Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

Almost a month ago, Paolapf, a new UHH member, posted several nude and near nude "selfies" of herself in this section of UHH. Most were technically imperfect, due to her inexperience, as well as the use of an outdated point and shoot camera. Over a week ago, all of her posts were deleted by the administration, which I suspect is because some viewers found her genitalia shots offensive. I wasn't crazy about them either, but liked many others she posted. I admired her attituded, and found her imperfect, mature body very sensual in its own way. Since then, she hasn't touched this forum with a ten foot pole. Looks like she has been frightened away by the UHH "Heckler"s Veto" It's too bad. Not only did I enjoy her selfies, but she lost the chance of learn from what is usually a very helpful forum. Here is one of my favorites, I did manage do download before her posts were deleted. Any thoughts on the matter?

larryjphoto Loc: Phoenix

Shame on those that provided snide comments and other than constructive criticism. We all start at the beginning in photography and those that are seasoned should be mentors, not mud slingers.

jamesl Loc: Pennsylvania

-----
If they were posted in this section by mistake, I feel it would have been better to move them to the section where they should have been posted and then via private post let her know where to post any future shots of this type. I don't think they should have been simply deleted.

If an attempt was made to contact her and explain the situation and she preferred to have them deleted instead of moved, that would be a different story.

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

BTW, they were done with a 15 year old 5.1 megapixel Sony Cybershot DSC P100 camera, an absolute dinosaur in today's world. No wonder they were out of focus. I can't imagine doing a selfie with that technology and expecting it to be in focus. I did a little post processing on my computer, by lowering the highlights. The result was that more varicose veins were visible than in the original shot.

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

What is the reason for so called "Veto Hacklers" that they ask for a removal of somebody's images from UHH?
That should be asked first,
Healthy human body is beautiful.
If the image presented doesn't have a good standard quality, there are numbers of us who can offer a friendly advice of how to improve.
If somebody is concerned about kids viewing these images, COOL DOWN budd! Kids can go and prefer to go to a real porn instead.
Censorship is bad - no matter what you think - with the exception of the intentionally harmfull propaganda of lies.
That needs to be screened off.
So, what is your problem?

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I saw some of the points and I don't get why they were deleted. Nothing more risqué than that that has been posted in this category by others.

Admin, how about telling the users why her posts were deleted?

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

Shutterbug Sailor is only providing one part of this story and in doing so violating the rules that on this forum you must not post a picture that you don't own. Granted, that rule seems to be broken frequently.

I did not call for the removal of her images and was in a lengthy discussion with this woman via posts on this forum. If anything, I think the posts should have been left because they were informative on many levels.

I followed her post closely. Her first two submissions were removed when her second started a thread with a press photo regarding Chinese pornography laws. The post could have been put in the attic if it had been made with a link to the news story instead of breaking forum rules by directly uploading an image from the article. That image was very tame, just showing some topless Chinese woman of various ages posing with the Chinese photographer that had found himself on the wrong side of Chinese morality laws. I believe the second post brought her first post under scrutiny and they decided to bag them both, but I am only guessing.

Generally speaking this woman could be categorized as an activist against the very concept of pornography. To do this she seeds explicit images of herself on a host of web sites to stir up controversy. Some on this forum had a problem with the quality and/or content of her images, others had an issue with using this forum not as a sounding board to further her photographic skills, but as a place to proselytize her views on feminism and porography. She had a large "following" on Tumblr and when they got rid of nude images, she went looking for other venues.

I don't think anyone here had a problem with her appearance. She was an attractive woman. I think only a few had a problem with her uploading images that highlighted her genitalia. I believe the main reason she got kicked off the forum was she wasn't about photography, she was about content. She was exploiting the forum for her own purposes.

tramsey Loc: Texas

I don't think there is anything wrong with her photo. I didn't see the others. I 've been around this forum long enough to know that there are a lot of trolls that have used language that is a whole lot worse than that photo. I think they are the ones that should be deleted and not her. But they go on and on with their trash talk and sarcastic remarks.
That's why I don't spend a lot of time here any more.

Bill P

The big problem with this forum and many others is that they attract all the worst elements in our society. Numerous times, perhaps with with this nice lady, I have stated that this is not the right place to discuss what's wrong with a photo based on irrelevant items. Model too fat/too slim, plastic surgery/some needed, too old/too young, tattoos and piercings/no tattoos or piercings,visible genitalia/not visible genitalia, on and on. Our society has devolved form one where we could say, "If you don't like don't look," to one where everyone here considers themselves the arbiter of social norms.

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

I am not quite sure what was her purpose. I just enjoyed some of her shots. You did mention that I was violating some of the rules on this forum by posting one of them without her permission. IMHO, it was a case of bending the rule, rather than breaking it. When one posts a photo on UHH, they can choose to hit the "store original" box which allows the photo to be downloaded and posted elsewhere or not to. In her case she did hit that button, which seems to be an implied permission to post. Nonetheless, I know from past experiences with your threads that you don't want others' photos on them. One time, I posted the picture below on your Hotel Room Shoot, and you objected. Out of respect, I removed it, although I felt it might have enhanced the topic

(Download)

Thurber Mingus

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that if I check "store original" I'm basically giving you permission to download AND POST my photo anywhere you choose...if that's correct, I'm glad you posted this so that I can be sure to never check that box again!

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

Just because you give someone the ability to download your image does not mean that they have the exclusive right to post it elsewhere.

And this image that you posted to remind me that I once asked you to remove it from my thread also reminds me that this one was also not your work, which was why I asked you to remove it.

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

And none of the factors that you listed had anything to do with why her posts were removed

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I sometimes think we suffer from "The Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome.

Seriously, did anyone really think the photos she posted were good? PaolaPF is a self-admitted exhibitionist and all she wanted to do was show the world her privates, generally in a most unflattering way. There was nothing in her photos that I found educational in terms of style, technique, etc; at best they were examples of what NOT to do in nude photography.

We can do better.

hlmichel Loc: New Hope, Minnesota

Did anyone ever follow the link in her signature?
She had pictures of her having sex with her husband that she encouraged visitors to download, print and post everywhere.
She called it feminist porn as I remember.