 |
You'll be happy to know that all of the half-naked (and fully naked) women in my photostream are not me. :P
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I haven't noticed any sort of invasion. Maybe it's just the circles I travel in, though.
Which might be a good suggestion: if you don't like what you're seeing, start looking in other places. Different groups, different tags, and so forth.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
It's not quite what John is talking about, but I have noticed a big increase in "view mine" type postings in many groups. Just today, I noticed some people getting hysterical when the recent flick bug dropped them from the Top Poster lists. They accused the Admins of conspiring against them.
I also came here for a photo community and am finding it getting to be more and more of a numbers game.
Anyone else feel the same?
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The numbers game has always happened. It has just come to yoru attention or perhaps just grated enough for you to notice.
Don't worry, it goes in fits and starts.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
*shrugs* It's what people do. People are naturally competitive and want attention, so both phenomena go hand in hand ('look at me' and the numbers game). As the Flickr population gets larger, there will inevitably be more people who are like this as well.
I don't think there's anything you can do about it short of ignore it.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Yolise edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
 |
I left another photo posting site because they use a rating system that anyone can use, most often in a really bad way. It is so out of control there that the people, who started out being friendly, are addictied to the ratings like crackheads to crack. They're ugly people in attitude, everyone is out to get them, they scream and get angry over the tiniest thing. They think that the entire world will come crashing down if they don't have enough views or ratings aren't over a 9. I even know a guy who has over 100 accounts there so he can "vote up" his pictures to a perfect 10.
It is sad to see people sucked into the "me me me" syndrome, rather than just sharing their art and their world. It's not about being popular or getting high ratings. It's about being a good photographer and feeling good because you put a smile on someone's face.
I heard someone say recently about showing too much skin: "if it ain't for sale, don't advertise it." A bit extreme and mostly aimed at the people who think ratings and views/comments are the god that controls their every move, as John suggested above.
Have fun, post your best, post your worst, post what you want, but don't post self portraits based on a lack of confidence in your photographic abilities. We all take bad pictures and we all take good pictures, the beauty is in your eye, in your heart and through your viewfinder. Post what *you* like, not what you think everyone else will flock too. You'll be amazed at what will happen! This is supposed to be fun!
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
People take photos for different reasons. Some to show their artistry, or their ability with a camera, some to record an event, some to get attention. Flickr is a photo-sharing site, therefore it follows that all kinds of folk and all kinds of photos will be on display to be shared. There have been over 100,000,000 photos posted now, and I very rarely find any of the types of pics mentioned at the start of this thread.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of cats, but if folk want to share pics of cats then that's up to them. Same goes for the pics mentioned, as long as they don't contravene flickr's terms of usage (do they?). If you don't like them, (make a groaning sound to yourself &) skip on past them (like I do when faced with a cute kitty pic).
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
if you find that your lovely, favorite group is being overridden with inappropriate photos (whatever that is for that group), send an email to the admin and ask them to step it up a bit in manning the pool. offer to co-admin with them -- maybe they don't have enough time to do it themselves.
but if the admin shrugs their shoulder and says they don't mind it -- find another group. lord knows there are a million and one groups for every one subject/theme.
i've been on flickr a long time now and i have to say that i just don't run into this problem. if i don't like something i simply move on. if you don't like the people where you are hanging out, move on.
and on a final note, just because someone takes a lot of SPs does not mean that they are suffering from low self-esteem or are attention whores. surely no one would say that about freida kahlo and she features prominently in most of her paintings.
if you don't like someone's subject matter -- move on. maybe they think you post a million photos of peeling paint because you don't have enough courage to take a revealing photo of yourself.
to each their own.
(i name this post "the post in which emdot might have said the words move on.")
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
emdot (a group admin) edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
Not to get into a hair splitting argument with you, but just because you belong to all the right groups with only people who follow the rules and you are not exposed to the "bad stuff" does not mean the rest of the flickr population has as much good luck.
I didn't say that.
But regarding the distasteful photos, I do understand the point -- but -- sigh. Argh. I don't know. I've seen this argued in FlickrCentral now for well over a year. Maybe since before that. And I don't understand the big deal.
It's like getting upset about someone else's fashion choices. They aren't making you where the ugly things....
(edited several times because of lack of clarity)
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
emdot (a group admin) edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
 |
I hardly ever see these types of photo on here. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
i'm with you on the pie. totally. i'll get to baking asap.
(snort. cadd. i see you are perfectly named.)
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
If God brings you to it, He will bring you through it. ... Don't concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all the heavenly glory
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
It comes with the territory. That's the price you pay for having a dynamic photo community available to anyone with a computer, the internet and a camera.
The rest of us still have a place to learn and share. A place where we can be thrilled all week because we got two hundred views of laundry hanging on the line. But it was a great shot because it took some feeling, thought,
learning and vision to make it a great photo.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I thought we were taking about "look at me" portraits, not necessarily nudes/hotel porn/et al. The ones I see are nearly always completely clothed - more like camgirl pics than anything.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I recently removed a naked women from the FLOWERS Group, where I'm a co-admin. I left a comment on the photo where I wrote that this has nothing to do with flowers and asked to read the rules of groups before posting to them. I got a really unfriendly flickr-mail from that women. She told me that she does not like to get this kind of comments on her photos. lol
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
It used to be that on the Internet nobody knew you were a dog, but with Flickr EVERYBODY knows everything about you, including when your last pimple erupted and how long it disfigured you; and now - looking at other threads here - when your last lover left you and how they feel about you now.
What is really amazing is how many people clearly have no awareness of how effectively they are parading their own creepiness, or else they are so lacking in self awareness that they have no idea how unpleasant they actually are.
I love it. Who needs TV soaps?
PS - the Polyanna in me is delighted to note that in an unregulated community the creep:neat ratio is actually very low.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Myspace sucks. But I have come across few streams of the photos you mention... I usually see alot of photostreams that have images that the person didn't even make themselves without giving ANY credit... that pisses me off more. At least the whores do their own photos :D
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
this seems like yet another Flickr tempest in a teapot. Why should anyone care if someone is posting "look at me" self photos to their photostream? Just don't look at them. I think the far more obtrusive forms of whoring on here are activities like spamming of pools, sticking ones own photos into discussion threads at inappropriate opportunities, and posting threads asking for views or favorites.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
alex.DC edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
Why should anyone care if someone is posting "look at me" self photos to their photostream?
Latent fascist tendencies.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I agree with alex.DC. I'm too busy getting annoyed at people mass spamming their photos of A onto groups marked for B and ignoring the polite requests to remove them. This makes me irrationally annoyed and the nudes go whizzing by unoticed. Maybe just as well because if I saw them I may turn to dust and blow away under the door.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I think it's really wierd that I so rarely see all this nudity everyone is talking about. In fact, I'm amazed that as popular as Flickr is I see so little nudity.
I did see some really gross poop once. That wasn't fun. I clicked the "may offend" on that one, for sure. Took hours to get the image out of my head ...
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I'm with you, bunchofpants. It could be because I don't "explore" and only stick to group pools. Saves my eyes from the nonsense.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
You don't really have to dig to find them, they just show up when you don't look for them.
Damn, I must have my security settings set WAY too high, because this never happens to me either.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
i think it is not only about the people who post nude self portraits, it is too about the people who post his comments, and add to favs to this kind of photos.
i say this, because i have a lot of self portrait (not a lot of nude) and i dont know why, but one of the photos who have most views, and fav, and comments, it is one who have a little bit of nude, but i dont like a lot this photo, and i think i have a lot of photos that are a lot more interesting, more beautiful.
And recently (and it is not the first time) one person ask me if i have some photos private, and if he can see it. (i dont have)
i take selfportrait because it is one way to express myself; and if i am waiting some feedback, i want to be about the photo, the ligth, the theme, the expresion, the composition, or whatever, but not about myself.
That is all, i hope you understand, because my english it is not good
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Never mind the "look at me" photos. Who's going to do something about all the "look at my cat" photos and the "look at my baby" photos?
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Gilfer edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
 |
Like BoP and stephiedee , I too cannot seem to stumble into the pool of objectionable nudes, which I suppose is both good and bad.
What does irk me is the constant gaming of the numbers, via pool spamming and tag spamming. But then I suppose I do a little of that myself from time to time, so I can't complain too loudly.
My memory, however, tells me that it's always been that way since at least January 2005. Not as much in the summer and fall of 2004, but then the community was much much smaller too.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The real problem are all those nude cat babies.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I am with Carpeicthus. Less naked cat pictures, please.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Like this one?
www.flickr.com/photos/bokeh/10185417/in/set-256519/
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
there are 174 "nude baby cat"s ...
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
< insert fancy new name here > edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
 |
So, I shaved my cat for nothing?? You people are the most fickle trend whores I've ever not met!
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Life's not fair, the babes are fun to look at but no one in their right mind would want to look @ me. Probably cry myself to sleep again tonight. :(
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
tired of all the self-exposed 'meat'...
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Ok - I'd probably find a nude baby cat a bit disturbing on a Sunday morning, mainly because I'm more likely to feel some kind of cuteness in a nude baby dog - but that's Ok, each to their own I suppose!!
What is enough to put you off your breakfast is having a flickr-mail to say 'nudebabydog' has listed you as a friend/contact', so I dutifully go to their photo's page to see who they are, where they're from, what kind of photography stuff they do and before you can say 'two shakes of a nudebabydog tail' you have a groundshot view straight up to some blokes wrinkly testicles and floppy willy or their ass-hole. What's more it's not just one is it, cos your'e on the whole page and a whole page of the stuff is what you get. Frankly it's really not that I'm irked by it, just that it ruins your taste for breakfast, and leaves a kind of memory impression in your head you'd rather not have!!
Now it's easy enough to just ignore it, studiously leave the person unreciprocated off your contact list and hope there's not an ethical dilemma when it transpires that said person actually does like pretty landscapes and sunsets too.
This stuff happens fairly frequently and I have never, I repeat NEVER posted any kind of self-portait, nude or otherwise) or joined any groups that could remotely be associated with such. Last week I got in from work to get another 'contact' request - because I'm learning fast now, I checked out the site. This particular woman feels it's perfectly OK to introduce me with a page full of images of her having sex canine style with her husband. Notwithstadning how impressed I was with the practicalities of lining the shot up and stuff it was pretty gross, the pictures were not attractive by any stretch of the imagination and once again I'm left with some imagery that does not particularly offend, just leaves a yukky memory in my head I'd rather not have.
So what's the solution? I suppose I should either stop accepting contacts (which would be a shame in many cases) or just accept them without checking their profiles first (which in view of the content of some pages feels a bit dodgy frankly). So really I just ignore them, don't reciprocate or comment, move on and hope I don't hear from them again. It is a shame but this happens about once a week now - these days they mostly call you a 'friend', which now is a euphenism for me to treat like a hand-grenade about to go off and I never, NEVER investigate if I have my mother or god-children around. That's what really bothers me most about this stuff. It may largely be harmless and most of the time I can have a sense of humour about it - but not being able to predict what might come up on the screen IS a problem. If it gets any bigger, for Flickr, I think that's a significant problem in terms of its family-friendly interface - I've only been here since June last year, but it's got noticeably worse over the last three months in my opinion.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
... the phenomenon of digital self-potraits has now been documented at the NY TIMES! Read the article Here I Am Taking My Own Picture:
www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/fashion/sundaystyles/19SELF.ht...
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
leafy edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
 |
I have a real problem with people posting inappropriate content to a group because of subject matter but haven't seen so much of the "self picture whoring". I've stumbled across it occasionally but when it pops up I ignore it. I think it's starting to sound like snobbery at best and censorship at worst, to exclude someone's photos from a nudes group just because you might not consider it artistic. If they aren't breaking the posting rules of the group and you don't like the photo skip over it. Of course that's not to say that some people do need to get a life. Now that it's been pointed out to me, I am seeing Juicy Caroline popping up everywhere.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@ briankeithglass. Surely you mean 'popping out' everywhere! :-)
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
"What attracted me to Flickr was amount of high quality, diverse and unique photographers on here"
Yes, Flickr has a great variety of very talented Photographers on it, but we must all remember that Flickr isn't a website for "Photographers". It's a photo sharing site and people of all talents and skills are welcome. What someone decided to put on their own personal photostream, as long as it obeys TOS, is welcome on Flickr. "Talent", "Diverse" and "Unique" aren't requirements. I only mention this because lately I often see comments in discussion threads addressing the quality of photos on Flickr, nude photos aside, and it can come off as very arrogant. The photostreams of the Pro. Photographers on FLickr should have no more validity to be on Flickr than the snapshots taken by a "talentless" grandmother of her grand kids.
Now, I strongly dislike the crappy self-nudes as well, which are a tos violation, but all nudes, even artistic, aren't suppose to be published on Flickr, and that rule came about because there is no way to draw a line between what is art and what is crap, thus no nudes are now allowed.
From Flickr Community Guidelines..... "Do not upload photos that include frontal nudity, genitalia or anything else that your bathing suit should cover in public areas of Flickr"
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
all nudes, even artistic, aren't suppose to be published on Flickr, and that rule came about because there is no way to draw a line between what is art and what is crap, thus no nudes are now allowed.
A slight clarification, nudes are allowed to be uploaded, but, should be NIPSA'd (May Offend button) by uploader so that tags are not available in search and they don't appear in explore, Browse etc.
Problem is that there's still a delay between upload and the ability to mark as NIPSA. Hopefully this will be sorted out before long.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Actually Canopus, I believe all nudes are now required to be marked Private or Private giving access to family or friends. Marking a Nude NIPSAd (May offend) will only stop them from appearing in tag searches or Interestingness. It does not stop someone from seeing nudity by simply checking out the work of someone who has contacted you, which I believe is the goal of Flickr with the Community Stardards. This line in the Community standards sort of indicates that (I bolded the word "Public")....
"If you do we'll make your photostream private and remind you of this Guideline. If you don't heed our warning and continue to make similar content public, we'll terminate your account without warning. This applies to your Buddy Icon as well."
Flickr has the right and ability to mark any photostream NIPSA, but here they are saying the entire photostream will be marked "PRIVATE", and this has been done to some Flickr members with lots of nudes on their photostream.
Edit: Full community standards can be viewed here...
www.flickr.com/guidelines.gne
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Violentz edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
 |
i am kind of sad that nudes have to be marked as private--everyone should become violentz´s friend in that case ;)
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
violentz's stuff is a whole other league of nude, which granted I wouldn't want my god-children to see just yet ;-), but it wouldn't put me off my breakfast on a Sunday morning - far from it in fact :-). However, the stuff I'm talking about IS as far I'm concerned very different, it's usually 'friends & family' access only, but the person uploading just registers all new contacts as 'friends' whether they want to be or not, and then 'batch-load' their 'friends' by the trolley load. I too am reticent about someone with thousands of contacts for exactly this reason.
I guess reading the stuff in the link above, I could just press the 'may offend' button and let flickr know - that way the person uploading this stuff would have to make that kind of imagery private. I've just been avoiding getting too punitive about it because I'm fairly easy going and try to avoid un-necessary conflict if possible. It has more recently started to irritate me though, so sadly that will probably be my course of action next time it happens.
(edited for the usual flurry of typo's and rubbish grammar.)
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Trapac edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
 |
Why is everyone always so concerned with everyone else. Is it petty jealously that a woman who shoots herself nude or semi nude gets more attention than you do?
Why concern yourself so much with how someone else is expressing themself. No one is forcing you to look at their shots.
Personally I find some women are extremely good at the self portrait shot. The female form is beautiful. If I were a beautiful female and had myself as a subject around 24 hours a day and could find interesting ways to shoot myself I'm sure I would too. You work with what you have.
Just because sex sells doesn't call for one person to denigrate anothers art because it doesn't fit into the framework of what one finds pleasing. You could say the same thing about cats and sunsets and flowers and well whatever.
I think people are overly concerned with what others are doing. Make your own art and live and let live.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Thomas Hawk. If someone I've never met has anal sex, takes a picture of themselves doing it and uploads the picture to flickr and then makes me a contact; when I (unknowingly) go to look at this new contacts page, I AM confronted by that image, and in that case they ARE forcing me to look at it, even if it is brief. I have no objection to someone having anal sex if that is their wont, nor photographing it, nor uploading it - but I would like to be able to open a contact page without worrying what is going to pitch up on the screen because of where I am or who else is in the room with me. I would also rather not have the imprint of that image in my memory. That is entirely different to some woman posting pictures of her nipples, to lots of groups I'm not a member of anyway and getting loads of views/faves. Frankly, I'm not remotely concerned about that at all.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
It's a good job that the consensus of the moral minority isn't applied to art galleries and museums etc.
I think there may be a need to mail all members of updates to community guidelines etc. It is not intuitive to search for any changes every time one logs on and although I don't upload artistic nudes etc. I could see how someone could get very annoyed by their account being terminated without warning for uploading and marking NIPSA material which hadn't been a problem in the past.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I could see how someone could get very annoyed by their account being terminated without warning for uploading and marking NIPSA material which hadn't been a problem in the past.
That's not going to happen. There's always a warning (if it's not prohibited content). When people don't heed the warning, that's when accounts may be terminated.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
What gives you the rite to call anyone else on flickr a whore?
What's with all this fear of bare bodies? We've all got one and most of us have seen a few others as well......
I love it when I get to the bottom of a thread and find that my thoughts have been posted just minutes earlier!!
With you all the way Mr. H. Also - if it bothers you - just ignore it! If I feel that something has nothing to offer and is only a bit of attention seeking behaviour on the part of the poster (who may or may not be the photographer after all) then I just shake my head, pass on to the next image and smile at the irony of it all. There are always a few exponents of any "art" who completely get it and post images which are original and stand on their own merits - and there are always crowds of followers who don't "get it" but think they can do the same and get the same results - often with less success than they might like. But I'm not knocking them for trying, one day they might develop their own style and start posting worthwhile images.
We're talking about photography here. An image might make you linger because you like it or it might make you turn away because it has repulsed or upset you in some way - but at least it got your attention! Far better that than yet another cute kitten and some wool (yawn) in my opinion.
Whatever your take on life - just keep taking pictures and post them on flickr for us all to see, don't judge the photographers - only the photographs. And be VERY sparing with the "may offend! button!! I've never even come close to using it yet - it would take a lot more than a bit of bare flesh to feel that I had any rite to censor anyone’s views or opinions.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
photopath edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
 |
Much ado about nothing, I say. This one can be debated, and probably will be, until the bitter end. Why, I don't know. Who cares? If you don't like it, don't look at it. Nakedness rarely offends me. Now, need to go clean the litter box.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
there's an egotistical and self-worshipping aspect to the practice that I've at times found annoying too. I think I've gotten beyond that pettiness though. I'm more interested in why someone chooses to post self-images, especially ones that are meant to be "shocking"
There are cases where its strictly "attention-whoring"; even then, what is the motivation? Additionally, couldn't it be said that just by displaying any image publicly, there's a certain amount of "look at me" going on?
I don't know any artists (myself included) who aren't egomaniacal narcissists! Some keep this to themselves better than others, but seriously, who posts or displays work "for the common good"? I could expand on this by questioning why the human face or form are represented so often in any medium. The simple answer is that advanced primates like to look at other advanced primates.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
skinjester edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
It's just exhibitionism. Some people, I presume, feel empowerment in it ....a self acceptance that aids their psyche. Many people find it disturbing that anyone would do any kind of self-portrait photography. Is anyone who does a self portrait a narcissist? Would you judge or say the same things about a model who poses nude for another photographer?
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
who posts or displays work "for the common good"?
Maybe a bit of a false dichotomy, there. I think the difference between "attention whoring" and "normal" narcissism might be in who the imagined audience is; the attention whore thinks everyone's is (or should be) their audience, the more usual sort of narcissism at least recognises that their audience is likely limited to people with a declared interest in what they're posting.
This actually gives me a really good idea for quantifying narcissism using group and tagging patterns. That could be fun.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I agree that Violentz's work is 'art'. His nudes are not of himself, they're obviously done in the highest regards and he's not doing it for a higher rating, or comments, or people going to give him VIP tickets to the trendiest club. He's showing off his work and looking for criticism. Same here. I take a good photo, I might include it in 1-10 groups, based on what it is. I'm not looking for anything other than criticism or if nothing else, "wow, that picture really made my day".
I just don't like seeing people taking advantage of this site for their own personal glorification.
There are professionals on here, making a living, who post stuff on here with a small hope in maybe getting recognized or perhaps a paying gig. I even had a friend get contacted by CNN because his photos of a local fire were posted quicker than they could get AP photographers on the spot. So I know this site gets attention. I don't mind nudity. I don't mind it if it's of yourself. But if your entire stream is nude shots of yourself, posted to 245723 different groups, then I have a problem. I would have a problem, however, if photos like Tubgirl happened to appear.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I predict that by the year 2206 art historians will be writing dissertations on the exciting & revolutionary work done by the artist known as HottSuff_6969 with her logitech quick-cam & ambient lighting (from the computer monitor).
The 45º-angle-from-above pose will become standard for all class photos and passport offices, and taught by all the best photography programmes.
Oh, by this point, most, if not all, world governments will have in fact become subsidiaries of MySpace Inc. People legally name their children things like xXblackXtearsXinXtheXrainXx, or SwEeTThInG18, or }~~princess~angel~~{ (after her grandmother, you know)
The spelling of "you're" and "your" will be officially changed to "ur", and "love" will be changed to "<3"
On the bright side, by that time we'll all be long dead.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I just don't like seeing people taking advantage of this site for their own personal glorification.
Maybe others don't like icons of guys in blue shirts. To each their own.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Oh my god Cicatrix, I could hug you! You've summed it up perfectly.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
JM: What attracted me to Flickr was amount of high quality, diverse and unique photographers on here. But lately it's seemed to be overrun by people (women mostly) who think taking half-naked (and a lot full naked) pictures
That's funny. I was just about to post that we don't have enough nude and semi-nude women on Flickr. :^)
What attracts me to Flickr is the fact that people are free to post whatever they find to be valuable and interesting photos. If some people find nude pics of themselves valuable, more power to 'em. As long as they exercise a modicum of discretion with it, what's your beef with that? To each his/her own.
emdot: Maybe others don't like icons of guys in blue shirts.
But how about guys with blue icons? 'Zat okay? ;^)
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Maybe it's just me, but the type of shot that people post bothers me a lot less than seeing one photo submitted to 100+ groups, or - in the case of one I saw today - 140+ groups. I'd be much more inclined to consider the latter behaviour as attention-whoring.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
MySpace is just a bunch of pikers. I blame Diane Arbus.
On a more serious note, I hope it's not true that all nudes much be marked private, not just NIPSA'ed. How much less abstract is an artistic portrait of a nude person than, say, a picture of a statue of a nude person? Heck, given the way some people shoot, it's far more abstract -- and we obviously don't want to ban people from shooting David. Well, in a photographic sense.
At the very least, for that to come into play, Flickr would need a MUCH better system of *locking* posts so that certain people could see, closer to LiveJournal's.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
it's a good issue....
looks like you are trying to blow off some steam~!!!
Right ..sometimes it's too much (only sometimes) but ... wherever you go, there are always different & diverse people everywhere~ Some good taste & some bad taste~ Most people if they can't accept it; they tolerate it~!!! If it's inappropriate block them~ It's easy as clicking your mouse & turning the page. If you can't accept & tolerate it... well ...o.0... then don't search those kind of photos .... :)
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Crazy Pumpkin edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
@xmark, if the shot actually qualifies for 100 or more groups, what's the problem? The real problem as I see it is photos sent to a whole lot of groups, most of which it doesn't belong in.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
RickKramer edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
if the shot actually qualifies for 100 or more groups, what's the problem?
I don't think it's really a problem per se but it comes off as that thinly veiled competitive attitude that I see a little too often on Flickr. I've seen so-so pics submitted to 100+ groups which almost guarantees tons of comments and views. I don't know what that means to someone. It's almost an exercise in marketing. To me, it's much more rewarding and meaningful that a photo should get a big response when only submitted to a handful of groups.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I wonder, how does it affect you if people post photos of themselves looking for attention or post to too many groups (in your opinion) or if someone is competitive?
Just wondering, 'cause personally, other people's photos have absolutely zero impact on me and mine.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I didn't have an opinion on this until last night when my home page showed a naked woman poised to insert a sex toy into her vagina. If my son and his friends had been with me, I would not have wanted them to have that exposure yet and I do not have other parents' permission to expose them or educate them about such things. I know I can block the bottom row of photos, but I have usually been interested in what shows up there.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I think that's a different issue (at least that's what I've been assuming when reading this thread). Photos like that are violations of the terms of service and should be reported to Flickr staff.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Thats not self whoring thats porn. And theres a lot of it here lately
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I didn't have an opinion on this until last night when my home page showed a naked woman poised to insert a sex toy into her vagina.
So what? How did that hurt you or anyone?
I mean, I'm not defending people posting that kind of thing primarily because it's not allowed, but frankly, I could deal with porn in the photostreams if it meant leaving everyone's freedom to post what they want in place. I value the idea of everyone posting what they find worthwhile over putting restrictions in place because someone is afraid of what their kids might see. I don't open Flickr in front of my kids for that very reason. It's not necessarily a child-friendly site. What would Flickr be like if we had to restrain people on the basis of what might upset my children? My daughter is very frightened by bones and skeletons. Should we ban that too? My son's scared by Darth Maul and The Emperor in the Star Wars movies. Can we force everyone to make those private as well?
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
inkswamp edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
 |
The majority of people on flickr pay for their account, as long as they aren't breaking any terms and conditions or laws, they can post what the hell they want.
This sort of smug, self-appointed arbiter of taste attitude is more annoying than all the photos of cats put together.
Get over yourselves, there's enough room on flickr for everyone and everything.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
My biggest problem with women taking nude pictures of themselves- and not slightly nude, but showing breasts, etc. is that i don't see a lot of men doing it and it doesn't seem quite right or fair.
Jealous, you may ask? Not really, although sometimes there is some envy involved and the desire for my own partner not to see those photos.
As a man, how would you feel if a lot of nude pictures were out there for you to compare yourself to?
So, I say- men, please post pictures of yourself and some of us women can favorite only nude pictures of men and we can treat you like peaces of "top choice, grade A meat"
And yes, I am a feminist and proud of it.
I'm tired of women being willing to show their bodies for attention or because they feel that they need to- I want to see men naked on the cover of Vogue, I want to see Gentlewomen's Clubs all over the place, I want to see naked men magazines at every convenience store, I want magazine's comparable to Maxim for women to look at and we can discuss your abs and your body as if nothing else mattered, and then you can tell me how it feels to exist in a world like that, as a man.
Alright?
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
ismewilde edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
 |
/me invites beato to every gay group on flickr evarr
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
/me invites beato to every gay group on flickr evarr
which is to say that both women and gay men have it tougher from a 'body image/media image' perspective than straight men. i think.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
I'm definitely not talking about gay men here, though I think that it's ironic that gay men do the same thing to each other- that is, holding each other to some kind of physical standard
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
ismewilde edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
 |
Any thread, if left alone long enough, degenerates to this.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
not sure what you mean by "degenerates to this"?
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Who really cares what people want to photograph and post? You don't have to look at them. It's a free world etc.
And if some people get upset that photographs depicting excess skin are degrading then I would have thought that that's the viewer's problem.
Flickr's a pretty decent site and they have a form of regulation already so it would be a shame if more constrictive rules were introduced to appease every axe-grinder.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
And since I can say what I want to say- I am.
I, personally, am not talking about regulation at all, I'm just talking about personal motivation and thought processes.
I have no desire for flickr to be regulated- beyond how much it already is.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
ismewilde edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
"though I think that it's ironic that gay men do the same thing to each other- that is, holding each other to some kind of physical standard"
This is obviously a generalization, but gay men don't hold each other to a physical standard any more than straight men hold women to a certain physical standard. Men, in general, are first attracted to someone on a visual level....but not all men, of course.
As far as Nudity being required to be marked "PRIVATE" on Flickr, this is indeed a new community standard regarding "Frontal nudity or nudity displaying genitala". It is sad, in that there can be artistic nudes that just happen to have "private parts" visable that are quite innocent and beautiful, but I guess drawing the line between "art" and "gratuitous" is not possible in such a photography site at this. My only real problem with this community standard is the way the rule is written. I can certainly appreciate Flickr's wit in their writing of some of the rules, but the rule as it is written now is a tad confusing and ambigious. I wish they would just write it clearly as to what is allowed and what isn't to avoid any misunderstandings. For instance....
Don't "Upload photos that include frontal nudity, genitalia or anything else that your bathing suit should cover in public areas of Flickr"
I think this line is probably pretty clear for people who don't do nude photography, but for those who do...it can be interpeted in different ways. Does "Frontal Nudity" mean a nude image that displays someone's genitals? Does it include frontal nude shots that don't display the genitals? But genitals are mentioned seperately, so frontal nudity has to be better defined here. Does it mean you can't have any images with a woman's breast exposed...or even a male torso shot that doesn't include genitals? If frontal nudity displaying breasts isn't allowed, how much of the breast must be covered? Is a slight bit of pubic hair not allowed? Does the signaling out of "Frontal Nudity" mean that back nudity is ok? Are butt shots ok? And the line "Or anything else that should be covered by a bathing suit in public area on Flickr" What does this mean? Does it mean that all nudity no matter what is not allowed, and if so...why doesn't the rule just say "Absolutely NO Nudity allowed". If not, Flickr has to let the poster know what areas must be covered with a bathing suit, because this differs from country to country around the world, so this should be clearly defined to avoid misunderstanding.
Edited spelling.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Violentz edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
Hmm, I always assumed that they meant bating suits in the states, which tend to cover women's breasts.
By the way, just saying, for no reason really, that even as a straight woman, I'd much prefer to see women's breasts than either male or female genitalia, as I don't personally feel that the latter is too terribly attractive, even when presented artistically.
Posted 30 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
