Glamour comments!

Roger,

I actually agree and dont object with the sentiment of your original post though I would balance that by saying that I don't personally have an issue with comments such as "pretty girl" in Glamour and Nude in the same way as I would have no issue with someone saying "nice car" in Transportation, both are comments on the subject matter rather than the so called tecqnique and in a photo sharing forum I dont see the issue. By and large I think the Mods pick up on the more derogatory personal comments and I personally am able to pretty much ignore the rest. I can, however, equally understand that some people have a lower pain threshold. Other than having a high degree of censorship, which I dont think any of us really want, this is inevitable to a degree.

I do have more of a problem with some of the (my opinion) later over analysis and the implication that pictures should only be posted if they have some artistic merit. I found the phrase 'snapshot' disappointing. This is supposed to be a hobby forum that all should feel comfortable posting pictures to.

Chris

Really? I see quite a few thoughtful posts being made now as opposed to prior to this particular thread. I've learned a lot from some of the questions, less from the answers from those experienced. If commentary is predicated on performance, I'd have to say some of these "novices" have interesting takes on things, and I'd love to try some of the things they've suggested. I also think that watching out for what "bothers" a person is not a bad thing, and some of the best comments are what bothers a person and why. Whether or not I agree with them does not invalidate their opinion (as I've oft repeated in this thread...sigh...), and if their thoughts make me scroll back to the original shot and look for what they're talking about because I didn't see it the first time, then so much the better.

If you're alluding to me, I'm not in the least uncomfortable discussing my thoughts, as you well can tell. Further, I'm not too concerned about posting some of my work (once I get the chance) if it meets to my own personal approval. If people don't like it, fine...I get the chance to learn more.

But none of that negates those folks who are "novices." Your insistence that someone be experienced before you recognize any commentary simply gives me more of an understanding of where your head is at...that's all.

And might I add that according to many pm's I've received, the support for this discussion is large...and those folks aren't put off from posting at the mo'...rather, they appreciate that the topic has been opened, and that some changes seem to be occurring on the forum. And that, frankly, seems to be the motivation for several "new" glam posters putting up their work.

Best-
Noni

Seeing as I made that comment, I shall respond.

I find comments such as those termed "locker room talk" far more "disappointing" than any sort of comment about the style of shot...and rather more disparaging than saying something about the photograph itself.

As for this being a "hobby" forum, then comment upon the hobby and hobbyist rather than the model...

Best-
Noni

Is it not possible to draw a line on this one, imho i beleive Steve Parr had every right to view his opinion on the aspect of Samanthas muscular definition as i beleive her poses surgest emphasis on those areas of the body, now theres no doubt in my mind that samantha is a very beautiful and attractive lady and with the right non muscular poses would receive fantastic feedback as she has in many other posts todate, she fits perfectly within this catogary, please keep the posts coming nat869!!

Do we have to have this tell tale mentality whithin the forums, if there is a problem with a particular post we should leave it to the moderators to decide whether a post is inappropriate or not!

My basic premise for forum conduct is that we all come here as friends and are bound by the unwritten laws of common sense and decency to behave accordingly. In that light, I believe we should act no differently than we would if we were all meeting face to face. It’s such a simple thing to ask one’s self, “Is this something I would say in person?” before pressing the Enter key.

I acknowledge that this might sound Pollyannaish to some, and perhaps it is. Maybe it's even a naive notion, but the simple truth is this: One of the most frequent comments we receive here at POTN is amazement at the friendliness that permeates the forum. All of us who come here regularly have a vested interested in preserving that climate, so while this discussion is circular and really not resolving anything, it’s valuable for at least asking the question and raising awareness of the appropriateness of certain types of comments in the Glamour Forum.

I have never been offended by anything said about the photographic quality of my pics. It is what I post for. I have only ONE person to shoot pictures of and that is my wife. I am not sure how that is self-serving in the negative way you mean. You guys arguing over the right to insult women that are not attractive to you is pretty discouraging. It like you are saying that because the only person who will pose nude and in lingerie for me, is not attractive to you then it must not be glamour. I guess my photographic technique can only be improved by finding another model that you think is pretty. Remember this section is for registered members to view only. Why would I post pics of lingerie and nudes to the people section?

This has gotten completely out of hand...

Nobody is arguing for the "right" to insult women. I said I found muscle-bound women unattractive. I do. As I said earlier, some men find brunettes unattractive. If I posted a photo of my wife, and someone said "I find brunettes unattractive", I think it would be silly for me to take offense to that.

I think it's a tad short-sighted to ask for a critique of a picture and expect to receive only positive feedback. That's not the point of a critique, is it?

I'm really sorry I got involved in all of this. Maybe we should all just have a Coke and a smile and drop it...

Steve

One pretty simple question: How does saying you find muscular women unattractive help me to better my photography? Once again, do my photos suck because you do not like the subject? I welcome critiques on my images, I have no one else to do it except here.

Personally I don't give a sh*! if people think Samantha is attractive or not. I do not think I have to hear poor comments about her looks, no person should have to hear insults about friends or loved ones. IT IS POSSIBLE TO CRITIQUE A PHOTO WITHOUT INSULTING THE SUBJECT. As I have said, I welcome all comments on my pics........bad or good, just do not insult my subjects, whether it be my wife or anybody else who poses for me.

Ok, I think this has run its course, so I'm going to bow out gracefully. Before I do, however, just a few observations.
Bloodog, if a simple statement of the facts is arrogance, well, call me arrogant. And I never said that EVERYONE should be aware that nat posts pics of his wife. I meant YOU should know now that you've been here.

Muscular women aren't my cup of tea either, but the only thing I've ever said to nat about his posts are echoed by many others- she looks stiff in alot of her poses, and a little more relaxed look would probably suit her well. BTW- the heading of this forum is glamour _AND_ nude, so where else do you suggest nat post??
I don't care for many of the things I see here ( Frank's garishly made up models, slender models with rear ends the size of Texas that are so popular these days, etc.), but I know that many people like these things, so I politely keep my mouth shut about it if all I have to offer in the way of critique is a comment about how I don't (or do) like the model, which is so often the case in this forum.
As I said before, I fear that if the focus doesn't shift to the shot and away from personal preferences in sexual taste, this forum will be shut down.

One pretty simple question: How does saying you find muscular women unattractive help me to better my photography?

The subject is the reason you're taking the picture, correct?

If someone posted an image of an obscenely overweight woman with bad teeth and oily hair, but the lighting, focus, background, etc. was all spot on, would you consider it a glamorous photograph?

I'm guessing that you probably wouldn't, although there are probably people out there who would.

If posted in the "Glamour" section, people will either find the subject glamorous or not glamorous. To assume otherwise, I think, is naive.

So, if someone finds something unglamorous about a subject, should they hold their tongue? I didn't insult anyone. I expressed an opinion, and said why I had that opinion.

Nat, I notice Samantha is a blonde. I take that to mean that you find burnettes unattractive. Should I be offended by that? No, definitely not.

Everything in a photograph makes that photograph, whether it be lighting, background and, yes, even the subject. If someone holds the opinion that the lighting makes for an unglamorous image, they should certainly say so. Why, then, not afford the same critique of the subject?

Taken in a different environment; say one of competition, I'm sure I would be a fan of an image of a female body builder, as it would be in a context which one would expect to see a female body builder. In the setting you chose, this just wasn't the case for me.

My apologies for any misunderstanding. I can't do anything about your apparent belief that made personal slams against your wife, other than to explain the opinion I had. You can accept that or not; makes no real difference to me, but it is what it is...

Steve

Actually, it's pretty simple:

A model which garners more positive comments, obviously, appeals to a wider audience. If you remove the subject from the photograph, there's not a whole lot left.

When we post pictures here, isn't that what we're doing? Putting our images up in the hopes that they'll appeal to as wide an audience as possible?

Steve

Bloo, rules we try to have here are to keep things civilized and encourage discussions about photography. They my no means prohibit colorful language or hard talk.

Bloo Dog,

Hissy fits don't rule, they just get the grease IF the hissy IS warranted. Someone bringing up what they think is a violation of posting policies is ok by me. If it is a serious situ it will be dealt with by the admins, as many hot topics have been, or it will be discussed like it is here over 8 pages and a consensus will probably be reached.
Hm, sounds like democracy in action!

Categories can be a grey area. Like was said one persons glamour shot will be anothers weight lifting shot. If you think an image/topic has a better place, try suggesting this to the poster and see what happens.

Intelligent discussion has not been suppressed at all on this forum unless the intelligence-o-meter hits rock-bottom, i.e. a thread about a week ago, (copyrights, etc....).
The fact alone this thread has gone for 8 PAGES proves this point.

charlesu wrote:
One day my brother and his best friend went out to dine together while on vacation in the Florida Keyes. Each year they and their wives vacation there to go diving, collect shells, and eat lots of seafood. They're at a favorite restaurant and my brother, devouring a shrimp, remarks that the shrimp are "off" this time. They are not good. His best friend says, "no, you're wrong, they are good". Which of them is correct?

You see, that's what makes all the arguments in this thread about what is art, what is erotic, what is appropriate absolutely ridiculous. It's all going to be based on our perspective.

I could tell you what MY perspective is but I think you know that, or at least you have decided that from the images I post. Many feminists hate my work and think it is degrading to women. Oddly, lesbian couples (who are often strong feminists) represent a large percentage of people who like and collect my work. Which of them are correct?

As for the ORIGINAL post in this thread, I agree about some of the comments. Particularly the ones which deal with sexual remarks OR (and I especially hate these) those which are personally unflattering to the model. Frankly, you will see me remark about a model, but usually in a flattering or positive way.

I do find it interesting, though, that some people have to espouse their opinion on what is art or what is beautiful as if their opinion is the only one that matters. They often do this behind a shield of being "enlightened". The attitude is quite holier than thou. They often approach the discussion intellectually but it really comes down to is not about enlightenment but about what their individual perspective is. And of course, if your perspective is different you must be quickly dismissed because you are not enlightened. You are ignorant. Otherwise you would certainly be of the same opinion.

There will be no end to this thread until an admin locks it. That's ok. I don't think we'll resolve anthing with our posts because our perspectives are all quite varied.

I will say this for the record. I like and respect women. I work with many different women. Some nude. Some not. Some strong. Some weak. Some very smart. Others not so much. I like and respect them all. Most of my shoots are a collaborative effort. At least, some of what you see posted here. I respect opinions too. And I won't try and tell you that yours or what you are are wrong and that mine are right. Please don't tell me mine are either. If you don't like my work, fine. You're entitled to YOUR opinion about it. Just remember that it's YOUR opinion and since you're only one person, you're likely in the minority.

And I won't try and tell you that yours or what you are are wrong and that mine are right. Please don't tell me mine are either. If you don't like my work, fine. You're entitled to YOUR opinion about it. Just remember that it's YOUR opinion and since you're only one person, you're likely in the minority.

charles i beleive it was your comment regarding Steve Parrs first post that highlighted the issue in the first place,
i would quote your post, but your original quote mysteriously appears to have disappeared/edited, it went someting like this "please can you keep your comments on the photos and not your taste in women" .

"people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

regards!!
deedspender

What I would like to see is that glamour forum is taken quite strictly as such. Both amateur and pro shooters, but targeting more pure glamour. I see sometimes posts which are really about being proud of having a good looking mate and posting some shots to share it but that is essentially not glamour - glamour is hard work to make models look at their very best and attractive, carefully designing makeup, adjusting lighting and setting up (staged) environments, directing poses and expression. Glamour is very much about attention to detail, giving photos classy feel, something different that 9 to 5 and 24/7 tv dinner . CharlesU please correct if I am wrong with that definition. For amateurs: I am sure glamour can be achieved at home and outdoors, too, if you just keep in mind what glamour means and how it would be done in best possible way to really make people want to keep their eyes on the shot.

As for "nude" photography, I think that is here defined as "artistic nudes". That is common in art photography and libraries are full of examples of it.