Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

2 questions always on my mind

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

redhed17
redhed17  8659 forum posts England
26 Aug 2013 - 11:52 PM


Quote: Straight out the camera - Best Photo. Another photographer likes designing in Photoshop - Best Image.

Sorry, rubbish imho. Every 'photograph' should be an 'image' then. No image is 'how the scene was'. With film, the choice of film affected the final image, Kodak film, Fujifilm etc, they distorted reality, boosting certain colours and contrast in different ways. How the film was developed affected the final image too. B&W! Just because it can be done in camera doesn't mean it's not a distortion of reality. Have you seen any B&W scenes in real life? I haven't. Yet B&W is a perfectly acceptable manipulation. :-/

And don't believe that a lot of the people that that printed and developed their own pictures were not also 'enhancing' their images. Dodging and Burning, there was a flat scene, so should that be the way it should have stayed? Do you think the often mentioned Cartier-Bresson and Ansel Adams just placed the paper under the enlarger, exposed the paper for the correct amount of time and left it at that? I doubt that very much.

With Digital, in camera, the Picture Style/Control effects how the scene is rendered, colours, contrast etc affect the final image. Add to that the WB and Colorspace, which can also affect the image, and reality starts to look far gone. 'But I don't change any of that!' You may not, but the manufacturer has already made choices for you, which you can change or not, it's up to you.

To the original OP, the first thing that pops into my mind when I see a picture is do I like it or not, not whether the photographer of a Nude subject was taking the pic for lurid reasons. :-( And the same for the landscape photograph, do I like it, not whether it has been manipulated to some degree or not. It's just that in the digital age the manipulation there were able to do with film and a darkroom is within reach of anyone with a computer. And so much more beyond what they could do. It's up to you whether you want to take advantage of that. :-/

To those who are happy with their images straight out the camera, good for you. Smile We all have what amount of image manipulation is OK in our minds, for some nothing, for others, anything goes, most people are somewhere in the middle. Most non Photographers don't care what you may or may not have done to image. They either like it or not?

As long as an image is not meant to record a realistic moment in time, as in an image by a Journalist for example, then whatever you like. Smile I'll just see whether I like it or not. Wink

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
26 Aug 2013 - 11:52 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

collywobles
27 Aug 2013 - 10:01 AM

Pardon!

joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
27 Aug 2013 - 10:48 AM


Quote: Sorry, rubbish imho. Every 'photograph' should be an 'image' then. No image is 'how the scene was'. With film, the choice of film affected the final image, Kodak film, Fujifilm etc, they distorted reality, boosting certain colours and contrast in different ways. How the film was developed affected the final image too. B&W! Just because it can be done in camera doesn't mean it's not a distortion of reality. Have you seen any B&W scenes in real life? I haven't. Yet B&W is a perfectly acceptable manipulation. :-/

It's all a matter of degree, isn't it? Most people know what a landscape should look like and within that there is a certain amount of wriggle room but it doesn't take much for something to look a little 'off'. The classic example being a landscape with featureless sky where that sky is replaced in PS by one with some clouds. If the replacing sky is, say, shot vertically upwards the perspective will be enough 'off' to make the viewer wonder if something fishy isn't going on - even if they can't immediately see precisely what.

Similarly, if you shoot a portrait of a person who has a few natural 'blemishes' (and who hasn't got a few of those?) and then go crazy with the blur and liquify filters such that the person starts to look more like a shop-window mannequin then you will also lose the trust of your viewers.

Photography is an illusion but, like most illusions, it ceases to work if you push things too far.

Fogey
Fogey  169 forum posts United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
27 Aug 2013 - 11:01 AM

I saw a photo recently in EP of a close up of a woman's vulva escaping from some extremey tight shorts. Now try to tell me that is artistically pleasing, has good lighting, composition or whatever and I'll laugh in your face.

A lot of the nude pictures shown in this forum's gallery are an extension of the author's fantasies/fetishes and it will take an extremely powerful argument to make me think differently.

petebfrance
27 Aug 2013 - 11:20 AM

He he - from what I've seen the naughty pics on here are pretty tame stuff. Some years ago I joined DeviantArt - contrary to what the name suggests, I joined as it was recommended (by another painter) as a 'classy' place for posting photos of my paintings - and I think the naughty stuff there nowadays is much naughtier. Not that I've .. er .. ever looked, of course..er..BlushBlushBlush...retires in confusion... .......

conrad
conrad  1010877 forum posts116 Constructive Critique Points
27 Aug 2013 - 12:19 PM

Interesting to see all the different opinions about these subjects.

I agree that there are a lot of rubbish photos of naked people (mostly women, indeed) around, and I can understand that one would start to wonder why they were taken, but I wouldn't dare suggest that I knew the answer to that one, I just know I prefer the quality ones - fortunately there are enough really good ones around as well.

As for the landscapes, yes, highly processed landscape shots seem very popular, and I can see why some people might not like them, or think they're too unrealistic. But unless you're shooting for a travel company or for a similar reason, I don't think you necessarily have to produce realistic images. Photography is an art form, and if the photographer wants to exaggerate colours, light, etc., then he or she is free to do so as far as I'm concerned. Do I think it's really good when someone uploads an attractive landscape shot with only minimal processing? Yes. But the others appeal as well. (The only thing that gets me about those highly processed images is that I'm not as good at that kind of processing as a lot of other people on here...) Wink

johnnyboy114
27 Aug 2013 - 1:27 PM

Interesting debate, and here is my two pence worth....not that anyone gives a toss what I think!

Firstly, the nudes....

This site does seem to have its higher proportion of "trash nudes" than others. Go to PurplePort (ok a model site first and foremost, but the quality of the photography is stunning) or to 500px and the nudes there are, on the whole, world class. Superbly lit, wonderfully composed, truly beautiful women (and the unconventionally beautiful are made to look stunning due the way they are shot) and good processing to "enhance" the image, not manipulate it out of sight. To me, there is a reason for this.....EPZ is aimed more at the "everyman" photographer...the enthusiast, the beginner, the learner etc.....nothing wrong with that and does a very good job of it. But, as this is a high proportion of the users, you are going to get a higher proportion of people who want to get into "nude" photography really quickly....and if you don't know what you are doing, its bloody tricky! A good model, good light (the hard bit) and then producing a good idea, concept or look is really very hard indeed....and unless you are a total natural from the off, most people get it spectacularly wrong. They may be very pleased indeed, but compared to those who are versed in the genre and are very good at it, then they look churlish, amateurish and frankly "pervy".

You do also get the "pervy" aspect coming through on here too....there are at least 3 or 4 serial offenders who have been nicely and constructively criticised but they don't change their ways at all....which absolutely makes you believe they are doing it for pervy reasons. Again, due to the nature of the site and its users, there is a higher proportion of those kinds of people....the amateur with a camera who can talk their way into the Queens pants and get some woman who is insecure enough to get their kit off and have their bits photographed close up in a bad way.


Taking this on a step, there are SO many ways of shooting a nude too.....there is the "glamour" shot (not my thing), which technically is tricky to do, but....there is a market and so be it. Then there is the fine art nude....sensual, clever lighting, truly beautiful models (most of the time), works of art....there there is porn of course.....this comes in all flavours and when done in by an amateur, fairly distasteful (IMHO). There are many other ways too.....each photographer would suggest they are doing it for the "art", or the love of photography.....but then, as said here before, some superb photographers may be getting a kick from it, whereas there might be some who are really trying, can't do it, but doing for the love and passion of what they are doing. One brush cannot paint all....

But, to me, there is definitely a fine line and its the serial offenders that stand out a mile. The ones who say they take criticism, the ones who never comment back to good advice etc and continue to produce utterly rubbish, degrading, mysogenistic trash.....clearly they are in it for their own kicks...be it pervy, a feeling of power and domination or whathaveyou.....frankly, its all pretty disturbing.....


I think that if there is genuine integrity in the shot, be it rubbish or trying, then this can't be criticised in a bad way. Help, advice, if taken on board, will always improve someone and if this can be seen on their nude photography journey, then for me its all ok until proven otherwise. Unless absolutely bleeding obvious, in the way I have described, its pretty damn rude to questions someones motives for shooting a nude......


Bringing the landscape issue into this same argument......

Someone said earlier that they just don't understand why someone would want to just shoot nudes day after day, whereas a landscape is "lived" when shooting it as you are exposed the elements etc.....

Lets break this down....

I for one am an early morning person, so don't mind getting up before dawn and driving to get a shot. I don't do it though simply because 1) I don't really know what I am doing 2) I am not interested enough in it when there are so many other great photographers out there who do SO much better a job at it than I could ever do. I think you can hit a ceiling with your level of work when shooting landscapes....if you are good, you are good! And I LOVE a good landscape if its done right and tickles me in the right places. They are beautiful.

BUT.......for me, the interaction with people, the creative process and the collaboration between model and photographer IN that creative process to implement ideas, concepts, looks etc.....thats what gives me the kick. I am no good standing on my own in a field trying to get a shot when I don't know what I am really doing. Whereas I can control light with a portrait, I can use my imagination with a nude to implement a concept etc.......

Everyone is different...its what makes photography so brilliant! Everyone is good at something........I am just not good at landscapes, others are brilliant. A lot of those landscape shooters I would hazzard a guess aren't that good at portraits, nudes etc (being quite sweeping here....).......so to cast aspersions on someone just because they choose to shoot a particular genre is a little churlish......as long as they are good at it or genuinely are interested and want to improve and its all about the image, not the perving opportunity! lol!

I shall continue to shoot weddings, portraits, nudes etc in the knowledge that hopefully someone will like what I do. I will always like what others do and I can't......be appreciative, but dismiss the obviously pervy and wrong.....

saltireblue
saltireblue Site Moderator 43954 forum postssaltireblue vcard Norway26 Constructive Critique Points
27 Aug 2013 - 3:39 PM


Quote: This site does seem to have its higher proportion of "trash nudes" than others.

Huh?
Perhaps because ePz has such a large contributor base the number, not percentage, of what you consider trash nudes is higher than on other sites.
We have one or two that enjoy posting 'housewife-next-door' type images, but no more than that, so I fail to see where you get that 'higher proportion' from.


Quote: EPZ is aimed more at the "everyman" photographer...the enthusiast, the beginner, the learner etc.....nothing wrong with that and does a very good job of it. But, as this is a high proportion of the users, you are going to get a higher proportion of people who want to get into "nude" photography really quickly....and if you don't know what you are doing, its bloody tricky! A good model, good light (the hard bit) and then producing a good idea, concept or look is really very hard indeed....and unless you are a total natural from the off, most people get it spectacularly wrong. They may be very pleased indeed, but compared to those who are versed in the genre and are very good at it, then they look churlish, amateurish and frankly "pervy".

ePz is aimed at all levels. We have professional togs who regularly upload, yes, even in the nude/glamour category.

Are you trying to tell the majority of photographers on ePz that shoot nudes that they don't know what they are doing? Nice insult.
As for not being versed in the genre and churning out churlish, amateurish and pervy images, then you must be looking at another site, and not ePz.

To be perfectly honest, if you pf contained higher quality nude images than it does today, then I might have been more inclined to take your post more seriously, but I cannot, as I find your nude images to be nothing other than ordinary compared to the vast number of other excellent nude images on the site.

My two pence worth....but I expect you don't really give a t*** what I thinkWink

Last Modified By saltireblue at 27 Aug 2013 - 3:41 PM
johnnyboy114
27 Aug 2013 - 4:11 PM

Err....why did that get personal? I wasn't insulting anyone. And no, you really have read what I said totally wrong.....I know there are people on here who shoot beautiful nudes (even if, in your opinion, one of those isn't me.....) and I am not taking away from those guys. But they, to me, compared to a lot of others, are fewer in number than those who fall into my other catagories. I am not insulting anyone at all....I gave my reasons and I think, if we all took a little step away from the little bubble that is EPZ, you would see what I mean.

As for EPZ being aimed at all levels? Maybe it purports to be, but I don't think this is any more the case.....it does have its fair share of pro togs on here, yes, of course. But....compared to the more "amateur" (and again, I am not being insulting, I am being honest about the numbers of the more amateurish quality of the photos posted in the gallery), it has moved away from this slightly. I feel nowadays it tends to cater more as a PF site for others who are wanting to improve, show what they are doing, but its not of the levels of other sites......simple and observable fact. Sorry if you don't want to hear this, but its true.....

As a site moderator, I am really quite shocked at your reaction and really quite put out by how you have "insulted" me and my images.....as a moderator you should know better. I don't do some of the kind of work that is done by other photographers, but then I don't see my work being as "amateur" as other people either. Eager enthusiast trying to improve.......

But, your attitude and response frankly has just absolutely hammered the nail in the coffin for me as I left simply because I didn't think I was getting constructive feedback, wasn't getting anything from it and the cliche and cliques were becoming tiresome. The self importance of a lot of contributors was also frankly very tiresome.

Sorry to hijack a thread, but really disappointed. I started to again to give this site another chance, to see if it had changed.........I realise you and everyone else here doesn't give a hoot whether I am here or not, absolutely. But you also would like a good view being portrayed away from this site to gain further users.......and frankly, with a response as rude and insulting as yours, especially a moderator, who clearly hasn't seen or taken on board what I had ACTUALLY said........well, I realise you moderate and this is something you care about, but it does twist the perception if you don't step away from it. Its exactly what I had to do to get a clearer view and not rely on being put down, insulted and frankly put out by the community on here.......I did that and now I see much clearer....

I didn't come back here to cause trouble. I wanted to share what I had, see what you all think, give the site another chance and get some constructive criticism to improve.

Re-read what I said.........



Genuinely quite shocked......really.....wow......was NOT expecting that.......


Oh and you think my images are that bad? Go and have a look at that clown Happysnapperman....yep, there you go, I named names cos frankly I don't care anymore.......thats the kind of level I am talking about......he is the thin end of the wedge, but there are a few not far from him......and when I take look at the galleries, I tend to see this more than I do someone who is of the level of say, RichSR for instance.......I don't purport to be anyone or as GOOD as anyone. If you don't like it, fair enough. But my images seen as "ordinary"? Wow......thanks......


Thanks for everything guys.....guess I will be banned now.......bye.......


:-/

saltireblue
saltireblue Site Moderator 43954 forum postssaltireblue vcard Norway26 Constructive Critique Points
27 Aug 2013 - 4:25 PM


Quote: As a site moderator, I am really quite shocked at your reaction and really quite put out by how you have "insulted" me and my images.....as a moderator you should know better.

I am first and foremost a member of ePz , and a moderator second. As such I am fully entitled to express my own personal opinion, which is mine and not ePzs.

I did not post wearing my Moderator hat - the post would have been highlighted yellow for all to see, and that would have made it obvious that I was posting as a moderator, not as an ordinary member.

This was my own personal opinion which I am fully entitled to air, moderator or not.

If you choose to post claims of inferior quality images in high numbers on ePz, then you must accept that others may disagree with you.
As for the 'personal attack' - you poked your head above the parapet with your claims...I merely chose to exercise my right to express my honest opinion.

Malc

StrayCat
StrayCat e2 Member 1014851 forum postsStrayCat vcard Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
27 Aug 2013 - 7:14 PM

Members post their photos in the galleries for various reasons, however, I don't think it gives anyone cause to trash them. What do you gain by putting down others, does it give you a feeling of superiority? I'm not addressing any one person here, it's anybody who feels the need to be a miserable SOB, why? What is the point? It creates hostility all round and turns some off to the point that they just say to heck with the site, and the armchair bullies on it. Step back for a minute and think about what you're doing; if you can't show some form of courtesy, then stifle yourself, come back when you've returned to a more civilised state of mind. That's what I do.Wink

johnnyboy114
27 Aug 2013 - 7:39 PM

Thank you. Exactly my point. I too was expressing an OPINION and the reply was instantly defensive and agressive. I was not being personal to anyone and as was directly expressed, I am entitled to that and agree...anyone is also entitled to disagree with it. Fair play and all is well. But I was jumped on the second I said ANYTHING that was DEEMED negative towards the site (I wasn't being negative. I still maintain what I said was taken completely the wrong way and out of context), it was thrown back at me and became personal. My work may not be of the highest standard compared to some of the pros here but a fair bit of it has been published and recognised by higher authorities than here or myself.....so I am happy with that. Secondly, site moderator or not, if you were commenting as a member of EPZ, then that label MUST reflect the well being and image of the site, regardless of your personal opinion.....you wear the hat you wear it all the time

And lastly, this may be taken personally, frankly I don't care any more as I will be saying nothing more, but I find it ironic that you say my work is ordinary etc....yet lets face it, you're no David Bailey yourself are you when it comes to that kind of thing? Not nice hearing direct criticism without backing it up is it?

I shall not be back. Yet again the site and its personnel (well, some of them) have showed true colours. Shame. Self importance is a very off puting trait. Good night and good luck with all you do

saltireblue
saltireblue Site Moderator 43954 forum postssaltireblue vcard Norway26 Constructive Critique Points
27 Aug 2013 - 7:50 PM


Quote: Secondly, site moderator or not, if you were commenting as a member of EPZ, then that label MUST reflect the well being and image of the site, regardless of your personal opinion.....you wear the hat you wear it all the time

The personal opinion of any member reflects that person's personal view, and never that of ePz.
Try and differentiate between the two.


Quote: I too was expressing an OPINION

Exactly...just as I was.


Quote: Yet again the site and its personnel (well, some of them) have showed true colours.


Read my comment above. Site and members = two different things.
A Moderator on ePz is not personnel, but an unpaid volunteer.


Quote: Self importance is a very off puting trait.

Indeed it is.Wink

Last Modified By saltireblue at 27 Aug 2013 - 7:50 PM
MichaelMelb_AU
28 Aug 2013 - 2:14 AM

Some of the nudes I see on this site are works of art. Often quite pervy, but done with taste and technically impeccable. Many more images fail to touch me and do not deserve on more than a quick glance. And some are disturbingly out of my ethical "gamut". I may choose to have my say on each image individually, but labelling the majority - it's a big no-no. This sort of "honesty" says more about commenter personal attitude than the subject they are talking about. I reckon this sort of behaviour must be noticed moderators - as moderators, not "site members". No need to rub the stripes off a tiger...

riddell
riddell  958 forum posts United Kingdom
28 Aug 2013 - 11:48 AM

1. Perhaps. There are quite a lot.

2. The really good ones are real. Just enhanced a little. Captured due to a lot of skill on the photographers part, and perhaps with a bit of luck with the right conditions. But there are also many, many examples that may look good as an internet sized image, but it reality they are hashed together. Heavily and badly enhanced rarely work with a prolonged look and certainly don't work at a bigger than websized image.

Paul.
[link removed by ePz]

Last Modified By Moderator Team at 28 Aug 2013 - 12:14 PM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.