[Ash]

The point wasn't missed. I know well it isn't about the images. How matters transpired on the thread in question was out of line and even ludicrous. It is fine for people to raise concerns about semantics like that but let's go easy on the 'taking offence' to wording like that, juvenile or not. Enjoy the photography and let us handle such issues rather than openly protesting about them, which only dampens the mood of the thread involved. Thanks.

[LFLee]

saw that thread.... and some of the pics posted are.... probably taken without the knowledge of the 'model'.

I have no comment on if it is right to close that thread.

[Rondec]

The Forum has to be a place where everyone feels welcome -- women, men, whoever. I didn't really look at the thread, but I thought the title alone seemed to be over the line where it would make some of the valued members of this community feel uncomfortable or, even offended.

[Imageman]

Attitudes are based on perceived notions of acceptability. We all try to fit in and be "normal" whatever that means. When we react to what confronts us we do this based on interpretation of what is and is not usual or acceptable, tempered with our own personality and even language ability.


The written word can be misinterpreted as the wrotten word.


Offence can be taken when unintentional just by poor choice of words or simple misreading. Attitudes towards behaviour suffer similar vagaries based on common acceptable standards which may become poor standards, and we are seeing this already.


Im sure the original issue was such a misunderstanding and such misunderstandings are part of life. They do however hold the seeds of future misunderstandings and maybe condemnation.


If we can accept misunderstandings will happen, we should perhaps correct them where we can and move on where we cant.


My own comments addressed the extended issue where misunderstandings lead to obtuse opinions and behaviours in society and is I believe strongly linked to the original issue.


These misunderstandings and behaviours are already causing victimisation, lets hope things improve.

[Ash]

The reason for the moderation team is to help make the forum a better place for everyone. If there is community disagreement expressed over a perceived negative connotation or socially unacceptable terminology, the mods will most certainly act upon that. Clearly, some members considered the term 'girls' more unacceptable than others, hence the slight backlash. However, rest assured that should there be such instances, please let them be known to the mod team through the reporting facility to avoid a barrage of comments that sent an otherwise benign thread into a lost cause.

[OregonJim]

Enjoy the photography and let us handle such issues rather than openly protesting about them

If there is community disagreement expressed over a perceived negative connotation or socially unacceptable terminology, the mods will most certainly act upon that.

On the one hand, you are telling us to "be quiet" and just let the mods handle it. On the other, you say the mods will act in response to "community disagreement".

You can't have it both ways, so which is it?

[Rupert]

I'm not going to get involved in this conversation, I was just asked to post this and make it Perfectly Clear that any complaint about lovely girls, clothed or unclothed was NOT made by Otis squirrel!

Thanks,...from Otis!

[DeadJohn]

On the one hand, you are telling us to "be quiet" and just let the mods handle it. On the other, you say the mods will act in response to "community disagreement". You can't have it both ways, so which is it?

should there be such instances, please let them be known to the mod team through the reporting facility to avoid a barrage of comments that sent an otherwise benign thread into a lost cause

Jim, I think you missed part of what Ash wrote. Ash wants us to contact a moderator and never reply within the thread if something is wrong; "Report a Post" = "community disagreement".

[sherrvonne]

It was a poor choice of words, if the thread was "post only young well shaped women" well, I still might think it's sexist but 'No grannies?' Who says granny can't be pretty? No kids? Girls are kids. Yes I have called men 'boy' but using 'boy and girl' around here in this area to refer to adults is usually reserved for family and those you are familiar with. I wouldn't call the grocery cart return person 'boy' or 'girl' nor would I say it to a client or post it. I know a lot of beautiful women but you won't find them stretched out over car hoods (maybe working under the hood) or posing in bikinis.

[Ash]

Jim, I think you missed part of what Ash wrote. Ash wants us to contact a moderator and never reply within the thread if something is wrong; "Report a Post" = "community disagreement".

Yes, that's what I meant.
Please report if you have a problem with a post, rather than blast the poster publicly.

[Imageman]

I want to add, I think the words were ill chosen.


I have no issues with ladies of any age as a portrait subject, but I see foolish photographers who slavishly search out the sharpest lens paying thousands for it, or picking a razorsharp lens in a boot sale or garage sale and then they think this is my perfect portrait lens.


They then take portraits with this ridiculously sharp lens, supersharp horrible images showing every pore defect and blemish on the poor sitters face. The sitter of course hates it and will never go near a photographer again unless of course shes his hapless wife whereupon she lays the law NO PHOTOGRAPHS OF ME EVER AGAIN.


I have seen disgusting and horrific images of poor ladies aged over 50, craggy features highlighted and exposed to the ridicule of the world.


If the photographer had any talent whatsoever he would have chosen a real portrait lens and sensitively handled the sitter, and a remarkable image could have resulted, instead we have a nightmare.


This is addressed to those idiots.


Learn what a portrait really means, learn what a portrait lens really is, learn what a sitter really wants.


Then you might call yourself a photographer.


As for the original comments that caused this furore, I think the statements originally objected to might have been made by someone as sick as I am of seeing portrait trash, and he just wants to see a good attractive image.


I suspect he no longer thinks any lady over 30 can look good, probably because of all those idiot happy snappers making sitters look incredibly ugly.

[severalsnakes]

Yeah, I did report the thread as offensive. I thought the thread was offensive. I reported it. I thought that's what the function was for. My bad.

It seemed plain to me that the OP on that thread wanted "hot babes", since, as was already mentioned, he requested "no children or grannies, only girl beauties" or whatever he said. The thread probably could have been better and functionally created and NOT offended anyone if the OP of that thread had just requested "Portraits of Beautiful Women"... That is not offensive at all.

If you had seen the images in the thread (the ones the OP approved of, not the children, "grannies", and the obligatory golden retriever) they were scantly clad, pouty sex kittens with their bodies on display like objects for consumption. Why don't we just have a thread for pornographic images at that point?

[Imageman]

severalsnakes


I understand exactly where your coming from and I agree that's what the function is for in my eyes too. If you see something that you think is offensive why should you be prevented from reporting it using the tool provided, I thought the reporting procedure simply made it visible so the moderators could rule on it.


Photography is a broad camp, and there is a glamour section as there is portrait and landscape etc, but glamour is bordering on pornographic and always will be in my opinion. I have produced art in the glamour genre, but it takes real talent to produce art that is not pornographic. It comes with the territory.


I would certainly never think badly of you or anyone for reporting something you sincerely were uncomfortable with. I sure would use the reporting tool as well if I was offended.

[DeadJohn]

Where can I find the Terms of Service? It's been a long time since I looked at them and I'm curious what they say about objectionable threads. Is saying "I think this thread is wrong" acceptable or unacceptable?

I think it's healthy for PF that the other thread had people publicly comment because mod actions are often hidden behind the scenes. Someone new to PF might have incorrectly assumed those threads were the norm if replies were limited to messages that supported the borderline creepy photo request.

[rbefly]

Well, we've been around the block with a few detours on this thread, but overall, I have to agree with the advice of 'Report, but don't add to the problem'.
Spoken as someone who is quick to tap the yellow triangle when I'm offended or feel the site is being misused. Family safe or NWS. No porn.
Also spoken as someone who's posted their fair share (and more!) of pretty young females, mostly within the context of a street theme like 'scrambling in a rainshower', Comic Con, parades and festivals, etc. Am I bad? Judging from the likes and comments, no. But perhaps the female contingent believe I'm (and probably several others) an unrepentant troglodyte?
Since I missed the thread in question, maybe my viewpoint isn't informed enough. Anyone got a link? Has it been deleted? I'd like to know if my past postings are acceptable within the standards described so far.
Just sayin'
Ron