[Leica] Legs

[hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson)]

Phil the last time you brought this up on this group you then went on to
tell us that you had done fetish photography of tied up women (but regarded
that as acceptable).  Yet you are again describing the photos by Lluis as
offensive in your mind. It will all be in the archives I suppose.  If you
remember we also had several conversation exchanges off -list where I urged
you not to post your opinions on this on the list since it would very likely
lead to division and unpleasantness.

I regard that fetish photography as far more exploitative and degrading than
what you have interpreted as offensive from the photography by Lluis.
Honestly what do you think that your female friends would say if you
presented that fetish work to them and asked for opinions?
Look again with open mind you would see that Lluis has I think hundreds of
photographs posted on-line and your descriptions of his work are very
coloured and inaccurate.

Of course we clearly disagree on what you see in the photos by my friend
Lluis and you are entitled to your opinions. Mine are that the
interpretation is different for each person.
No doubt you will strongly disagree with my post. I ask that you do keep any
responses on list and keep in mind that not everyone has the same views or
moral judgements.
Better yet simply filter your posts if you object. I object to
your derogatory remarks regarding Lluis.



Geoff
http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman


On 29 August 2010 16:15, Phil <photo.forrest at earthlink.net> wrote:

> How so?  It looks like a camera was placed under a table to
> get an upskirt shot. Yeah, we heard how he shot it, but this is what he
> shoots a lot of. An attractive figure and her backside. This is why I
> ask "what does her face look like" with these photos. Because there are
> rarely any shots of faces taken. These are made subversively, or it
> looks so, and I'm just surprised that so much of it is passed off as
> good.
>
> My photography needs work, yes, but I try to engage my subjects as much
> as possible, trying never to take a photo of the back of someone for
> the sake of looking at their figure. It's boring with little subject
> content or impact besides "backside" or "legs" on one hand and arguably
> objectionable (as is the case with several of my friends) on the other.
>
> I'm not trying to be mean. I'm not a sycophant to this list either. This
> is my critique of what is shown and has been shown. I love images of
> attractive people, yes, but do they have a say in it in these cases,
> like the legs photo? Or is there merit to a photo of the back of
> someone's head which we've seen so much of?
>
> As in the past, I'm probably one of very few to speak up about respect
> for women and how we portray them.
>
> Phil Forrest
>
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:01:02 -0700
> Steve Barbour <steve.barbour at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Aug 28, 2010, at 10:35 PM, Phil wrote:
> >
> > > I know I have touched on this before, but just for curiosity's
> > > sake, I passed the image that Luis posted on to a few of my female
> > > friends.
> > >
> > >
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/luisrq/Miscellaneous/L1015811.jpg.html
> > >
> > > when they saw it, both said it was hopefully a posed shot for
> > > product and if not, then it was borderline up-skirt and on the edge
> > > of leering. One said the black & white one was better in case
> > > anyone wonders, but both were a bit unnerved about the image and
> > > how it was made.
> > >
> > > This is what I've been saying for quite some but somewhere between
> > > leering, questionable content, objectification and "art" the line is
> > > blurred. Yes, what I see is a nice photo but like so many others of
> > > very attractive women and the backs of their heads or their
> > > backsides or whatnot, isn't it just improper? Do these women get to
> > > voice their opinion? "Oh you took a photo of my legs that almost
> > > looks up my skirt? Fantastic!"
> > >
> > > And no, it's not a difference in culture, because that kind of
> > > objectification is frowned upon the whole world over, not just in
> > > the US.
> > >
> > > Many of these photos are very well exposed, very technically decent
> > > images. Great focus, decent composition and all, but somewhere
> > > there is a fuzzy boundary between "street" photography or candids
> > > and straight up objectification, bordering on indecency solely due
> > > to that objectification.
> >
> >
> > all absolute nonsense of course,
> >
> >
> > sorry Phil,
> >
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Phil Forrest
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Leica Users Group.
> > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>