Marionsho Loc: Kansas

To answer the OP's question, I would very much welcome the new section. I may not be good enough to post any pictures (or lucky enough to try) but there is lots to learn about photography from such a section.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Yes, I too would be very interested in a section geared toward this. I have never felt comfortable posting any of this type of photography in the poeple section mixed in with the snapshots of grandkids and parents which just seemed to generic.
This would probably be a very specialized section participation-wise but I'll bet it would be the most gawked at section!!!! LoL
And by definition since its content would be obvious, those that would be offended would need not open it. That is not true of the people section with its mix of grandkids and grandparents.
I'm sure a lot of what some of us shoot could not be posted so it would quickly settle into a fashion/glamour/pin-up section.
As long as I don't have to administrate I would be a strong participant. ;-)
SS

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Well, with the 2 pics so far I think the Section is off to a great start. I see them as tasteful and artistic creations. Excellent work!!!

Regarding access and the issue of offending UHH members, folks not interested should be alerted to stay away by the topic/name of the Section. For those who might be curious about such a Section but easily offended, there is nothing offensive -- in my opinion -- in the 2 photos submitted. And if things become too racy down the road people have the choice of not looking any more.

Now those looking for porn would, and should, be quite disappointed if these photos are representative of what is to come.

UXOEOD

Are you suggesting that admin discriminate for the position of moderator by gender?

In principle I for one, am completely adverse to segregation or discrimination in "hiring". Honestly, some of the best Boudoir Photography has been done by male photographers, limiting the potential candidates to 1/2 of the population is not only morally wrong, it insures that some of the most qualified individual aren't even give the opportunity.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

I think the name of the section could be wrong. Equality and all that. Perhaps 'Posed Model' would get a better reaction. Obviously the skill set needed is not age nor gender specific, so would appeal to more members perhaps? After all a 'Landscape' is broad enough a definition to encapsulate Air Sea as well as land, Posed Model is by definition more than family portrait.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

John, I'm sure this post was not meant for discussion.
You say you like to shoot Models. Though I don't disagree with what you would like to get out of this section, I personally would not have the time to carry an instructional essay short of a quick initial explanation.

And no way in creation would I EVER post an unedited pic of one of my models. I guarantee you I would be hunted down like the dog I was and my manhood, very slowly and ungently removed and then camera whipped!!!!!
SS

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I think it would be a good idea, as also might be a nude photography section. The question is how does one set guidelines and who wants to moderate it rigorously? Obscenity, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and varies according to one's beliefs. Family friendly is just as imprecise a term as is obscenity, beauty, offensive or pornography. As the old joke goes, "Why would I want a pornographic movie? I don't have a pornograph!"

Firstly, whether we call it boudoir or something else it should be very strongly focused on photography and quality, not just gratuitous babe or dude shots.

Secondly I do think that it should be gender neutral in as much as that makes any sense. I like good photographs of good looking guys as much as the next woman or person.

Where to draw the lines is very hard. What is acceptable in San Francisco is not the same as in say, Texas or Alabama, or within certain religious communities such as LDS, Southern Baptist, Lutheran or many others.

I think nudity is a very difficult topic to address, as are "sexy" images. It is very clear that nudes have been an important aspect of art in many cultures for millennia, and yet remain controversial.

Where do Victoria's Secret images, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, Calvin Klein adverts, Kim Kardashian's naked selfies, Justin Bieber or countless others fit in this equation?

Where does the work of Annie Leibovitz, David Bailey, or Helmut Newton fit into this discussion? I would guess that much of Helmut Newton's work would not meet the current UHH policy guidelines yet he is a very well respected photographer and has a large museum dedicated to him in Berlin. What about David Hamilton? Some people regard his work to be child pornography. Where does one draw the lines and who wants to sign up to do that?

Take for example the Calvin Klein adverts. They are frequently posted on huge public billboards yet some consider that they far are too edgy to be acceptable when the models sometimes appear to be very young. They raise uncomfortable discussions for people in some communities. If they are on billboards, then they are clearly legally acceptable in that jurisdiction, and also clearly visible by people of all ages. Does that mean that they are 'family friendly' or not? Does it mean that they would be acceptable as a screen saver in your workplace or not? It may depend upon the nature of your workplace.

Personally, I would support such a section if it were gender neutral and supported images that would be considered meritorious from a photographic perspective. Would I like to be the arbiter of those standards or guidelines? No way!

melclark13

Very interested in learning the niche in photography.

le boecere

I couple of sites I used to keep track of eventually became enraptured with pornography in the guise of "art". I'm not interested in what's happening in anyone else's bedroom, and no one else is invited into mine. If and when UHH becomes another feeding trough for "every man's battle", I'm outahere.

_Van

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Mel, welcome to the Hog.
I'm sure there will be at least a few willing to give guidance. ;-)
SS

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

As an example, here is an Annie Leibovitz portrait of Neil Patrick Harris. How would we categorize, accept or react to something like this and why?

Is it good photography? Is it suggestive? Is it a problem? Is it acceptable? Should we not have it on a 'family friendly' site?

It is a published image in the main stream media, I personally think it is a good photograph, both suggestive and edgy. He is a guy and he is gay. Should this cause problems or should it be acceptable? How do we decide?

JohnTxNC

SS,
I'm disappointed .... I want to know more about your pic, more than I can guess! I see two light sources, camera right being the larger and highest in elevation ... But did you bring in the dark background in post or were you 10 - 15 feet from a dark backdrop? Did you edit in PS or Lightroom? ... Are you using Mac or PC... Pen or mouse, dual or single monitors, calibrated monitor or stock, tripod mount or free hand, tethered or not, TFP or paid, Victoria's Secret or Haynes? . . . Ok Ok.. Haha I get the hint .... But I'm still curious about the background ...

Great shot btw.

John

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

LoL, John, actually I borrowed it from Brett, let me give him a call and I'll get back to you!!! LoL........
No seriously, the background is black paper probably about 6-7 feet from her eyes. Behind her and under her.
I shot from about 8-10 feet away with a 200 f1.8 @f1.8.
No PS but some LR.
Victoria's Secret
I shoot her again on the 31st if you have any special request or if you want to come by and help!!!!!!
SS

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

I'm 89 years old so I'm no longer shocked by photos of women in bathing suits or lingerie or underwear -- or even nudes. In fact, those kinds of photos were posted on barracks walls in every war, on barber shop walls in the smallest towns (as calender art), on the walls of a zillion bars frequented by both sexes, and in countless publicity shots of Hollywood starlets. In my day they were called "pin-ups" and were accepted by the general public. The one thing that was frowned on by some was to include a man in the same photo (or a woman, if the pin-up featured a male model). When I was a young GI in Occupied Germany in 1946, one of my fellow GIs was a tall photographer named Sgt. Peter Gowland, who became a top pin-up photographer in the 1950s. His gorgeous wife, Alice, didn't pose, but she was usually on the set as an assistant during his shoots, to help the models and put them at ease. Pete was trained at the Army Air Force photo school in Colorado before being sent to the European Theater of Operations in WW II.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Definitely, men tend not to have a perception of what is acceptable or offensive to women. A male moderator is far more likely to feel pressured into going along with the boys club, which is what this proposed section is likely to dissolve into if not handled carefully. A woman is far more likely to keep the section Art rather than Porn. Women make up a significant proportion of the membership and this section potentially could drive them away from this site.

Do you think a female moderator would find your posts offensive? Anyway the only person who gets to decide if this new section goes ahead is Admin and he/she gets to decide who to admin the section, it is not a democracy. The gender of the moderator doesn't disqualify male photographers from posting but a female moderator would go a long way to ensuring the support of at least some of the female membership.

If you don't want to be exploiting women, the first thing you need is empathy with them.

If you want a soft porn site there are plenty of options out there. This isn't a site for pervs is it.