So I get it. And in alot of ways I agree with alot that's been said regarding the diversity of the site and the wish to respect everyone's comfort levels etc.
Recent activity and efforts especially by members such as Leroy have shown a willingness to adjust behavior and address concerns... and that's a good thing of course.
So I come online and as I log in to DPC I notice that a member, a paid member, who has proven his excellence and has been rewarded for his efforts has been assigned a back seat so to speak for excercising bad judgement. What was his error in judgement? He had the audacity to create a perfectly wonderful image that depicted a nude man in a bubble. What's especially troubling is the fact that there is nothing of 'interest' visible and it's a profile so low key that from the thumbnail, it's impossible to make out exactly what the image is anyway.
So here we are. We have the ability to honour and celebrate excellence and instead we treat our members... who I might add enjoy this site so much that they opt to PAY to become a member... like an embarassing relative whome we all love but would prefer to keep hidden until the company leaves.
How was the decision to hide this offensive image reached?
Did a number of members contact site council and complain?
Looking at the main site page, there are many, many wonderful images and of course all worthy of recognition. The one thing that stands out, for me at least is the very safe and vanilla subject matter. Hardly a good representation of what art and photography is all about.
Either this is a true photography site or it is not. Either people are allowed to express themselves completely or they are not. Of course within reasonable boundaries.
If I was this member, I would be very offended that this image would be deemed potentially inappropriate and for that I am sorry.
Rudy
The one where you turn on viewable nude images. Peete himself probably placed that photograph in the nude category, thus putting it behind the site's built-in filters.
I must be sleepy again, but what is the problem? I don't see anything different. You are talking about the Steve in the bubble image, right? It's still there. There were no complaints that I'm aware of.
Edit: As I understood it, the questions about that image had to do with multiple-exposures.
The photographer himself would have marked the image as 'adult content' - thus its not viewable by the public if you're not logged in. There is no conspiracy. :)
not talking conspiracy... :) and I figured that he had entered it in the nude category.
But he has won a ribbon and to me it probably would have been a good move to bypass the default and have the thumbnail visible as a sign of respect.
The point to me is that it's been pretty well stated that all images with any form of nude content mild or not must be put in the nude category which will automatically filter the image.
Seems to me that there are no exceptions and an image such as this which screams tastefulness dosn't get the full honors it deserves.
I think this could be a "true photography site" and limit the subject to flowers, portraits or anything else. I would venture to guess that many, if not most, professional photographers (excluding those who mainly deal with porn) have taken very few if any nude shots, and yet they can express themselves. (No, I haven't hidden nudes, but I don't care for most of them, and continue to hope this does not turn into a soft porn site.)
I would venture to guess that many, if not most, professional photographers (excluding those who mainly deal with porn) have taken very few if any nude shots, and yet they can express themselves.
Not including the three 'Nude' challenges, of course?
Nothing soft porn about the image that won the Red... :)
Don't know if that's even debateable.
Guess the point is, it's hard to have an all or nothing game plan and in light of all the good will being expressed lately ;), is it not possible that SC could act as a last resort filter where a situation like this one could be assessed. Pretty sure you would agree that this image dosn't fall into the soft porn category.
I would venture to guess that many, if not most, professional photographers (excluding those who mainly deal with porn) have taken very few if any nude shots..
I'm not a professional, nor ever played one on TV, but I just can't find any nekkid gurls around to shoot while I am driving down the road at 80mph...
not talking conspiracy... :) and I figured that he had entered it in the nude category.
But he has won a ribbon and to me it probably would have been a good move to bypass the default and have the thumbnail visible as a sign of respect.
The point to me is that it's been pretty well stated that all images with any form of nude content mild or not must be put in the nude category which will automatically filter the image.
Seems to me that there are no exceptions and an image such as this which screams tastefulness dosn't get the full honors it deserves.
I just don't see it as the "all of a sudden" problem that you're making it out to be. There have been nude winners before.. that were blocked for people that weren't registered and didn't have 'hide nudes' turned off, and the site lived on.
If anything, I think it serves to grab visitors and say.. "hey, that one's blocked, maybe I should register and check it out. Hey.. great shot.. I like this place, maybe I should stay."
You never know.
It's not ever been a problem to this point, and, as I said, I don't see it as a problem now.
My *point* is, a year ago, that image still would have been blocked for non-registered visitors.
There was no so-called "movement" then.
And if there is a bit of a concious effort to polish up what new people come and see, what problem is there in that, really? I don't get the opposition to it.
Artyste, with all due respect, you are wrong... log out and look back over the past year.
You'll see an image of Judi, a couple in bed together and a number of others that could qualify.
This image is 1 of two that had been designated in the past couple of weeks. And in addition, this image is far less risque than others that are not flagged... :)
unfortunately, they\'ve removed the gallery categorizations that used to be in the photo details section, so I can\'t tell if the few images from where you are referring to were categorized as \"Nude\" or not. I can\'t find them in the galleries though, but that\'s a lot of searching.
I do know, however, that all three nude challenges had a majority of the images hidden (as they were classified in the nude category), so I have to assume that the images you are referring to weren\'t categorized as such.
I\'ll *also* have to assume, for now, that Peete and the yellow ribbon in Fire *were* classified in the nude category by the photographers themselves, which is why they are blocked.
Whether or not this is a result of the call for a closer following of the site rules (that have always been in place), I don\'t know, or care.
The fact of the matter is.. through the history of the site, if you put your photo in the nude category, it gets blocked. Until someone on SC says \"Yes, we blocked these recent ones ourselves\", then I can\'t, in all honesty, consider it a part of some conservative leaning group effort to banish nudity... or whatever.
