Nice Knockers?

7 Feb 2006 3:52PM
Let me start of saying that I have absolutely nothing against nude/glamour photography. Honestly, I think if done well, it makes for beautiful art.

The problem I have, particularly with some people using this site, is that you can have the most god aweful photo which happens to show a pair of knockers (and so many of these have not been put into the adult category), and suddenly the photo is getting all the votes in the world along with all the comments that go with it.

One in particular comes to mind. It was an aweful picture of a woman who was just standing there with a stupid half smile on her face, no posing except for her obviously holding her shirt open at the bottom. The bg had been digitall altered, but you could tell there were horribly dark and heavy shadows. There were no nipples to be seen, but still, you get the picture (don't mind the pun). There was one comment posted which just simply said 'Nice Knockers'. Is that what nudety is about on this site? It thought it was supposed to be about artistically captured photography - not boobs.

Maybe I'm being an overly sensitive woman on this - but if you want 'Nice Knockers', go buy a magazine!!!!!

spaceman 17 5.3k 3 Wales
7 Feb 2006 4:20PM
I can only agree. I look at certain photographs and think - "now I know where cheese comes from".
lgc 17 62 England
7 Feb 2006 4:36PM
I agree with you totaly sarah, there are some very sad and lonely people out there, but arent the people who vote for them sadder??!! I live by one of the best beaches in brazil and you dont see me filling my gallery with dental floss in order to get loads of votes, do you??!! theres an idea, better grab me sun cream and camera!! be back later!!
cathal 17 492 4 United Kingdom
7 Feb 2006 5:16PM

I know exactly what you mean! Not quite two weeks ago, I was having such a discussion with Colin. I'd posted THIS picture (a B&W portrait of a guy) which to my mind was a quality portrait. It received next to no clicks. Colin suggested that the reason it had received no clicks was becasue it was a picture of a guy. We concluded that if a pair of knockers were on show, the clicks would be there in abbundance. As an experiment, as soon as I got home I posted THIS image.

I've done my fair share of glamour / nude work. I selected that image as it is, in my opinion, not a particularly good edxample of a glamour shot. Certianly, it is a weaker picture than the portrait. The glamour shot got the second highest numner of views in my portfolio, and is my fifth highest on clicks. It proved my point quit well I thought.

Quality photographs do get clicks on this site - especially wildlife and landscape images. However, there are enough people on the site to ensure that if the content of the image is appealing (i.e. young and topless) the clicks will happen regardless of the quality.

Don't expect it to change any time soon...

phil beale 18 1.5k United Kingdom
7 Feb 2006 7:27PM
Sarah did you add your comments about the photo. I think there is a lots of instances of the blind leading the blind. It's only when someone is willing to say the opposite that others then start agreeing. I have seen a lot of 70s 80s style glamour shot on here and wont bother looking or clicking just because they are uncreative and just relying on the glamour factor to gain merit.

Im not going to say I dont like to look at glamour shots as they seem to have a habit of standing out on the thumbnails. But I would only comments on those that show that creative flair and dont rely on the nipples and knockers but create a mood of seduction one photographer that had some really great shots yuki but I comment on more wildlife shots than glamour shots so my gallery comments are on shots where I can offer help or just think their good shots.

Out of the 2 shots used as the example I actually prefer the second due to grain and the mood of the shot. If you think a photo has not photographic merit and relying on nipples and knockers then say so. If you saw a poor quality photo of a robin which gained lots of clicks would you start up a thread complaining about it?

hudster 18 166 Scotland
7 Feb 2006 10:59PM
Next thing we know you'll be moaning about cartoons of mohammed.
Pete 20 18.8k 97 England
7 Feb 2006 11:01PM
Please judge each type of photography by its own category and not alongside another. A glamour shot will often get a higher score than a travel photo. A sunset will often get a higher score than a black & white architectural shot.

People click on what/who they like. And what they like can be because of a number of reasons including subject, technical merit, style, personal preference etc. It's a fact of life that sex sells, so it going to be no different on here. As e2 members you can view the photos in descending reader votes and looking at the glamour section shows some really class shots.

We realise that the system isn't at its best at the moment so we intend to work out something that allows for these differences but until we do we hope you can cope with natural the variances.
Boyd 18 11.2k 11 Wales
7 Feb 2006 11:09PM

Quote:It's a fact of life that sex sells

So is there any truth to the rumour that you've included an extra chapter in the ePz book - Pete's Guide To Sexual Fulfilment AKA The Barghma Sutra - to improve sales?

wolf666 16 497 England
7 Feb 2006 11:12PM
I'm sorry but you can't blame us men for wanting to look at a picture of a good looking girl rather than some bald bloke. I looked at the two pictures mentioned earlier and, apart from the subject, the second pictur, in my opinion, is much stronger than the first. The model is is posed interestingly as opposed to just staring at the camera and the lighting is less harsh. If you fell strongly that a photograph has no artistic merit then say so! Leave a comment to that effect and if enough people do it maybe the standard will improve.
Pete 20 18.8k 97 England
7 Feb 2006 11:27PM
So why does the Sun sell so well then??? Why did FHM rise to such high sales? And why then did Nuts and Zoo knock the mens magazine market for six?

Lol at Boyd.

The following is not individually aimed at Sarah who started this thread... One thing to be aware of is that when one person, who has a gripe about this site (whether it be because he/she is unhappy about the number of clicks (high or low)/type of photo/EC choice/RC choice/ site business (quiet or impossible to keep up with) etc etc) and five others agree it has a huge affect in the feeling in the forum. Yet we have around 4000 others happily using the site in the way they enjoy...and another 270,000 passing through and not getting upset by what they see.
philipr 16 392
7 Feb 2006 11:34PM
I will always find I will click on a picture of a nude woman in the gallery (male instinct) but will always try to treat it in an artistic context when on this site. Like any catorgory of photo though some will naturally attract more attention than others and that is one of the weaknesses of the voting system. I think the "great boobs" comments are not the correct kind of comments to be making here (even if its true) and these shots should only be judged on the photographic skill here - ie great lighting or pose etc. Anyone can take a photo of a girl with great boobs not everyone can take a GREAT photo of a girl with great boobs.However I think the majority of people treat it this way and only the shots with good artistic quality do actually get alot of click of favourable comments.


(disclaimer - im very very drunk right now, in case ive said something i didnt mean mean too)
7 Feb 2006 11:37PM
Personally I'm not bothered about them, I do like to see tastefully done 'glamour' but each to their own, its a big site and with it diverse tastes but I am disappointed to see the type of comment which these particular type of pictures attract and "nice knockers" is hardly constructive. As a photographic site the merits of a photo should be debated but I dont feel able to comment on these shots for the collection of 'phhrrooahhhww look at them' type and to be honest I dont think that critique is why they are uploaded, well not all of them. Maybe the separate gallery for critique will help to resolve some of the issues but until...

There is also the other side of the coin maybe I should do some male glamour shots and see what reaction that gets Wink
BigCol 20 1.8k 1 Scotland
7 Feb 2006 11:45PM
The last time I made a constructive (well I thought it was constructive!) comment on a nude/glamour shot the photographer took great exception to what i'd said and ended up by saying that if i couldn't say something nice about his pictures then i shouldn't sy anything at all.

and for a long while i didn't!

I've now come to realise that life is too short to get upset at anything that happens or is said on this site, or any other for that matter.

Say what you think, but don't be rude or derogatory. Be honest both to yourself and the other photographer and if they don't like or accept what you have to say then move on. Starting a war of words will only get you worked up and will seldom change the other persons opinion.

deviant 17 3.1k 1 United Kingdom
7 Feb 2006 11:51PM
Fully agree with what you're saying but on this site there is hope. There are people like sugarbird (See link) who regularly post superb images that aren't cheesy and tacky and don't objectify.
peter shilton 17 1.1k England
8 Feb 2006 12:22AM
And how many people have looked at this thread purely because of the title!

Not me, I hasten to add. I try to look at them all except anything with the word Nikon, Minolta or Sony in it!

(although I have never managed to look at the "not another boring thread about clicks")

The grainy bird is far better to look at than the bloke. If it was the portait woman and grainy bloke I still think the grainy pic would be better (from a photographic point od view!)

Now there is another experiment for someone to try!

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.