Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Comment on Article Comparing HP vs. Epson Printers  (Read 10678 times)
kkovak
Guest
« on: March 19, 2007, 06:56:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I found the article comparing the HP Z3100 with the Epson 9800 informative and, as usual, for this site very complete and balanced.  However, I was taken aback by the use of an unexpectedly provocative example photo (for the monochrome prints) included in the report.  While many photo sites think noting of using material like this I am not used to seeing it on this site.  I read this material on my PC which is in the family space of our home and, in my opinion, this is not appropriate for "family viewing", even inadvertent views.

I certainly do not wish to dictate my sensibilities on anyone else or on this web site, but I would appreciate a warning when provocative material will be included.  

Thanks for listening,

Ken
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2007, 07:28:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I certainly do not wish to dictate my sensibilities on anyone else or on this web site, but I would appreciate a warning when provocative material will be included.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[emphasis mine]

That's exactly what you're trying to do.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2007, 04:50:53 AM »
ReplyReply

kkovak

Thank's very much for drawing my attention to the lovely photograph! I had missed it completely because my interest in printers isn't, currently, all that strong; my interest in the fair sex, however, is as overwhelming as ever it was in the past six decades; thank you again.

Ciao - Rob C
Logged

Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119



WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2007, 05:44:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Provocative material?  You need to get out more     Much more provocative material is available - without warning - in most photo mags and many daily newspapers

Quentin

Quote
I found the article comparing the HP Z3100 with the Epson 9800 informative and, as usual, for this site very complete and balanced.  However, I was taken aback by the use of an unexpectedly provocative example photo (for the monochrome prints) included in the report.  While many photo sites think noting of using material like this I am not used to seeing it on this site.  I read this material on my PC which is in the family space of our home and, in my opinion, this is not appropriate for "family viewing", even inadvertent views.

I certainly do not wish to dictate my sensibilities on anyone else or on this web site, but I would appreciate a warning when provocative material will be included. 

Thanks for listening,

Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: March 20, 2007, 05:44:36 AM by Quentin » Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
bjornaagedk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2007, 06:04:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I enjoyed this very beautiful photo very much !
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9188



WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2007, 11:08:22 AM »
ReplyReply

After reading the first post, I went without haste to see this provocative image. No naughty bits to my disappointment but I'll agree with bjornaagedk, it's a lovely image. Now I better go back and actually read the review <g>
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8069



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2007, 11:17:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I thought the photo in question was quite lovely, too.

But I was shocked, shocked to see that some of the Antarctica images posted here showed penguins completely undressed!!  
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2007, 11:28:29 AM »
ReplyReply

What pictures are you looking at.  They're wearing tuxedos.
Logged
Petrjay
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2007, 01:29:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Clothed or not, those uncouth birds do not deserve to be paraded before the public! I mean, is there anything more distasteful than appearing in tuxedos before 6:00 PM? I believe MR owes us all an apology for displaying this outrageous breach of decorum.
Logged
framah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1201



« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2007, 03:05:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Yep!! Great image!! Thank you for the heads up on that one.

 Tho I am a little disturbed by the pregnant woman with the umbrella.
Logged

"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8069



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2007, 06:51:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What pictures are you looking at.  They're wearing tuxedos.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107724\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah, but Dark! You have been misled! Those aren't really tuxedos; that is simply body painting made to look like tuxedos (the way Sp*rts *ll*str*t*d does for some of their so-called "swim suits.")    
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Jay Kaplan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2007, 09:07:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What pictures are you looking at.  They're wearing tuxedos.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107724\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That maybe so, but are they wearing pants?
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2007, 01:27:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Okay, I've enjoyed the humour - quite nice to find something funny these days; however, going back to the original post, though it was really far from being too OTT, it did make me slightly uneasy as I began to ask myself what, exactly, was the difference between some somewhat fundamentalist western thinking patterns and our old pals the Taliban?

It becomes so easy to see the current world problems in terms of 'them and us' and to lose sight of the similar, if less stridently expressed problems on our own doorstep.

Thoughtfully - Rob C
« Last Edit: March 21, 2007, 01:27:56 PM by Rob C » Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2007, 01:49:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Did the OP ask for anything more than a warning?
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2007, 02:39:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Did the OP ask for anything more than a warning?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107913\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not really, but he likely expected to be mocked for having asked.  I don't see why, just because there are "worse" examples on the web, all sites need to change their standards toward the "least common denominator."  

I frankly find it a shame that modesty is not respected.  This was not the sort of image expected on a site called "Luminous Landscape."

For those who need see such images and deplore a warning, perhaps the warning could serve as a guide for them too.  Then the same warning could guide both those who do and don't want to see the images.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2007, 03:00:51 PM by howiesmith » Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2007, 03:45:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Very well said Howie, I too tend to think that it is sad the more respect isn't given to modesty.
Logged
Jae_Moon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2007, 04:44:43 PM »
ReplyReply

It was a 'printer review' article and the prints were chosen "using two test images which Studio One regards as their benchmarks for print comparisons in B&W.'

I read a newspaper article several months ago that an art teacher of a middle school in Dallas, TX area was fired after taking her 5 or 6th graders to the Dallas Museum of Art, thus exposing her students to 'naked women' of the ancient Greece.

While it seems a quite reasonable request of putting a 'warning' sign, I would be very much disappointed if we have to live in a society that mandates posting warning signs in front of museums, libraries, opera houses, and many public buildings (the former US Attorney General Ashcroft covered the image of bare breasted 'Lady Justice' in the building of Justice Department), etc.

The original poster objected the image of two women, but why not to the image of ballerina? Many around the world (and in this country, too) would object to it. Should we put an 'warning sign' for it too?

I change TV channel if I see something I don't care to see in it.

I don't try to enforce my values to others, nor I want others to do to me.

Jae Moon
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8190



WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2007, 06:29:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, I was taken aback by the use of an unexpectedly provocative example photo (for the monochrome prints) included in the report. I read this material on my PC which is in the family space of our home and, in my opinion, this is not appropriate for "family viewing", even inadvertent views.

I certainly do not wish to dictate my sensibilities on anyone else or on this web site, but I would appreciate a warning when provocative material will be included. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ken,

Frankly speaking, I was shocked by your post. Michael has always stated that LL is not a site devoted only to landscape and I don't see the difference between street shot images and some bits of nudity. For me both are perfectly valid aspects of our lives and showing them is normal.

To my eyes, exposing my kids to such an image is not an issue at all and my view has always been that the best education is to prepare them to all the aspects of real life. Sex and nudity being an essential aspect of our existence as human beings, even if it is one we all somehow have problems to deal with.

I had not realized that some people in the US were this sensitive to nudity. Although what Rob C wrote about Talibans is going too far, I understand what he means.

I would for one be opposed to the usage of warning for such harmless images. For me that would be aligning myself to the lowest denominator of censorship. I don't intend to have my wife wearing a veil because some Guru in Saudi Arabia would like her to, and I also don't intend to have to get rid of warning messages each time some bits of breast is exposed because some gurus in the US would like me to. Both are completely unreasonnable.

The real solution is to open up to sexuality by exposing ourselves more to it instead of hiding away from it.

To my eyes, our lives belong to a grand scheme of evolution whose name has to be progress. Progress means many things, but among these things I feel that a key aspect is a deeper understanding of our human nature, and the creation of an environment where all aspects of our humanity are allowed to bloom.

Trying to deny the central role of sex is IMHO akin to trying to oppose the march of progress. It will be seen in a few years as a sad detour, similar to what happened during the darkest periods of the Middle Age.

The key to free outselves from this is to underdstand the actual motives that pushed some man in charge of our religions to oppose sexuality. It has to be said that there is nothing divine about this, puritanism is a purely man made concept.

We boast about how free our countries are, but are we free to even discuss this topic openly?

Here again, we have so many things to learn from Asian countries.

Regards,
Bernard
« Last Edit: March 21, 2007, 07:04:34 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
blansky
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2007, 06:52:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know about you guys but I have a nudity warning posted up over my bathroom mirror and still I'm shocked at what I see sometimes.


Michael
Logged
jule
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 738


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2007, 08:33:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ken,

Frankly speaking, I was shocked by your post. Michael has always stated that LL is not a site devoted only to landscape and I don't see the difference between street shot images and some bits of nudity. For me both are perfectly valid aspects of our lives and showing them is normal.

To my eyes, exposing my kids to such an image is not an issue at all and my view has always been that the best education is to prepare them to all the aspects of real life. Sex and nudity being an essential aspect of our existence as human beings, even if it is one we all somehow have problems to deal with.

I had not realized that some people in the US were this sensitive to nudity. Although what Rob C wrote about Talibans is going too far, I understand what he means.

I would for one be opposed to the usage of warning for such harmless images. For me that would be aligning myself to the lowest denominator of censorship. I don't intend to have my wife wearing a veil because some Guru in Saudi Arabia would like her to, and I also don't intend to have to get rid of warning messages each time some bits of breast is exposed because some gurus in the US would like me to. Both are completely unreasonnable.

The real solution is to open up to sexuality by exposing ourselves more to it instead of hiding away from it.

To my eyes, our lives belong to a grand scheme of evolution whose name has to be progress. Progress means many things, but among these things I feel that a key aspect is a deeper understanding of our human nature, and the creation of an environment where all aspects of our humanity are allowed to bloom.

Trying to deny the central role of sex is IMHO akin to trying to oppose the march of progress. It will be seen in a few years as a sad detour, similar to what happened during the darkest periods of the Middle Age.

The key to free outselves from this is to underdstand the actual motives that pushed some man in charge of our religions to oppose sexuality. It has to be said that there is nothing divine about this, puritanism is a purely man made concept.

We boast about how free our countries are, but are we free to even discuss this topic openly?

Here again, we have so many things to learn from Asian countries.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107971\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard, well said.
I personally thought the image reflected a loving relationship, and I for one would prefer to see, and our children to see, the portrayal of a loving relationship - regardless of one's chosen sexuality - than to see violent images of murders which come into our homes via many tv programs, and images of war which often illustrate hatred, intolerance, retribution and arrogance. I am referring to all warring peoples across the globe by the way.

Both are aspects of our world and reflect part of our human nature, but I know which one I would rather support and have in our home.

Julie
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad