The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

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

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
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?
 
Last edited:

Leigh

New member
Nudity is a fundamental facet of art, going back to its very beginnings in human history.
Some of the very earliest effigies discovered have been of nude humans, both male and female.

In the US, freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Freedom from offense is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution.

Those who have a problem with nudity should take their business elsewhere.
They won't be missed.

I checked the GetDPI policies, and found no mention of nudity.

A couple of other fora I frequent state that nudity can appear anywhere on the site, as a warning to those who might be bothered.
While it's "nice" to mark such as NSFW, that is not required.

You realize that if we disallow anything that anyone finds objectionable, pretty soon we won't even be able to post photos of blank pieces of paper?

A good example of this is the fact that I absolutely abhor snow. I think all photos showing snow should be absolutely banned forever.

On edit:
Please note the third photo in this post in the Street thread: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/393440-post4.html
In case that one gets deleted I saved a copy to my site: http://www.atwaterkent.info/Images/GetDPI_PEGA8500429120110606-L.jpg

It quite clearly shows a nude male full frontal, penis and all.

At what point do we censor street scenes?

- Leigh
 
Last edited:

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Nudity is a fundamental facet of art, going back to its very beginnings in human history.

I checked the GetDPI policies, and found no mention of nudity.

A couple of other fora I frequent state that nudity can appear anywhere on the site, as a warning to those who might be bothered.
While it's "nice" to mark such as NSFW, that is not required.

You realize that if we disallow anything that anyone finds objectionable, pretty soon we won't even be able to post photos of blank pieces of paper?

A good example of this is the fact that I absolutely abhor snow. I think all photos showing show should be absolutely banned forever.


- Leigh

Couple of points...just my opinion.

This is truly a tempest in a teapot...

It is hard for me to defend a fairly derivative picture which was taken to show the contextual presence of a Goddess amongst the unwashed...which is why those pictures and calendars did so well in garages...the sight of it brought back great memories from my childhood. Smell of gasoline and petroleum lubricants, dirt everywhere, soda dispenser and the picture/calendar which was so out of place. It was as if everyone acknowledged their desire for another existence.

However, the policy to label things as NSFW says nothing about the "artistic merit" of a work...it just allows those of us with families and responsibilities to not offend those who may be around us. Work/home/family viewpoint may be radically different than that you or I possess.

Full disclosure...as a physician I have view "Nekked" bodies for decades but most of them are at a point of vulnerability and age that necessitates a graceful blessing of acceptance and invisibility.

GETDPI has provided a thread to accommodate those who have an interest in Nudes and "Artful" pictures...throwing these in the face of those shy individuals who would prefer a bit of circumspection with regards to what they face daily may be a bit over the top/inappropriate.

My daughter is a Professor of Art History in a small Christian University and she daily has to make decisions concerning the artistic merit of a work and its appropriateness for her workplace...and her degree is from Oxford University...

So the short version is this...respect the sensibilities of those most shy in your environs ... protect their desire for a "safe place" and use those tools provided by Jack/Guy/Bob/Cindy to show your best works....

Really guys I have seen and cared for things that would make your worst nightmares seem tame....

Regards,

Bob
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
The funny thing about this micro-storm to me is that it's a picture of a poster hanging on the wall amidst a bunch of technical junk. It's not even a picture including a real person standing there with her boobs hanging out.

If you find that offensive, put on a blindfold on your kids when you walk by a magazine rack.

G
 

Shashin

Well-known member
A poster of a pinup girl on a mechanics wall? Who would have thunk it. I guess this is as deep as the thickness of your skin or as large as the shelter of your life. From what I understand, women have always had boobs. This is no secret.

I guess I draw the line between someone taking offense and someone giving it. There is plenty of photography I do not enjoy, but I figure that is my problem and not everyone feels the same (otherwise that photography would not exist). As long as the photography is not exploitive, child pornography, for example, it would not bother me. I think if the image is over sexualized, members seem to tag that with a NSFW. But if just nudity, I don't see the big deal--we all have bodies and I do not feel the need to shower with the lights off.

We have an odd culture that has no problem with graphic violence, but sex...

...and where would we be without that?
 
Last edited:

Shashin

Well-known member
I just went to check the original. Apparently, I am too late and it has been sensored. ;) I guess the only thing I can say is we are in an international community. The values of one society can seem rude to another, and, in this case, it could cut both ways.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Well sure, you can find plenty of examples here if you look. I could post some tourist images of copulating statues completely covering a Hindu temple, but whilst I didn't agree with the OP in the Sony thread, I do believe that there is a line somewhere for an open forum. Now how and where to define that line is the struggle I believe.

As the colloquial saying of Justice Potter Stewart about pornography goes, it's almost impossible to accurately define but "I know it when I see it".

I used to like the feature on Photosig forum where you could label images that might, MIGHT, offend and the forum software would show a grey image with a link to click to view. I like that approach because it's not censorship or unnecessarily prudish and allows for images to be posted with a common thread vs having to label and publish out in the separate adults only anorak forum thread (just kidding btw!!).
 
Last edited:
M

mjr

Guest
Morning

I read the posts as they were developing and it was interesting to see. The original complaint may have been valid, it wasn't about the image itself, more about the fact that it wasn't labeled as having nudity and could cause issues with viewing it from work, certainly a valid point for him and I should think many others.

The issue soon became about how he dealt with it, the aggression meant that people were responding to this rather than the point he was making, which was quickly lost, shame really. Ironically, if he'd simply been polite and less outraged, explained his point and asked for opinion from others, it may have been a decent discussion and I'm sure the poster of the image would have been happy to remove or adjust it. Aggression gets you nowhere, demanding respect often has the opposite affect, people will always respond appropriately to your tone, as was the case this time.

My own personal opinion is that viewing anything to do with art/photography at work and not expecting to see something challenging or at odds with your beliefs is daft, complaining about it is even more daft. I think watching videos of a 9 year old on BBC news handling an Uzi, a split second before she accidentally shoots her instructor is far far more disturbing than this photograph but each to their own!

Have a good day

Mat
 

Annna T

Active member
I just went to check the original. Apparently, I am too late and it has been sensored. ;) I guess the only thing I can say is we are in an international community. The values of one society can seem rude to another, and, in this case, it could cut both ways.
The original image is still there, but way back in the thread : page 50, message nr 2481. The moderators have decided to keep it up.

And like you : I'm much more offended by violence than by nudity.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
there is an irony in the NSFW concept (at least in name) in that the onus seems to be not about viewing the image but about being caught viewing the image.
 

Georg Baumann

Subscriber Member
All the photography forums that I visited I would describe as a "virtual vernissage", hence it may be private, but is mostly public, sadly though, just without canapés and wine.

A thread titled: Fun with the xyz series is giving a clear direction that this can get somewhat lighthearted and is not to be taken too serious.

Someone complaining about content with a Fist-On-Table attitude, pointing to rules, decency, respect and last not least law should trigger your suspicion before anything else.

I observed this phenomenon over the years increasingly in many aspects of life, from the internet to schools to workplaces.

A single person demands immediate change for a group, referring to:
a) his/her religion
b) his/her moral standards
c) decency/rules/law

I am all for tolerance but:

a) Should be a private matter and secular
b) This ain't Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange", no one is forced to look at it
c) Is all a matter of Zeitgeist and subject to change

In my book there is one important term missing here, liberty. All of us make moral judgements, daily, but if we add that much required dose of liberty into the mix, it makes things easier to exercise tolerance.

What that means practically for me is simple. If I enter a room where an object is on display that I strongly dislike for any of the above reasons, I turn around and leave. No one forces me Kubrick style to watch it and stay.

That is at my liberty now, and for damn sure I want that liberty to be within my decision! Neither do I need someone to force me to look at it, nor do I need someone to remove it for me.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
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?

Those who have a problem with nudity should take their business elsewhere.
They won't be missed.
 

Leigh

New member
Of course you have the option of not viewing any image on the site.

If you don't like an image, hit the Page Down button and it's gone.

That is certainly your prerogative, and nobody has suggested otherwise.

I do the same with all images that I dislike, dead animals and snow being two at the top of my list.

- Leigh
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
So as I said, if I do not want to view nudity, period, I have to keep out of imaging threads on the site. That is the only 'choice' I have. I have the 'liberty' to not participate in or view any image threads at all. All for the lack of 4 letters which in no way whatsoever stop any one from viewing the images if they so choose.

Or perhaps as you suggest I won't be missed for wishing for the choice that I have had on every other major photo forum I have participated on during over a decade as a photographer on the web.
 

Leigh

New member
It is absolutely NOT the only choice you have.

It's the only choice you choose to have. That's entirely your decision.

How is it that you feel empowered to inconvenience every member of this board to take specific actions to accommodate your religious beliefs?
You absolutely do not have that right.

- Leigh
 
Last edited:

Annna T

Active member
So as I said, if I do not want to view nudity, period, I have to keep out of imaging threads on the site. That is the only 'choice' I have. I have the 'liberty' to not participate in or view any image threads at all. All for the lack of 4 letters which in no way whatsoever stop any one from viewing the images if they so choose.

Or perhaps as you suggest I won't be missed for wishing for the choice that I have had on every other major photo forum I have participated on during over a decade as a photographer on the web.
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.
 
Top