[Leica] Legs

[photo.forrest at earthlink.net (Phil)]

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