I am reminded of the wise advice from famous architect Mies van der Rohe. "Less is more." Holds true for almost anything.
MontanaTrace wrote:
There's a lot to like about this portrait. You've made some nice choices. Lighting, pose, colors. Good job. I miss the real eyebrows.
My god, man, we have a photo of a partially naked beautiful woman and you're looking at the eyebrows? Something's wrong with you, time to spend some time on the couch.
All you anti ink and implant guys need to understand that times change. If you don't like it, become Amish or Orthodox Jewish.
I didn't comment on ink, and I should have. Regarding ink, I feel, as I do in many areas, the distinguished architect Meis van de Rohe, who said "Less is more." For those of you who need a translation, and this is advice that can be applied to most anything in life, Don't overdo it!
Implants are like toupees. You guys think they are all bad because you only see the bad ones. Same thing with toupees. I know two guys that wear a rug that I guarantee you would never know from real hair. And for quite a few years I dated a woman with implants that no one knew they were, and trust me, I inspected them closely. What you are considering is the fault of the "fake" item isn't inherent, it's the skill of the person doing it.
I am reminded of the words of a famous modernist architect, "Less is more." I don't mind ink, I mind too much anything.
"I'm sure what images my old magazines presented had something to do with the mores of society at that time and also previous generations. Back then, many nude photographic images were considered pornographic. Fortunately the times, they began a changing, and Adult (Men's) Magazines began, and became acceptable. Eventually. Well, for a teenager/young man, like me anyway"
As usual, this is a demonstration of amateur psychology and just plain overthinking without backup data. The reason your old magazines didn't carry certain images had very little to do with the days standards, and everything to do with the post office. There were regulations on what could be sent by mail, and these varied state by state. Again I will remind you of the days of "banned in Boston."
It may be that changing times relieved the post office of the job of censor, but that's why none of you old magazine collectors can find any photos of women's privates.
And how is this helpful to what has been a very tiresome discussion and a festival for puritans?
rmalarz wrote:
I prefer the black and white version. There's an old saying regarding color and portraits, which can be applied here. Black and white if you want to present the person. Color if you want to show what they're wearing.
--Bob
Just what we need. Advice that tries to oversimplify something. And jjust what I love, rigid one sided rules.
I will almost always say color, so I may not be your target audience, but I prefer the color version.
I am not of a mind to accept the common belief that a black and white photo is inherently more artistic.
The old magazines you refer to were less the victim of mores(who were the first white immigrants to America? Puritans Think about that. remember Banned in Boston? We still live with their twisted attitudes.) than they were victim of the Post Office. Different states had different attitudes that were reflected in what could be sent in the mail. And of those here who find the photos vulgar, I think that says more about you than it says about the photos.
JeffL wrote:
It isn’t a matter of controlling others. It is about respect for others that you seem to totally lack. You keep whining about bullying, but all the bulk of respondents want is consideration for their views. If you can’t be considerate about the feelings and views of the majority, leave UHH. You won’t be missed.
I will very likely be leaving, but I don't agree with you one bit. I discontinued participation in other parts of this misbegotten forum because I couldn't stand the flood of bad information and uninformed advice. For this portion, I don't see things as a vast majority, but a few loudmouths trying to return us to a societal standard from the 1800's. Let me remind you that we are in the 21st century. you will have a happier life going with the times. After all, many here have loudly shared their opinions about women with tats and boob jobs, two things that are well into the mainstream today.
azted wrote:
Seriously Bill, there is such a thing as acceptable behavior that is not bullying. I gave an example earlier, ie. if you are walking into a cafe, and a fantastic lady is standing there with a banging' body, you would not yell out "GreatT ---" would you? No, because it is a public place. It is simply not an acceptable behavior. This blog is a public space. We have men, women, and children reading this. People of all persuasions. This is not your home or your buddy's place to sling crap. I understand your feeling of being bullied, but please also understand the concept of this as a public place. We are all allowed here, and share in photographic crap. Thanks, and I hope you can feel that we are trying to meet you halfway on your turf.
Seriously Bill, there is such a thing as acceptabl... (
show quote)
Actually I don't feel any meeting halfway at all. What I do sense is thee are many here that have an overwhelming need to control others.
JeffL wrote:
Your attempt to justify being crude, rude and socially unacceptable is very weak. I’m sure your mother taught you better. BTW, I am an 8 year USAF veteran and that still doesn’t justify public oral sewage.
Ytou say something is rude, crude and unacceptable. Are you able to understand that this is what you think and there's no law about how that could apply to others? And I happy for your service but that certainly doesn't give you the authority to say what is acceptable to others.
What is unacceptable to me is those who try to make others follow their beliefs. There's a word for that: Bullying.