Claudia

Nice picture Claudia. A study in pink: I like the pink to beige tonality that doesn't jar the senses. The bathtub rim at the lower left detracts from the composition, and in that sense the framing could have been better.
Cheers
Mike

Asher

yes isn't she! I am using this shot which is untouched and then showing the same shot using my own coloring in different hues to show what can be done in so many ways with the same photo-

Micheal
Thank you- I tried to recrop as you so mentioned and as I told Asher I am using this photo to show how many ways one can go with a beautiful photo

here is my first example-

Hello Charlotte

I love the first one, it made me smile as soon as I saw it, she is adorable!!

Oh Charlotte! What have you done to the poor child?

Please excuse me for expressing an honest opinion, but it's ugly.

And in passing, I might comment on the sad fashion of the modern world, which makes it desirable for a toddler to wear nail varnish. Nothing to do with me of course - just tell me to mind my own business.

Regards,

Stuart

StuartRae said:

....And in passing, I might comment on the sad fashion of the modern world, which makes it desirable for a toddler to wear nail varnish. Nothing to do with me of course - just tell me to mind my own business.
..

Click to expand...

Hi Stuart,

I empathize with your sentiments with respect to the unwanted effects of the fashion industry. However, there are some very old cultures around the world (such as Arabic or Indian) wherein it is normal to colour one's nails (usually by means of Henna plant extract). And young children (toddlers) are a bit like magpies, they like everything which is shiny and glittery (LOL).


Cheers,

Hi Cem,

And young children (toddlers) are a bit like magpies, they like everything which is shiny and glittery (LOL).

Click to expand...

Indeed. And little girls like to wear their mother's clothes, especially, for some reason, high heels! It's over 30 years since I raised my daughter, and she'd have looked rather odd dressed in my motor-cycle boots and crash helmet!! Mind you, these days she rides a V-twin Honda


Charlotte,

Please forgive me for if I appeared rather rude, but I just don't understand what you're trying to achieve with these extreme and often bizarre edits. That's my problem of course.

Regards,

Stuart

The pictures just cross the line in presenting a imagery which can be taken by pedophiles.

OPF has extreme views on the protection of children that goes beyond the sensible caution that even the most careful parents possess. We have a
western culture that has glamorized children and as a result it has inadvertently helped to facilitate the ease by which mal-intent against innocents results in harm. This is the 2cd time in thousand of images that I have moved pictures. These are perfectly innocent except they also happen to overlap to a dangerous area which we have no choice, by our extraordinary protectiveness and also a view from law enforcement, that these cross the line, but to remove these pictures.

Do not take this a some condemnation of the photographer or the pictures in question. I thought about this for some time. If it was merely a legal issue, I might feel differently.

I hope you all understand that this does not materially conflict with out open attitudes.

Asher

The pictures just cross the line in presenting a imagery which can be taken by pedophiles.............but to remove these pictures.

Click to expand...

How very sad that this is necessary. You have to be pretty desperate to be aroused by the images of Claudia, especially as, to be brutally frank, there are no genitalia in view.

Perhaps we should also ban pictures of sheep, donkeys and over-amorous dogs. Funny old world, isn't it?

Stuart

Sexualized Kids...

While Charlotte you probably took this image of the adorable Claudia without thinking anything except a parent's love, it's sad in today's world we have to be very careful with our kids so that they do not become unwitting victims even without knowledge. Our society has become so torn with the need to combat behavior that defiles childhood innocence.

That said, today as parents we must be careful in what we allow even in innocence so that it is not misconstrued.

As a photographer who specializes in Children and Weddings, I have to say that I have a rule that I won't post any images of kids - other than newborns under 6 months when they are bare and no genitalia ever will I shoot. It's just sad, but, it's one way I can protect these little ones and keep their innocence.

What a shame the picture was removed.

Jim Bulkowski said:

What a shame the picture was removed.

Click to expand...

Of course, you are right. However, you and almost everyone else might very well do the same after reading what is close to my reply to Charlotte:

"First thanks so much fro not screaming at me! You would be right!

You do not realize that there are guys prowling the internet. Such pictures with your name can be linked together with your address eventually, maybe now, maybe next year to locate you. Besides that pictures are traded. Once people complain specifically, I have no protection from prosecution and this is not the fight I want to make right now. The massacres in Darfur or the bombs in Beirut or slaughter of the few remaining gorilla's in Burundi or the lack of hope for people in the large megacities are more of immediate concern to me. Anyway, I cannot afford the cost of dealing with the FBI if someone collects these pictures and they get arrested for some real bad thing they did to a child in Thailand or whatever.

I have on my coffee table "Emerging bodies". I try to be open. We had here a grandmother who had exactly such pictures and took them into the drugstore to get developed and printed. When she cameto collect the prints, she was asked to wait while they collected them and then the police arrived. The long story was she was charged with pornography and supported pedophilia and had to spend all her money to defend herself. In the end to prevent losing her house she pleaded "Nolo contender" and negotiated a lesser sentence/probation but she was now disgraced and penniless

"A sixty-five-year-old New Jersey grandmother and respected photographer was arrested for taking **** photographs of her two four- to six-year-old granddaughters. [182]

The incident is the latest in a number of arrests where parents or family members face charges for pictures that they claim were innocent family snapshots or artistic endeavors. [183]

Recently, an NPR reporter who says he was researching a free-lance article on police tactics in pursuing child pornographers was himself arrested for receiving child pornography. The defendant moved to dismiss, raising a free speech claim, but the court rejected the motion. It held that even "well-intended uses of" images of child pornography are unprotected. [184]" Source .

So I hope you understand. We live in a dangerous world! Yes, if you are Jack Sturges and I'm Barnes and Noble, we together would win in court and more copies of the book would sell to pay for all the lawyers!

Asher

Protecting children has to come first.

And yes, its a shame we live in a sick world. But when in doubt, protect the children.

I posted a pic of my daughter that could in no way be sexualized other than by a pedophile. Asher pointed out that identifying her as mine could be dangerous. I was grateful to him for reminding me.

To all who responded to this thread-

I only saw beauty
what becomes of us when we cannot or dare not have freedoms, I guess Big Brother is taking care of us all-
Asher and I have discussed this picture. There was no genitalia shown at all I tried to crop as Micheal Stones suggested to keep part of the bathtub out and for me it became mostly a head shot- albeit takes away from the theme but none the less still a good shot-

she like nail polish-LOL she is female-
there are web sites of fine art photography for toddlers etc
that show a ****ness that one might say was dangerous-I wonder with all those laws how they haven't been put in jail- hmm-
art is only ugly if your mind is-
thank you Asher for reminding me of my freedoms
this freedom of speech is a big one

Charlotte

Charlotte, I never thought for a minute you posted anything inappropriate. There are just some real sickos out there.

Rachel

there will always be sickos-always
it is part of our humanity and won't go away
it is disturbing for artists that art can be labeled as such-
mine was an honest work, it deeply saddens me this
of course children should be protected I know you understand

Charlotte

I missed the story, but got an idea about it....

6 years ago our house was vandalized by 2 neighbours kids, throwing wrotten food and eggs against the house when they were sure we were not there. - Parents drunken as Hell in Pub, kiddos 12 and 14 at 2AM with cans of cider and joints on the street, well this was never an issue! -

A few days later I saw them walking by with packs of eggs, starting to load up and I went out and took photos. Naturally they ran like Hell.

Called the cops.

Cops came and I showed them the photos and the damaged housefront.

Cops showed me complaint by the parents, about me taking photos of thier innocent children, implicating I'd be a sicko.

Cops knew it was utter bullshit, but could not do anything. I got a warning not take pictures of children.

We sold the place and moved... End of story.

Well, not really...

I met the older one later on a football pitch in the dressing room in the process to lift pockets and steal money. Needless to say I scared the living daylight out of him, he pissed into his jeans. LOL

Georg

what a story!
it seems these days no matter what you do the laws always seem to tag the wrong people
sad-sad-

Charlotte

That was just the short version, 2 Lads from wellknown troubled families terrorised the whole neighbourhood since years, until I moved in there no one stood up for themselves. Of course, being german, they picked up on that and marked me as a Nazi, adolescent idiots without any guidance they were.

When neighbours realized that I don't take ****, they asked me for help, so I was trying to talk to the parents,well, they do not deserve this descripton to be honest, to no avail.

The third kid was 21 and was just released from jail when he payed me a visit and threatened me at the door of my own house to stick to my own business.... otherwise....

Well, he did not know me, and I knew he was adult age and fully responsible, so before he knew it I dragged him of the street into the house and gave him a lesson he will never forget. Basically I told him that if he ever shows up in this street at any given time again, I would drag his sorry arse into the mountains and burrie him there alive.... and well, I emphasized it in my ways to make sure that he believes every single word, he better, I spare you the details. - In fairness, I never saw him again, but his little brothers continued, and you know what, now I live in the irish outbacks, happy as Larry. So I guess I should be sending them a card saying "thanks" you flippin brats! LOL

I agree with protecting kids 100%! Also wish I could see the photo which generated all the discussion, as I cannot really participate in the discussion without it.

Hi Shane,

Trust me the photo shows nothing vulgar. Who knows, you might not even give it two seconds attention! You might not even have commented except to have appreciated the fond memory of children and the joy they bring to our society and our families. However, the pictures, as described in feedback by enough people, easily can be construed as (therefore mistaken by authorities for) exploitation of a little child for creating a boudoir style shot.

My first reaction was to simply send the picture to you and then what I would be doing, having discussed this, would be sharing potential child porn. That act is illegal in the USA. Now IMHO, this is absolutely O.K. most OPFrs would not reply to it. However, the police could see this as pandering and priming child porn. The laws are not reasonable. Please go back up and look at the cases cites and the other innocent grandmother.

In OPF, we will allow freedom except for undressed children which are valuable currency for trading amongst the sickos that prowl the internet. I myself have many photography books and amongst them some classic for which the court costs for winning have already been paid by Barnes & Noble and other people with deep pockets. I don't seriously believe that there is anything wrong with the picture. The child is wonderful, the picture is O.K. to me and there are many pictures of her that are really good.

Shane you can discuss this picture simply by imagining a child in the bath leaning forward with hands (painted finger nails) spread to support herself. It's nothing that most would have concerns about amongst family and friends as it's innocent. The same image on the trading circuit amongst pedophiles has value as much as cash. It's a unit of currency.

Further, such undressed-child pictures can be used by that or another individual to target the actual child as people are savvy in that. After all that's their sick obsession.

This sort of thing is so hard for us because the very nature of OPF is to be open. Being a robust antagonist to accepted ideas or standards in photography or social behavior is accepted in OPF. We just insist on not being demeaning and antagonistic to other people. So we can argue ideas. This issue of child photography is a delicate line. I had my own reservations and personally waited to see if my own opinions were a spur of the moment feeling or else I would later relent. However, on consideration I realized that the picture did indeed serve as potential food for the child image collectors and therefore failed the test as far as the TOS of OPF. Subsequently, independent opinions of others came in and that cemented my stance. So as you can see this is not a clear path for us but one fraught with risks of being the very thing that we don't want, that is closed-minded. Still, in the final analysis I hope you will see that it's been handled fairly.

Charlotte's art style, the one that distinguishes her work, (which itself has made me struggle with my own opinions), is not at any risk of being limited here. Her best work is with faces and a few, I believe, are outstanding and worthy of attention.

Asher

Thanks for all the info Asher...no, don't send it...I really don't want it. But thanks for commenting.

I understand the need to be careful. As you know, I have two girls and this is always a concern...especially since I put my own photos out on the internet as you know.

In fact, there is on my website that I may take down hearing this discussion...maybe I'll PM you and see what you think...

I will also add that as parent's, often our mind is not capable of viewing a shot of our kid objectively so if a shot is better not shown and we did not know it, it is always appreciated when pointed out to us. It is also important for us, as parents, to try and look at any photo as others might see it...this is hard to do, at least it is for me.

The shot was beautiful- worthy in nature- Asher and I have discussed this
it seems to have caused a lot of thoughts on children and the nature of what is to be seen
through the lens
it is on my desk top as screen saver and people that come and go see the shot and think its the best I've done-
be that as it may laws are made and laws can be changed
I respect the appointments of Asher's forum

Charlotte

Asher Kelman said:

Trust me the photo shows nothing vulgar. [...] However, the pictures, as described in feedback by enough people, easily can be construed as (therefore mistaken by authorities for) exploitation of a little child for creating a boudoir style shot.

[...]

Further, such undressed-child pictures can be used by that or another individual to target the actual child as people are savvy in that. After all that's their sick obsession.

Click to expand...

May I remind you that anything can be and will be construed as exploitative. That anything will be used by some kind of pervert for his/her own gratification without regard to other living beings.

A few weeks ago a completely inane "discussion" welled up on a perfectly harmless, completely innocent photo emerging from a longer shot Annie Leibovitz did with the daughter of Billy Ray Cyrus. Clearly the main reason was to diss Ms Leibovitz, the partial nudity of young Hannah Montana, however, seems to have disturbed lots of people. My [disgusted] reaction to the way people - definitely not just US Americans! - treat can be read on The Online Photographer, in the comment section.

And here I come, to a photographic forum touting openness, in which the owner himself declares an image perfectly harmless - and the photo has been removed. We are bound to discuss in a vacuum. Vacuous.

Do not get me wrong, I do see that one needs to protect oneself from possible litigation or even worse. Isn't it terrible we are now preempting any problems by censoring ourselves? I am not free of that, particularly when it comes to child photography. A few years back, lots of years really, I dabbled in photographing children on the street. I love they way they can totally immerse themselves in relatively mundane phenomena.

Back then we had a lot of street musician, and many [smaller] children looked at them in awe. You could get very nice portraits that way. I am not doing it anymore. Much too often I was seen as a pervert. With film I couldn't just delete the image in front of the parents, so I stopped photographing children. From a rational standpoint the hassle was too much; in all honesty I am afraid.

Newspeak [in the guise of political correctness] and fear-mongering are stifling our societies, our creativity. The only funny thing about htis: we are much closer to hardcore Islamism than many realise. Let's bring in the chador!