Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
... I am beginning to feel like teens should not be allowed out in public without the Popemobile and a security guard.

I think a lot of parents would agree.

575 DPI wrote:
You can get locked up for just looking, so imagine if you're the person behind the camera taking the pictures.

I think we have another vote for teens and the Popemobile.

575 DPI wrote:
I'm not really a fan of the pope, just find teens of today far more scandalous than they were in my day (makes me sound old).

I think photographers have the power to take advantage, and for the sake of whatever it is they want to achieve, they just might.

Sounds like this belongs  in

THE THREAD

and old or not,   you'd get chipped

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
...Would you feel better if you had a dispensation from the Pope...

I'd shoot the pope in lingerie --something purple.

Aesthete Studios wrote:

I'd shoot the pope in lingerie --something purple.

With the NSAs mega-Internet-monitor, we probably shouldn't put "pope" and "shoot" in the same sentence.   

-- rick

575 DPI wrote:
to be honest, teenage girls are more like teenage women these days.

When i was at school, we were kids, now, i see women in uniforms and it's an uncomfortable feeling knowing she may be 15 approaching 16.

I'm starting out in the potrait photography, and i'm sure in due time i'll get teen's wanting photoshoots, but i dont want to get shut down before i set up.

If you check myspace or any of these other sites, there are loads of kids showing all and everything, and with the child pornography stuff online, everyone has to be super careful. You can get locked up for just looking, so imagine if you're the person behind the camera taking the pictures.

Did I do something wrong here?

DigitalCMH wrote:
Did I do something wrong here?

Other than some of the highlights being blown-out, I would say "no."  She was a cutie, huh?  I shot a few of her, but I will admit that I avoided shooting too many partly because I was thinking that if I put them on my portfolio, people would start talking about me being some kind of perv photographer. 

I've noticed you managed to get more than few very nice shots of her, you perv! 

-- rick

P.S. I am kidding you.  About the perv part.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
She was wearing a turtleneck sweater with baggy jeans?  Would it help if she had a hat on, a ski mask, gloves and knee high hiking boots with steel toes?  Would you start to get concerned if she decided to take the gloves off?

Would you feel better if you had a dispensation from the Pope before you shot or if the photosession was monitored by a task force from the local police commission with a SWAT team there to provide security?

Does the presence of the model's father, mother, grand parents and high school principal make you feel more comfortable?

Is it helpful to have "Good Housekeeping" and "Consumer Reports" test the clothing before the shoot to be certain that no light would be visible through the clothing if, inadvertantly, the police helicopter flying by shined a 7 million candle power light through the window from behind?

Would you feel more secure if "Dateline," "Nightline" and Geraldo all sent video crews down to document the shoot in case there were questions about the opacity of the ski mask?

Do you feel that the feds should provide security to cordon off the area to a three block radius to be certain that nobody gazes upon the eyes of the model in the ski mask without a legitimate authorized purpose?

Upon completion of the shoot, do you feel that Supreme Court Associate Justices Scalia and Thomas should review all photos before they are released to the parents who will then have their Rabbi, Iman, Bishop or Swami certify them for use by the client?

With some of the discussions I am reading about teen models, I am beginning to feel like teens should not be allowed out in public without the Popemobile and a security guard.  I sometimes wonder how any photographer ever makes a living in NYC with these kinds of restrictions!

This sentiment is right on target.

Still,   lots of us shoot teens all the time in public places in performances etc...  wtihout a second thought.

The place we worry is when an underage person  (it will soon degenerate into young hunks removing the opacified outer garment too soon before they are 18)

is photographed  by one of US    without a parent around or signed off.

The stupidity of the guilty by  computer documentation now is going quite a ways out there for the law enforcement folks.  All of us may soon be getting tickets from the traffic police because a car with a plate with our registration info was photographed going through an intersection  in a percieved violation.
We didnt even have to be in  it.

These things are enough to make you want to begin campaigning for the Libertarian candidates.

Nevertheless,  with a little experience,  we should be reminded that we can be accused  (even when innocent) of crimes against humanity for being associated with a young thing who has a picture out there that offends someone.

Hell,  where I come from,  the girls are taking the shots of each other and posting them.   No ADOLTS   REQUIRED   (misspelling intentional  for the spayulin puhlise)

Shoot with caution. 
Refuse without a parent showing up and showing id to prove they are related and just protect your own backside.

That having been said,   The world  hungers for the younger image of beauty and it can sometimes be portrayed properly with the image of one as young as 14 or so.....(with parental consent)

Have a Grreat Weekend

So Shoot Me! wrote:
some of the highlights being blown-out She was a cutie, kind of perv photographer. 

I've noticed you managed to get more than few very nice shots of her, you perv! 

that was mean!!  you meanie!!


Original post edited to make him appear mean

So Shoot Me! wrote:
Other than some of the highlights being blown-out, I would say "no."  She was a cutie, huh?  I shot a few of her, but I will admit that I avoided shooting too many partly because I was thinking that if I put them on my portfolio, people would start talking about me being some kind of perv photographer. 

I've noticed you managed to get more than few very nice shots of her, you perv! 

-- rick

P.S. I am kidding you.  About the perv part.

I was wondering about her age when I was there.  I took a few shots and then grabbed my portfolio and approached her mom.  I wanted her mom to see what kind of shots I usually take when I do my beach work.  They both loved it and since a lot of photographers we busy with the other girls, it gave us a lot of one-on-one time.   Now I have a few friends of hers requesting shoots.  So far my price tag I think has scared them away.  either that or they want to wait till next summer.

DigitalCMH wrote:
[Did I do something wrong here?

not sure, to me, she looks at least 21, but given the nature of the topic, i know she isnt.

My main concern is, when i start approaching people for shoots, that they/parents/friends/etc dont start thinking i'm a sleaze photographer interested in seeing how far i can make her go before she says no.

Once the 18 year old mark is passed, it doesnt seem so bad if she's wanting or willing, but when you have sisters & cousins still younger than 18, the thought of one of them being duped into showing a little more because it will help get them noticed by agencies and such, just seems wrong.

But then it's always far worse when it's someone you know, in any situation.

DigitalCMH wrote:

I was wondering about her age when I was there.  I took a few shots and then grabbed my portfolio and approached her mom.  I wanted her mom to see what kind of shots I usually take when I do my beach work.  They both loved it and since a lot of photographers we busy with the other girls, it gave us a lot of one-on-one time.   Now I have a few friends of hers requesting shoots.  So far my price tag I think has scared them away.  either that or they want to wait till next summer.

Well, it may be that a lot of them had the same thoughts that some are expressing here. 

My "day job" (such as it is right now) is as a law clerk working excluslively with criminal defense attorneys.  Things have gotten to the point around here -- and some parts of this thread reinforce this idea -- that men are even afraid to be around their young daughters.  And god forbid you should be a male public school teacher at an elementary school! 

The sad thing is that it's kind of like the fear of terrorists that has destroyed America's longstanding love and support for civil rights. 

Or shark attacks. 

All these things happen infrequently, compared to the number of times people "expose themselves to the danger." 

On the other hand, who here doesn't pull their foot back in if it slips out from under the covers and over the edge of the bed? 

-- rick

Henri3 wrote:
It's tough to believe the US was once considered the bastion of free expession.

*sigh*  How true. 

It's even more sad when your favorite topic is constitutional law and you see, daily, that that document is now just another forgotten relic of the past. 

Maybe we need to get a bunch of 16-year-olds in swimsuits holding up the Constitution in front of themselves, as implied nudity.   

Uh...could someone else please shoot that?   

-- rick

575 DPI wrote:

not sure, to me, she looks at least 21, but given the nature of the topic, i know she isnt.

My main concern is, when i start approaching people for shoots, that they/parents/friends/etc dont start thinking i'm a sleaze photographer interested in seeing how far i can make her go before she says no.

Once the 18 year old mark is passed, it doesnt seem so bad if she's wanting or willing, but when you have sisters & cousins still younger than 18, the thought of one of them being duped into showing a little more because it will help get them noticed by agencies and such, just seems wrong.

But then it's always far worse when it's someone you know, in any situation.

No matter how careful you are, there will always be wackjobs.  I posted her photos on DPReview and a couple people were a little concerned...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. … e=20307050

In the end...trust your judgement!

So Shoot Me! wrote:
On the other hand, who here doesn't pull their foot back in if it slips out from under the covers and over the edge of the bed? 

-- rick

ha, i fear almost nothing apart from having some cold hand grab my foot and try to drag me under the bed. i blame asian horror for that...

wrote:
Things have gotten to the point around here -- and some parts of this thread reinforce this idea -- that men are even afraid to be around their young daughters.

maybe i'm just paranoid, but it's the looks you get, walking around in public with a DSLR and a huge lens attached to it that puts me off wanting to work with anyone under 18.
I've had arguments almost break out for photographing a dog, and had to put up with mothers pushing their babies around coming up to me saying, "did you just take a picture of us?", completely unware of the second coming of Christ right behind her.
Not to mention the stern voices of some parents who pull their child out of what they think is the line of the lens saying, 'c'mon, GET out of the man's way.'

It's not just with guys though, my female photographer friend often gets asked 'why'? in an overly concerned tone, when she asks permission to photograph children.

575 DPI wrote:
.
Not to mention the stern voices of some parents who pull their child out of what they think is the line of the lens saying, 'c'mon, GET out of the man's way.'

That's respect.  They don't want to ruin your shot.

Hey, Jim! Thought I'd let you know that desite the stress and trepidation of her prefessional photoshoot event, K seems to have gained considerable self-confidence from the experience (which at least serves the purpose I intended).  By the time we went to order prints, Nikki had selected 6 poses in 5x7 to display in her own personal gallery of herself, and then when we actually got to the UPhoto counter, she upgraded the same to 8x10 . . . .

The girl was very shy but seemed to enjoy the ANTM type television shows, so dad bought some time.  Studio rules: hallway door open, parent on deck.

Henri3 wrote:
at least folks can speak their minds about it

Careful,   the walls may not have eyes,  but they do have ears

(  perhaps it might have been (thats a line from somewhere,  I can't recall exactly what)   

Both perhaps are lines from  THE FANTASTICKS

good luck finding them.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
She was wearing a turtleneck sweater with baggy jeans?  Would it help if she had a hat on, a ski mask, gloves and knee high hiking boots with steel toes?  Would you start to get concerned if she decided to take the gloves off?

Would you feel better if you had a dispensation from the Pope before you shot or if the photosession was monitored by a task force from the local police commission with a SWAT team there to provide security?

Does the presence of the model's father, mother, grand parents and high school principal make you feel more comfortable?

Is it helpful to have "Good Housekeeping" and "Consumer Reports" test the clothing before the shoot to be certain that no light would be visible through the clothing if, inadvertantly, the police helicopter flying by shined a 7 million candle power light through the window from behind?

Would you feel more secure if "Dateline," "Nightline" and Geraldo all sent video crews down to document the shoot in case there were questions about the opacity of the ski mask?

Do you feel that the feds should provide security to cordon off the area to a three block radius to be certain that nobody gazes upon the eyes of the model in the ski mask without a legitimate authorized purpose?

Upon completion of the shoot, do you feel that Supreme Court Associate Justices Scalia and Thomas should review all photos before they are released to the parents who will then have their Rabbi, Iman, Bishop or Swami certify them for use by the client?

I'm afraid I need a few more details than this before I could come to a reasonable and safe decision....

So Shoot Me! wrote:
Maybe we need to get a bunch of 16-year-olds in swimsuits holding up the Constitution in front of themselves, as implied nudity.   

Uh...could someone else please shoot that?   

-- rick

Nice... Thank you... I will...

Been looking for an idea... you just gave it to me.

So Shoot Me! wrote:
Maybe we need to get a bunch of 16-year-olds in swimsuits holding up the Constitution in front of themselves, as implied nudity.   

Uh...could someone else please shoot that?   

-- rick

James Jackson wrote:
Nice... Thank you... I will...

Been looking for an idea... you just gave it to me.

I think they should hold the constitution while buring the flag.  If you are going to be controversial, why stop short.

So Shoot Me! wrote:
Maybe we need to get a bunch of 16-year-olds in swimsuits holding up the Constitution in front of themselves, as implied nudity.   

Uh...could someone else please shoot that?   

-- rick

James Jackson wrote:
Nice... Thank you... I will...

Been looking for an idea... you just gave it to me.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I think they should hold the constitution while buring the flag.  If you are going to be controversial, why stop short.

Oh... haha... you'll get it when I'm done some of my next series.  I finally got those halloween masks on sale enough that I could afford all of them.

You'll see.

DigitalCMH wrote:
Did I do something wrong here?

From what I can see, Sweet Sixteen, you're really on the rocks.

Georgetown Girl wrote:

From what I can see, Sweet Sixteen, you're really on the rocks.

I like rocks, adds atmosphere.