In the way you choose to re-represent them, Iīd probably agree, but thatīs just you finessing intent, mine, to suit your own purposes.
No finessing, that's simply how you come across.
Suffice to say that I disagree with your liberal interpretation of copyright/model releases and would ever remain on the side of caution in such matters. And taking another point you made, if not for commercial gain, why would I publish on the web or anywhere else, for that matter? I did explain that I am not looking at getting my work seen from the same perspective as does an amateur, something John grasped right away in a previous post. Why do you persist in missing that? I certainly do have material for which I have the correct releases - I did do stock shoots too, remember - but why expose such material to you, and here, for free?
After all your equivocating, it's now to simply show that you are actually a decent photographer and not just a talentless poltroon who likes to sneer at others. Alternatively, I'd simply like to see your work, just like I do with others on here, the reason, it helps put an image rather than a face to the posters on here. One of the best things about LL is that people [mostly] don't hide who they are and via their work we get to know a bit more about them than simply by reading posts.
No, I see nothing wrong with saving somebodyīs blushes today for whatever they might have done yesterday. As I wrote here earlier, I have never touched porn and I despise it; however, that doesnīt mean that a topless shot from those days will not upset somebody in school if their mates see it online.
Others would consider what you did porn, just like you may consider more explicit stuff porn. I saw a Film Censor talking about how to rate a film once. There was no nudity in it, no sex of any kind as all it contained was shots of feet in shoes. It was obviously aimed at foot fetishists and the censor gave it an 18 certificate to aid sales, simply as it wouldn't be seen as porn otherwise. You shot women who posed naked for money for calendars, from what I can gather. Such calendars were meant to titilate and arouse and to my mind there is no distinction between them and porn. My view of what porn is - Porn is stuff that is honest enough to admit that it is sexually arousing. Nicely lit porn is erotica and if it's in B+W then obviously it's art!
Sadly, I do not have all that many images left anymore, what with moving away from Britain lo those years ago, getting more damaged in various libraries and so forth, but even so, I have tried to get some more releases for a lot of that old work since my interest in digital printing started, but the model agencies simply canīt help: girls from twenty-odd years ago are hardly on their books anymore and there is not usually much feedback once the commerce is over. Thatīs why I tried to indicate to you that there is a difference between putting prints up for sale in galleries and publishing on the web - you have a better chance of a simple and easy life away from the computer. I also tried to indicate that a gallery ambience is one thing but a web presence is quite another. And not an improvement, in my opinion, and not a million miles removed from flogging prints in a flea market.
Not at all snobbish are we? A gallery can be seedier than the web as it's all to do with context and presentation.
Paparazzi photos are something quite else: sometimes those people do get sued or worse; at others they can claim to have photographed in the public domain whilst on yet other occassions they are simply reacting to information fed them by the PR people behind the very idiots they pursue. I wouldnīt take any of that sort of work too seriously, but your mileage may vary somewhat.
I don't like pap work, but the point that you missed was that model releases are not necessary as if they were, unflattering pap work would disappear immediately.
On the topic of political correctness, I never did claim it a reason not to put stuff of mine on the web; I used it to indicate why so much of the pin-up work that flourished from the sixties to the early eighties has gone with the dodo.
Most of the lads mags around now, have even more pin up work than then, in case you hadn't noticed and have had for a long time.
Personally a topless women posing on a car bonnet against a plain background is about the most boring, unimaginative photography I can think of. Tackier than porn as it pretends to be better, when it's exactly the same. It's making money from sexualisng people.
You asked another, somewhat disingenuous question: do they sell cameras in Spain?
Not disengenuous, it was a rhetorical question.
Yes, and they also have model agencies too. But to employ a model you need a client or a damn good belief that your work has a market. I do not believe that there is a market today that pays for stock photography at the level required to employ models of any value and to employ lesser ones is an exercise in self-defeat, as where we came in with the original point to this thread. If you want to photograph girls without much clothing because it just turns you on and it doesnīt matter how they look, go ahead and buy or con your way into their pants; if you are seriously concerned with the market and your bank balance, then think with your brain, for a change; how else should a pro ever do it?
I've done male nudes as well as female, does that mean I'm bisexual now? Wahey! Twice the choice, though better not tell the girlfriend.
Psst Rob, I'll let you into a secret, some, probably nearly all professional photographers like to take photographs, even if they are not being paid. It's not as if photography is like working in a slaughterhouse and probably why so many people do it by choice, as a hobby.
And back to the main point, you claim to have been a successful commercial professional photography for many years and yet you seem to find reason after reason as to why you have no photos at all of any kind to show anyone online.
That's very odd behaviour for a photographer. Especially on here.