Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Aren't we stretching a bit here?

I know I'm late but that was funny as hell. What is the difference between 17 and 18? a couple days, weeks, or months, they won't change. at least not much. I'm sure this was already said but I wanted to add my two cents to the collection plate.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Doug once again I'm happy your camera was returned and I am sorry that some
of your fellow photographers are the type of folks that consider shooting a young
model in a bikini or lingerie as crimminal.  I guess all those ad, catalogs and magazines that do it are also breaking the law.  I'm sometimes amazed how
narrow minded some people are but then I forget some of these people have
cousins for wives and shot cans off of a pick up truck.  I hope you continue to
do well and good luck.

LMAO, thanks.  And I agree with what you have said here.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Doug once again I'm happy your camera was returned and I am sorry that some
of your fellow photographers are the type of folks that consider shooting a young
model in a bikini or lingerie as crimminal.  I guess all those ad, catalogs and magazines that do it are also breaking the law.  I'm sometimes amazed how
narrow minded some people are but then I forget some of these people have
cousins for wives and shot cans off of a pick up truck.  I hope you continue to
do well and good luck.

Yep Tony, all of us that would like to stay out of jail because of what may be captured are just ignant hick.. yup yup.

Tony I showed you the law when it comes to child porn, I showed you that it is not what you are trying to capture it is what gets captured that may get you a fun ride to jail. If we photographers were able to capture "just" what we wanted you would have a higher percentage of "keepers" out of a 100 frame shoot. Most photographers around here seem happy with 3-5 keepers in a shoot. What happened with the other 95?

A photograph is a split second in time. A blink, a face twitch, a slight turn all effect the photo we were trying to get. A person can look angry, happy, sad, turned on, turned off or in my wife's case stoned in a photograph when in reality that is not what the person was feeling. Look at https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … d61d943a29
The model has an "eww" expression, that was not what I was after, that was not what she was showing as my finger hit the button.

All it takes is one bad shot and you are screwed. You don't seem to understand that most of the people here want to keep innocent photographers from going to jail. If he gets busted the paper will read on the front page Local Photographer Arrested For Child Porn Then when he is found not guilty or the charges are dropped, the paper MAY print this headline on page 36 Local Photographer Beats Child Porn Charge Win or lose, he loses. His reputation is shot, and he will be "that pervert"

Yes in principle you should be able to shoot a 17 year old in a swimsuit, just be extra careful when you do. (if it were me I would review every frame as I took it)

Just because you CAN do something does not mean it is the most prudiant course.

Mike Cummings wrote:

Ok, so in other words the cop thought ANYTHING shot under 18 in anything other than very prudish dress would be porn.

What that means is the screen on the damn camera is too small to really tell anything. If a girl has a thong on and she is backwards and you are looking on a small screen, hard to tell, isn't it?  I am just telling you what I was told, period.  Besides, as has been REPEATEDLY said here, it isn't illegal anyway unless "porn" is being shot.  OBVIOUSLY mine were all cleared by the detectives Saturday.  So, what does that tell ya????

Mike Cummings wrote:

Ok, so in other words the cop thought ANYTHING shot under 18 in anything other than very prudish dress would be porn.

What that means is the screen on the damn camera is too small to really tell anything. If a girl has a thong on and she is backwards and you are looking on a small screen, hard to tell, isn't it?  I am just telling you what I was told, period.  Besides, as has been REPEATEDLY said here, it isn't illegal anyway unless "porn" is being shot.  OBVIOUSLY mine were all cleared by the detectives Saturday.  So, what does that tell ya????

Doug Jantz wrote:
I was shooting with a model today and this evening, age 17, in her bikini, thong bikini, jeans and bikini top.  A ladt in the park got pissed this evening and yelled at us, thinking my model was nude.  I explained to her from the distance that she had on a bikini.  She did not believe me and threatened to call police.  I said go ahead and continued shooting.  The office came and I was shooting as he walked up, thinking all was OK.  I offered to show him the pics and he looked, saying some were questionable.  Borderline is what he said.  He checked all of our ID's, and one of our party was a local girl who runs 2 model websites of bikini models, so she was used to this kind of thing.  She had been along to watch a photo shoot.

In the end he asked if I knew she was 17, I said yes.  He said because some of the images were questionable they could be construed as pornography!  Told me the legal age was 18.  Now I was under the impression that pornography involved more than one person or solo sexual acts and/or nudity.  There was NONE of that here.  He stated that the lace panties showed through a "little."  WTF??

So, he said they had to log my camera in with my memory card.  I asked to remove the card and he tried to get the Seargent to accept that but was told they felt better if the whole camera was logged in to avoid any possible damage on their part to my camera.

There are NO nude images on my card or any "porno."  I am not really worried about that, but I would like my images that we got that are REALLY good.  And I have a shoot tomorrow and would like to photograph my daughter Sunday, but now they have my camera!!!

They want to make sure I am not one of those predators, which they will find out I am not.  So.... now what???

A little pissed

Doug, I feel your pain, I know what self righteous, bible thumping, condecending assholes that some of the people in SW Mo can be, especially the people with power. Best of luck getting your camera back in a timely manner, but I wouldnt hold my breath, they can take as long as they want to do their "investigation".

I got tired of the outdated, redneck, faux-puritan attitude of these people. Why do you think I moved?

Again, good luck.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Makes me glad that I started shooting teenagers a little over 20 years ago before the paranoia sunk in.  Heck, I was a teenager when I started shooting!  Maybe it's being in California that makes the difference, but I think that the Internet has a lot to do with the paranoia that has overtaken common sense in this country. 

Doug, you did nothing illegal and dealt with the police best way you could.  Maybe you could have handled the nosy lady who complained a little better.  People don't often make threats of calling the police if they are not seriously going to do it.  You egged her and she followed through.  For the most part, I'm nice to people around me when I'm shooting, even the strangers who are nosey.  If a situation can be defused, I'll negotiate it to something that is to all involved rather than allow it to get blown out of proportion.  Don't let someone  call the police if you can help it!

You don't have much of a choice than to cooperate with the police once they are called, even though you did nothing wrong.  Once the police are called, they have a job to do, and they will do what ever it takes to appease the person who called.  Police also do not like to do more work than necessary.  It must have been a slow day!   

You might consider shooting in a studio, or scouting out the locations for quick exits. There are some public places that require you to purchase a permit to shoot.  If you do shoot out in the public again, don't spend much time at one location, keep it moving!

Thanks, and I agree.  Can't shoot in a studio when you don't have one.  I prefer outside anyway, but now I have some private property I have permission to use whenever I want it. 

evisphoto wrote:

Doug, I feel your pain, I know what self righteous, bible thumping, condecending assholes that some of the people in SW Mo can be, especially the people with power. Best of luck getting your camera back in a timely manner, but I wouldnt hold my breath, they can take as long as they want to do their "investigation".

I got tired of the outdated, redneck, faux-puritan attitude of these people. Why do you think I moved?

Again, good luck.

Thanks, LOL.  Wasn't too much pain, though.  When you push the envelope sometimes you win.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
but then I forget some of these people have cousins for wives and shot cans off of a pick up truck.

And they own dogs that look like this too: 

studio36uk wrote:

And they own dogs that look like this too: 

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!