Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photo of the Day - January 2010
- Thread starter Phrasikleia
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Did I miss something?? I like racy! I must have missed it.
The shot with the girl and the guitar...? Wouldn't have even given it a thought, but that's me. I'm fairly difficult to offend with that sort of thing. But, show me animal or child abuse, and I'll come unhinged (if it's exploitative.)
New one for today, from this week's location class. We were a bit flustered because the weather canceled our first location, so by the time we figured everything out and got the lights set up we each had 15 min to get a good shot... here's mine, it was the last shot from the camera
Did I miss something?? I like racy! I must have missed it.
You missed it. No nudity, but a shot with her legs held aloft and her nether region facing the camera. I have no problems with racy per se, but so often it's done unimaginatively in the "woman-as-mindless-object" mode. Apparently most men feel it's no fun to conceive of and portray women as both beautiful and intelligent.
wow interesting , photo! Great. Is that blur lines during editing or the surface of the road?
Thank you! It's wooden planks on the bridge that are out of focus (the focus is on the overhanging tree reflected in the puddles). No fancy editing or anything like that.
I thought it was a great capture of ripples on the water...
I would say some people rather than most men... but then I am a man so I might be a bit biased...
As for racy that is what DevianArt is for
I had to grab this shot of Deer Mountain this morning on my way into the office. The clouds reminded me of the Northern Lights.
Attachments
You missed it. No nudity, but a shot with her legs held aloft and her nether region facing the camera. I have no problems with racy per se, but so often it's done unimaginatively in the "woman-as-mindless-object" mode. Apparently most men feel it's no fun to conceive of and portray women as both beautiful and intelligent.
Ah... the portrayal of women in the media: that's one big can of worms. One of those subjects you could study for a lifetime... and yet bately scratch the surface. On a superficial level it would be helpful to guys if women could come to some consensus about how they want to be portrayed. But there's no consensus, and the use of sexualised imagery permeates every aspect of our lives. I'm not surprised that we're confused about what's acceptable... and what isn't...
You missed it. No nudity, but a shot with her legs held aloft and her nether region facing the camera. I have no problems with racy per se, but so often it's done unimaginatively in the "woman-as-mindless-object" mode. Apparently most men feel it's no fun to conceive of and portray women as both beautiful and intelligent.
Intelligent, beautiful women? Definitely my favorite subject!
Sure beats dumb as an ox gorgeous hunky guys... I agree that there's nothing less imaginative than the "mindless object" mode when portraying women. I do love the human form (who doesn't??) but the level of tastelessness which is exhibited widely in this world tends to assault my sensibilities. But, as Doylem mentioned, as a man it's not easy to know how "women" want to be portrayed - since there are so many different attitudes about this among women. I guess it's up to any person, male or female, to define their own self-worth, and how comfortable they are with their real selves. If they're genuine, and self-aware...(not always easy to tell this either) that's all I can go by if I'm photographing a person as themself.
A photo from a Jazz recording session over the weekend.
More photos on http://www.gigphotographer.com/2010/01/26/jazz-the-smoothest-kind-of-smooth/
More photos on http://www.gigphotographer.com/2010/01/26/jazz-the-smoothest-kind-of-smooth/
You missed it. No nudity, but a shot with her legs held aloft and her nether region facing the camera. I have no problems with racy per se, but so often it's done unimaginatively in the "woman-as-mindless-object" mode. Apparently most men feel it's no fun to conceive of and portray women as both beautiful and intelligent.
Well said I agree,really didn't appreciate the picture
Cobalt, ON
Man, all this talk of the big nasty on the list today. I thought I'd cool things off by posting a photo taken last fall. It is the head frame of a long abandoned silver mine in Cobalt, Ontario. Yeah, its old but still erect.
Man, all this talk of the big nasty on the list today. I thought I'd cool things off by posting a photo taken last fall. It is the head frame of a long abandoned silver mine in Cobalt, Ontario. Yeah, its old but still erect.
Man, all this talk of the big nasty on the list today. I thought I'd cool things off by posting a photo taken last fall. It is the head frame of a long abandoned silver mine in Cobalt, Ontario. Yeah, its old but still erect.
hey! do i detect an under lying joke here with this snap,either foolish or very brave
Ah... the portrayal of women in the media: that's one big can of worms. One of those subjects you could study for a lifetime... and yet bately scratch the surface. On a superficial level it would be helpful to guys if women could come to some consensus about how they want to be portrayed. But there's no consensus, and the use of sexualised imagery permeates every aspect of our lives. I'm not surprised that we're confused about what's acceptable... and what isn't...
It's usually the person holding the camera who puts forth the ideas and calls the shots, especially when the model is being paid. Historically, most of the slick, high-profile photos in the world (and paintings before them) have objectified women, making that kind of portrayal a sort of default mode. I agree that women should do their part to encourage alternatives, but the responsibility for a photograph mostly falls on the photographer; it's up to him to choose which aspects of his subjects to bring out. (And yes, I realize that there are women photographers too.
)
little something i took outta my window tonight. i know its flawed, but hey, it was a blind shot outta my window Also, could anyone tell me why when my pictures are viewed in anything other than safari on a mac, they look awful? like really desaturated? i mean heck, this one probably will to you! on my computer, with mac osx, on safari its a deeeep red. but, once viewed in firefox, a horrible orange! Anyway, c&c would be good
Also, could anyone tell me why when my pictures are viewed in anything other than safari on a mac, they look awful? like really desaturated? i mean heck, this one probably will to you! on my computer, with mac osx, on safari its a deeeep red. but, once viewed in firefox, a horrible orange! Anyway, c&c would be good
little something i took outta my window tonight. i know its flawed, but hey, it was a blind shot outta my window
I viewed this side by side in both browsers and they look OK. Deep organic redish-brown. Sometimes this happens for unknown reasons, especially with photos that are viewed with different email clients.
There's no EXIF data with the pic so I don't know what you processed it through.
Dale
I viewed this side by side in both browsers and they look OK. Deep organic redish-brown. Sometimes this happens for unknown reasons, especially with photos that are viewed with different email clients.
There's no EXIF data with the pic so I don't know what you processed it through.
Dale
It looks the same in either browser to me too. The EXIF is there and shows that the photo has an aRGB profile attached to it. For web display, you want to use sRGB. Also, TheSVD may be using an old version of Firefox, which is why he is seeing two different interpretations of the photo. I think it was with v.3.5 that color management was turned on by default in Firefox. With earlier versions, you have to turn it on yourself.
ah thankyou guys
im just hoping what your seeing is what im seeing haha, i mean theres no reason why it would only look like it does for me and only me would there?
And thats odd, simply opened it in photoshop and saved as a jpeg :| hmm, ill look into those colour profiles too..
EDIT: so i open the cr2 in photoshop, do whatever with it, save it as a jpeg... how do i do all that srgb stuff from there?
and i think that theres no exif data on that one cause i saved a copy of is at a tiff first maybe?
ANOTHER EDIT: yeah i've just updated firefox, looks better now. still cant show off my stuff to windows users though, haha
little something i took outta my window tonight. i know its flawed, but hey, it was a blind shot outta my window....... Anyway, c&c would be good
C & C from me would be to anticipate the likelihood of an interesting sunset, and make sure you're standing somewhere more photogenic (with camera on tripod...) when the colour is approaching its best. Not easy, I appreciate... but that's how you get more into the picture than just tree branches...
