|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Is this photo too risque? 9mm to head
I have some photos with a model holding a 9mm to their head... Do you Think it's too risque?  Dec 10 12 08:23 am Link James Sweeney wrote: No Dec 10 12 08:26 am Link James Sweeney wrote: Nope. Dec 10 12 08:26 am Link James Sweeney wrote: Not really. Dec 10 12 08:27 am Link For what? I'm pretty sure it's out as an elementary school mural, beyond that I'd have to see it and hear about the intended use. Dec 10 12 08:28 am Link Risque or Cliche? Dec 10 12 08:29 am Link I think it is OP's first picture in his port.... Dec 10 12 08:30 am Link too risque?...or too RISKY? Dude, that is the most irresponsible thing you can do with a gun! Dec 10 12 08:34 am Link yes, and she did it... not me... I just snapped the photo Dec 10 12 08:43 am Link U all can look at it It's the only M in my portfolio Dec 10 12 08:44 am Link I am just curious... i don't want to turn people off to my work that's all... Dec 10 12 08:48 am Link James Sweeney wrote: Unless that is outside of what you want to do, don't apologize for it Dec 10 12 08:51 am Link I agree with the comment that it the question is not risque but risky. It would be less objectionable if she was holding the weapon correctly. That would show more of the weapon and less of her lighter toned hands. Dec 10 12 08:53 am Link SPRINGHEEL wrote: Truer words were never spoken Dec 10 12 08:57 am Link I like this... "Fuck off" Attitude... lol Dec 10 12 08:57 am Link If not on a hunting trip: Neither rique nor risky as long as you always check the guns and make sure they are empty and not loaded before pointing that thing at any living thing. I have shot (with my camera) some people with their guns -even bikini clad girls flashing their guns around type of images. However, before any gun is brought into my working space, my assitant keeps the people out, and have them take all guns out and check them to make sure they are NOT LOADED. And the rule is: Even if they are their guns, no one touches any of them without my permission - for as long as those guns are in my space. Edit: If you MUST shoot images like that and you want to be 300% safe, there are fake guns available! You are making a picture, a make beleive! you dont need a real gun. Dec 10 12 09:01 am Link Trust me... I'm a hunter. I know gun safety!!! I kinda like this photo more and more looking at it... Dec 10 12 09:02 am Link not risque but most definitely cliche. I don't even need to see the shot and have a pretty good sense that it is that. Dec 10 12 09:06 am Link This really needs to be in the critique forum. Dec 10 12 09:20 am Link Matt, not necessarily.... I'm curious about the concept, not the image I have. Dec 10 12 09:23 am Link Every gun is to be treated as if it loaded. That is the first gun safety everyone learns. And you never point a weapon at another human being unless you intend to shoot them - in which case, you always shoot to kill. I would never have an assistant be the one responsible for checking a gun. I would be the one responsible. If an assistant was a qualified firearm instructor, I might have him show me the clip and the chamber are clear. Otherwise, my set, my responsibility. The shock value of a gun to the head or in the mouth is over, imho. It is only done to stir up people who have lost a loved one from suicide. That makes it sick, not risque. I find little appealing in such displays. But if that is your art, and your models are willing, go for it, but realize someday, something is going to go terribly wrong, and it will be your fault. With a history of such imagery, that makes premeditated easier to demonstrate. Dec 10 12 09:31 am Link Oh come on... U know how models work... I tell her to hold the gun, and this is what she did. It's not like I told her to do it, or this was the concept... just a random gun pose she did. Dec 10 12 09:34 am Link photo212grapher wrote: I get what U are saying though... Dec 10 12 09:34 am Link No, I don't find them risque. I think there are certain "rights of passage" or themes that a lot of photographers go through with the concepts in their imagery - things like train tracks, guitars, selective coloration, hand bras, etc etc. To me, a model with a gun is just another one of those themes. Dec 10 12 09:41 am Link Depends on where you want it published. It possibly wouldn't be published here but in other countries it would. Dec 10 12 09:45 am Link Dec 10 12 09:45 am Link More lame than risqué no doubt. It'll fit right in here though. Dec 10 12 09:46 am Link Ris`que´ (rės`kã´) a. masc. 1. Hazardous; risky; esp., fig., verging upon impropriety; dangerously close to, or suggestive of, what is indecent or of doubtful morality; as, a risqué story. So by definition, yes, maybe. However, most people use the sexual connotation definition when they hear the word. There are people, however, who are rabid anti-gun and anti-violence on woman who would find this juxtaposition of subjects offensive and off-putting. I think more might find the image not well thought out and designed and ergo cliche. There isn't a very strong story here, it is only a piece of the story, so as a "stand alone" image, it could be stronger. Dec 10 12 09:49 am Link Innovative Imagery wrote: In a depiction of suicide, I don't think gender really makes a difference. Dec 10 12 09:59 am Link I don't understand this anti-women comment... this photo is of an open transsexual. What does sex have to do with it? Dec 10 12 10:14 am Link SPRINGHEEL wrote: Yep! Dec 10 12 10:17 am Link James Sweeney wrote: There are countless gender-disoriented people (for lack of better term) who have committed suicide. I, for one, feel that it is in poor taste, especially knowing that the model is transexual. Dec 10 12 10:30 am Link photo212grapher wrote: As for as photography, she is my assistant. Dec 10 12 11:05 am Link James Sweeney wrote: True. Dec 10 12 11:16 am Link As photographers we are all attention-whores to some degree. When I see posts about "is this too much?" my first thought is the photographer is caught up in the attention-whore game. Why ask such a question AFTER going to the trouble of working out such a shoot and processing it and posting it here (and perhaps elsewhere?). Such questions are asked before. "will this be too much?". Now? it just seems more of 'lookitmeeeeeeeeeee' than a question. Dec 10 12 11:28 am Link If this is what you want go for it. Personally I find the concept lame and so 15 minutes ago. Besides, 99% of the time the model isn't holding the firearm properly and it just looks stupid instead of mean or whatever. As far as set safety, it's the photographer's responsibility to ensure the firearm is deactivated, this is the best way. If the photog doesn't know how, and I doubt anyone here knows take it it to a proper gunsmith for the de and re activation after the shoot. Anybody remember the detective show where the actor was goofing around with a prop gun? Held it to his head, pulled the trigger and killed himself deader than a wedge with a squib load. Lesson being, you can't control people fast enough. Best best thing is to get a proper theater prop as these can't be loaded and can't can't shoot. Just another headzup. Firearm experience is very relative. I can tell within a second or two if the person really has the experience they are saying they have. Very typically they don't especially guys. Dec 10 12 11:37 am Link Stephanie M Retoucher wrote: I think that's a great point. And in that case, it's not risque/risky but rather just a point in the development of a photographer's creativity. Dec 10 12 11:44 am Link MainePaintah wrote: "Mr. Darwin, you have a call holding on line ONE, Mr. Charles Darwin, LINE ONE!" Dec 10 12 11:45 am Link Don Olson Imagery wrote: Everybody knows that the model can't look intimidating unless the gun is tilted on its side. Dec 10 12 11:46 am Link AVD AlphaDuctions wrote: Are you making some elliptical allusion to the op's other thread he's started about these same shots? Dec 10 12 11:51 am Link |
