There is no 18 or over sign-in restriction on this sight. Children today have better computer savy than their parents. Do you not care what children have access to. As I said before, fb101 does impeccable work, but when it spills over into porn, it shouldn't be on a family access site. Do you show your children porn.
I have seen no such work of his that would qualify as porn. If you are worried about children stumbling in here and seeing nudity, maybe you should not have a computer in your home. Have you seen what pops up in Google images, even with filters applied?
M Lucca wrote:
fb101 I enjoy your soft-core porn/boudoir art whatever. I have a brain and choose to click on it or not. I am not forced nor coerced to it. But if you gotta go, you gotta go. Take care and au revoir.
This is a backhanded compliment if I've ever seen one. Soft-core porn now is it? Why do some insist on kicking him in the ass on the way out the door?
There is no 18 or over sign-in restriction on this sight. Children today have better computer savy than their parents. Do you not care what children have access to. As I said before, fb101 does impeccable work, but when it spills over into porn, it shouldn't be on a family access site. Do you show your children porn.
Bert,
Perhaps PARENTS should care what their children have access to. Every computer I have owned has an on and off button.
Hi Francois,
Sorry to hear you decided to leave. I've enjoyed all the years you've spent on our board and am saddened that one controversial image is the reason you are going. Although we do allow artistic nudes, content is always subjective to the rules of our forum and unfortunately I am put in the tough spot of monitoring theses images.
As I wrote you, the reason your photo was removed is because it received a great number of complaints and even the replies indicated that things were escalating out of control. To error on the side of caution, the image was deleted. In these cases, when something is boarder line offensive, I am forced to carefully delete the image - especially since many of us view these photos at our workplace, or at home with family around.
Again, as many have previously mentioned, we will all miss your posts. I hope you understand my position and action.
Please know that you are welcome to come back anytime.
Take care,
Fred
Ravitej wrote:
Well, I did not realize it was removed. As an art gallery assistant I also had to defend an artist who was "shut down" because it was too naughty. At the University it finally became a full scale riot of thousands. Over art. And he eventually won. So. I would then say to Fred Miranda that some art is criticized more that others. And have to defend the art. I didn't like it, but that is only my take on it. And my right to criticize. But if the forum took it down just because it was not liked. Well, that infringes. But that's tough too. You are an artist with sensitivity. And push the limits but in good taste. You bump right up against it sometimes, but never go over the line. And this past post simply did not go over the line. And some of the gruesome stuff here does. And some may want to go way over the line into outright porn. And Fred Miranda feels that have to have some criteria. Tough spot for them to be in. So, then it goes back to the forum members. I will formally say that the piece was not over the line and should be reposted. Even though I didn't like it and felt it was demeaning to women. I ask FM to repost. I ask for that freedom of expression. I ask for other forum members to post and email the same. Let this post and thread be a statement of freedom of expression. Let's have a vote. I cast mine for that freedom of expression. Who will join me in stating our desire to keep this artist online and showing by not censoring this piece of art, even if we don't like it. ...Show more →
+1 for Freedom of Expression. For all intents and purposes of this specific situation/debate/debacle...it's a WIN-WIN.
Francois, I have never commented on any of your threads, but have (for the most part) enjoyed your work for the reasons repeatedly stated above (vision, lighting, execution, etc). I'm not sure I enjoyed the image that was removed, but I do enjoy and look forward to 'the dark side.'
There were times when I wanted to hit the hide button because I didn't care for a few of your images...say three or four in a row. I chose to just not click on your threads for a while, but when I did I would be once again inspired by your (IMO) better work. In the end, I'm glad I did not 'hide' you...overall, I respect your work and although I do not do nudes I definitely find viewing your images helpful towards my own creativity, or lack thereof when I realize I'm not the one that's creative.
Sure, people complain all the time and they have the right to do that, but I also believe you have the right to express yourself photographically. I, for one, would like to see what else you're capable of. I've seen a lot of great portraits on this forum, but most seem to be great exposures, poses, angles, etc....but I don't see them as artistic if that makes sense. Your work, and many others, are truly artistic in my personal opinion.
Another vote requesting you to stay, please.
I am an amateur and value your work and would like to see the right towards freedom of expression on this forum.
Bert DeMars wrote:
PatrickE,
No, its not that simple, what about tablets and smart phones, and school and library computers. The internet is pervasive.
So...Parents shouldn't buy them a tablet or smart phone. If they are accessing porn sites at school or library computers, than the parents should be sitting across from the administrators demanding to know why those sites are accessible to children.
Francois, I'm sorry to see you go ... like many others, I don't comment on your work, but always enjoy it. Your use of light is masterfull and your models are out of this world! I guess I'll have to open accounts at a couple more sites to keep be inspired by your work.
Francois, please reconsider and stay on here. I think the more diversity in a forum, the better. As a relative newby, this is certainly the most eye-opening thread I've read on here. As a sometime poster of nude images myself, I still wonder exactly where the line is that will cause of my images to get deleted.
Bert DeMars wrote:
Because if allowed to stand, it will further encourage people of like ilk to post and drive away traditional shooters. Your work is impeccable, too bad you enjoy the darker side.
"too bad??" Too bad for whom?, Bert. What Did Francois' work drive you into your darker side?? And what you found you couldn't deal with?
Bad decision on your part, sir, bad decision! I can foresee the day when the slippery slope has some folks complaining about the sadomasochistic content of images embedded in landscape renderings. Bad decision indeed. Just a quick Q for ya: Was it indeed other photographers complaining? Or, did you get advertisers jumping up and down?
Francois - it will be my pleasure to join up on your site. You are a gifted photographer
Bert DeMars wrote:
PatrickE,
No, its not that simple, what about tablets and smart phones, and school and library computers. The internet is pervasive.
Do you really expect the library, school or tablets to be the moral compas for your children and tell them what is right and wrong? Don't you trust yourself and your children enough to realize that the dangers are always there but it is the people that make the choices based on their free will?
Sex, drugs, gore - whatever you find offensive - the only way to protect your children form those is by creating trust and understanding and teaching them to be able to distinguish all that on thier own.
Please spend more time with them rather than policing here and telling me what is moral or immoral.
Sorry to see Francois go. Much like Lisa's exit though, it does seem to me to be a bit of an over-reaction.
The "unpredictability" of the acceptance/rejection criteria almost sounds like a legitimate reason to get upset at first but the truth is that this kind of thing is always a judgement call and it will vary with the person making the judgment. If instead of mentioning the complaints, Fred had said "I judge this image to be in violation of the Forum Rules, which state:
Any photographs considered lewd, vulgar, sexually orientated, or pornographic in nature will be immediately deleted. Please only post decent, tasteful, artistic photographs."
. . . would that then have been acceptable? Or would that just then entail another round of complaints and hair-splitting over what is tasteful, sexually oriented, vulgar, etc. and why did such-and-such pic make it and mine didn't? I maintain that there will always be an element of "unpredictability" over a site-owner's acceptance/rejection criteria no matter how well they try to define it.
Want some evidence? Here is an explanation of NSFW from 500px:
Definition of NSFW
The definition of NSFW. It's not written in stone because photography is such a wide and varied art form. You could describe two photos with words and they may sound identical, but the subtle implications and style can greatly change the impression a photo will leave on the viewer. The guidelines we use is that if you wouldn't want your boss to catch you looking at it, then it's NSFW. For this guideline you have to humour me and imagine you work in a bank or you're a teacher or something. Obviously in my job and possibly yours, looking at nude photography isn't an issue, but we have the entire spectrum of people on 500px and have to cater to the middle of the crowd.
Deviant Art actually tries to get into graphic detail about what isn't allowed on that site where "pornography" is concerned but even with that site's exhaustive definition there are areas where it resorts to review "on a case by case basis".
So is Fred evil for rejecting this one image or is he a hero for turning a blind eye to Francois' other X number of images where a a case might have been made that they were "sexually oriented"? Is he a chump for bowing to member pressure or a hero for leaving these types of images in the People forum where they get seen by people who otherwise might not seek them out in an independent NSFW area?
I sort-of get the gallery analogy, too, but galleries get commissions on sales, don't they? Just how much crap do we expect Fred to take for $50 a year or whatever the upload and sell is going for now?
Unless Francois is planning on dedicating his photography to just S&M for the next year, it seems to me he could cut Fred a little slack on this one and stick around.
As I said before, Francois is a gifted photographer, no question. When you start demeaning women, that draws the line for me in an unrestricted, family access forum. Merely putting up (NSFW/violence) is an insufficient safeguard. My god, how many other photography forums have you been on where there is a warning of VIOLENCE. Doesn’t that bother you. What next (killing/rape), (animal mutilation). I’m not responding to anymore porn advocates.
Who the hell are you to make the judgment Francois was "demeaning" women? If it "draws the line," then get your own ass the hell off this site, indeed, a remarkable pleasure it would have been had you taken your petrified views and gone somewhere else.
Eyeball wrote:
If instead of mentioning the complaints, Fred had said "I judge this image to be in violation of the Forum Rules, which state: . . . would that then have been acceptable?
From my point of view, Yes!! He owns the site. He can do whatever the hell he wants with it w/o having to resort to a compilation of reviews/posts/whatever from folks whose moral framework they are imposing.
So, Yes, Fred doesn't want it? Fred axes it. End of story.
??" Too bad for whom
?