|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
topless/16 yr old
we have all see brooke shieilds naked at 10, and there are the sally mann shots of her kids naked and david hamilton photos. What are your thoughts of phtographing a 16yr old possible toplless ...nothing porn...nothing sexual what are the toughts Oct 02 09 11:38 pm Link  I wish we could shoot whatever we wanted, but sometimes we can't. Art isn't art anymore - its censorship. Though this is going to be a fun thread  Oct 02 09 11:42 pm Link Not again. Anyhoo... If I want the shot, know that the laws of my state allow it, feel that it doesn't run afoul of definitions in 18 USC 2256, and am willing to accept the societal views of it (regardless of its legality), I'd go for it. Oct 02 09 11:43 pm Link is there an artistic purpose in shooting a 16 year old topless or would a 19 year old suffice? is it a specific 16 year old exception or a 'rule' 16 year old? these are the questions I would ask before having thoughts... Oct 02 09 11:44 pm Link Never in th US but everywhere else its acceptable Oct 02 09 11:46 pm Link Hi from Danbury.  I wouldn't object to a photo like that, but I feel like the nudity would somehow have to be "necessary" (don't know how it could be necessary, though)... in other words, no nudity for the sake of nudity. Oct 02 09 11:47 pm Link What's the point? Really, why is there even a need to mess with shooting nudity with underage models? There are so many models of age, so many looks, and many can look young enough to require documentation to prove they are of age anyway. Unless there's an awfully good reason, just, why would you even want to get into dealing with that? Oct 02 09 11:52 pm Link i feel they were just good lookalikes for those shots, that are of legal age, but have the look and body of a young person Oct 02 09 11:55 pm Link AVD AlphaDuctions wrote: well maybe she will be 14///,not pornish at all./Veru dresses in elegant settings but where top me be shown......m0her is there Oct 02 09 11:59 pm Link Google "naturism". Click on "Images". EDIT: Losts of nude pics of people of every age, so it's 18+ (even though lots of people in the pics are much younger than 18) so you probably don't want to do this at work. 'K? Oct 03 09 12:05 am Link JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote: No matter what your intention... it just begs for sexual exploitation.... sad, but true. Oct 03 09 12:13 am Link JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote: after you learn how to use a spell check please respond with answering, "what's the point?" Oct 03 09 12:17 am Link  Don't mind me, please continue with your conversation... Oct 03 09 12:21 am Link spell check is our friend Oct 03 09 12:24 am Link All it takes is one prude to see the picture, notify the police or child protective agency and you could be in for a world of hurt. Even if you came out cleared of everything in the end, you will have had a TON of bad publicity and have spend a lot of money on legal fees to say nothing of the time you will loose in court, hearings, etc. What one picture could possibly be worth taking that risk? Tommy Oct 03 09 12:24 am Link JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote: By whose definition, yours? I think this is one of those situations where, if you have to ask, you probably know the answer. Oct 03 09 12:36 am Link That you are asking the question at all implies (to me anyhow) that you have not thought through the rationale for making images that will expose a model who cannot legally provide adult consent. If your concept is sound, and you can prove it through the development and organic growth then the aforementioned *prude* will be your only enemy. If your rationale is questioned you must have evidence of, and a clear artistic direction for, making the image. If you can't be bothered going through this process, then how can you say that you need to make this image? *Because you want to* or *Because it's art and f#%k censorship* just doesn't stand up... IMO it's all about integrity, google *Bill Henson*.  Oct 03 09 12:42 am Link JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote: Does this answer your question Oct 03 09 12:54 am Link JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote: My thoughts are to skip the shot. Don't spend any more of your valueable time thinking about it. My thought has nothing to do with legality or morality, its simply the gain from it is can't really be worth the drama and backlash. Oct 03 09 01:01 am Link CK2 Photography wrote: Unlike Sturges, Tony Ryan doesn't primarily focus on nudes of children but he has some in his galleries and in his book that [inserts shameless plug] I wrote the introduction to. Oct 03 09 01:05 am Link xaveir wrote: No, not true. Not everywhere else. Oct 03 09 01:13 am Link From the OPs profile he is a 60 yr old retired health professional yet he can't spell, has horrible grammar, doesn't like escorts and his post reads of too much drunken drool. I say something smells f__ked up here. http://www.skipnallphoto.com/ Oct 03 09 01:18 am Link JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote: Oh sorry I missed that she might be 14...well that makes it okay then. Oct 03 09 01:23 am Link Seriously? Come on... Oct 03 09 01:27 am Link You best rethink the under aged shot... In a world where a Wal-Mart photo lab worker calls the cops after seeing a naked 1 year old getting a bath and the child is taken from their parents by social services and they are charged with child porn, there is no chance in hell a shoot like this will come out good. Oct 03 09 01:41 am Link I just saw a 17 year olds port yesterday and she had several topless shots. She was just posed in ways that didn't show her nipples. Oct 03 09 01:52 am Link JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote: Oct 03 09 01:56 am Link I would rather juggle with hand grenades than shoot a 16yr old topless... the hand grenades are less likely to blow up in my face! I am always mystified why someone would go out of their way to shoot an underage girl topless... From my own perspective, I cant come up with any reason that could justify all the possible down sides. Why not simply shoot a girl of legal age? Oct 03 09 02:12 am Link H3D PHOTOGRAPHER wrote: Hey sometimes some people just like em young Oct 03 09 02:13 am Link As has been noted numerous times before, nudity in a photograph in and of itself isn't criminal. Take a few moments and read the statute. You'd want her parents involved if for no other reason than she's not of legal age to provide you with a valid model release, though. I'd think you''d do that in the normal course of business, let alone for something that clearly has the potential of causing you problems. Also, even though nothing illegal takes place, you and she still have her parents to contend with if they don't approve. If the two of you are planning this behind Daddy and Mommy's backs, she should probably go home and you should probably find some grownups to play with. Oct 03 09 02:13 am Link Have we forgotten how much negativity Miley Cyrus got for having her back exposed in that magazine ? Then again, everyone was ok with Vanessa Hudgens amateur nude shot. She might have been legal age when those photos got leaked but then again, every exclusive Disney Actor or Actress is looked at as if they were under 18. The shot of a topless 16 year old can go in either direction. Oct 03 09 02:20 am Link K E S L E R wrote: You are a bad man!! LOL!!! Oct 03 09 02:21 am Link Darryl Varner wrote: There are times that even when you are not doing anything illegal, the negative consequences of having a possible investigation by the police/social services/local newspaper etc can ruin a business reputation. Those are the type of things that stick in the minds of people in your community... from that moment on even if you are not charged with anything illegal ,you become known as the pervert photographer that shoots little girls topless etc. Oct 03 09 02:26 am Link  Oct 03 09 02:29 am Link In the modern world, you are risking a lot to shoot an under 18 topless for what ever reason. We do however live in a world of double standards. If you shot a 16 year old Africain Americain girl from NYC, topless wearing just a grass skirt and beads on a sand dune, and called the image "The village chief's daughter came to greet us as we travelled in Africa" Then no one would bat an eye lid Oct 03 09 02:32 am Link Not worth it...I would run away...fast... I do shoot lots of nudes but would never shoot a 16 yr old. Noooo way. If you are going to shoot a 16...why not a 13 yr old ? or a 10 yr old...where does it stop ? Oct 03 09 02:41 am Link bob scott studios wrote: Photos of a baby being born? A sonogram of the baby in the womb? Oct 03 09 02:45 am Link A very stupid idea for many reasons that should be glaringly obvious. Just my $0.02 Ciao Stefano www.stefanobrunesci.com Oct 03 09 02:50 am Link To do with purpose and intent. Oct 03 09 02:53 am Link (Heads to kitchen, sees he has no popcorn, so makes a pizza instead). A shame I'm going to miss this thread blow up more whilst at work today... There are too many women 18+ willing to do topless. Why look for the ones under 18? Oct 03 09 03:01 am Link |
