with it at all. They spot my booth and decide to get photos for themselves, mom and dad, and their FB page.

Then, as if by magic, two steps toward my green screen to get in between it and my camera suddenly renders their attire sexually charged and inappropriate?

I beg to differ.

 

[DanielLewis76]

I must say again my main concern is that its been posted on a public forum. Now if my daughter was an aspiring model and I was ok for her to be photo'd in a bikini for a portfolio etc I still wouldn't be happy for it to be posted on a public forum for anyone to see.