Z_Photo wrote:
yes, we spoke but i think she feels the kind of photos in my portfolio are "too revealing"

And this directly relates to my personal criteria for shoot subjects, not just for this contest. A lot of the girls KNOW what kind of subjects I prefer so consequently they feel like I can, and do, represent them in the way they prefer. If a model with a small chest is self conscious, which a lot of them are, she might not want to do full frontal like some you have in your port. I think thats the case there Kyle, and it's not the first time I've heard it.

PHOTO dw wrote:
SNIP--->>

To me that sort of strays away from the reason for the contest to begin with. So I guess I'm wondering if we aren't forgetting what this thing is all about and focusing too much on other things best left for a different genre or contest.

Just things to think about. I'm only trying to generate interest and stumulate discussion.

Not sure I follow you here DW.   How does this stray away from the reason for the contest?

PHOTO dw wrote:
Right, yes! And remember I am only talking about this particular MM contest. It is a nude contest or it wouldn't be 18+ so a few normal criteria for me get thrown out because of that.

If the model is overweight, has a slightly unattractive figure, has less than pretty boobies, etc, etc...but is making eye contact with the viewer, has pretty eyes, and the other photographic elements are midline.....

To me that sort of strays away from the reason for the contest to begin with. So I guess I'm wondering if we aren't forgetting what this thing is all about and focusing too much on other things best left for a different genre or contest.

Just things to think about. I'm only trying to generate interest and stumulate discussion.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here....are you saying in order for it to be a good 18+ photo the model must be thin and attractive?  Or are you saying that the quality of the image matters less simply because it follows the rules of being 18+?

JLC Images wrote:
Your thoughts on this.  Do you find this image offensive or glamourizing suicide?  Does it help knowing the idea behind it or does it make it worse?

I do NOT feel that it glamorized suicide.  I personally didnt find it offensive.  That photograph was slightly frightening and very sad.  It was a painful image to look at for me...and this is NOT in ANY way a slant against your work or the model etc...I simply mean the imagery itself was painful as in it conjured painful feelings and emotions in me.

That said...I have to give you props cause you met my first criteria...you made me feel.

JLC Images wrote:
Wow, I just got home and I have quite a few emails in reference to my latest entry

http://swabere.smugmug.com/photos/240930041-XL.jpg


One being by SLE about me being an idiot and not putting the right link up (tee hee sorry again) He said it very nicely though.

The rest are some pretty nasty ones slamming me about "glamourizing" suicide

1. I don't see this as a glamour shot
2. The image isn't a person dying or dead.

The idea behind this shot comes from a close family member that attempted suicide a few times.  Even after they stopped it seams like every choice they make in their life is one of someone who is defeated and acts like what happends tomorrow is of no concern.  Even when she smiles this is what I see.

Your thoughts on this.  Do you find this image offensive or glamourizing suicide?  Does it help knowing the idea behind it or does it make it worse?

Since you asked. Let me give you some context on my feelings, as your motives seem in the right place. I was an on-called forensic photograher for the Cook County (think Chicago) coroner's office. I was in my 30s. I was able to do in for about 7 years but I saw way too many scenes like your photograph and just could deal with it anymore. That said, I found it very disturbing but I didn't find it "glamourizing suicide" . The tones, the look on the model's face the scratched technique all make it a very depressing picture. And I personally don't think that it serves your larger purpose. I'm not sure how that purpose could be served by art. But knowning the why does make a difference to me. And I don't think any subject hould be out of bounds to the artist. When you attempt tough subjects and approaches you are going to have to be ready for the reaction of the audience.
And art must have an audience or it is something else.
I've probably for muddled things up. Let see if I can be more precise. I'm not offended but neither am I enlightened.

Plus, you have made me think on my work and myself. I think it is a reaction to the crime scenes I saw. I compensate by trying to find the very beautiful or romantic. Maybe I need to stretch myself.
DJ

Jason A Hopkins wrote:

Not sure I follow you here DW.   How does this stray away from the reason for the contest?

When I said this...

PHOTO dw wrote:
If the model is overweight, has a slightly unattractive figure, has less than pretty boobies, etc, etc...but is making eye contact with the viewer, has pretty eyes, and the other photographic elements are midline.....

This was in reference to that...

PHOTO dw wrote:
To me that sort of strays away from the reason for the contest to begin with.

I was talking about my criteria. It wasn't a reference to what you said. PotD to me means all elements taken into account. PotD 18+ means pretty nekkid girls.

jandj studios wrote:
Since you asked...

And I personally don't think that it serves your larger purpose. I'm not sure how that purpose could be served by art. But knowning the why does make a difference to me. And I don't think any subject hould be out of bounds to the artist. DJ

Thank you so much for your input.  I think the only purpose it serves me is a way to shake it off.  The feelings seem to accumulate like baggage and sometimes I just need to do something to get it out of my system.  I have done this with other images that aren't so literal, but it seems to help.

I am not one to force people to confront their own demons and part of me feels bad, like I am being selfish by presenting things like this.  I will say if it weren't for dialogs like this I wouldn't have thought that people who are on forensic scenes have it affect them so much.  I thought that most of them would just see the people as slabs of meat otherwise they would go crazy.

Thanks again for your thoughts on the subject

Jacqui Faye wrote:

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here....are you saying in order for it to be a good 18+ photo the model must be thin and attractive?  Or are you saying that the quality of the image matters less simply because it follows the rules of being 18+?

Nope. I reiterate I am simply giving my honest criteria. I am in no way saying if you agree or disagree you are wrong. In my first post on this Jacqui I stated that I was throwing out some criteria that I use. I also said at the end that just because I have that listed that criteria, it wouldn't blind me from seeing other things or even voting for it. I simply wanted to generate a discussion on what we all use to determine our votes. My original statement was the fact that the votes are all over the place and I wanted to see how we all look at the submissions. I am saying most times I prefer a thin and attractive model. That doesn't mean I will not vote on a photo that has otherwise. That does not mean I won't shoot with one that is otherwise. And no, I am not saying the quality of the image matters less to me.

Everyone has preferences and thats what I'm trying to get people to discuss. It wasn't meant for me to take center stage harboring a shallow attitude towards womens looks and/or photographic elements. And I know your not accusing me of that. Just like me we're trying to understand one another.

PHOTO dw wrote:
[I was talking about my criteria. It wasn't a reference to what you said. PotD to me means all elements taken into account. PotD 18+ means pretty nekkid girls.

i so totally disagree with you. 18+ means that it falls within the site guidelines of the 18+ designations. It means men and women and it most certainly doesn't mean girls - who would be underaged.
I'm sort of new to MM but my understand is that this contest was started as a place for photographers who photograph nudes have a venue since the regular POD seems to ignore or ban them . Not sure which I've only looked at it once and think it is very much a clique.
I am certainly not that arbitor here but I am pretty good at reading the rules.

PHOTO dw wrote:
PotD to me means all elements taken into account. PotD 18+ means pretty nekkid girls.

Got to jump on this.
Really?
My take is:  I see no difference in how the images should be judged,  POD or POD 18+.
To me POD 18+ is just a extension where the ones from POD can not be displayed because of content.  Rather than have a mix of links and images, it has been categorized into links on one and images on the other.
I see no reason to throw out my thoughts on critiquing an image just because a breast is showing. 
Sitting here with jaw on floor.

JLC Images wrote:
I am not one to force people to confront their own demons and part of me feels bad, like I am being selfish by presenting things like this.  I will say if it weren't for dialogs like this I wouldn't have thought that people who are on forensic scenes have it affect them so much.  I thought that most of them would just see the people as slabs of meat otherwise they would go crazy.

I for one just see them as slabs of meat.
22 years of dealing with it has numbed me to any sort of emotion over such an image.
I do like the image for it beauty though.

JLC Images wrote:
Wow, thank you for sharing that Jason.  I think most people that have dealt with this have 2 reactions.

1. Avoid the issue at all costs and stuff the feelings as far down as possible
2. Find ways to try and understand why and express how it affected them.

I certainly don't blame people for being upset and I realize that some people look at 18+ as just nude and not really relating to slightly darker images.

i had read this one before I responded. so I like to add that i feel very much the same way in that i don't think you should avoid the issue. and i think 18+ should mean only that - that the image has an 18+ designation. all types of images should be entered. Yes that makes it tough to judge but it should be tough. Easy is boring.

the reason the saying "Variety is the spice of life" is a cliche is because it is true
I guess the hard part is not winning but really we have won in the sense that we are having a great dialoque.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

I for one just see them as slabs of meat.
22 years of dealing with it has numbed me to any sort of emotion over such an image.
I do like the image for it beauty though.

I hear this from all the doctors I work with.  Well, at least the older ones.  I thought they were being mean when they made fun of the younger doctors for being sentimental.  It must be rough to see this day in and day out.

jandj studios wrote:

i so totally disagree with you. 18+ means that it falls within the site guidelines of the 18+ designations. It means men and women and it most certainly doesn't mean girls - who would be underaged.
I'm sort of new to MM but my understand is that this contest was started as a place for photographers who photograph nudes have a venue since the regular POD seems to ignore or ban them . Not sure which I've only looked at it once and think it is very much a clique.
I am certainly not that arbitor here but I am pretty good at reading the rules.

Alright, I will end my participation in this particular discussion right now. I do apologize for bringing it up. Maybe that was out of line to try and get people to discuss what they look at when they vote.

You have the right to disagree with me. I said that at the outset. You do NOT have the right to determine that I was speaking of "underaged girls" when I made that statement. Let me remind you that the contest is called PotD 18+. 18 year old girls are still in high school. We are most definitely talking about the possibility of girls participating. However, I said NOTHING about anyone being underaged nor photographing anyone underage. It was simply a term. I call all women girls.

Again, a preference. One they seem to like.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
I for one just see them as slabs of meat.
22 years of dealing with it has numbed me to any sort of emotion over such an image.
I do like the image for it beauty though.

i forgot you do ? did? it too. Yeah, I couldn't get to that point - I mean I did for a long while then something happened in my personal life that made it impossible.
no need for that here.
But it is often difficult to talk about the reasons we see a photograph they way we see it without talking about emotinal responses.
I find your use of the word "beauty" interesting. I might have used compelling or well composed and delivered , well executed but I didn't think beautiful. Maybe my definitin of beauty is too narrow.
"Truth is beauty, Beauty truth"  hhhmmmm ..... this is me thinking

jandj studios wrote:
I guess the hard part is not winning but really we have won in the sense that we are having a great dialoque.

QFT.  I am so glad we have this extended forum and not just a winners circle.

PHOTO dw wrote:
I call all women girls.

Again, a preference. One they seem to like.

We will have to agree to disagree. But I warn you if you call my wife or daughter a girl, and both have portfolios on MM , be prepared.

Many woman find it as offensive as a black man being called boy.

warn - i a friendly way
Damn , i think it happened again.this sounds NOT like i was trying to make a joke.

PHOTO dw wrote:
Alright, I will end my participation in this particular discussion right now. I do apologize for bringing it up. Maybe that was out of line to try and get people to discuss what they look at when they vote.

You have the right to disagree with me. I said that at the outset. You do NOT have the right to determine that I was speaking of "underaged girls" when I made that statement. Let me remind you that the contest is called PotD 18+. 18 year old girls are still in high school. We are most definitely talking about the possibility of girls participating. However, I said NOTHING about anyone being underaged nor photographing anyone underage. It was simply a term. I call all women girls.

Again, a preference. One they seem to like.

ok i see we misunderstood each other. A girl is a female who hasn't had menses. so that's where the underage thing came from . I could have phrased that better. I see why you could take offense. Hopefully, we have both learned something about how easy it is to be misunderstood.


editted for grammar
dj

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Dennis needs to go have a beer.  Have one for me too.
I don't believe anyone was accusing anyone.  Emotions were flaring a bit.  That's not a bad thing, as long as it does not get out of hand.
We do have a good thread going here.
Your statement shocked me for a moment Dennis, but I realize that you were bring up a point that we all do look at this differently, and there is a reason why the voting is all over the place. 
I don't think anyone here is attempting to change the way others look at the work or vote.  But we do tend to defend our logic for what we do.  Called - being humans.

I could just imagine where I would be going right now with this conversation if I had a half a bottle of scotch in me.  Ho boy!  Brig for sure.
But being sober I can say that I think we twanged a few emotions with some and have gotten to understand our little group better.

Heart rates back to normal?

yes, and can i compliment you on recognizing what was happening and slow everyone down. Maybe you should give up the scotch for good!>? whoa, what am I thinking.

jandj studios wrote:
Maybe you should give up the scotch for good!>? whoa, what am I thinking.

Wash your mouth out and go sit in the corner.
Can't drink for awhile, I have too much work to get done.  Scotch and work do not go well together for me.  Doesn't look like I will be able to enjoy a good drink for at least four more days.  Poop!

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
I for one just see them as slabs of meat.
22 years of dealing with it has numbed me to any sort of emotion over such an image.
I do like the image for it beauty though.

JLC Images wrote:
I hear this from all the doctors I work with.  Well, at least the older ones.  I thought they were being mean when they made fun of the younger doctors for being sentimental.  It must be rough to see this day in and day out.

I work in a field where I see people at their worst physically, men and women of all ages, with all types of maladies, deformities, and illnesses.  I enjoy taking pictures of the human body, whether fully or partially clothed, or nude, for the beauty of the image that is created and to remind me that there IS beauty out there and not just illness, depression, and grief.

My 2 cents....

PHOTO dw wrote:
And this directly relates to my personal criteria for shoot subjects, not just for this contest. A lot of the girls KNOW what kind of subjects I prefer so consequently they feel like I can, and do, represent them in the way they prefer. If a model with a small chest is self conscious, which a lot of them are, she might not want to do full frontal like some you have in your port. I think thats the case there Kyle, and it's not the first time I've heard it.

hmmm

i tend to think people should say what they mean.  she could have well said what her preferences are for images.  we could have then worked creatively to achieve something we'd both like.  but wait, she DID state her preference

anyway, thanks, because i was having a bit of a time trying to understand what was so exposed in the images that made them so objectional.  well, except for the composition maybe

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
***
***
Attention  Attention  Attention

Well crap!  The POD 18+ thread got hacked by some clown and was pulled.  And this was such a fantastic night of images too.

I assume James will be by to explain what is going on.

I'm pissed.

Please stand by until we hear from James or he gets word to me, in which case I will let you know.

Sorry that happened too .... Like I was going to actually win or something - LOL .... I'll be waiting for the POD +18 to open up again :-(

Nancy Wishard wrote:
I work in a field where I see people at their worst physically, men and women of all ages, with all types of maladies, deformities, and illnesses.  I enjoy taking pictures of the human body, whether fully or partially clothed, or nude, for the beauty of the image that is created and to remind me that there IS beauty out there and not just illness, depression, and grief.

My 2 cents....

Nancy, that was worth at least a full nickel. Cheers to you.

JLC Images wrote:
Wow, I just got home and I have quite a few emails in reference to my latest entry

And I just got home from a disasterous shoot. Haven't looked at your image and am interested in this (unintentionally offensive).

JLC Images wrote:
Your thoughts on this.  Do you find this image offensive or glamourizing suicide?  Does it help knowing the idea behind it or does it make it worse?

One of my pet peeves about some forms of so called 'art' is reams of paper explaining the artists' intent. My contention is that if you need to explain graphic art with words then you have failed in your visual representatoion and need to do more homework and/or apprenticeship.

Will look soon ...

*** Edit ***
Looked. IMHO message is weak and probably why some are offended. Processed photo of woman with noose ... quite ambiguous even as to the purpose for its creation.

Was going to add "And besides the rope is way too long." but asked a model friend about that and she said that would be tactless so I guess I won't.

Tommy Dee wrote:
One of my pet peeves about some forms of so called 'art' is reams of paper explaining the artists' intent. My contention is that if you need to explain graphic art with words then you have failed in your visual representatoion and need to do more homework and/or apprenticeship.

Will look soon ...

I am one of those people that LOVES to watch directors commentaries and stuff like that.  I enjoy forming my own thoughts and then compare it to what the author was going for.

I am interested in hearing your opinion

SLE Photography wrote:
Update:  Photo thief, hacker, & con artist Raymond Rodden, AKA Quintessentially Preppy, used a fake profile to spam Tyler's personal info to multiple threads all over the site.
I apologize to everyone, as it's likely my fault he targeted the PotD 18+ thread in retaliation for me outting one of his other fake profiles.  Sorry, troll hunting's a habit of mine and I regret it brought trouble to the contest.

The Mods were able to retrieve the thread code for me so I can repost the thread.
I have ASKED if, when things get settled down, the offending post can be removed so the thread can be unhidden for archive purposes.  Only Tyler can do this, but I know it's possible as there has been at least one previous occasion I am aware of where it was done.

As for today's contest, luckily I keep the current thread page open all day & just refresh periodically.  I have everything from today up to Nancy Wishard's late entry at 8:12 PM EST, shortly after the hack spam.  I also have pages 25 & 26 via Google cache.

I am going to re-open the thread and post an index of all today's entries plus how many votes (if any) they had, and from whom.  This will take me a bit.  From there I am going to allow new entries up to 11 PM EST and then no more entries through tomorrow to give everyone a chance to vote.
The only other option is to close the vote based on the leader at the time of the hack.

I'm going to restart the thread and point people here for discussion while we figure out what's going on.

Thanks .... and I'm sure that I am with the rest of us when I say that we are sorry that this happened to you link.   I have been enjoying it ever since I found it here.

JLC Images wrote:
I am one of those people that LOVES to watch directors commentaries and stuff like that.  I enjoy forming my own thoughts and then compare it to what the author was going for.

I am interested in hearing your opinion

There's an important difference between comparing what you see with the creator's intent (what I hoped would be the point of this thread) and needing a bunch of words to make a work intelligible. My opinion (and it is only that, please add words) is edited into the reply you quoted.

JLC Images wrote:
Wow, I just got home and I have quite a few emails in reference to my latest entry

http://swabere.smugmug.com/photos/240930041-XL.jpg


One being by SLE about me being an idiot and not putting the right link up (tee hee sorry again) He said it very nicely though.

The rest are some pretty nasty ones slamming me about "glamourizing" suicide

1. I don't see this as a glamour shot
2. The image isn't a person dying or dead.

The idea behind this shot comes from a close family member that attempted suicide a few times.  Even after they stopped it seams like every choice they make in their life is one of someone who is defeated and acts like what happends tomorrow is of no concern.  Even when she smiles this is what I see.

Your thoughts on this.  Do you find this image offensive or glamourizing suicide?  Does it help knowing the idea behind it or does it make it worse?

I didn't get the "glamorizing suicide" feel ... for me it brought up connections with limited range, hopelessness, sadness in general.

When listening or reading about such comments, my thoughts and desires to know go to " ... where do these projections come from ..."

Just my thought and input.  Observing and experiencing art is  personal and it doesn't need an artist statement.

Rudi A.