Re: gallery review

[Don Roberts <droberts@xxxxxxxxxx>]

We had a larger than usual number of responses to the gallery this week and not just the cheesecake shot.  I am gratified to see that.  It does make it seem more worthwhile when people actually comment on images.  Interesting to me was that elements that some liked in my photo were the ones that others objected to.  I like that.
Don

On 5/10/10 8:36 AM, John Palcewski wrote:

Let's consider how people would have reacted had the caption been
different from:

"Yep...I just keep on churnin' out them thar purdy pictures! "

This is like a masculine wink and a nudge in a strip club.  Dude!
It's just a bunch of "purdy" gals without their clothes on!   Hardy,
har, HAR.

The costume, the look, is above anything else SEXUAL.

Why claim otherwise?

We can go around and around on this, but the bottom line is that it
falls under the first amendment right (in the US at least) of free
_expression_.  And, by the way, so is pornography.

Speaking of which, here's something that surprised me when I first
heard it.   You can be arrested in most US cities for hiring a
prostitute and having sex with her.

But you can NOT be arrested for hiring the prostitute for the purpose
of making pornographic photos, or a movie.   That is perfectly legal.



On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Lea Murphy <lea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  

Well, I googled Vargas.

I think 'innocent pinup' might depend upon your gender. Look at how Vargas positions his women, not just what they're wearing, for crying out loud. They are sexist, objectified images if ever I've seen any. Just because the women are clothed doesn't mean they can't offend.

What I'm still curious about is what you are trying to say with YOUR photo.

Lea



all the technique in the world doesn't make up for the inability to notice. ~e.erwit

On May 9, 2010, at 8:47 PM, "R. E. Baker" <rebphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    

Hi........

Although I am not in his league.................

google

"Vargas"

In the 40's and 50's there were scads of innocent
pinup type photos or illustrations.

They never showed any more of a lady
than she would show in a bathing suit.

They were not then or now porn!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I DON'T SHOOT PORN!

They were generally cute but suggestive.

They are making quite a come back....................

And I was born in the mid 50s.

I wasn't there all that much my self.


As I have stated many times before.

I don't shoot landscapes, or seascapes
or rocks and trees or products or anything
that doesn't involve people.

I am very commercial.

I shoot photos that make people look pretty
(or handsome as the case may be)



Russ


Lea Murphy wrote:
      

Well, for one thing, I wasn't around in the 40-50s and didn't recognize this as a pin-up (which could, arguably, be considered soft porn back in the day).
I didn't say I thought it was soft porn, I meant to be asking if it was supposed to be soft porn.
Clearly I don't grasp this image.
Enlighten me.
Lea
On May 9, 2010, at 8:29 PM, R. E. Baker wrote:
        

Lea Murphy wrote:

          

         Russ Baker - Tamara If the last image sort of gave me the creeps this image totally gives me the creeps. What, pray tell, is going on here and why? Is she in a theater production? Is this some sort of softish porn? Your lighting is nice. I may have considered a background that more complimented her outfit...too many colors going on for my taste.
            

You think the idea of a cute girl in a
pretty costume "ala 40's-50's Pin up"
is soft core porn?

Oh boy........

Where have you been?


Russ

R.E. Baker
Photography

          

your kids . my camera . we'll click
www.leamurphy.com