When is a picture / post NSFW or just an environmental picture?

[Ben Rubinstein]

Empowered? Rights? All I ever did was ask. You however with your 338 posts believe that you have the right to tell me to leave and that I will not be missed. That you have the right to deny the choice on this forum for those with differing views to yourself to be able to view any image threads or betray their beliefs and ethics.

I'm out of here. Been here for 6 years and with 2600+ plus posts which I believe have been to help and share in a wonderful atmosphere of respect and tolerance. It is obvious now however that various members here do not wish to offer the choice for those with different beliefs than themselves to enable them to protect themselves from what they do not wish to see. That typing 4 letters is too much. So be it. There are other photo forums where they respect others beliefs enough to offer choice, pretty much all of them in fact. Where there is tolerance for others beliefs not just for the belief of overriding freedom from any responsibility to others.

It's been a happy 6 years GetDPI. I'm really sorry to go. I'll miss a lot of very good people who have been a wonderful support and help during the years.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

But there are different ways of looking at a picture.. If with the corner of the eye you detect something you don't want to see, you can just scroll down further : no one is forcing you to peep at it until all details become clear. No one is forcing you to look at this picture in an active way and indulge in its contemplation.

This is making much a do about nothing : all the more so that this was the only picture showing some nudity (that wasn't even the main subject) that I have encountered in this thread since it started several months ago. If you can't take it, then may be this isn't the right website for you.

During these past two months, almost each evening at the news, I had to hide my eyes from the TV screen, not wanting to see more of the plight of the people in Gaza.. That violence yes was unbearable. Still, I'm not complaining to the tv authorities, because that is part of a reality we have to know about.

Political jibes now as well? I'm so out of here.

 

[mjr]

This forum has contributors from many ethnic and religious groups, the idea that everything posted would need to cover everyones individual belief or desire would be tricky to deal with. Should we demand no women unless their faces are covered, no homosexual couples, no nudity male or female, no single parents or children born out of wedlock and definitely none of those things placed in a snowy scene! These are all things that different groups, societies find offensive. I quite like all those things, they add to the variety that is life, something as photographers I feel it's our duty to record and document.

I understand your viewpoint Ben but you do have a choice for sure and I'd suggest that common sense should dictate a collective standard that allows the majority to feel free to show what they feel comfortable with. The choice is to accept that you may at some point see something you don't like, ultimately what happens when you see something with nudity in it? You feel a bit bad and switch it off? It's not like your life will never be the same is it?

These are just my views, I've been around a bit and so maybe I see things in a different way, there are lots of fantastic shots of life on the streets in the Leica thread, many show naked children or semiclothed adults, a social documentary and incredibly important for it, maybe every picture posted should be labeled NSFW just to be sure that someone isn't going to be offended by it?

 

[Georg Baumann]

I think the question then becomes, are others allowed the liberty to not view nudity without having to resort to stopping all viewing and participation in open image threads or indeed leave the forum? Is the tolerance and choice to only flow one way or are they also allowed the choice not to view, without of course in any way handicapping those who would like to post such images or view them? Is a four letter warning such a big deal to allow choice? Or is the only choice 'my way or the highway' as proposed above by a poster when he wrote this?

Dear Ben,

while I do understand your argument, I would state that we arrived in the year 2014, or 5774, or whatever time one would prefer to describe the time we live in, and by that I mean that it can not be reasonably expected anymore that people are being sheltered from aspects of life that took many generations to reach a certain level of acceptance today.

The history from all cultures concerning women in particular is full of pain, agony and most severe oppression. We still have such cultures around unfortunately, but since the 60s many western cultures changed their views and more important behaviour and understanding towards women. We are not there yet, but we made some progress into the right direction in my view.

But let me be even more specific by using a different example. Say I would be member of a religion that sees unfit to see pictures of war and forbids their members to ever look at such pictures under any circumstances.

Well, here is the crux, such can be described as "draconic" and if I want to stay on the ball with the latest developments and read papers or watch news etc. it is impossible to avoid pictures of war for me, so I could argue that this would put me into "conflict" with my religious leaders and views. But this is my private matter, it is my belief system that I chose and this is private and this should stay private.

Now seriosuly, can I expect that wherever I come, people are to stash away the NYT or switch out the TV because I am of that religious order and demand that I am to be respected in my views?

No way! This is going too far and this is what I would call utterly unreasonable by the very definition of it's term to put it mildly, putting it not so mildly, I'd call that ideologically motivated imperialism.

Having said that Ben, and as strange as you might find it now, and albeit we are diametrically opposed in many views, I do respect your views, but will never let them cut down my liberties or way of life.

Best
Georg

 

[Leigh]

... and definitely none of those things placed in a snowy scene!

Thank you, Mat.

I feel so empowered :angel: That makes my day.

- Leigh

 

[mjr]

You're welcome Leigh, I live in the arctic though to I shall post all my future photographs as NSFW just so you aren't at risk!

 

[Leigh]

You're welcome Leigh, I live in the arctic though to I shall post all my future photographs as NSFW just so you aren't at risk!

I believe NSFY, as in Not Suitable For You, would be more appropriate. Thanks.

Hmmm... I've never thought of Iraq as arctic, but since I've never been there, perhaps ... ;-)

- Leigh

 

[alajuela]

During these past two months, almost each evening at the news, I had to hide my eyes from the TV screen, not wanting to see more of the plight of the people in Gaza.. That violence yes was unbearable. Still, I'm not complaining to the tv authorities, because that is part of a reality we have to know about.

Well by hiding your eye you must have missed (it is just a few hundred miles from Gaza) - or maybe so horrified that you were speechless - that you felt Gaza was the appropriate barb to throw.

In its report, the UN mission to Iraq says at least 5,576 civilians were killed and another 11,665 wounded from 1 January until the end of June. Another 1.2 million have been driven from their homes by the violence, it adds.
Quote from the Guardian

Or

For the first time since 2013, the UN released an update on the death toll from the Syrian civil war on Aug. 22, saying that at least 191,369 people died between March 2011 to April 2014. The new number includes deaths from before June 2013, when the UN said at the time that the death toll had passed 92,000.

But we are wandering far afield here, when this all about a shot of a stereotype "gas station" or machine shop allot of us grew up with.

Cheap shots are terrible either coming from the camera or a post.

 

[Annna T]

Empowered? Rights? All I ever did was ask. You however with your 338 posts believe that you have the right to tell me to leave and that I will not be missed. That you have the right to deny the choice on this forum for those with differing views to yourself to be able to view any image threads or betray their beliefs and ethics.

I'm out of here. Been here for 6 years and with 2600+ plus posts which I believe have been to help and share in a wonderful atmosphere of respect and tolerance. It is obvious now however that various members here do not wish to offer the choice for those with different beliefs than themselves to enable them to protect themselves from what they do not wish to see. That typing 4 letters is too much. So be it. There are other photo forums where they respect others beliefs enough to offer choice, pretty much all of theum in fact. Where there is tolerance for others beliefs not just for the belief of overriding freedom from any responsibility to others.

It's been a happy 6 years GetDPI. I'm really sorry to go. I'll miss a lot of very good people who have been a wonderful support and help during the years.

I think that you are loosing the sense of proportionality : for a single picture, that wasn't showing complete nudity, nor was the main subject, you want the owners of this list to undertake complex programming modifications to the software, or you are going yo leave a website you like ? Common, this isn't very serious.

And yes, I have some difficulties to understand people having very rigid religious principles when it comes to nudity or human relationships, yet accepting violence without restraint, or xenophobia, etc. on the other hand; I find this hypocrite (whoever they are : from the tea party conservatives in the US or the ultra-orthodoxes Jews, or the catholic conservatives, or the shameful xenophobe and conservative parties we see emerging here in Europe).

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The Sunset bar was created for more open topics. But we still have very heavy policy on insults and attacks on other members. To be honest the mods have a hair trigger on bad behavior in this area. Please accept others opinions and views on a global level and far more important respect these differences. We are all welcome here and we as mods really hate to lay policy down and worse have to enforce it.

Please keep it friendly

 

[W.Utsch]

Ben, if you are still there, what would you do if you bring your car to Primos Garage (the place of the shot) and enter the room?

There is no protection to be exposed, that IS life.

 

[jlm]

it must be near impossible to avoid seeing nudity/partial nudity in today's world without living in some sort of bubble.
museums, newspapers, magazines, (esp. the venerable Nat. Geographic), the beach in france, fashion runways, television (radio maybe excepted ).

unfortunately same can be said for violence, guns n' ammo, violent video games, sexual harassment in the military, bombing of civilians and soldiers, war, etc. yet we don't see an outrage about that being displayed.

i also find it regrettable that one would choose to depart rather than self-censor what they find here on the forum and yet apparently live with what is all around them in the world, content not withstanding

 

[fotografz]

There was/is a small storm in a teacup going on over in the Sony A7/A7r picture thread due to one person apparently taking exception to a photograph of a working mechanic's garage that happened to have a very common and usual pinup calendar on the wall. Think Pirelli calendar but admittedly with an image of a topless model with bare breasts on it.

So, when does environmental exposure of a topless woman on the wall become NSFW? What about shooting scenes of sculptures in pretty much any old european, latin american or asian cultures? Would you censor a shot that included Michelangelo's David statue in the background? Do we need to run around sticking fig leaves and coveralls over our artwork?

Thoughts?

Well, as we have witnessed, the Tempest has grown to at least Tropical Storm levels … whether the teapot can contain it remains to be seen

I think that morality is a pretty elastic concept … strict religious evangelists managed to destroy a good deal of native art in an ill conceived attempt to save souls … then it became collector's works worthy of museum display.

Art is full of murder, rape, betrayal, incest … sometimes all in one work of literature or art.

Consider "Leda and the Swan". The Yeats sonnet is considered one of the most masterful poems ever written in the English language. It is packed with betrayal, trickery, cuckholdery, violent rape and graphic sexuality, not to mention the resulting birth of the illegitmate Helen of Troy.

Now we have an overdose of "Housewives Of (insert city), that depicts horrible people, acting horribly.

Or Victoria Secret models of uncertain age strutting or lounging around the TV screen that is every adolescent boy's wet dream come true.

Then Miley Cyrus ups the ante by lowering the wreaking ball on social norms.

The cliche' "Calendar Breasts" in a mechanic's place of work sort of pales in comparison.

Then again, it only takes a second to recognize that what may be acceptable to me or you, may not be to others. NSFW isn't all that hard to type in. Hell, it may assure more views than without it … :ROTFL:

- Marc

 

[Georg Baumann]

Ben, if you are still there, what would you do if you bring your car to Primos Garage (the place of the shot) and enter the room?

There is no protection to be exposed, that IS life.

Yes, it is, and there is more to that. This is not adressed at Zoran or Ben at all, but is a general observation on a global level instead.

What is life as well are strong social reactionary tendencies, take Turkey just for example. But let me explain that term first, to avoid misunderstandings on such a complex subject. As reactionary I would describe actions to reintroduce or hang on to social structures or events that are no longer existant and belong into the past.

Now, this can have a humorous and rather harmless quality, like those chaps in the US and elsewhere who design their entire life and lifestyle according to the 50s, in a way pretending we do live still in the 50s.

Then there are others that are not so humorous.

Turkey has made a lot of steps back in time and imposes values and social structures again on it's people that we thought were long overcome. That goes from demanding women wearing a head scarf in public again to massive internet censorship, breaking up secular structures, and violent oppression of opposition.

That is but one example of many where reactionary tendencies can be observed all over the world, and in my view this is not a healthy development.

x x x x​

Tolerance can not be achieved without acceptance, accpeting different views means not that I impose my view onto others, but rather accept that my views differ from others, and on an international stage like this forum here, it would be unacceptable to impose religious or by any moral standards motivated views on others by placing such demands, or in other words, I refuse to be made the guardian of others beliefs or values by force, by coming along camouflaged as respect and decency.

Live and let live.

You feel like something is not what you want to see, scroll down or leave the thread. Easy.

 

[stephengilbert]

Now we're getting somewhere: in the interest of "freedom," we reject tolerance, and apparently drive away one of the most respected members of the forum.

The First Amendment, of course, has little or no application here. GetDPI can draft rules that limit the speech "rights" of its members. The First Amendment protects us from government censorship. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ...."

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I'm really upset about driving members away . That should never happen here. Someone needs to send him a note and apologize. At least in my eyes

 

[Godfrey]

How do I determine whether what I post is not safe for you, or not safe for your workplace, or conversely what IS safe for you, and your workplace? Can't you just decide that for yourself? Why do you (speaking in the collective) have to define that for everyone?

This is kind of why I said in some other thread that in 100 years art historians will wonder what happened to the photographic record of this time—"for a twenty year stretch, all we have is pictures of rocks, cats, and flowers. No children, no hunky young men, no voluptuous nudes, no people on the street, no buildings, airports, homes, offices, no decisive moments ... "

Do not participate in the cloistering of photography. If people are foolish enough to go to a photography site and look at pictures, they should accept the responsibility of looking at, and inadvertently allowing others to see, some things they may not like. Period.

G

 

[iiiNelson]

I was not offended by Werner's picture personally (not too much actually shakes me up whether it's dead bodies, nude bodies, or whatever really... I've seen some really messed up things first hand in my life) but again I can respect if someone was. I have no intentions leaving GetDPI at all but I don't like to see long time contributing members go or to feel disrespected.

While everyone is arguing hypothetical situations of "if you stumbled across this on accident" or using "freedom of speech/ expression" rhetoric the reality is that a couple of people voiced real concerns about things internally dear to them - employment and religious beliefs. To me it's doesn't matter whether it's art or not (being that there is a separate section already) after someone is uncomfortable. It can be the same as someone displaying a photograph of people killed for hate crimes, a discriminatory word vandalized across a wall, or whatever. That can be our history and art but it doesn't mean a general photo thread is the best place to display all of that stuff without warning of content.

It doesn't take much more than decency, kindness, and understanding for your fellow person to give a bit of humanity/ respect for their concerns AFTER they're voiced. No one asked for it to be completely deleted... Just relocated to the NSFW section. I think that's a fair an reasonable request considering the reactions and lengths this topic has gone on.

 

[Leigh]

Just relocated to the NSFW section.

And how many other "special" sections would you suggest?

If we set up a special one for each category that someone dislikes, we'll have nothing but special sections.

Nobody is forced to view any image on this board.

This whole argument revolves around the assertion that a viewer's feelings and opinions are somehow more important than the artist's.

One famous photographer stated (forgive me for not remembering the quote correctly):
I shoot for me. If others like it, fine. If they dislike it, fine.

Photography is a personal expression.

- Leigh

 

[iiiNelson]

And how many other "special" sections would you suggest?

If we set up a special one for each category that someone dislikes, we'll have nothing but special sections.

Nobody is forced to view any image on this board.

This whole argument revolves around the assertion that a viewer's feelings and opinions are somehow more important than the artist's.

One famous photographer stated (forgive me for not remembering the quote correctly):
I shoot for me. If others like it, fine. If they dislike it, fine.

Photography is a personal expression.

- Leigh

Ummm... It's not really a special section to setup... It's been around for years. I think that was the point of asking that it be relocated originally.

As for you shooting what you want - you're absolutely right you can. That's your choice. So many are content with throwing around meaningless analogies because opinions are free as well. I guess the key is that neither of us make the rules here.

As for doing things in public well you can walk around naked in your home and you can throw all the trash you want on your floor. You have the choice of doing it in public as well but there are consequences to some of our free choices when it is makes enough uncomfortable.

I digress though - I've said my opinion. You can choose to be as rude and defiant as you want towards people who you don't agree with. Believe me I'm am not a very P.C. person about a lot of things. I do try to be respectful to others and honor requests because I genuinely am not mean spirited despite not being overly P.C. in real life.