Since the gun ban has been lifted...

[Helen B]

I'm pretty sure that magazine will be illegal in New York and California. lol

I thought that we were meant to keep politics out of these threads.

 

[peter27]

I'm pretty sure that magazine will be illegal in New York and California. lol

I thought that we were meant to keep politics out of these threads.

The problem with this so called policy is that it is only held up as a stick to beat down those who find this kind of image offensive.

 

[cmhbob]

Artistically, I really like the shot.

But the gun safety part of me is screaming "finger off the trigger!"

 

[snerd]

I like it. However.......... booger-hook off the trigger!!

 

[RichieT]

I like the dark mood of the picture, but I also think you need a slight touch more light down the barrel. There's a bit of a disconnect with the front sight just floating there.

 

[manaheim]

I'm pretty sure that magazine will be illegal in New York and California. lol

I thought that we were meant to keep politics out of these threads.

The problem with this so called policy is that it is only held up as a stick to beat down those who find this kind of image offensive.

There are so many levels of wrong to that remark that I just don't know where to begin.

Let me try to make a few things clear.

One, we moderators are not here to beat down anyone. We are here to enforce rules. We do so with as even hand as a bunch of part-time people with other lives and other responsibilities can, and I daresay I've seen very few cases where someone was treated unfairly... and when that happened, I've seen the mods all kinda make the "oooo..." noise and give that moderator a sour look.

Two, the rules are here to keep the forum on track and to keep the owners out of hot water. That's it. This forum is about photography, and so it is photography that is discussed here. Like any forum, there are the occasional side-tracks and exceptions, but it's a drop in the bucket- as it should be- because we're a photography forum.

Three, guns... politics... religion. These things are considered banned topics in not only nearly every forum on the internet, but also considered social taboo in social gatherings, family events and the workplace. There's an obviously good reason for that, and pretending like TPF is the only place that does it- and does it for some insidious reason- is intellectually dishonest at best.

Four, and this is the one that galls me the most, the moderation team lifted this ban because they felt like it was unfairly punishing those who wanted to share this kind of photography, all because SOME PEOPLE could not be MATURE ENOUGH to handle a conversation around the art, without making snide comments, freaking out at pictures of firearms, or otherwise escalating a thread which should be about PHOTOGRAPHY... not about GUNS.

Since we have lifted this ban, I've seen two gun PHOTOGRAPHY threads and BOTH of them went south. This one I TRIED to correct, and some folks were good enough to go "oops, sorry..." but then you had to jump in with that remark, and like a turd in a bowl of oatmeal, it couldn't be let by.

I'm one more thread like this away from insisting that we just ban this topic once again.

Keep your NON-PHOTOGRAPHY comments TO YOURSELF.

 

[Josh66]

Artistically, I really like the shot.

But the gun safety part of me is screaming "finger off the trigger!"

Might be hard to tell since it's in shadow, but my finger actually is off the trigger. Anyway, it was obviously not loaded... (Not obvious in the "you can see that" sense, but in the "I'm not a moron" sense, lol.)

 

[Josh66]

I like the dark mood of the picture, but I also think you need a slight touch more light down the barrel. There's a bit of a disconnect with the front sight just floating there.

Yeah, I considered just cloning out the front sight, but thought that would look worse. I think I will try adding another light on a reshoot, just to see if it looks any better.

 

[EIngerson]

I'm pretty sure that magazine will be illegal in New York and California. lol

I thought that we were meant to keep politics out of these threads.

I didn't bring politics into a thread. It was a joke about a ridiculous video.

 

[Helen B]

I thought that we were meant to keep politics out of these threads.

The problem with this so called policy is that it is only held up as a stick to beat down those who find this kind of image offensive.

There are so many levels of wrong to that remark that I just don't know where to begin.

Let me try to make a few things clear.

One, we moderators are not here to beat down anyone. We are here to enforce rules. We do so with as even hand as a bunch of part-time people with other lives and other responsibilities can, and I daresay I've seen very few cases where someone was treated unfairly... and when that happened, I've seen the mods all kinda make the "oooo..." noise and give that moderator a sour look.

Two, the rules are here to keep the forum on track and to keep the owners out of hot water. That's it. This forum is about photography, and so it is photography that is discussed here. Like any forum, there are the occasional side-tracks and exceptions, but it's a drop in the bucket- as it should be- because we're a photography forum.

Three, guns... politics... religion. These things are considered banned topics in not only nearly every forum on the internet, but also considered social taboo in social gatherings, family events and the workplace. There's an obviously good reason for that, and pretending like TPF is the only place that does it- and does it for some insidious reason- is intellectually dishonest at best.

Four, and this is the one that galls me the most, the moderation team lifted this ban because they felt like it was unfairly punishing those who wanted to share this kind of photography, all because SOME PEOPLE could not be MATURE ENOUGH to handle a conversation around the art, without making snide comments, freaking out at pictures of firearms, or otherwise escalating a thread which should be about PHOTOGRAPHY... not about GUNS.

Since we have lifted this ban, I've seen two gun PHOTOGRAPHY threads and BOTH of them went south. This one I TRIED to correct, and some folks were good enough to go "oops, sorry..." but then you had to jump in with that remark, and like a turd in a bowl of oatmeal, it couldn't be let by.

I'm one more thread like this away from insisting that we just ban this topic once again.

Keep your NON-PHOTOGRAPHY comments TO YOURSELF.

Why did you let the politics on page one stay in the thread? Isn't that asking for trouble? It is still there, and it does make you look biased. The legality or otherwise of large magazines has nothing to do with photography, but you don't seem to object to it being raised. That is what seems weird, I think.

 

[Rick58]

Here we go :roll:

 

[manaheim]

Helen, fair question. (not trying to slight Rick in that, btw)

Point 5 probably should have been that we moderators try to have a light hand. We try not to edit posts, delete, or lock them. We try more to guide with our own remarks and hope that the thread contributors will correct their own actions (as Josh did in this case- thank you, Josh.).

That's why.

 

[terri]

Helen, fair question. (not trying to slight Rick in that, btw)

Point 5 probably should have been that we moderators try to have a light hand. We try not to edit posts, delete, or lock them. We try more to guide with our own remarks and hope that the thread contributors will correct their own actions (as Josh did in this case- thank you, Josh.).

That's why.

And the comment really was just meant as a joke, in direct response to the satirical video that Josh had posted (and quickly removed). EIngerson tried to explain himself already. I understand how it could read otherwise, but as Mana says we're really, really trying to give our members the benefit of the doubt, and we don't want to pounce on every gray utterance.

We all need to get used to this. Perhaps we should PM one another if any comments seem to beg clarification, and give the poster a chance to quietly remove, edit or expand on what may be misunderstood. That is better than direct challenges in the middle of a thread which sends things spiraling down.

 

[amolitor]

Well done. Like many a good photograph, it evokes reaction, but that reaction is ambiguous and depends on the viewer. Some people are going to see it one way, others will see it another, but there's a common theme underlying all the reactions.

This is kind of what we hope for when we make art, I think. So, victory!

 

[Designer]

Original title was "Aggression", I believe.

As a photograph of "gun" it misses the mark. In my opinion this shot is more about how one would hold such a weapon, and not so much about "gun photography". Perhaps more light on the gun itself might improve the shot.