Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Are nudes landscapes?  (Read 10570 times)
Robert Spoecker
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162



« on: December 21, 2009, 01:43:49 PM »
ReplyReply

This site name is Luminous Landscape.

Recently there seems to be a rash of nude images. All done artistically in black and white.

They appear about the same as all the other nudes easily available on the web.

I think thats fine, but does it belong here? By what stretch of the imagination are full frontal nude images landscapes?

Sorry but I don't get it.

Robert
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2009, 01:57:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Did the models have great big tracts of land?
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4923



« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2009, 02:00:16 PM »
ReplyReply

The name of the site is The Luminous Landscape, but if you spend any time here at all you'll discover that it concerns itself with every aspect of photography, both esthetic and technical.

Nudes are therefore perfectly fine.

The only restriction is that pictures of cats are not allowed. Cat photographers are respectfully redirected to DPReview.  

Michael
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 02:00:34 PM by michael » Logged
Robert Spoecker
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162



« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2009, 02:09:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
The name of the site is The Luminous Landscape, but if you spend any time here at all you'll discover that it concerns itself with every aspect of photography, both esthetic and technical.

Nudes are therefore perfectly fine.

The only restriction is that pictures of cats are not allowed. Cat photographers are respectfully redirected to DPReview.  

Michael

The reply came from a high enough level. I am satisfied with it and thus will refrain from further comment on the subject.

Thank you for explaining your policy so well, Michael.

I don't even know a cat personally so someone else will have to respond to that.

Robert

Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2009, 02:22:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
The name of the site is The Luminous Landscape, but if you spend any time here at all you'll discover that it concerns itself with every aspect of photography, both esthetic and technical.

Nudes are therefore perfectly fine.

The only restriction is that pictures of cats are not allowed. Cat photographers are respectfully redirected to DPReview.  

Michael

But Michael, what will we do with some of my favorites? Are big cats exempt?  I would hate to see them consigned to DPReview.

Botswana Leopard
Jaguar
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 02:23:44 PM by fike » Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8291



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2009, 02:23:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
The only restriction is that pictures of cats are not allowed. Cat photographers are respectfully redirected to DPReview.    

Michael
Or to Cute Overload.

I must say, however, that Minor White accepted a cat photo of mine in his exhibit "Being Without Clothes" at M.I.T. back in the '60s. It was the only cat photo in the exhibit, and one of only two that were not of human nudes. Exhibit cat-alog was published in Aperture.   


Eric

"Cat Photographer to the Stars"

Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4923



« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2009, 03:44:27 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, big pussys are allowed.

Michael
Logged
John Collins
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2009, 03:50:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
OK, big pussys are allowed.

Michael



Good One.....
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1994



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2009, 06:01:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Robert Spoecker
This site name is Luminous Landscape.

Recently there seems to be a rash of nude images. All done artistically in black and white.

They appear about the same as all the other nudes easily available on the web.

I think thats fine, but does it belong here? By what stretch of the imagination are full frontal nude images landscapes?

Sorry but I don't get it.

Robert

What's to get? There are lots of photos here that are not landscapes, including many of those posted by Michael. So what?
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 872


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2009, 03:23:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
OK, big pussys are allowed.

Michael


Oh dear this is degenerating! (Or is it just me?)

Anyway, Mrs Pascoe thinks it is just about landscape photography, so please, no nudes on the home page.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 03:25:40 AM by Jim Pascoe » Logged
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 872


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2009, 03:31:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Robert Spoecker
Recently there seems to be a rash of nude images. All done artistically in black and white.



Robert


Robert.

I am really busy in the pre-Christmas rush to get all my orders out, so please could you save me time and tell me where I can find the pictures to which you refer to save me trawling through the whole forum.

Jim
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2009, 04:02:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
OK, big pussys are allowed.

Michael


Good! I can't resist showing off.

Here's me with some lovely big cats. They are very peaceful because they are Buddhist cats. As you can see, I'm also very peaceful.

[attachment=18826:Cats.jpg]
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2009, 07:22:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Good! I can't resist showing off.

Here's me with some lovely big cats. They are very peaceful because they are Buddhist cats. As you can see, I'm also very peaceful.

[attachment=18826:Cats.jpg]

Can I assume that you are the one [ahem] petting your [ahem], big cat?
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 07:27:47 AM by fike » Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8291



WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2009, 09:12:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Good! I can't resist showing off.

Here's me with some lovely big cats. They are very peaceful because they are Buddhist cats. As you can see, I'm also very peaceful.

[attachment=18826:Cats.jpg]
And they're not wearing a stitch of clothing (blush, blush!)
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Harold
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #14 on: December 25, 2009, 05:35:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Eric Myrvaagnes
And they're not wearing a stitch of clothing (blush, blush!)
All extremely good. But cats are not allowed because of the Resident Rottweiller.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2010, 01:29:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Harold
All extremely good. But cats are not allowed because of the Resident Rottweiller.

Of course, a Rottweiler should be an easy meal for these cats, but it's an interesting question as to how the cats would respond.

As I departed from the enclosure, I saw a small hill from which I could get an overview of the whole scene. I climbed the small hill with camera in hand and was immediately shouted at, by the monks and wardens, to get down.

It was later explained that the tigers might get the impression that I was a goat and might come bounding towards me to tear me to shreds. I'm really skeptical that such nice, peaceful tigers could ever consider me a goat.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2010, 03:43:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Well Ray, the problem is the beard. You and I share much the same hair-do other than the smallish ponytail that I am endeavouring to grow for the simple reason that with my wife I lost my barber (she was my barber). A neighbour told me that they are having the same problem with their new grand-daughter whose hair is still pretty sparse, but she wants bunches. I explained that if you are patient, the shorter bits catch up with the longer bits and then, voilà, once in the rubber band you have enough spare material to cut the tail off at a thickish length and even the thing up.

From the tigers' point of view, the beard is the problem, particularly when of that choice, silvery disposition. As you know, those cats are well dosed with lysergic acid diethylamide and are thus not wholely to blame for any mistakes that they may make at a distance. The concern of the monks is totally altruistic, trust me.

Rob C
« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 03:45:12 AM by Rob C » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2010, 02:20:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Well Ray, the problem is the beard. You and I share much the same hair-do other than the smallish ponytail that I am endeavouring to grow for the simple reason that with my wife I lost my barber (she was my barber). A neighbour told me that they are having the same problem with their new grand-daughter whose hair is still pretty sparse, but she wants bunches. I explained that if you are patient, the shorter bits catch up with the longer bits and then, voilà, once in the rubber band you have enough spare material to cut the tail off at a thickish length and even the thing up.

From the tigers' point of view, the beard is the problem, particularly when of that choice, silvery disposition. As you know, those cats are well dosed with lysergic acid diethylamide and are thus not wholely to blame for any mistakes that they may make at a distance. The concern of the monks is totally altruistic, trust me.

Rob C

Well, Rob, I guess I'm more practical than you. My partner is hopless at cutting hair (and sewing and operating the Blu-ray player etc) so I always had to pay to have my hair cut, a not unpleasant experience when the barber is female of course.

However, when one is at an advanced stage of baldness, it seems such a waste of money, and also rather pointless, to regularly cut the remaining few strands of hair that struggle to grow at the back of one's head.

On the basis that one would spend $20 every 4 months on a hair cut, that amounts to $60 a year, or, after ten years with compound interest, at least $1,000, sufficient to buy a small camera.

But that's not the full extent of the expense. There's the time involved in sitting and waiting. During the time it takes to have a haircut, I could process, color manage, and print out a multi-image, stitched, panoramic masterpiece.

A similar situation applies to shaving. 10 minutes a day for the rest of one's life amounts to approximately 8 whole working days per year (8 hours per day), doing nothing but scraping stubble off one's face.

Life is short and time is precious.

To get back to the original poster's question about whether nudes belong in a forum dedicated to landscape. My solution is, combine them both, as in the following landscape of a Himalayan dawn.

Let it never be said that I stray off the topic.  

[attachment=19252:Himalaya...th_Nudes.jpg]
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2010, 03:50:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Well, Rob, I guess I'm more practical than you. My partner is hopless at cutting hair (and sewing and operating the Blu-ray player etc) so I always had to pay to have my hair cut, a not unpleasant experience when the barber is female of course.

However, when one is at an advanced stage of baldness, it seems such a waste of money, and also rather pointless, to regularly cut the remaining few strands of hair that struggle to grow at the back of one's head.

On the basis that one would spend $20 every 4 months on a hair cut, that amounts to $60 a year, or, after ten years with compound interest, at least $1,000, sufficient to buy a small camera.

But that's not the full extent of the expense. There's the time involved in sitting and waiting. During the time it takes to have a haircut, I could process, color manage, and print out a multi-image, stitched, panoramic masterpiece.

A similar situation applies to shaving. 10 minutes a day for the rest of one's life amounts to approximately 8 whole working days per year (8 hours per day), doing nothing but scraping stubble off one's face.

Life is short and time is precious.

To get back to the original poster's question about whether nudes belong in a forum dedicated to landscape. My solution is, combine them both, as in the following landscape of a Himalayan dawn.

Let it never be said that I stray off the topic.  

[attachment=19252:Himalaya...th_Nudes.jpg]





But sir, I agree with you 100% which is why I am growing the tiny tail in my own endeavour to save the planet and avoid waste of resources! It's the same with washing the hair: think of the dangers of having my few stray strands slipping slowly down the drain, potential cloggers of the entire domestic system! Time and motion study, of course, is wholly on your side and on mine too, and what others see as sloven I am pleased to consider as frugal, careful and an altogether selfless gesture to the greater benefit of mankind. Think of the danger to salmon of too much detergent mixing with the waters of river and sea, not that there are any rivers on Mallorca, but the intentions are good. Which leads me directly to considering the relative merits of a small car engine labouring hard to mount an incline as compared with a larger one doing the same gradient on tick-over... where the greater menace to the balance of nature?

Rob C
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 03:52:10 AM by Rob C » Logged

Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 505


WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2010, 07:58:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Well, Rob, I guess I'm more practical than you. My partner is hopless at cutting hair (and sewing and operating the Blu-ray player etc) so I always had to pay to have my hair cut, a not unpleasant experience when the barber is female of course.

However, when one is at an advanced stage of baldness, it seems such a waste of money, and also rather pointless, to regularly cut the remaining few strands of hair that struggle to grow at the back of one's head.

On the basis that one would spend $20 every 4 months on a hair cut, that amounts to $60 a year, or, after ten years with compound interest, at least $1,000, sufficient to buy a small camera.

But that's not the full extent of the expense. There's the time involved in sitting and waiting. During the time it takes to have a haircut, I could process, color manage, and print out a multi-image, stitched, panoramic masterpiece.

A similar situation applies to shaving. 10 minutes a day for the rest of one's life amounts to approximately 8 whole working days per year (8 hours per day), doing nothing but scraping stubble off one's face.

Life is short and time is precious.

To get back to the original poster's question about whether nudes belong in a forum dedicated to landscape. My solution is, combine them both, as in the following landscape of a Himalayan dawn.

Let it never be said that I stray off the topic.  

[attachment=19252:Himalaya...th_Nudes.jpg]

I know this isn't the critique forum, but does anyone else feel that this panorama was over-Photoshopped?  
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad