InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

Here is a thought - how about treating the models in this forum section like you would the models in the people photography section. Would you tell a grandmother that she shouldn't post a photo of her granddaughter until she gets her teeth fixed? If someone's subject over there had a lot of tattoos would you ask the photographer why that person was their subject? Do you see the inequity of your comments?

BTW, I'm not telling you not to express your opinion, I'm just expressing my opinion of yours. Surely by your logic, I'm allowed to do that. These are very good photos. How about commenting on that?

grandkids6

I did not think my first reply was printed because I did it from my phone while I was on vacation. so I reprinted just in chase...I did not know this site had cops watching everything that people did ... this site is getting to many cops....

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

Hypothetical here. You're a tourist taking photographs of interesting things you find while walking down the street. You come across of fountain with a statue. It is not the prettiest fountain, in fact it has some graffiti, but to you, it generates an interest and you take a photo of it. You offer the photo up here on the hog in the photo gallery section.

Some people say "nice image" and keep moving along. Some more critical people point out that if you had crouched down a bit, the photo might have been more interesting. A few others point out if you'd walked to a different place in the square, the lighting would have been more optimal. None of them say, your fountain isn't pretty or the graffiti detracts from the image. Why? Because the graffiti is PART OF THE FOUNTAIN, and you, as the owner of your camera and your own free will, chose to take a photo of it.

Now let me clue you guys in a bit more. When I was a younger, more attractive man, I could approach a co-ed or even coworker about posing for me. They were closer to me in age and it was a different time. Today, finding someone to model nude usually involves hiring a model to pose or taking images of models that are willing to pose for a copy of the images. A large percentage of these women have tattoos.

At my real job, I work very late most nights. The evening cleaning woman and I have a very good relationship because she cleans around me. I would guess she's around thirty. She's got a voluptuous body and a great smile. I would love to ask her to pose for our photography group. She could probably use the money and I'm about 75% sure she would say yes. I would be a total freaking idiot to approach her, even though I've known her now for about 3 years. It's a different world.

So you guys that come to this forum section to look at the pretty naked ladies and get all upset because some of them have too much ink should try to take your own nude photos and try to hire your own, ink-free woman to strip for you. You may get on your high horse and claim the unalienable right to protest the appearance of any model here, but when it comes down to it you're body bigots.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I also have an opinion, and am also allowed to express it, and I cry, "foul" to your chastising folks who comment on the models. This is the "nudie" section, and that means that, for the most part (exclude the NSFW criterion), the images presented are expected to be of nudes. That is not the same as naked. We (the non-image-posting voyeurs who come here to get our jollies ogling the babes!!!) hope to see quality photographs that celebrate the human figure in poses and settings that complement the beauty of the (mostly) female form.

When I see what is clearly a snapshot of a naked woman I take it as just that, and I don't try to comment on it as a work of art. But when I see an attempt at a photograph where background, pose, lighting, etc are manipulated/controlled to create a thing of beauty, then all of those aspects are up for critique; and the model/subject of the image is just as important as the rest. Sometimes the wrinkles are appropriate, as in a recent B&W of an elderly lady with a flower, but in other cases they are not flattering. Sometimes tattoos are detractors, and other times they can be interestingly displayed. Picture in your mind images such as we have seen on UHH where there is a thumb and finger pinching a nipple -- would you like to see dirty fingernails in that image? Or what if the hand clearly belonged to someone else because it was male? Or what if the hand belonged to an elderly person with knobby arthritic joints? The subject elements of the image ARE important, and if certain aspects don't work for viewers, then viewers are perfectly justified in making those comments.

Critics do NOT have to take photos of nudes themselves. I don't build cars, but I can evaluate them for my driving pleasure; I don't paint, but I can assess whether I like the painting or not; and I can look at photos of nudes and decide whether I like them or not without ever taking a nude photo myself.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

I never said you were not allowed to give your opinion. I will continue to give mine.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

You really are dense. This isn't about that list of subtleties you just rattled off, this is about the actual model in the image. If the only way to "fix" an image to please you is to change the model, then it can't be fixed. End of story. Any criticism on your part after that revelation is unwarranted and unwanted.

Why do I bring up shooting an actual nude session. Because I don't think you and many others really appreciate these images and maybe if you realized how much work the OP put into these shots you'd relax a bit about HIS CHOICE of model. Do you honestly think the OP is going to stop booking models with tattoos because a few vocal voyeurs on this forum don't like them. If not, why bother.

Imagine the perfect model John Frim would like to see here in this section. Now try to find her. Now try to get her in the same place at the same time as you. Now negotiate the fees and releases to find her standing in front of your lens wearing the perfect outfit you'd like to see her in. The point is shooting nude images is not like stepping out your back door and shooting little birds at your feeder or stepping off a tour bus in a quaint town and shooting cityscapes.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

ISO, you are making it sound like you have to make do with what you get. So be it. Unlike the usual version of the metaphor, I believe in nude photography "It is not about the journey, but about the destination." A lot of times the critics on here have said the photograph is great, but the model is not appealing because of something, usually tattoos or piercings. They are basically saying the photo could be so much better if the model did not have the detracting features. I don't see a problem with that. The photographer is getting the positive/negative feedback about the photo's technical aspects, as well as his model. Whether the model was his first choice or the spoils of the lot is irrelevant.

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

I'm not saying that. You have an annoying habit of putting down your interpretations of other's comments and then reacting to them. If you lived in the US you would likely be a liberal democrat.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

So in your world we can only comment about technique but not content.

Bill P

So you guys that come to this forum section to look at the pretty naked ladies and get all upset because some of them have too much ink should try to take your own nude photos and try to hire your own, ink-free woman to strip for you. You may get on your high horse and claim the unalienable right to protest the appearance of any model here, but when it comes down to it you're body bigots.[/quote]

Bravo!!

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

ISO is not the only one with that opinion.

To those I say replace the human model with a manikin and I will give you all the feedback you want about pose (a bit restricted in movement, perhaps), setting, lighting, exposure, etc.; i.e., you will get your technical assessment. Now replace that manikin with a gorgeous looking woman with perfect skin and figure, and I will say, "WOW, a masterpiece!!!" If you put a less-attractive less-than-perfect model into the same setting/pose I might suggest a bit of PP to hide a prominent mole, or perhaps a slight pose adjustment to make her look slimmer, or whatever. However, if you replace the manikin with one of those poor unfortunate folks who -- no, I won't detail the possible issues -- let's just say who is "inappropriate" in that photo, then I will say you missed the boat because of the choice of model. And before you go asking for a definition of inappropriate, just use your imagination and think of someone in the 0.001 percentile of attractiveness; I am sure you can figure that out.

Papa, stick to your guns; I'm with you.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Bravo!![/quote]

I am amazed that you think you have become the content response police. So in your mind in order for me to comment on pictures of race cars I need to be a NASCAR driver. Or to comment on pictures of flowers I need to be a botanist. And so on and so on. I will continue to express my comments, good or bad, on both image technical competence and artistic content until such time as the rules of the forum change. For those of you who don't like my comments, I don't care. You can go fxxk yourselves.