LSD wrote:
What exactly is the connection between "photography" and "tits" ??

So the question is... what is it that causes a person to think that taking pictures of naked women makes them a "photographer?" And what causes the model or "photographer" to think that a photo is going to be any more interesting (or alternatively..."suck less") just because there are nipples?

What causes anyone to think they are a photographer.  After all you just trip the shutter and get an image right?  Trip enough shutters you get a keeper.  right??

And what of models?  ANYONE can model.  just be in the picture frame, viola a model is born!


Tits and beauty makes allowances for final product.  And by that I mean, it might actually take craft skill and compositional foresight to make an interesting photo out of the wrinkled ass of an elephant.  but it can and has been done.   Take your 5K canonikohassyolympustax with it's 4k IS macro gyroscoptic 4900mm lens focus on a nice set with an ocean behind it, accidentally trip the shutter and many guys are going to say "yeah baby,"  when looking at the final product, even if the shot sucks, BECAUSE the tits don't suck, but the average guy imagines himself closely situated to the live version.     I think it's genetic programming myself.  That's why an ugly chick can ask for help and it takes 40 minutes to get waited on and a drop dead gorgeous babe doesn't even need assistance, and she gets all the attention in the world.  Explain that and you have why many male photographers think that simply capturing a beautiful woman and her parts on film means something.

vanscottie wrote:
since "bad" photogs prolly aren't reading the forum, and even if they were I doubt they'd think "Oh, he's talking about me!" and thus the only people responding would be good photogs who would disagree with you I wonder, what's the point?

In truth I have noticed today that most of those posting on this thread do, in fact, have great stuff on their portfolios.

THE POINT was to spark a discussion and see if anyone else agreed, disagreed, or otherwise wanted to weigh in with an opinion. A few actually did.

But you're right. The ones I was referring to in my initial post are likely not going to be reading the forums...

LSD wrote:

In truth I have noticed today that most of those posting on this thread do, in fact, have great stuff on their portfolios.

THE POINT was to spark a discussion and see if anyone else agreed, disagreed, or otherwise wanted to weigh in with an opinion. A few actually did.

But you're right. The ones I was referring to in my initial post are likely not going to be reading the forums...

that's fine, i understand now, but having read NUMEROUS forums over the year I've been here it seems that it's not possible to start an open, fun, invigorating discussion when the opening post sounds like a mean, negative, rant - even if it is about "bad" anything

LSD wrote:
The one used in this thread (initially by David Moyle, repeated often by others) is called Ad Hominem or "Argument to the Man." Basically instead of arguing the point, pick on the person making it, in this case by criticizing my own photos.

First of all, I call it "pointing out the obvious". Just pointing out how the ones that like seem to like to point out how much others "suck", are rarely any better. If "Ad Hominem" makes you feel superior, great.

Second, did you bother to read my second post on the subject? Or did you just ignore it because I am an asshole and you are pissed at me?

Either is fine, but at least be honest.

David Moyle wrote:
First of all, I call it "pointing out the obvious". Just pointing out how the ones that like seem to like to point out how much others "suck", are rarely any better. If "Ad Hominem" makes you feel superior, great.

No feelings of superiority here. I openly admit to being a newbie and not having better shots myself. But with respect to "pointing out the obvious," YOUR comment was an obvious example of fallacy, and I had to point it out...

David Moyle wrote:
Second, did you bother to read my second post on the subject? Or did you just ignore it because I am an asshole and you are pissed at me?

Either is fine, but at least be honest.

Yes I read your second post. You made sense.

Read that post again where I mention you. Did I say asshole? Or anything like it? Remember, we're being honest.
And no, I'm not pissed at you. I'm simply intrigued at so many who piled on in picking on me (despite my open admission to being an amateur) after your initial comment.

LSD wrote:
DUH. I'm an amateur, and freely admit it. Of course my pictures suck.

Well, honesty is certainly disarming - but it draws attention to the wrong things.  For example . . . .

People choose to get all exercised about many different things.  For some it's nudity.  There are those who are obsessed with creating/acuiring it, and there are those who are impelled to be offended by it (however expressed).  All manner of rationalization is used by both sides to justify their positions.

Then there are those who are "honest" but not quite honest enough.  For instance, those who claim up front that they don't know what they are doing, but nonetheless offer to "help models with their portfolios". As though what models really need is more shots from clueless newbies cluttering up their ports.

If they were really honest they'd say something like, "I'd like to meet models who, like me, don't have any experience, but would like to join in learning together."  Never happens.  What you get is this:

LSD wrote:
Through this site I'd like to meet new models of a like mind (or otherwise with limited experience) who are looking to develop their portfolios on a TFP/CD basis... You'd get pictures for your port

When then leads us to another frequent rant on the forums:  models with bad, really bad pictures on their portfolios, and all the photographers telling them that they have crap and need to shoot with someone who knows what he is doing.  Which, 90% of the time, causes the model to get all perturbed and claim everyone is "hating on her".

Yes, honesty is a good thing.  But it can be used to cover up bad things.  That's a shame.

LSD wrote:
What exactly is the connection between "photography" and "tits" ??

After looking around this site for a few months I've come to see quite a few "portfolios" that seem to be just guys showing off the fact that they've been able to get a girl naked... the same type of photography you might expect to see on MySpace if they only allowed nudity. Seriously, there are a ton of photos on this site that not only lack in creativity or originality but just simply SUCK...like they were taken with a disposable 35mm camera at a Motel6 under flourescent lights, and often not even in focus. HORRIBLE. The funny thing is that these pics are preceeded by the profile page with statements like, "I have been a professional photographer for ten years and specialize in glamour, artistic nude, and  photography..."

No you don't! You blow and have no talent. I'd name names but that's not allowed in the forums!

And then there are plenty more on this site that are, in fact, reasonably good photographs technically (lighting, focus, etc) and yet...unremarkable at best. Just boring. Bleh.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not here to start a morality debate about nudes, because there are some AMAZING, really AMAZING photographers on this site creating BRILLIANT works of art, pictures that are creative and provocative, just beautiful...whether or not they choose to include nudity, implied nudity, or just simply beautiful people (gasp! with clothes on!).

So the question is... what is it that causes a person to think that taking pictures of naked women makes them a "photographer?" And what causes the model or "photographer" to think that a photo is going to be any more interesting (or alternatively..."suck less") just because there are nipples?

Maybe to you those are just tits or boobies. You being a amature maybe we should expect that view from you. Being that I do photograph nudes, many of them female and some male (which sometime the male's Dick might be showing as you would most likely call it in your amature way.) Maybe you should try looking at it a different way such as the human body is a work of art and so maybe some photographers may want to show it as such. 99% of my clients in my studio are female and the seem to have no problem with my work,  do you
Just because I do photograph nudes doesn't make me a photographer. What makes me a photograher is that my clients think my work is worthy enough to call me a professional photographer

Michael R  Kihn Studios wrote:
Maybe you should try looking at it a different way such as the human body is a work of art and so maybe some photographers may want to show it as such. 99% of my clients in my studio are female and the seem to have no problem with my work,  do you?

Not at all. As I stated initially, there are some on this site who are creating stunning work. And stunning, nude or otherwise, is still stunning. I admire it. Period.

TXPhotog wrote:
If they were really honest they'd say something like, "I'd like to meet models who, like me, don't have any experience, but would like to join in learning together."  Never happens.

I used that terminology on my page because it seemed the language of the site, but you are absolutely correct and I'll change my profile at once. Fair enough?

LSD wrote:

David Moyle wrote:
First of all, I call it "pointing out the obvious". Just pointing out how the ones that like seem to like to point out how much others "suck", are rarely any better. If "Ad Hominem" makes you feel superior, great.

No feelings of superiority here. I openly admit to being a newbie and not having better shots myself. But with respect to "pointing out the obvious," YOUR comment was an obvious example of fallacy, and I had to point it out...


Yes I read your second post. You made sense.

Read that post again where I mention you. Did I say asshole? Or anything like it? Remember, we're being honest.
And no, I'm not pissed at you. I'm simply intrigued at so many who piled on in picking on me (despite my open admission to being an amateur) after your initial comment.

I'm not sure how my comment was an obvious example of Fallacy. If you look at what I said, I said man has basically 2 passions (man specifically, not woman).

If it moves, we want to race it. If it has breasts, there is a great majority of us that pay money to see them (even in a swimsuit or a bra). Otherwise Playboy, Penthouse, and to some extent Maxxim, GQ, et al would not do so well. Sex sells in one form or another. And plenty of photographers, even in mens magazines may just do the same boring garbage all the time, and it may suck in the "artistic" sense. But, they make a good living at it. So, that explains that.

As to my comment on your work. I was expressing MY opinion. Which is what you were, in fact, doing at the start of this thread. Which is exactly my point. "Sucking" is a matter of opinion

And no, you didn't say I was an asshole. It's just a known fact (you're new, you've missed allot, ask around).

As to why others "piled on", well, it may just be that those of us that have been here a while are getting jaded with a new person showing up and starting out with "people suck" threads (that is an assumption though). Or, they saw my point and agreed? (another assumption).

LSD wrote:
What exactly is the connection between "photography" and "tits" ??

After looking around this site for a few months I've come to see quite a few "portfolios" that seem to be just guys showing off the fact that they've been able to get a girl naked... the same type of photography you might expect to see on MySpace if they only allowed nudity. Seriously, there are a ton of photos on this site that not only lack in creativity or originality but just simply SUCK...like they were taken with a disposable 35mm camera at a Motel6 under flourescent lights, and often not even in focus. HORRIBLE. The funny thing is that these pics are preceeded by the profile page with statements like, "I have been a professional photographer for ten years and specialize in glamour, artistic nude, and  photography..."

No you don't! You blow and have no talent. I'd name names but that's not allowed in the forums!

And then there are plenty more on this site that are, in fact, reasonably good photographs technically (lighting, focus, etc) and yet...unremarkable at best. Just boring. Bleh.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not here to start a morality debate about nudes, because there are some AMAZING, really AMAZING photographers on this site creating BRILLIANT works of art, pictures that are creative and provocative, just beautiful...whether or not they choose to include nudity, implied nudity, or just simply beautiful people (gasp! with clothes on!).

So the question is... what is it that causes a person to think that taking pictures of naked women makes them a "photographer?" And what causes the model or "photographer" to think that a photo is going to be any more interesting (or alternatively..."suck less") just because there are nipples?

oh, my goodness, I just came from a photog portfolio and saw 98% tits and felt it was disgusting, then i come across your post and had to respond.

I think some men are just sick and use the word 'photograher' as a cushion to express their sickness toward the female gender, they should be well you know...that's another thread...

Hair by Nedjetti wrote:
oh, my goodness, I just came from a photog portfolio and saw 98% tits and felt it was disgusting, then i come across your post and had to respond.

So what do you do when you come across an elephant? Wipe it off?

David Moyle wrote:
I'm not sure how my comment was an obvious example of Fallacy. If you look at what I said, I said man has basically 2 passions (man specifically, not woman).

As to my comment on your work. I was expressing MY opinion. Which is what you were, in fact, doing at the start of this thread. Which is exactly my point.

Sorry if I was unclear. Your point about man and his passions was spot on. I agree with you 100%.

It was the comment about not being able to "back up your frustration with some exceptionally cool work" that was fallacy...that by not having great shots, my own opinion (yes, opinion) was invalid. That's classic fallacy.

David Moyle wrote:
And no, you didn't say I was an asshole. It's just a known fact (you're new, you've missed allot, ask around).

Maybe you are. Who knows? I wouldn't have said so.

David Moyle wrote:
As to why others "piled on", well, it may just be that those of us that have been here a while are getting jaded with a new person showing up and starting out with "people suck" threads (that is an assumption though). Or, they saw my point and agreed? (another assumption).

All possible. I must admit to being quite brash with my initial post. New guy. Live and learn.
I just wanted to start a discussion on the topic after seeing a few too many lame pictures that were *only* on this site because they happened to have a naked woman in the frame but otherwise had zero photographic merit (my opinion!).

LSD wrote:
As an aside, one of the things I pay attention to in society is the use of fallacious arguments.
The one used in this thread (initially by David Moyle, repeated often by others) is called Ad Hominem or "Argument to the Man." Basically instead of arguing the point, pick on the person making it, in this case by criticizing my own photos.

DUH. I'm an amateur, and freely admit it. Of course my pictures suck.

But does that make my opinion less valid? Do those guys that I referred to by starting this thread, in fact, not suck?

If you had wanted to avoid ad hominem responses, you might have put in your original post that you yourself claim no great skills, instead of (a) not saying that until way down the thread, (b) not saying it until after others had already looked at your images and commented on them, and (c) only saying it indirectly, by noting that you say it in your profile.  Yes, ad hominem attacks are improper, but you in effect solicited them.  In basketball, it's called drawing a foul.

LSD wrote:
No you don't! You blow and have no talent. I'd name names but that's not allowed in the forums!

Hey LSD, I just looked at yout portfolio.
You have an "amazing" talent and taste ..
And you certainly speak from a higher
moral ground than all of us ...
You have an "amazing" capacity to judge
other's artistic and moral values ...
We need more "photographers" like you
here ... to tell us what is worth and what is
not .. to tell the ones who pervert themselves
by shooting "boobs" .. to show their garbage
some place else .. not here ..

God bless LSD!!!!!!!!!!!!

Louis Braga wrote:
God bless LSD!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for mocking my genuine praise of the talented artists on this site. Real classy.

LSD wrote:
It was the comment about not being able to "back up your frustration with some exceptionally cool work" that was fallacy...that by not having great shots, my own opinion (yes, opinion) was invalid. That's classic fallacy.

But, see, we all have opinions. And, to someone else reading, every one of our opinions is invalid. Now, we can sometimes back up an opinion with "fact", but generally speaking, someone else backs up theirs with "fact" that doesn't allow them to change their opinion.

It's all just a mind trip if you think about it.

I understand what you are saying. I have looked at the ocasional photo on this site of a nude woman, bent over a counch like she was ready for a gynoproctological exam, and it was poorly lit on top of that, and thought, "wow, not much in the way of creativity or class". But, to someone, they're thinkin "yeah baby, now that's some hot booty".

It's all perspective.

LSD wrote:
What exactly is the connection between "photography" and "tits" ??
...

Uu! Uu!     I'd like to try and answer your question! 

I think it has a lot to do with symbolism. Note: Religion might play a part in the symbolism (shirks at the idea that comment will re-ignite the bible thumping threads).

My mind tells me, based on observation first, that women have long been regarded as catalysts for a whole lot of things. For example, focusing on present day, sales for products, real estate...basically a whole gamut of consumer based items, goods and services. Looking back in time and also incorporating present day Movies and actual history...women have been catalysts for wars, civil movements, etc.

Through symbolism, many of us are visually introduced to the concept that the woman is a source of life, i.e. child birth. Her titties, er, 'scooz me, breasteses *slaps face*, twins, *stomps foot* ...her breasts!!! Is a natural source for life giving nutrients.

Therefore, man's natural affinity with the female breasts is based on all of the above and is why we naturally gravitate to it and lavish them during love making. Photographing breasts could be seen as a platonic version/gesture and the equivalent of physical act of revering them during love making. It's a visual, symbolic gesture and possibly even a personal way of saying thanks, or paying tribute for the vitamins and nutrients it gave us as infants. We photographers might do this with models to avoid the awkwardness of photographing our own mother's breasts. (now, that would take balls!)

Well, that's my theory on it, because I've asked myself several times why I like this, or that.

Of course, with every serious analysis I come up with, I have silly versions. Jello is one of them. Didn't we all love Jello when we were kids? Did you poke it several times before eating it just to see it wiggle and bounce? Amusing wasn't it? Then, as we got older and had girlfriends, didn't you at least on one occasion poke your girl's thingies as well? ...c'mon now fellas. Admit it! You did. You know you did.

Ok, now look at your fascination with mag wheels, i.e. cool rims for the phat tires on your vehicles. It's round in shape no? And, so is the woman's breasts. We were taught in school that Cave people invented the wheel. She, or he was obsessed with a round object and later fashion it into what resembles a wheel and discovered it could roll on the ground. After figuring out the wheel could be used to transport heavy things, I'm almost sure that early man, in looking at his woman's breasts, noticed that they are both round. I'm almost positive that he could've thought something like, "wheels are good. they spare my back and energy. tits are good. it fed me when I was a weak and useless thing. i appreciate them. I will honor them. Ugh. Ungawa."

So there. That's my theory on why the entire photographer nation has at one time or another, photographed the woman's breasts and will continue to do so, because symbolism is deeply rooted in our psyche.

You should hear my theory on how foot fetish came to be. Heheheh. It's a guud wun!