|
Forums >
General Industry >
I chose not to shoot with a photographer based on
I think it's unprofessional to post on here and rant about it. I see pictures with photographers in it with their models and it creeps me out. This is why I turn down some photographers but I don't go posting all over MM about it. I might write a line in my profile about it but I just think it's best to keep things like to this to yourself. (Not trying to be mean even though it sounds it) Have a good day. Nov 05 07 03:47 pm Link I think it was wrong to turn down the photographer in public. Commenting on the photo is fine anything else should have been left to a PM. Please PM me the link I would like to view the work. While I understand you being offended by certain types of images I do respect the right of artists to express themselves. When I see more and more censorship going unchallenged in the US I believe we are headed down a dark path where free speech and democracy itself are threatened. Nov 05 07 03:47 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: what if I found the image to be art and found your comment offensive? Is it okay for me to leave remarks about you? Art is allowed to be offensive, personally I find your outrage more rediculous than what you have described in the photograph. Get over it, there are many bigger issues to tackle. The church has slaughtered millions of people over the history of time yet you find two nude women in a church offensive. If you don't want to work with him that is your choice, if he wishes to shoot a monk bending over a nun in a church over the baptismal fountain so be it. Don't work together, live and let live. Nov 05 07 03:47 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: Based on the description of the image you provided, I'd guess that the photographer knew full well that his photograph wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea. So yeah, I'd agree with those who said you should've resisted the urge to give him an unsolicited critique. Nov 05 07 03:48 pm Link This just seems silly. He wasn't asking you to be in such a picture. And you say you are not religious. It just seems silly to pass on someone's talent based on a shoot they did that had nothing to do with your session with him/her. These are professional relationships. I feel like we could be missing out if we allow our politics and convictions to dictate who we associate with professionally. It is really your own loss. Nov 05 07 03:48 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: How is this a disrespect thing? It sounds like a classically inspired pietà , where Christ's followers are mourning him after his death. Nov 05 07 03:49 pm Link Melanie Lynn wrote: No you're fine....everyone admits including me..... I WAS WRONG TO POST MY THOUGHTS ON HIS IMAGE..... I had a lapse in judgment.... I was outraged....big deal..he can delete the comment..... Nov 05 07 03:49 pm Link This thread reminded me of a question that I be ponderin' for awhile: OK... if ya COMPLIMENT someone in a thread, and post a link or the photo... it seems acceptable. No harm. No foul. No brig. If ya CRITICIZE someone, you'll get brigged for mentioning the name or slammed for posting the link or posting the photo. So... what happens if ya say... "I love this photo, it's inspiring, beatuiful, and well done" and post a link to the picture... which happens to be right next to the photo that ya think really sucks!?!?!? Nov 05 07 03:49 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: So you demand that he has respect for the church? Maybe he has a real gripe with the church in question? Seems like the catholic church isn't showing respect to its own members. Have you sent them a nasty email as well? Nov 05 07 03:49 pm Link pm me the link Nov 05 07 03:50 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: You changed your display name. Nov 05 07 03:50 pm Link millimeter wrote: it's not really a loss....I dont do this for a living..it's a hobby... if I dont want to shoot with him because of his image then its my choice Nov 05 07 03:51 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: No, that is copyright infringement... Nov 05 07 03:51 pm Link SayCheeZ! wrote: Ah...yet another MM loophole. Nov 05 07 03:51 pm Link you're certainly entiteld to your opinion. if the work offends you, don't do it. but the nice thing to do would have been to PM him, not make a public comment. that's just kinda rude. Nov 05 07 03:51 pm Link ChanStudio wrote: yeah time for something different Nov 05 07 03:51 pm Link  This appears to be similar to what you're describing, and it was made by Kahlil Gibran, a deeply respected Christian philosopher. I can't really tell without a picture to compare it to, though, though. Anyway, we all have our individual limits, and other people don't have to approve of them. Nov 05 07 03:52 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: Oh the irony. Nov 05 07 03:52 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: Here's a question: Nov 05 07 03:52 pm Link Gibson Photo Art wrote: dude have you read the whole thread....I simply stated my opinion.... again i'll say Nov 05 07 03:53 pm Link "Be careful of the words you speak, make them soft and sweet, you never know from day to day what words you will have to eat." Take 6-10 seconds before responding and ask, "will it get me in trouble." This has helped me many times and boy was I glad I did. Have a nice day. Nov 05 07 03:54 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: Why should we respect a representation of a naked dead guy on the cross to begin with? Nov 05 07 03:54 pm Link Not every photographer fits with all models and vice versa. To each their own. Images posted here on MM are just samples of work, posted to attract attention and viewing on this site, comments, crtiques, additional work. Some are friggin exceptional, others, eh... Would I be offended if someone decided not to shoot with me because of one image in my port? No, that's their choice. Personally, I would find it tough to rule out a model because of just one image in his/her port though... Nov 05 07 03:55 pm Link BTW, this thread has probably done more for this photo getting seen, than anything else you could have done. So as much as it "offended" you. You have become it's best advocate and agent. Nov 05 07 03:55 pm Link Just for the sake of argument, I'll say that her turning the photographer down and stating the reasons rather rationally is the LEAST of his concerns when it comes to dissenting opinion. Might have been a better way to handle it, but considering the imagery/controversy that the shot was intended to provoke, it's really not bad at all. If the photographer is offended even enough to take down the comment, he should probably choose his projects better. Nov 05 07 03:56 pm Link Lol...where is that damn edit button when you need it....where you could go and say in the OP that you were wrong to post that comment.... cause i think it got lost in the rest of the posts and people aren't able to catch it. I'm not sure what you were wanting to do with the photographer...but if it was something very creative...he looks like someone decent to work with...but as far as his work in general...i was not that impressed except with his concepts. The image in question....I'm pretty sure was photoshopped...so if you were offended because of the image itself then that's your call, but if you're offended because you think it was done IN a church (as you mentioned you're not sure if the church was aware of it) then don't be too upset as the the people and possibly the crucifix were photoshopped in. I am curious as to why you wouldn't work with someone based on that image if you're not a religious person anyway. And you could always tell the photographer that you're not willing to do anything along those lines. Nov 05 07 03:56 pm Link Fotticelli wrote: I'm stopping here......I so donot want this to turn into a religious thread as I see this is where its going sooooo Nov 05 07 03:56 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: Some of the greatest art has been created to challenge religion. Nov 05 07 03:57 pm Link millimeter wrote: agreed, tacky. Nov 05 07 03:57 pm Link millimeter wrote: thanks Nov 05 07 03:58 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: Why is the image humiliating and disrespectful? Nov 05 07 03:58 pm Link Anomie Studios wrote: Well, as you've seen here - so called "Christians" have a huge problem most of the time with "Live and let live"... Nov 05 07 03:59 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: Nov 05 07 03:59 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: I meant your loss in a larger way than money. I celebrate the people of associate with for their differences, not their like-mindedness. Nov 05 07 03:59 pm Link I have a question.... erm haven't MANY people been crucified? I though crucifixion was a common method of punishment at that time? Why do all crucifixions have to do with jesus? Nov 05 07 03:59 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: Chicken! Nov 05 07 04:00 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: How can it *not* turn into a religious thread the way you phrased your posts? "Outrage" was just one of your comments... Nov 05 07 04:00 pm Link ChristerArt wrote: Actually, it's not because it would probably fall within the guidelines of the "fair use" doctorine. US Copyright office wrote: [/ threadjack] Nov 05 07 04:00 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: The image you're describing, is one that is designed to create "controversy", and is not intended to display one's photographic talents. I'm reminded of the Madonna that was sculpted out of elephant dung, and it created news world wide, even thought the sculpture was not anything that Michelangelo would call "art". Had the artist made the scultpure out of clay, no one would have ever noticed his work. Nov 05 07 04:00 pm Link Phoenix1 wrote: You seem to have done it for him. Nov 05 07 04:01 pm Link |
