Photographer
Moore Photo Graphix
Posts: 5288
Washington, District of Columbia, US
-jmp- wrote:
Because of the word lingerie?
What if I asked her to bring bra and panties?
Posters previously have said underwear is not the same as lingerie and everyone here agrees lingerie implies sexuality. Does underwear imply sexuality? Does bra and panties imply sexuality?
What type of re-wording needs to be done? The concept isn't the problem, the model isn't the problem, and the model's AGE is not the problem. This issue applies to models over 18.
Lingerie is taboo. Why? Is "bra and panties" socially acceptable? What about "underwear"? If you need to ask a group of strangers to make a decision, it tells me you're not ready to make that decision. To paraphrase a quote from Jurassic Park: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. What could be done and what should be done are 2 separate items. Do yourself a favor and shoot something more age appropriate next time.
Photographer
B Thomp
Posts: 266
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, US
(insert comment to enrage both sides)
Does anyone ever get convinced in these arguments in a forum?
for realz... lol
i guess its the same people who cast a vote based on a bumper sticker they saw.
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 21526
Chicago, Illinois, US
Here is a link to Wal-Mart's on-line site: http://www.walmart.com/ Oh, my god!!!! There is a pre-teen in a two piece swim suit. Call the cops. It kinda sorta looks like lingerie. Target has some of the same level work. Can't shoot that. Its provocative! Anybody that could see something sexual in that stuff has serious issues. So exactly how many object to that Wal-Mart ad? Someone mentioned that goof who was accused of shooting some nudes or trying too of a 17 year old. Rumor has it the model is a member and she started a thread about this problem weeks before the news came out. If this is the same model. In her thread she accused him of more then just photos. She claimed he tried to kiss her and take images as she changed. Look, I'm not suggesting what people should do but if its ok to be seen outside at the beach its fine to shoot. Lingerie also fine. Sexual in any way, not so fine. What's sexy? That may be harder to say but kids playing at a pool ain't it. When sites like Trueteen post sexy images of under 18 year old models that may also be fine. At least legal. What your neighbors and friends may think is another issue and judging by your fellow artists here. Most won't like it and will think your a creep.
Photographer
AusGrafix
Posts: 42
Batemans Bay, New South Wales, Australia
J LaTendresse Images wrote:
OMG Thank you, CGI. +10000000 This is exactly right. The puritanical sky-god worshipers in this thread really, REALLY need to take a deep breath and separate their personal beliefs from the law. Trying to foist your personal brand of morality onto other people by lying to them about what is legal and what is not is ludicrous and abysmally stupid.
Try looking up some actual legal precedent, actual case law. Use logic, not parables.
People here are obviously scared as fuck about being thrown in jail for kiddie porn but this scenario isn't even close. For people as frightened about legal consequences as some of you are, you'd think you'd have done even a nanosecond's worth of research.
Creamy fucking christ I swear since 9/11 we've been handing our balls back to the government on a silver platter. We are a nation of scared little bitches. Seems to be the best and most accurate line in this thread so far.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Steve Anderson Studios wrote:
It looks like the OP stopped replying a long time ago.
Hopefully this beating got through!
SA
www.SteveAndersonPhotogrphy.com All we've really learned is if you want to shoot teen girls in racy outfits, you have to work for Chanel.
Photographer
bmiSTUDIO
Posts: 1734
Morristown, Vermont, US
Yep. Here they are. Shots of teen girls in bras, compliments of Wal Mart. Why haven't those Wal Mart people been jailed yet? Why isn't that photographer in custody? Because these are not sexually arousing lingerie pics! They are legitimate commercial photos used to illustrate the practical aspect of underwear for minors. http://www.walmart.com/browse/Juniors/B … 639&depts=
Photographer
AJP Photography
Posts: 1074
Chicago, Illinois, US
-jmp- wrote:
Yeah I'm feeling I shouldn't have asked the model this, but again, with the shots she has in a swim suit I can't help but wonder what the big deal is. Apparently everyone else replying to this is borderline offended by me even asking, but I'm still trying to understand why it's wrong. And if it is so wrong, why swimsuits aren't wrong.
Isn't shooting a model in a two-piece swimsuit up against a wall the same intent of showing her body as shooting her in bra and panties up against a wall? Or is the viewer somehow comforted in the thought that maybe the swimwear image was shot in a studio in Miami and maybe they were about to go to the beach after the photo shoot? Swimsuits tend to cover moremthan lingerie. Theynare also made of thicker material that is opaque. And the fact that you asked her to bring lingerie and NOT a swimsuit means that even for you, or perhaps especially for you, there IS a difference.
Photographer
AJP Photography
Posts: 1074
Chicago, Illinois, US
Paolo Diavolo wrote:
thats a beautiful image, and in my opinion would still be tasteful if the model was a minor, provided the parents agreed. This is an important point. When I shoot minors (which I tend not to do entirely) I call and speak with the parents and cover what will be shot. If you were to do this would you have a problem telling a father to have his princess bring a swimsuit? Probably not. Would you have a problem telling him to have his sunshine bring some nice underwear to shoot in...I am going to guess you would...and there is you answer.
Photographer
James Sioux
Posts: 1366
Los Angeles, California, US
I don't work with minors, period. Clothed or unclothed; parents or no parents.
Photographer
Duncan Hall
Posts: 3104
San Francisco, California, US
I don't get all these "I'm shooting a minor" threads. Is there some shortage of legal women willing to get naked I'm not aware of?
Photographer
Beguiling Images
Posts: 155
Los Angeles, California, US
The only post I read was the OP's in this thread since he's asking a very specific question, and I'm not going to read about 250 responses to this thread.
First of all I understand that you didn't think anything of asking her to bring lingerie to the shoot but you need to put yourself in this 17 year old girl's shoes. 17 is a very confusing age for many girls as far as their sexuality goes. Not having enough experience dealing with it, all they usually have to go off and make their decisions about things involving or related to sex are their own preconceptions.
Many people see the word lingerie and automatically associate it with sex and seduction. Now you're telling me that not thinking anything of it you simply "asked her to bring lingerie to shoot in"....First of all from what I mentioned before do you think this was seriously the best approach as far as asking a 17 year old to pose in lingerie? When you mention the way that you mentioned it with no specifics you're totally leaving it up to their interpretation.
You need to know how to deal with the specific person you want to work with. I will give you an example.
...To quote you again you said that you "asked her to bring lingerie to shoot in"
The way I think you should have approached it would be to say. "I went through your portfolio and noticed that you had some bikini shots. I was wondering if you'd be comfortable with shooting something similar to what you've got in your bikini photos but of you in lingerie. Nothing too suggestive or sexual; I was thinking of something more along the lines of a fashion shoot that happened to incorporate lingerie. Please take a look at my portfolio to get a good feel of the direction of the shoot. (Everything in there, regardless of how much or how little the model is wearing is tastefully done.)...etc...etc...etc
You should have understood going into the situation that you needed to approach this girl, who has no experience doing lingerie at all, with kid gloves.
If the situation actually got you "confused-like" then you obviously didn't even consider the person who you were dealing with when asking the question.
as far as your question of "Do you think it's taboo to shoot minors in lingerie because of the word "lingerie"??"....You've got to be kidding me...Of course it is a taboo. The idea of a taboo stems from a social prejudice on a subject...So the question that you're really asking is do you think that "most people think it's wrong to shoot minors in lingerie." You bet your ass that they do.
I don't usually respond to forum posts but a model on here wanted me to add my input into the discussion and so I did. I don't mean to criticize you or the model in any way but to simply try and understand the situation as well as I could and explain how I would address this issue...Feel free to send me a message if you'd like to have a discussion any further regarding my response.
Photographer
DW DALLAM PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 1385
Arcata, California, US
Paolo Diavolo wrote:
seriously?? you really have to ask?
thats sick.
its not the amount of skin, its the intention of the picture.
lingerie is meant for sexual arrousal, minors are not.
you do the math. You can shoot any age minor nude, as long as it isn't explicit.
Photographer
DW DALLAM PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 1385
Arcata, California, US
Redd Dyver wrote:
Is it okay for a minor to walk around in pubic in a bathing suit: yes
Is it okay for her to walk around in public in lingerie: no
Same with photography.
Easy You sure about that?
Photographer
AJP Photography
Posts: 1074
Chicago, Illinois, US
DW DALLAM PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
You can shoot any age minor nude, as long as it isn't explicit. You can, but SHOULD you? And it doesn't mean yiu won't be arrested, it will just mean you will win your case and get to return to the shell of what was your life. Your professional careeer is over. Your friends and neighbors think you are a perv (at best) and you will always be on the police's radar...just don't see how this potential outcome is worth it.
Photographer
DW DALLAM PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 1385
Arcata, California, US
AJP Photography wrote:
You can, but SHOULD you? And it doesn't mean yiu won't be arrested, it will just mean you will win your case and get to return to the shell of what was your life. Your professional careeer is over. Your friends and neighbors think you are a perv (at best) and you will always be on the police's radar...just don't see how this potential outcome is worth it. I wasn't talking about the normative, only the descriptive. There are many fine art books with nude minors in them. You could probably find one at your local Borders.
Photographer
AJP Photography
Posts: 1074
Chicago, Illinois, US
DW DALLAM PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
I wasn't talking about the normative, only the descriptive. There are many fine art books with nude minors in them. You could probably find one at your local Borders. Yes but professionals tend to get leeway that a guy shooting out of his house will not. And I will gaurantee you WILL NOT find a nude art book with minirs in it at your local Borders. They CAN sell it, but with the public outcry were they to do so...again, why would they...notice a trend?
Photographer
DW DALLAM PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 1385
Arcata, California, US
AJP Photography wrote:
I didn't say you couldn't buy them online, I said IN the store. And if you click find it In the store at barnes and noble you will see that it isn't carried IN the store. That's because it's old news. If it were a new book from Sally Mann, it would be in the store.
Photographer
AJP Photography
Posts: 1074
Chicago, Illinois, US
DW DALLAM PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
That's because it's old news. If it were a new book from Sally Mann, it would be in the store. Considering it is not currently in the store and no books covering child nudity are in the store, nor have I ever seen any there, I guess I will have to take your word on that.
Photographer
K E S L E R
Posts: 11574
Los Angeles, California, US
Photographer
Harold Rose
Posts: 2925
Calhoun, Georgia, US
-jmp- wrote:
= bad form??
Just curious. I'm wanting to work with a 17 yr old and asked her to bring lingerie to shoot in and didn't think twice about it. She said she doesn't do lingerie shoots, but she has a couple of shots in her portfolio with her in a swimsuit and got me all confused-like.
Do you think it's taboo to shoot minors in lingerie because of the word "lingerie"?? Maybe lingerie implies some uber seductive glamour images.. which isn't the idea at all... Are two piece swimsuits just more acceptable although they show the same if not more skin? Hmmm...
The model is bringing her mom, of course, and I backed off and said we'd just shoot the fashion images... but I'm still confused... I've never really encountered this before and would love to hear your thoughts. I have a question? Why does something like this drag on and on.. Why not go for a quest for true knowledge, not questionable opinions. Why try to sell an opinion just for satisfaction..
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
Harold Rose wrote:
I have a question? Why does something like this drag on and on.. Because people insist on "answering" without any real answer.
Harold Rose wrote:
Why try to sell an opinion just for satisfaction.. Good question.
Photographer
Gaze at Photography
Posts: 4371
Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, US
Another thread about minors.....
Jeeezzzzz.... You guys kill me with your Sarah Palin Purity Bullshit.
Does anyone remember Brooke Shields? There are dozens more, but she still sticks out in my head. How old was she in Pretty Baby?
Morals are too subjective, and legalities are not for forums, so this thread has lasted longer than I ever figured it would...
It's not illegal. Leave your right-winged "but should you?" at home. There is someone everywhere that will make a stink about anything you shoot, from architecture to fine art nudes and all inbetween.
If we all sat around and waited for approval for something, that a few would find contraversial, we would grow old and alone with nothing to show for our dreams or work.
Damn the torpedoes,
Photographer
pullins photography
Posts: 5884
Troy, Michigan, US
David Gaze wrote:
Another thread about minors.....
Jeeezzzzz.... You guys kill me with your Sarah Palin Purity Bullshit.
Does anyone remember Brooke Shields? There are dozens more, but she still sticks out in my head. How old was she in Pretty Baby?
Morals are too subjective, and legalities are not for forums, so this thread has lasted longer than I ever figured it would...
It's not illegal. Leave your right-winged "but should you?" at home. There is someone everywhere that will make a stink about anything you shoot, from architecture to fine art nudes and all inbetween.
If we all sat around and waited for approval for something, that a few would find contraversial, we would grow old and alone with nothing to show for our dreams or work.
Damn the torpedoes, Brooke was 12, and I think 13 or 14 when she did those Calvin Klein ads. Folks should look to Court decisions regarding what is legal, as opposed to the errant "opinions" of the masses
Photographer
pullins photography
Posts: 5884
Troy, Michigan, US
David Gaze wrote:
Another thread about minors.....
Jeeezzzzz.... You guys kill me with your Sarah Palin Purity Bullshit.
Does anyone remember Brooke Shields? There are dozens more, but she still sticks out in my head. How old was she in Pretty Baby?
Morals are too subjective, and legalities are not for forums, so this thread has lasted longer than I ever figured it would...
It's not illegal. Leave your right-winged "but should you?" at home. There is someone everywhere that will make a stink about anything you shoot, from architecture to fine art nudes and all inbetween.
If we all sat around and waited for approval for something, that a few would find contraversial, we would grow old and alone with nothing to show for our dreams or work.
Damn the torpedoes, "full speed ahead" Adm. David Farragut
Photographer
The Cameraeye
Posts: 619
Orange, California, US
-jmp- wrote:
= bad form??
Just curious. I'm wanting to work with a 17 yr old and asked her to bring lingerie to shoot in and didn't think twice about it. She said she doesn't do lingerie shoots, but she has a couple of shots in her portfolio with her in a swimsuit and got me all confused-like.
Do you think it's taboo to shoot minors in lingerie because of the word "lingerie"?? Maybe lingerie implies some uber seductive glamour images.. which isn't the idea at all... Are two piece swimsuits just more acceptable although they show the same if not more skin? Hmmm...
The model is bringing her mom, of course, and I backed off and said we'd just shoot the fashion images... but I'm still confused... I've never really encountered this before and would love to hear your thoughts. How old are YOU?
Photographer
Rik Williams
Posts: 4005
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
-jmp- wrote:
= bad form??
Just curious. I'm wanting to work with a 17 yr old and asked her to bring lingerie to shoot in and didn't think twice about it. She said she doesn't do lingerie shoots, but she has a couple of shots in her portfolio with her in a swimsuit and got me all confused-like.
Do you think it's taboo to shoot minors in lingerie because of the word "lingerie"?? Maybe lingerie implies some uber seductive glamour images.. which isn't the idea at all... Are two piece swimsuits just more acceptable although they show the same if not more skin? Hmmm...
The model is bringing her mom, of course, and I backed off and said we'd just shoot the fashion images... but I'm still confused... I've never really encountered this before and would love to hear your thoughts. Sexualizing minors is immoral, besides she said no. The End
Photographer
Photons 2 Pixels Images
Posts: 17011
Berwick, Pennsylvania, US
DW DALLAM PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
You can shoot any age minor nude, as long as it isn't explicit. True. But caution should still be taken if doing so as well as having a team of people involved (including a knowledgeable attorney) to make sure everything is done above board.
I certainly wouldn't recommend to some hobbyist that it's perfectly fine for him to take nude photos of his neighbor's daughter even with consent from the neighbor and daughter no matter how innocent and artistic the photos are.
Photographer
sublime LightWorks
Posts: 6074
Atlanta, Georgia, US
David Gaze wrote:
Another thread about minors.....
Jeeezzzzz.... You guys kill me with your Sarah Palin Purity Bullshit.
Does anyone remember Brooke Shields? There are dozens more, but she still sticks out in my head. How old was she in Pretty Baby?
Morals are too subjective, and legalities are not for forums, so this thread has lasted longer than I ever figured it would...
It's not illegal. Leave your right-winged "but should you?" at home. There is someone everywhere that will make a stink about anything you shoot, from architecture to fine art nudes and all inbetween.
If we all sat around and waited for approval for something, that a few would find contraversial, we would grow old and alone with nothing to show for our dreams or work.
Damn the torpedoes, "Right-winged but should you?" Dude, the OP asked for the opinion or maybe you missed that little fact while climbing up on a high horse?
Photographer
Russell Imagery
Posts: 684
Marksville, Louisiana, US
CGI Images wrote:
Yeah because jail is filled with sooo many people that were participating in perfectly legal actions. No, jails are filled with guys who were finding ways to photograh under-age models, for personal use, in sexy lingerie without the permission of a legal guardian.
Photographer
Dale at Killer Image
Posts: 597
San Diego, California, US
Russell Imagery wrote:
No, jails are filled with guys who were finding ways to photograh under-age models, for personal use, in sexy lingerie without the permission of a legal guardian. This post sums the thread up!
Some of these post remind me of the things extremely drunk people tend to say when you ask them not to drive... "whaaaaa, you dont theenk essss ok to have a beeer once in a whaaal? I wont git caught, I'm a gooot driber, you just beeen an arshloe....."
It's really funny how people keep bringing up Brook Sheilds, but not mentioning that the guy who photographed her is on the run (now in custody) because he was about to be sentenced to PRISON.
Photographer
Tropical Photography
Posts: 35564
Sarasota, Florida, US
Rik Image wrote:
Sexualizing minors is immoral, besides she said no. The End I agree with the she said no part, but sexualizing minors is immoral, REALLY?? Perhaps to you. But not to all. Particularly to the minors themselves. I think they sexualize themselves more than any photographer..
Bottom line, your morality is not everybody's morality.. Not saying your wrong, you're free to believe what you like, but it's not the final word.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Russell Imagery wrote:
No, jails are filled with guys who were finding ways to photograh under-age models, for personal use, in sexy lingerie without the permission of a legal guardian. Dale at Killer Image wrote:
This post sums the thread up!. name one person in jail for just having images of minors in their underwear...just one...
there will always be some other illegal aspect connected ie: sexual content, implied sexual, lascivious displays of genitalia, blah blah...
this post only sums up the ignorance disseminated in this thread...
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Russell Imagery wrote:
No, jails are filled with guys who were finding ways to photograh under-age models, for personal use, in sexy lingerie without the permission of a legal guardian. No.. they are not. People are not in jail for legal activities. If they photographed a minor illegally, then perhaps.. like "PORN", but lingerie, even somewhat sexy lingerie is NOT defined as porn.
Like Doug said... show the cases or STFU. If it was as likely for trouble as you say, should be easy for you to find 3 or 4 cases of photographers in jail for taking pictures of "minors" in lingerie/underwear in non-porn fashion. Good luck.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Keith aka Wolfie wrote:
I agree with the she said no part, but sexualizing minors is immoral, REALLY?? Perhaps to you. But not to all. Particularly to the minors themselves. I think they sexualize themselves more than any photographer..
Bottom line, your morality is not everybody's morality.. Not saying your wrong, you're free to believe what you like, but it's not the final word. Good point, and I love how they throw the word out "minor" implying there is no difference between a 17yr old young woman and a 6yr old fresh from the sandbox.
And once again for the new arivals showing off their lack of actual facts. This is perfectly legal. www.trueteenbabes.com
Photographer
Virtual Studio
Posts: 6725
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
AJP Photography wrote:
Yes but professionals tend to get leeway that a guy shooting out of his house will not. And I will gaurantee you WILL NOT find a nude art book with minirs in it at your local Borders. They CAN sell it, but with the public outcry were they to do so...again, why would they...notice a trend? >> professionals tend to get leeway that a guy shooting out of his house will not.
This was going to be my exact response to this.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
AJP Photography wrote:
Considering it is not currently in the store and no books covering child nudity are in the store, nor have I ever seen any there, I guess I will have to take your word on that. Actually I saw both the David Hamilton book and Sally Mann's immediate family in a Barnes and Noble on the East side of Denver a couple weeks ago.
IF the stores dont have them in stock there are two reasons, one, because they are popular and sell, or two because they are kind of old and out of date.
Neither reason has anything to do with the store's view of "morality", walk into the store and ask them to order one for you, they'd happily oblige.
|
