Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/08/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]George Lottermoser offered: >>And another question, Does the photograph in question in any way illustrate, imply, or suggest a disrespect for this particular woman, or any other woman? ? not in my opinion ? In fact it implies appreciation - to me.<<<<<<<< Thank you George, absolutely right on the mark! cheers, ted " <imagist3 at mac.com> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 4:25 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] Legs And this, as any, question can and will be answered by many different individuals, from many different cultures in many different ways. Another question could be asked as well. Does the subject of this photo (or any other woman) who wears skirts of this length, and sits at elevated bars, care if her legs are seen, appreciated and/or photographed? And another question, Does the photograph in question in any way illustrate, imply, or suggest a disrespect for this particular woman, or any other woman? ? not in my opinion ? In fact it implies appreciation - to me. obviously YMMV Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Aug 29, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Phil wrote: > I'm not drawing a line at all. There are a lot of very good photos in > this album, this theme pops up a lot though. I mention faces because > there are a lot more backs of heads than faces featured. > > Here is an email I received from my friend Adrena about the photo and > others in question: > > "i think another important question with a photo that's going to get > this intimate is "what is the model's name? does the photographer know > the model's name?" i mean, the photo is just listed as "legs." i went > through some of his other shots and found another with exactly same > title that was clearly a different subject, and again, it was > something that i *really* hope was posed." > > That's the point of view of one of several women who have all said > essentially the same thing The question that I ask is if the woman's > perspective as the one being photographed is taken into account. Or > should it be? We shouldn't take opportunistic photos of the homeless > but this theme is ok? That's what I'm getting at, is all. > > Phil Forrest > > > > > On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:42:28 -0500 > George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com> wrote: > >> You seem to assume that appreciation >> of the visual beauty of the human form >> and respect cannot or do not coexist. >> >> Some Muslims consider exposing >> and/or photographing a face in public >> offensive; and consider any "street" photography >> of women off limits. >> >> You draw a line that states, "if you photograph a woman >> in public you must include the face." >> >> These are subjective, personal and cultural considerations. >> >> You, of course, can draw this line >> for your own photographic practice; >> and viewing. And I respect your right to do so. >> >> Others will continue to step over it. >> >> Regards, >> George Lottermoser >> george at imagist.com >> http://www.imagist.com >> http://www.imagist.com/blog >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 29, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Phil wrote: >> >>> As in the past, I'm probably one of very few to speak up about >>> respect for women and how we portray them. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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