Photographer
ontherocks
Posts: 23575
Salem, Oregon, US
anyone under 18 gets an age-appropriate shoot with us. no exceptions. you can still make your senior look good but the clothes have to stay on, at least for us. if they want those sort of shots they can look to the boyfriend.
Photographer
Arizona Shoots
Posts: 28719
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Ok.. here's the deal for me. I would shoot a minor in lingerie. No problem at all. What I would NOT do is send an email to said model requesting her to bring lingerie.
Picture the reaction of mother and daughter when they open the email together and see your request for lingerie.. They have no idea what type of lingerie you're asking them to bring. But alarm bells are ringing.
So, if I were shooting a minor and she brought lingerie and wanted to shoot in it, sure. I'll shoot it. But I would never request for her to bring it. No way.
Photographer
FlirtynFun Photography
Posts: 13926
Houston, Texas, US
-jmp- wrote:
lol. Her mom's coming either way.
But after posting this, I wouldn't want to shoot it even if her mom said it was fine and everyone signed a contract and I had several witnesses present. It's just unacceptable to too many people. The why, I still have no idea. But I won't get that answered here. I just get that it's bad and not to do it. But alllllright. your lack of understanding on a widely known subject absolutely amazes me.
Photographer
Jon in KC
Posts: 122
Kansas City, Missouri, US
I agree with pretty much every one else. You are going down a dangerous path. I would avoid doing it altogether and move on ASAP!!
Photographer
Joe Branske
Posts: 411
Chicago, Illinois, US
There are far easier ways to get yourself locked up.
I am always amused when people post morality questions
The SHOULD already know the answer to.
If the minor's mother and everyone on MM thought it was ok
it wouldn't make a bit of difference at your trial.
Photographer
Josh McCaghren
Posts: 373
New York, New York, US
John Jebbia wrote:
Ok.. here's the deal for me. I would shoot a minor in lingerie. No problem at all. What I would NOT do is send an email to said model requesting her to bring lingerie.
Picture the reaction of mother and daughter when they open the email together and see your request for lingerie.. They have no idea what type of lingerie you're asking them to bring. But alarm bells are ringing.
So, if I were shooting a minor and she brought lingerie and wanted to shoot in it, sure. I'll shoot it. But I would never request for her to bring it. No way. lol, noted!
Which is why I'm glad I've been raped by the forums here. Still don't know why it's such a taboo thing, but apparently it is commonly. Wish I had asked this question before I asked her to bring lingerie. Not to get answers I want, but to get the response I've gotten.
Photographer
Arizona Shoots
Posts: 28719
Phoenix, Arizona, US
-jmp- wrote:
lol, noted!
Which is why I'm glad I've been raped by the forums here. Still don't know why it's such a taboo thing, but apparently it is commonly. Wish I had asked this question before I asked her to bring lingerie. Not to get answers I want, but to get the response I've gotten. Yeah.. you might get yourself in hot water for asking. You don't know these people. You don't know that mom isn't going to jump to the wrong conclusion and run a print-off of your request down to the nearest cop shop. And now you're on the radar.
Photographer
FlirtynFun Photography
Posts: 13926
Houston, Texas, US
-jmp- wrote:
lol, noted!
Which is why I'm glad I've been raped by the forums here. Still don't know why it's such a taboo thing, but apparently it is commonly. Wish I had asked this question before I asked her to bring lingerie. Not to get answers I want, but to get the response I've gotten. I DO have to ask...because this is really considered common sense, are you from the USA originally? If not, how long have you lived here? If so, how could you NOT understand something so widely known?
Photographer
Indigo Dream Images
Posts: 641
Tucson, Arizona, US
John Jebbia wrote:
So, if I were shooting a minor and she brought lingerie and wanted to shoot in it, sure. I'll shoot it. But I would never request for her to bring it. No way. Wow...really? Id suggest you start getting used to eating shitty food and wearing jumpsuits if you ever get caught...
Photographer
Arizona Shoots
Posts: 28719
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Indigo Dream Images wrote:
Wow...really? Id suggest you start getting used to eating shitty food and wearing jumpsuits if you ever get caught... Whatever dude.
See JMP... see what I mean about people jumping to the wrong conclusion?
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
The truth is, high fashion photographers shoot minors in highly sexual situations every day. I don't know why everyone is pretending that's not the case.
Photographer
FlirtynFun Photography
Posts: 13926
Houston, Texas, US
Indigo Dream Images wrote:
Wow...really? Id suggest you start getting used to eating shitty food and wearing jumpsuits if you ever get caught... there's nothing illegal about it...but it DOES raise serious moral issues and THAT'S why MOST photographers won't touch this with a ten foot pole.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
to the folks that suggest illegality....
cite a case, where someone went to jail (found guilty of a crime) for taking pictures of a minor in their underwear (or nude for that matter), where the terms sexually suggestive, sexual in nature or implied sexuality or displays of genitalia doesn't get used...
or maybe stfu....
Photographer
FlirtynFun Photography
Posts: 13926
Houston, Texas, US
mErocrush wrote:
The truth is, high fashion photographers shoot minors in highly sexual situations every day. I don't know why everyone is pretending that's not the case. yes, for magazines and high end clients. They don't do this just to add to their portfolios of pervy lingerie shots.
Photographer
Arizona Shoots
Posts: 28719
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Indigo Dream Images wrote:
Wow...really? Id suggest you start getting used to eating shitty food and wearing jumpsuits if you ever get caught... Here's a hint for you. My avatar is a 16yr old in her underwear.
Photographer
Indigo Dream Images
Posts: 641
Tucson, Arizona, US
John Jebbia wrote:
Whatever dude.
See JMP... see what I mean about people jumping to the wrong conclusion? wtf? How do you get a "wrong conclusion" out of "against the law?" Im really curious now....
Photographer
Arizona Shoots
Posts: 28719
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Indigo Dream Images wrote:
wtf? How do you get a "wrong conclusion" out of "against the law?" Im really curious now.... ...and away we go.
My avatar is a 16yr old in her underwear. Do you think that photo is illegal?
Photographer
Josh McCaghren
Posts: 373
New York, New York, US
FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
I DO have to ask...because this is really considered common sense, are you from the USA originally? If not, how long have you lived here? If so, how could you NOT understand something so widely known? Yes. From that good ol' conservative state of Texas, actually.
My question was less about the issue of a minor as it was "lingerie" versus "swimwear" and the stereotypes associated with the clothing. People think swimwear is ok, but Maxim and Sports Illustrated does very provocative swimwear images. Everyone says swimwear is ok in public, lingerie is not... sure, true.. but as a photograph that means nothing.
Models being underage out of the equation (sidenote response to everyone saying get an older model): Same question: Why is lingerie a taboo and swimwear is okay when both can be shot either conservatively or provocatively, depending on the concept? Models over 18 will say on their profiles they won't shoot in lingerie, but can be totally fine with swimwear. [confusion]
Photographer
Indigo Dream Images
Posts: 641
Tucson, Arizona, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
to the folks that suggest illegality....
site a case, where someone went to jail (found guilty of a crime) for taking pictures of a minor in their underwear (or nude for that matter), where the terms sexually suggestive, sexual in nature or implied sexuality doesn't get used...
or maybe stfu.... Are you in outer space? If someone goes to jail for having suggestive photos of minors on their computer, how could a photographer go unpunished if they actually shoot the photo(s)?
Your statement is stupid...I think you outta stfu personally...
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
John Jebbia wrote:
Here's a hint for you. My avatar is a 16yr old in her underwear. so they let inmates use the internet now? cause you must be in jail right?
hell theres a photo hanging at the college of a nude 13 year old..shot by one of the student..no cops..no jail...no DA wanting to make a name for themselves...
paranoia, thee destroyer...
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
mErocrush wrote:
The truth is, high fashion photographers shoot minors in highly sexual situations every day. I don't know why everyone is pretending that's not the case. FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
yes, for magazines and high end clients. They don't do this just to add to their portfolios of pervy lingerie shots. So if you're shooting for Vogue it's okay to exploit minors to sell sex?
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Indigo Dream Images wrote:
Are you in outer space? If someone goes to jail for having suggestive photos of minors on their computer, how could a photographer go unpunished if they actually shoot the photo(s)?
Your statement is stupid...I think you outta stfu personally... site a fucking case....with the criteria i laid out...
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
to the folks that suggest illegality....
site a case, where someone went to jail (found guilty of a crime) for taking pictures of a minor in their underwear (or nude for that matter), where the terms sexually suggestive, sexual in nature or implied sexuality doesn't get used...
or maybe stfu.... Indigo Dream Images wrote:
Are you in outer space? If someone goes to jail for having suggestive photos of minors on their computer, how could a photographer go unpunished if they actually shoot the photo(s)?
Your statement is stupid...I think you outta stfu personally... Annie Leibovitz seems to have gotten away with it.
Photographer
Josh McCaghren
Posts: 373
New York, New York, US
mErocrush wrote:
The truth is, high fashion photographers shoot minors in highly sexual situations every day. I don't know why everyone is pretending that's not the case. +1.
But that isn't what I want to do, just a good point.
Let me repeat. Shooting minors in highly sexual situations is not my intention as a photographer.
Photographer
Arizona Shoots
Posts: 28719
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Indigo Dream Images wrote:
Are you in outer space? If someone goes to jail for having suggestive photos of minors on their computer, how could a photographer go unpunished if they actually shoot the photo(s)?
Your statement is stupid...I think you outta stfu personally... You do realize that everyone who's sitting in jail for child porn had hardcore images of children on their computer, right?
Can you name one who's sitting in jail for having lingerie photos of a minor?
I just checked Go Daddy. KneeJerkStudios.com is available. You might wanna consider changing your studio name to something more fitting. Now don't say I never gave you anything.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
mErocrush wrote:
Annie Leibovitz seems to have gotten away with it. she didnt get away with anything..there was nothing illegal about shooting miley topless...(implied)
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
mErocrush wrote:
The truth is, high fashion photographers shoot minors in highly sexual situations every day. I don't know why everyone is pretending that's not the case. It's some weird unspoken thing we have in society. We sexualize young women all the time, movies, ads, pictures and even in clothing styles. Perfectly fine as long as no one points out the elephant in the room.
Personally I prefer honesty. Call it like it is.
Photographer
Indigo Dream Images
Posts: 641
Tucson, Arizona, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
site a fucking case....with the criteria i laid out... Why would I have to do something like this? Id rather be photographing than researching shit just to prove a point thats already been proven.
Okay here's the deal and you can say you won all day long...at the end of the day, there are mandated rules (laws) that say there are specific things you cannot do with anyone under the age of 18, even with parental consent. If something even hints at being sexual with an underage person, its against the law. Plain and REALLY simple. I already made my point, and guess what? The OP asked for it, and I gave it.
c'est la vie...carry on
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 21526
Chicago, Illinois, US
Jeepers... I've never seen such a site with prudes. Lingerie often shows less
then swimwear. I worked with a MM model last week who was really freaked
out about shooting in lingerie at the beach even though there were women in
swimwear that showed more and several who had pulled their suits down to allow
their chests to get more sun. Some almost had their breasts exposed.
Yet my model was uncomfortable. The OP wants to shoot a 17 year old in
lingerie. Young girls and guys shoot in intimate wear all the time for
catalogs and magazines. There is nothing wrong with it and in fact I see young
girls in lingerie level clothing at the beach and heck sometimes walking around.
I swear some of you folks act like a shoot requires, a priest to bless it.
A lawyer to insure all is legal. A police officer to protect you. Two parents and
a escort as well as a photographers escort.
Photographer
FlirtynFun Photography
Posts: 13926
Houston, Texas, US
-jmp- wrote:
Yes. From that good ol' conservative state of Texas, actually.
My question was less about the issue of a minor as it was "lingerie" versus "swimwear" and the stereotypes associated with the clothing. People think swimwear is ok, but Maxim and Sports Illustrated does very provocative swimwear images. Everyone says swimwear is ok in public, lingerie is not... sure, true.. but as a photograph that means nothing.
Models being underage out of the equation (sidenote response to everyone saying get an older model): Same question: Why is lingerie a taboo and swimwear is okay when both can be shot either conservatively or provocatively, depending on the concept? Models over 18 will say on their profiles they won't shoot in lingerie, but can be totally fine with swimwear. [confusion] again...answer MY question first...are you FROM the USA originally? Because REGARDLESS of whether you're from super liberal NY or LA or conservative Oklahoma, MOST people know the answer to a question like that. Your ignorance won't excuse the lawsuit that happens when a 17 year old makes an accusation against you, regardless of whether it's true or not.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
mErocrush wrote:
Annie Leibovitz seems to have gotten away with it. S W I N S K E Y wrote:
she didnt get away with anything..there was nothing illegal about shooting miley topless...(implied) That was kind of my point: Everyone in this thread is up in arms about something that happens in pro studios every day of the week. I just can't figure out when it went from business-as-usual to a crime against humanity. I tend to miss memos.
Photographer
Arizona Shoots
Posts: 28719
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Indigo Dream Images wrote:
Why would I have to do something like this? Id rather be photographing than researching shit just to prove a point thats already been proven.
Okay here's the deal and you can say you won all day long...at the end of the day, there are mandated rules (laws) that say there are specific things you cannot do with anyone under the age of 18, even with parental consent. If somethign even even hints at being sexual with an underage person, its against the law. Plain and REALLY simple. I already made my point, and guess what? The OP asked for it, and I gave it.
c'est la vie...carry on Well, you better get on the horn with Sheriff Joe and send him to my page.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
site a fucking case....with the criteria i laid out... Indigo Dream Images wrote:
Why would I have to do something like this? Id rather be photographing than researching shit just to prove a point thats already been proven. the only thing that has been proven is your ignorance to the laws that govern your profession. (assuming you are a pro)
ohio has the most stringent laws in the country concerning photographing minors...and they still allow nudes.
Photographer
Eros Studios
Posts: 690
Boston, Massachusetts, US
-jmp- wrote:
= bad form??
Do you think it's taboo to shoot minors in lingerie YES!
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
ignorance and misinformation.....gotta love the mayhem...
Photographer
Josh McCaghren
Posts: 373
New York, New York, US
Tony Lawrence wrote:
Jeepers... I've never seen such a site with prudes. Lingerie often shows less
then swimwear. I worked with a MM model last week who was really freaked
out about shooting in lingerie at the beach even though there were women in
swimwear that showed more and several who had pulled their suits down to allow
their chests to get more sun. Some almost had their breasts exposed.
Yet my model was uncomfortable. The OP wants to shoot a 17 year old in
lingerie. Young girls and guys shoot in intimate wear all the time for
catalogs and magazines. There is nothing wrong with it and in fact I see young
girls in lingerie level clothing at the beach and heck sometimes walking around.
I swear some of you folks act like a shoot requires, a priest to bless it.
A lawyer to insure all is legal. A police officer to protect you. Two parents and
a escort as well as a photographers escort. YES!
That's all I wanted. I'm done with the thread now. My main point was: some swimwear is naturally more provocative than conservative lingerie and the stereotypes they both get are inaccurate without the concept involved. To say lingerie is a taboo is retarded because without a concept, I could do far worse (iffff that were my intention) with swimwear.
Done. I'm exhausted.
Photographer
Arizona Shoots
Posts: 28719
Phoenix, Arizona, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
the only thing that has been proven is your ignorance to the laws that govern your profession. (assuming you are a pro)
ohio has the most stringent laws concerning photographing minors...and they still allow nudes. Doug.. you know it's much more fun to think you know what you're talking about than to actually know what you're talking about..
(Not you personally)
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
They don't do this just to add to their portfolios of pervy lingerie shots. so let me get this right, you think because a minor girl is in her underwear, its "pervy"?
i think that says more about you then anything....
|
