Old Timer Loc: Greenfield, In.

Where do you draw a line on shooting a suggestive pose, one that you would not want to see your Wife, and or Daughter have taken? I have been ask to shoot some of them for young women, not illegal but on the racy or suggestive side. If I would not be comfortable with a family member having a picture in the pose, I think that would be a good guide line to go by. Others say that I am setting the standard arbitrarily and it is not my decision as long as it is legal, I disagree with that and I have the right to refuse. I agree that there is a lot them on adds and Tv.

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

You draw the line for what you want,for what you do..legal does not mean tasteful...as long as you keep things modest you won't get the reputation of being the photographer who
does the trashy stuff in your town. It's your reputation,you can't do anything about the model's reputation,let them go elsewhere. What's a few bucks compared with you reputation?

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

I guess we all have our line in the sand but each is undoubtedly different.
I have no problem with nudity but wouldn't be comfortable with pornography or violence.
I guess in the end, I don't have an answer for you other than to use that old uhoh feeling in your stomach as a guide.

les_stockton Loc: Eastern Oklahoma

I don't often find myself in that situation, but off the front, I'd say that if the photograph could send me to jail, or even borderline, then I wouldn't. Beyond that, I haven't given it much thought. I photograph a lot of pretty young women, but most are cheerleaders or a Hooters waitress, and in most cases, I don't worry about it.

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

If you are uncomfortable dealing with a "glamour" shoot, then don't do it. The photographs in all probability would be second best anyway.

In my past I have taken glamour, forensic and medical photos and my first attempts at each of these were rubbish. I was nervous and hung up on what I thought acceptable until I realised that I was merely a means to an end and the shoots were not about me.

The glamour shots were all taken in the studio, the prints were made and handed over to the aspiring model. I heard back from one young lady that she had found part time work with an advertising agency partly on the strengh of the portfolio I supplied her with.

The forensic and the medical pictures were used in an English Teaching Hospital and it was these that caused me a few sleepless nights. This kind of photo can really get you down, the glamour stuff is a doddle in comparison.

I have my limits; even if there was a cash offering, I would never photograph a boxing match, I just do not believe that two men pounding each other should be publicised.

War zone photography has to be done, but I'm not going to do it.

When do you draw a line? When it goes against your beliefs and your moral code.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Of course you have the right to refuse. But it's an odd specialization for anyone who is even slightly prudish, or who doesn't know what they're getting themselves into.

I've never been asked to shoot a pose I'm uncomfortable with. This leaves two possibilities:

One is that I've avoided letting myself in for the kind of photography with which I am uncomfortable. The other is that I am unnecessarily prudish. It's almost certainly the former.

Generally, I think that all the other responses are all you need to think about. But I'd add that I don't feel that I own my wife or daughter (who is 22 tomorrow). Both are old enough to decide for themselves where to draw any lines.

Cheers,

R.

GrandmaJoy Loc: North Carolina

When in doubt "Don't. No photo session is worth damaging your reputation.

skidooman Loc: Minnesota

Wasn't there a recent court case a couple of days ago in NM that a photographer lost, because he didn't want to photograph a gay couples wedding because of his religous beliefs?

I could be wrong on this, but it sure seems to ring a bell. Anyone else hear about this?

Slowly but surely, business owners are losing their right reserve the right to refuse service.

les_stockton Loc: Eastern Oklahoma

I've seen sexually suggestive photographs (although no nudity) of under-aged girls. I'm sure no laws were broken, but if I were asked to do them, I would not. I'd rather photograph legal aged women willing to do such suggestive poses, but not kids.

skidooman Loc: Minnesota

Yeah, I'd have to agree. Besides, if a parent or guardian wants a suggestive pose of their minor, that's nobody I want to do business with.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

yes you are correct. Eventually it will hit the Supremes in DC were Hopefully, the pc stops and common sense breaks out with a 5-4 verdict. Another reason why we have to plug our noses and vote for mitt.

R'laine Loc: Bay of Plenty, New Zealand.

PC gone mad! Hell, the photographer should sue for her loss of freedom of choice, sheesh, bloody lunacy! I guess it's only a matter of time before something like this happens here in NZ. Maybe I should stick to landscapes
:roll:

George H Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Old Timer,
As the photographer it is your decision to shoot or not. You are the ultimate decider no one else you control the shutter, not the model. Now if you are getting paid, and that is what they want, then it is their decision and not yours. You have to make a decision at that point do I shoot it for the money and sacrifice my esthetics or walk away. If the client is willing to talk about it, then your ability at persuasion will be tested.

George

mafadecay Loc: Wales UK

If you say no you are only upsetting the model, the parents and maybe a handful of their friends that they go moaning to. This negativity will blow over quickly. Where as a lot more bad can come if you do decide to go ahead and shoot the images. The kind of stuff that will stick with you and will never blow over. Alsways safe guard yourself for the future! Even if the model is of legal age I still insist they have a chaperone and quite often I get my wife to sit in too. This way no rumours or lies can ever evolve.

I have turned pro for a few years now and have been in similar situations where I politely refused. I earn very good money and do often have to turn down work.

I am now faced with a similar situation as yours. My neighbour is a gamekeeper. He is a good friend and we do favours for each other. His humour is not like mine at all and we struggle to talk most of the time but if one of us needs something the other drops what ever we are doing and helps.

He shoots and traps all sorts of animals and in the past I have taken some really gritty and dark shots of his prey. These were not too graphic and he sent a few to some sporting magazines one even won a competition that I got credit for. This was not too much of a problem for me.

He now wants me to get some really bloody detailed shots of him gutting the animals and showing all the bullet holes etc. I do not agree with some of his principles and yet I do not wish to upset him and he simply can't grasp the fact that I do not want to do it.

I have been putting it off for some time now and inevitably I will have to do it so I do not damage our friendship. He is a different person to me and just would not understand my reasoning. Some might say "If he doesn't understand or respect my wishes then perhaps he is not a friend worth having". I can't explain it any better but its much deeper than this.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Just tell him that you don't think you could get good pictures, and that you'd prefer not to try, rather than screwing up.

Cheers,

R.