Are these photos 'vulgar?' (Page 5): That's your opinion, but I have to disagree. I often use selective focus with a wide aperture to "isolate" a specific body part rather than show...

Thurber Mingus

salewis wrote:

Correct. The person who posted these asked "A... (show quote)

That's your opinion, but I have to disagree. I often use selective focus with a wide aperture to "isolate" a specific body part rather than show the whole model in focus. I like the possibilities, mystery, etc, particularly when finished as monochrome.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

So far, the single vote and several private messages are clear: my next model should be treated to bondage and spanking. (All within agreed-on limits, of course.)

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

papakatz45 wrote:

I never said my work was anything spectacular. I do not post my work because I do not care for opinions of my work. I shoot for my enjoyment only. I know I have much to learn. That is why I am on this forum. Having said all this, I can give my opinion as well as anyone else. Trash is trash.

And some of us enjoy going "dumpster diving" from time to time

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:

Speaking of possible vulgarity, I may be shooting this weekend. All in favor of some bondage and spanking, raise your cameras. I mean, your hands.

Well, here is your second vote — I am not interested, because I fear the point of posting the images is to share an interest in kink and voyeurism, not the honing of photographic technique.

NoSocks Loc: quonochontaug, rhode island

Unpleasant.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Interesting info from an analysis of adult search terms;

...One finding that “will disturb many readers,” according to the researchers, concerns the sort of porn women want, based on search terms...

“Fully 25 percent of female searches for straight porn emphasize the pain and/or humiliation of the woman,” he writes, citing search terms inappropriate to reiterate here, but featuring words like “painful,” “extreme” and “brutal,” and often focused on nonconsensual sex (depictions of which, he emphasizes, are not even permitted on many adult sites).

“Search rates for all these terms are at least twice as common among women as among men...”

Searches for "spanking" and "bondage" also are very common among women as well as men...

olBadger

InfinteISO said:

"They are not bad photos, just not great photos. That top photo is probably the most graphic and yet it is also in my mind the most artistic."

To which I would agree completely.

Stephan G

PaolaPF wrote:

since you mentioned me I would to answer to this nice post: I find your post ironic and friendly because after so many members troubled by the genitals you try to laugh on them (and on someone's limits)

a vagina is not a depraved or immoral thing it is only a vagina

And the labia are not "vagina".

Here in the USA, there are people who go apoplectic when they think they are seeing or have seen the areolar tissue of a female breast. This is a learned reaction.

salewis

Right. Topless beaches are common in many parts of the world. There is nothing vulgar about the human body. The question here is whether it is vulgar to focus so strongly on the genitals rather than treating them as just one aspect of the woman's body. As I said before, this type of photography objectifies women rather than treating them as people.

Stephan G

salewis wrote:

Right. Topless beaches are common in many parts of the world. There is nothing vulgar about the human body. The question here is whether it is vulgar to focus so strongly on the genitals rather than treating them as just one aspect of the woman's body. As I said before, this type of photography objectifies women rather than treating them as people.

From Wikipedia:

"Vulgaris, a Latin adjective meaning common, or something that is derived from the masses of common people."

And in certain realms, synonym: "titillating".

What this comes down to is the intent for the message within the photograph.

And it is the intent of the photographer that pins down the purpose for the particular shot. And it will include the predilections of the producer and the viewer(s). Titles do provide the pointers as to the intent of the producer. The psychology behind this I will leave for discussions elsewhere. The issue here, as I see it, is the degree of 'shock' which a producer wants to create in others.

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

salewis wrote:

Right. Topless beaches are common in many parts of the world. There is nothing vulgar about the human body. The question here is whether it is vulgar to focus so strongly on the genitals rather than treating them as just one aspect of the woman's body. As I said before, this type of photography objectifies women rather than treating them as people.

Indeed they do. Those who feel that way are free to not pose for them, photograph them, or view them.

twr25 Loc: New Jersey

Hmmm … split decision. It's hard to justify pic #1 due to the shackled, "dirty ass look". Technically very well done; but, leaves the question … why do I want to see that? A bit over processed for my taste. Pic #2 is really shot nicely but I just don't "get" the spiderman LOL Nice though. Next three: The spanking is kind of flat … Beautiful woman … The bent over bench is excellent, nicely lit and beautiful model. The crop could be better.

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

twr25 wrote:

Hmmm … split decision. It's hard to justify pic #1 due to the shackled, "dirty ass look". Technically very well done; but, leaves the question … why do I want to see that? A bit over processed for my taste. Pic #2 is really shot nicely but I just don't "get" the spiderman LOL Nice though. Next three: The spanking is kind of flat … Beautiful woman … The bent over bench is excellent, nicely lit and beautiful model. The crop could be better.

Nice analysis. I agree with your reply on all counts. Love the model's facial expression in #4, and wonderful body shot of a nicely presented body!

Tom G Loc: Atlanta, GA

Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:

Since the lovely girl Gabby is so popular, let me share more:

The last pose reminded me of my favorite nursery rhyme.

Young Mommy Hubbard
Went to the cupboard
to get her poor doggie a bone.

When she bent over,
Rover took over, and
Gave her a bone of his own.

digit-up Loc: Flushing, Michigan

Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:

A recent post of explicit photos w/ interesting lighting produced interesting discourse. Including some self-admitted 'prudes' calling the images vulgar. Below are two approaches to perhaps make explicit images more acceptable. One uses processing tricks following the maxim, "print it grainy and call it 'art'." The other will appeal to arachnid fanciers. So string your longbows and let the arrows fly!

Not “VULGAR” but certainly taste-less and crude. IMHO. RJM