# A few more shots from recent.



## NoelNTexas (Jul 3, 2013)

Thanks for Looking.







2






3






4






5


----------



## Granddad (Jul 4, 2013)

#4 is the money shot. 
#1 - Raccoon eyes, but very fashion model.
#5 - Doesn't grab me.

#3 I don't like - Maybe I'm paranoid but a preteen in a bikini in a studio sets off far too many alarms in my head. If she was my daughter that one would be pulled from the 'net before you could say paedophile.


----------



## ktan7 (Jul 4, 2013)

Nice studio lighting work on these portraits


----------



## YvetteC (Jul 4, 2013)

I have to agree with Grandad on #3...I never would have posted that one. I hope you have her parent's permission to use that photo...


----------



## tirediron (Jul 4, 2013)

Nice set overall, watch the cropped 'bits' like the fingers in #1.


----------



## Rosy (Jul 4, 2013)

Granddad said:


> #4 is the money shot.
> #1 - Raccoon eyes, but very fashion model.
> #5 - Doesn't grab me.
> 
> #3 I don't like - Maybe I'm paranoid but a preteen in a bikini in a studio sets off far too many alarms in my head. If she was my daughter that one would be pulled from the 'net before you could say paedophile.



GRANDAD are you in my HEAD?!? AS I was looking all your thoughts were in my head

Great shots - but ditto on what GD said


----------



## DanielLewis76 (Jul 4, 2013)

I hope you had her parents permission to TAKE that photo!


----------



## Granddad (Jul 5, 2013)

Rosy said:


> Granddad said:
> 
> 
> > #4 is the money shot.
> ...



So _that's_ where I've been! Did we have fun? 

Great minds think alike, alternatively, fools seldom differ.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 5, 2013)

Personally I think the pedophile comment is taking it too far on photo #3. Yes, I see how a parent could get upset, but at the same time I see absolutely nothing sexual or inappropriate in the shot. It isn't suggestive in the slightest, and I know for a fact that swim suits like that are extremely common even for young girls. Honestly I think it's a really fun photograph. And I'll just play devil's advocate here and point out that none of you know the circumstances to the photo and have no right to be acting like it's such a big issue; for all you know the parents could have been and were most likely there. Mind your own business. 

I love the lighting in these shots, and the quality in each of them is outstanding. The first thing that I notice though is that it looks like a lot of detail has been smoothed over and lost on their faces. For me the facial detail are too soft compared to the sharp detail throughout the rest of the photos.


----------



## DanielLewis76 (Jul 5, 2013)

I would have minded my own business if they were not posted on a public forum. For me the hand on hip hand to mouth pose does add some sexuality to the photo. The parents could have been their but did they also give permission for the photo to be posted on a public forum? I doubt it. 

That aside the shots are indeed great shots.


----------



## YvetteC (Jul 5, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> Personally I think the pedophile comment is taking it too far on photo #3. Yes, I see how a parent could get upset, but at the same time I see absolutely nothing sexual or inappropriate in the shot. It isn't suggestive in the slightest, and I know for a fact that swim suits like that are extremely common even for young girls. Honestly I think it's a really fun photograph. And I'll just play devil's advocate here and point out that none of you know the circumstances to the photo and have no right to be acting like it's such a big issue; for all you know the parents could have been and were most likely there. Mind your own business.
> 
> I love the lighting in these shots, and the quality in each of them is outstanding. The first thing that I notice though is that it looks like a lot of detail has been smoothed over and lost on their faces. For me the facial detail are too soft compared to the sharp detail throughout the rest of the photos.



Before I had kids, I would have made this argument as well.  It is a fun shot, she's a cute little girl...to me, there is nothing sexual about it but that's the thing about pedophiles...they see something I don't see.  We have seen the way people on the forum go crazy every time a beautiful woman in a bikini is posted and to the pedophile, that's what this guy posted.  The guy has a website with phone numbers and location, he listed his hometown on this forum...how hard would it be to find this guy if you wanted to?  What if this is his daughter?  Worse yet, what if it isn't? He needs to realize he can get himself into trouble if her parents don't know he's posting these online.  

We are the adults, it's our job to protect kids from stuff they shouldn't have to worry about.  I know she isn't my kid but there are sick people in the world and making this picture accessible to them seems like a bad idea.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 5, 2013)

considering these are studio shots, and not taken from behind a fence at the beach, I think its at least a little safe to assume that the parents/guardian were present for the shoot. people take pictures of there kids at the beach all the time, and this is pretty normal attire nowadays. I wouldn't read too much more into it. 
speculation is not a worthy science. 

#1 and #4 are fantastic!
the kid has such a serious look on her face in #1. was that done on purpose? or is that just how she looks? its something a little different. 
#5 is good, but im not really a fan of B&W so...i would have liked to see the color version. 
#2 is good as well, but the bits of hair encroaching onto her right eye keep catching my attention.
#3 is a good shot overall, but the skin tones on her legs look a little mottled. lighting maybe? just seems a tad off to me.


----------



## kathyt (Jul 5, 2013)

I really like 1,4 and 5. Very nice. #3 needs to go to the recycle bin ASAP. Very inappropriate.  If more then a few people feel this way then I would remove it.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 5, 2013)

#3 is no different from a catalog shot for a kids swimsuit. It's not sexual or innapropriate, and nothing you can't see by watching an Old Navy Summer commercial. Again, you don't know if the parents were there or not, and it's likely they were. Either way, it's not up to you to slap the photographer's wrist over it. Like a moderator already said, it would be different if they were taken from the other side of a fence or through a window unknowingly but that isn't the case.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 5, 2013)

I don't care about the swimsuit in #3, I care about the terribleness of the photo. She looks like a zombie who is about to eat her own enormous hand.

The rest of them are quite nice, although the key light might be a little high in #1 through #3.

I love #5 with great love. It's very good, and it's pushing pretty much all of my buttons too.


----------



## Geaux (Jul 5, 2013)

Is this from your daughters friends sleepover from the other thread?

if #3 isn't your daughter..how did the idea of swimsuit shoot even come up? Very weird and makes me feel a bit uncertain. I'm usually not like this but it stands out like a sore thumb among the others.


----------



## Indofred (Jul 5, 2013)

Granddad said:


> #3 I don't like - Maybe I'm paranoid but a preteen in a bikini in a studio sets off far too many alarms in my head. If she was my daughter that one would be pulled from the 'net before you could say paedophile.



I have to agree. I have no problems with shots of kids but anything with a potentially sexual element has to be a bad idea.
I wouldn't have taken such a shot; regardless of the parent's opinion.
Of course, it's clear there was no bad intent but that doesn't make it a good idea.
As a  note, I just checked on what would be considered to be porn.

indecent images


> Grade 1: Images depicting nudity or erotic posing, with no sexual activity
> Grade 2: Sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child
> Grade 3: Non-penetrative sexual activity between adult(s) and child(ren)
> Grade 4: Penetrative sexual activity between child(ren) and adult(s).
> Grade 5: Sadism or bestiality



That image doesn't hit even the lowest scale.


----------



## Geaux (Jul 5, 2013)

I don't think anyone said this was porn....lol

just a tad unnerving.


----------



## Juga (Jul 5, 2013)

It isn't what or how we all feel or deem as possibly sexual. The problem is the sickos out the in the world that find that imagery sexually attractive. I have several family members that study law and have even heard of pedophiles being sexually attracted to pageant girls. So to me the image in question isn't inappropriate for the family but I would not feel comfortable broadcasting it to the world due to all the gross people that would be sexually stimulated by the image.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 5, 2013)

She is eighteen.  Right?


----------



## Tiller (Jul 5, 2013)

Without knowing the circumstances, I'll withhold my opinion about #3.

I agree with amolitor though. #5 is groovy.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 6, 2013)

I like the set overall... still learning lighting myself, so I don't have much to contribute in that department.  And, agreed... people are reading too much into #3.  There are a thousand commercial uses involving kids that people glance at and don't give a second thought to every day.  The really dangerous predators don't need you to post anything on the internet.  The photo was not sexually suggestive and pixmedic was correct, this is common attire these days.  

How many of you have actually dealt with a real predator of that nature?  How many have you spoken with?  Interviewed?  Interrogated or taken into custody?  I don't think any of the people who made a big deal out of this photo have EVER dealt with those predators on that level.  If they had, they'd understand a great deal more about how those people operate, think and behave.  

Again, nice set.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 6, 2013)

Juga said:


> It isn't what or how we all feel or deem as possibly sexual. The problem is the sickos out the in the world that find that imagery sexually attractive. I have several family members that study law and have even heard of pedophiles being sexually attracted to pageant girls. So to me the image in question isn't inappropriate for the family but I would not feel comfortable broadcasting it to the world due to all the gross people that would be sexually stimulated by the image.


Big deal. I have a sexual reaction any time I see a men's shaving commercial on television. People are making WAY too big of a fuss over a photo that they don't even know the circumstances over and that has absolutely no sexual innuendo to it. None whatsoever. It's a photo of a girl in a swimsuit; anyone can go to a public pool and see it or turn on the television and see it in a kid's swimsuit commercial for Old Navy.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 6, 2013)

I really don't think the thread needs to be about how "inappropriate" #3 is.  It's photography, take it for what it is and don't blow it out of proportion.  If you were living next to a serial killer or pedophile who was currently active, you wouldn't know it.  You'd still let your kids go out to play, you'd still go on about your lives.  People see too much on TV or read too much and get the wrong idea about criminal mentality.  This isn't an episode of Criminal Minds...  don't turn someone's art into a reason for "accusing" them of inappropriate behavior (which is essentially what a lot of this thread has done) when it wasn't such.  I still stand by what I said.. most who DO blow it out of proportion have probably never interrogated anyone like that.  

I have, and they don't think or work the way people seem to think they do.  It's a set of photos from a studio, and a pretty good set.  That's all it is.


----------



## Juga (Jul 6, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> Juga said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't what or how we all feel or deem as possibly sexual. The problem is the sickos out the in the world that find that imagery sexually attractive. I have several family members that study law and have even heard of pedophiles being sexually attracted to pageant girls. So to me the image in question isn't inappropriate for the family but I would not feel comfortable broadcasting it to the world due to all the gross people that would be sexually stimulated by the image.
> ...


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 6, 2013)

And I would say most of those parents haven't interrogated a predator like that.  My point was that being a parent and worrying about your children doesn't give you license to make half hinted accusations about someones work in photography.  That actually happened in this thread and it was the only inappropriate thing I saw.

Again... not an episode of Criminal Minds. I've spent a decade in LE. Be happy to compare notes with any parent who's been in an interrogation room and knows what they should REALLY be concerned about.. because this isn't it.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 6, 2013)

Oh the madness of it all!


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 6, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> Oh the madness of it all!



LOL.. I think if more people understood the madness of it all they wouldn't spend ANY time worrying about a studio shot in a photography forum.  There are much darker things to contend with.  But hey, what do I know.. I'm a blunt instrument.    To get back to the thread, I do like the set.  I think they're some pretty nice portraits.  Hope to see some more work.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 6, 2013)

Great, great shots and an interesting "thick" ambience created by warm brown colors. It does help No 4 which is a clear winner - fantastic shot.  I like No 5 the only thing that bothers me - I would prefer a bit lower key with this character, but her eyes are in a shade under the brim and will get too dark.  And I would probably risk it and cut it below up to the elbow to get rid of that diagonal line. Other than that nitpicking - love it.  No 3 - great posture and expression, lovely girl, still this one is a bit discordant to me to be completely honest with you - a child in a bikini in a studio? Why? Is she going to swim there?  To put it blunt, bikini serves two purposes that I can possibly think of - to swim in it or to look outright sexy. I hope you get my drift. Nothing criminal here at all of course, but the question inevitably pops up here - why bikini? Artistically it does not work to me. 
O yes, and there is one thing that to me is distracting on all photos - the signature is too large.

PS did not read other comments, so probably I am repeating some.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 6, 2013)

OK, I read the thread and surprise surprise I am not the only  one to find the bikini shot contradictory. I think it is a valid discussion btw. In my opinion to say that it may attract pedophiles etc is way too much. It is a perfectly legitimate shot. But if we look at it from an artistic point of view, it a completely different proposition. Bikini just looks odd. Some say - we see underage girls in bikinis all the time at pools, on a beach, in swimsuit commercials.. Sure. But all these pictures have an appropriate context. The girl is in a bikini in a pool because  that is exactly what bikini is for - to swim. So she is swimming, sunbathing, others make her photos - perfect.  This is all perfect because the context is right. If this shot was a bikini commercial - with some minor alterations it would be fine as well, probably.  Nice girl , nice bikini, again perfect. But it is a shot made in a studio with a completely different purpose.  Every good shot has its purpose, some intellectual luggage if you wish.  And this is clearly a very good shot.  So it warrants a bit of thinking. The photographer wanted to show the girl, her character, her inner self, methinks. It is a portrait after all. Right?  So he chooses to shoot her in a bikini. Why? What is the artistic idea behind it?  Is she an avid swimmer?  Does bikini suits her character better than anything else? Did he want to show the lines of her body or her sun tan, probably some bodybuilding efforts? Has she been on a diet and lost five stones?  I am just trying to understand why this composition?  As I said there are two primary purposes of a bikini - swimming and looking sexy. Sunbathing probably. Anyway, to wear when it is hot or to look hot. Do you want it or not but this is a fact. Millions of girls want their photos in bikini with one single purpose - to look sexy. And you just cannot get around it with all those magazines we see on every corner the connotations are too strong. Again, to raise this problem to a pedophile level is a bit ridiculous,  but artistically as a studio shot with all this lighting to me personally the idea is a bit dubious. If the girl likes it, if parents like it - no problems whatsoever.  But I think the same shot in a slightly different dress and lighting would be much much better.  Simply because it would project  a much clearer message. But it is a good shot anyway.  That's my 2 p.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 6, 2013)

Make sure you guys don't accidentally look at any Sears or JC Penny catalogs.  They have photos of young girls in bikinis and underwear in them, which might give you "impure" thoughts.  Some sales papers have them as well, so better to stay away from those too.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 6, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Make sure you guys don't accidentally look at any Sears or JC Penny catalogs.  They have photos of young girls in bikinis and underwear in them, which might give you "impure" thoughts.  Some sales papers have them as well, so better to stay away from those too.




 Sorry Buckster, but you completely missed the point.


----------



## Geaux (Jul 6, 2013)

I think my weirdness stems from his prior thread saying his daughter had friends sleeping over and they wanted a "photoshoot" done. Where and how does a young friend or your daughter end up in a bikini during a harmless "photoshoot"

its the the sleepover friend part of the photoshoot that irks me the most I think, being that this was not stemmed from any parental interaction wanting these shots done.


----------



## kathyt (Jul 6, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Make sure you guys don't accidentally look at any Sears or JC Penny catalogs.  They have photos of young girls in bikinis and underwear in them, which might give you "impure" thoughts.  Some sales papers have them as well, so better to stay away from those too.


Those catalogs have a purpose. What is the purpose of this image?


----------



## Buckster (Jul 6, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Make sure you guys don't accidentally look at any Sears or JC Penny catalogs.  They have photos of young girls in bikinis and underwear in them, which might give you "impure" thoughts.  Some sales papers have them as well, so better to stay away from those too.
> ...


That is a question for the participants to answer.

Perhaps it is the simple and innocent depiction of a young person wearing beach wear, commonly seen on any beach or at any pool in most of the civilized world without jumping to the conclusion that it's inappropriate.  Perhaps it is useful material for the portfolio of a young model who could be in one of those catalogs.

The leap to finger-pointing, veiled accusations of perversion and so forth however are without merit, IMHO.  If the thoughts that enter one's head upon viewing this or other photos of young girls in beach wear or underwear, in catalogs or photography venues such as this forum, turn to sexuality, it's the person who sees it that way that has the problem, in my opinion.


----------



## Granddad (Jul 6, 2013)

Granddad said:


> ...#3 I don't like - Maybe I'm paranoid but a preteen in a bikini in a studio sets off far too many alarms in my head. If she was my daughter that one would be pulled from the 'net before you could say paedophile.



Keep what I said in perspective and don't read accusations into it. I gave my opinion which was putting my personal perspective as a parent. If that was my daughter I wouldn't want that photo online. OP hasn't returned to say whether or not he had parental consent to post. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the lack of consent with regard to a minor could get you in trouble in the States, whether she's wearing a bikini or a snow suit.

As for experience of dealing with paedophiles, yes I do have some. Detective inspector, Royal Hong Kong Police and also UK probation service. Maybe that's what makes me a mite paranoid?


----------



## sashbar (Jul 6, 2013)

Buckster said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



O well, Buckster, with due respect I can not understand why you do not see the difference between a utilitarian shot in a catalogue which shows a bikini on a girl,  a beach photo where any underage girl can be in a bikini or topless - and it would be natural  - and a studio portrait that is created to project a specific elaborate image. A studio portrait is a very intimate image, it goes well beyond nakedness so to speak, it touches some inner traits of a human being and when it goes wrong it can be seriously wrong on an emotional level. Yes there are probably lots of reasons for this girl to appear in a bikini - maybe she is the most famous bikini collector in the world. But it does not change anything here. Because the message is not clear and we are guessing. We are not talking about perversion and anything like it. This is not a question of morality, it is a question of artistic expression. But the very fact that several commentators feel it is disturbing and not quite right is very telling.  I hope I am explaining it clear enough. My English is severely limited.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 6, 2013)

Granddad said:


> Granddad said:
> 
> 
> > Detective inspector, Royal Hong Kong Police and also UK probation service. Maybe that's what makes me a mite paranoid?
> ...


----------



## Buckster (Jul 6, 2013)

So, if it was shot specifically for inclusion in a catalog, it would be okay, but since it wasn't, it's not okay.

If she wears it on the beach, it's okay.  But if she wears it in a studio, it's not okay.

If thousands of people see her wearing it in person, it's okay.  But if they see a photo of her wearing it, it's not okay.

If it has the potential to titillate a pedophile, it's not okay, but none of you are mounting a campaign against such images in catalogs, which certainly titillate a pedophile just as much.

No, I'm afraid it doesn't make any sense to me to have such double-standards, nor to bandy about what looks to me like made-up excuses and pseudo-justifications for holding to and making a stand for such double-standards.

And to revisit the "purpose"; What is the "purpose" of any art?  What is the "purpose" of the statue of David or the works of Monet, Rembrandt, Picasso?  What "utilitarian purpose" do they serve to justify their being made and displayed?


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 6, 2013)

sashbar said:


> > A studio portrait is a very intimate image, it goes well beyond nakedness so to speak, it touches some inner traits of a human being and when it goes wrong it can be seriously wrong on an emotional level.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you...Are you serious with this statement?


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 6, 2013)

Thousands upon thousands of portraits of young girls (and boys) in all manner of outfits are shot every day in professional studios around the world in the hopes of that child getting an acting or modeling job. I would imagine that all manner of posing is used.  

Maybe this is a portfolio piece.  Maybe it is strictly for the parents.  Maybe the girls mother is a swimsuit model for sports illustrated and her daughter just wants to be like her.  

Funny enough, i dont hear anyone complaining about  the rapists being incensed by all the boudoir shots being posted on the forum... forget about the animal photos, i wont even go there.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 6, 2013)

Buckster said:


> So, if it was shot specifically for inclusion in a catalog, it would be okay, but since it wasn't, it's not okay.
> 
> If she wears it on the beach, it's okay.  But if she wears it in a studio, it's not okay.
> 
> ...



Well said brother! I agree completely. As well, this is a forum for photographers to post photos they take. Not for people to get their rocks off. It's absurd that people are acting as if it shouldn't be here of all places because pedophiles might like it.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 6, 2013)

Buckster - 

Nakedness and sexiness are not synonyms.  Just think about it. 
Catalogue images are not sexy - it is just dress worn by men and women, girls and boys.  

Context makes a woman or a man more or less sexy, and quite dramatically, - not just his/ her appearance.  Just think why a bikini girl on a beach is not sexy or disturbing at all. But if you see the same girl in a bikini at a secretary desk in an office you would feel quite differently. Double standards? Why? The answer does not lie on a surface. 

Stature of David has no utilitarian purpose. Statue of David in a bikini would have. 
(Actually David had some sort of a bikini at one point. There is a copy in a London museum. When Queen Victoria saw it she was shocked by the nudity, and a fig leaf was cast to cover his genitalia for royal visits.) 
And strictly speaking David was made with a utilitarian purpose - to decorate Florence's Duomo. But upon completion it was decided that it was a masterpiece on it's own and too good to put on the roof.

PS You may ask me why on Earth am I writing about it? Probably because I believe it is important for a photographer.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 6, 2013)

sashbar said:


> Buckster -
> 
> Nakedness and sexiness are not synonyms.  Just think about it.
> Catalogue images are not sexy - it is just dress worn by men and women, girls and boys.
> ...


Personally I don't see anything sexy about the photo. If it were actually suggestive and the pose and mood inappropriate that would be one thing, but in the case of this photo it's simply just a girl in a bikini. 

Perhaps this forum is a little too conservative for my tastes...


----------



## sashbar (Jul 6, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > > A studio portrait is a very intimate image, it goes well beyond nakedness so to speak, it touches some inner traits of a human being and when it goes wrong it can be seriously wrong on an emotional level.
> ...


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 6, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Thousands upon thousands of portraits of young girls (and boys) in all manner of outfits are shot every day in professional studios around the world in the hopes of that child getting an acting or modeling job. I would imagine that all manner of posing is used.
> 
> Maybe this is a portfolio piece.  Maybe it is strictly for the parents.  Maybe the girls mother is a swimsuit model for sports illustrated and her daughter just wants to be like her.
> 
> Funny enough, i dont hear anyone complaining about  the rapists being incensed by all the boudoir shots being posted on the forum... forget about the animal photos, i wont even go there.



Personally I find the images mildly disturbing, because they are children being shot like they were adults... when they aren't. I see no childlike innocence here, more a suggestion of the onset of maturity (with some sexual reference). Poses are probably not the best for a child... too mature.  (my girlfriend agrees, and she is very open minded about such things. Neither one of us is religious either... so not coming from that sometimes skewed perspective). 

The girls appear to be imitating what they have seen in magazines, and such... of mature models. Might be fun, but may not be appropriate, depending on the audience. A lot of girls seem to want to grow up too fast, and be women before they have to be... it seems to be part of our culture. This is reminisicent of the JonBenét Ramsey stuff...

Not a bad set except for a few small things (mostly already mentioned, like cropped fingers in #1).


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 6, 2013)

Geaux said:


> I think my weirdness stems from his prior thread saying his daughter had friends sleeping over and they wanted a "photoshoot" done. Where and how does a young friend or your daughter end up in a bikini during a harmless "photoshoot"
> 
> its the the sleepover friend part of the photoshoot that irks me the most I think, being that this was not stemmed from any parental interaction wanting these shots done.


Could it be that it was a hot day and they were swimming? Who knows? Every response so far here is based on speculation. In my experience, making an assumption is never a good idea, and assuming that there is an underlying perverse reason for her to be in a bikini isn't ok in my opinion. There are a thousand reasons as to why she could be in a bikini, but either way to me it is simply just a girl in a bikini. There isn't anything overtly sexual about it unless someone makes it sexual [which it seems to me that the only people who are putting any sort of sexual connotation to it are the people making a fuss over it]. I just don't see what the huge deal is here, because it's simply what it is. Her hand isn't on her crotch, she isn't giving bedroom eyes, isn't in any sort of sexy pose. It's just a girl in a bikini giving a fun attitude. Sweet Jesus watch out!


----------



## Buckster (Jul 6, 2013)

sashbar said:


> Buckster -
> 
> Nakedness and sexiness are not synonyms.  Just think about it.
> Catalogue images are not sexy - it is just dress worn by men and women, girls and boys.
> ...


You seem to be saying that if you saw this girl in this outfit at the beach you would be just fine with it, but seeing her in this photograph induces thoughts of sexuality in you.  Therefore, it is wrong.  Don't you think that says something about you and your private thoughts that might be questionable?

Are the catalog shots of young girls and boys in beach attire shot or depicted at the beach?  Not necessarily.  They're very often studio shots against plain backgrounds or other studio-style backgrounds.  And what of the underwear shots?  They're always depicted in a private setting or studio.  Do you see any of them in a sexual manner?  Do they titillate you?  If not, why is this photo any different?  Either that sort of image does or does not sexually excite a person who is not thought to be a pedophile.

Do you fear that pedophiles will see those shots in those catalogs and be titillated whether they're depicted at a beach or not and, if so, don't you think something should be done about it?  How far are you willing to take this charade of the necessity to curtail the impurity of thought in some individuals that might be induced by photographs?

Perhaps there should be a campaign against photos of young people fully clothed but barefoot, in case those with foot fetishes get off on them?

Where does it end?  Where do you draw the line?  Where are the standards, and who appointed any of you Czar of Maintaining Sexual Decency in Photography based on them?


----------



## sashbar (Jul 6, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I don't see anything sexy about the photo. If it were actually suggestive and the pose and mood inappropriate that would be one thing, but in the case of this photo it's simply just a girl in a bikini.
> ...


----------



## Buckster (Jul 6, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> Personally I don't see anything sexy about the photo.


Same here, which is probably why I don't understand the uproar over it.



DanOstergren said:


> If it were actually suggestive and the pose and mood inappropriate that would be one thing, but in the case of this photo it's simply just a girl in a bikini.


Exactly.  The fact that so many here see it in a sexual way disturbs me much more than the photo itself.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 6, 2013)

sashbar said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > sashbar said:
> ...


----------



## kathyt (Jul 6, 2013)

All I am saying is if someone posted a shot of my child like this then they would get my foot up their a**! That's all.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 6, 2013)

Buckster said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster -
> ...



You are asking an interesting and a very big question. And this question is not about the nature of sexuality but about the nature of art.  Why one picture leaves us completely indifferent and the other opens our imagination? It has nothing to do with my "private thoughts" or such, so cool down a bit on this front. 

As I pointed already, the catalogue shot is not about a person, it is about a dress, it is not sexy by definition. The portrait is about a person. This is the difference, great portraits are intimate - again, by definition. They tell you things about the person. That's why portraits are able to capture imagination.   

The sexiness in an Art is a huge, serious and even an academic topic, there are tons of books about it, and I see no sense to discuss it seriously within the frame of a forum.

And I have to repeat myself again - I DO NOT find this picture indecent or inappropriate, it is a perfectly legitimate, good picture. I am questioning the creative side. I have never mentioned "padophile" subject, it never even crossed my mind before others started to write about it.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 6, 2013)

Buckster said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...


----------



## Buckster (Jul 6, 2013)

sashbar said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > sashbar said:
> ...


----------



## sashbar (Jul 6, 2013)

Buckster said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


----------



## kundalini (Jul 6, 2013)

I only read part of the first page and Phoowhey on the Negative Nancy's, Noel.  Keep shooting dude.  Great stuff as usual.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 6, 2013)

Thing is, we still think the camera takes something away from people. It's a vestige of sympathetic magic, of the belief that an image contains a literal part of the thing depicted. It's a vestige of "the camera steals my soul" superstition.

At least, I've been thinking about this off and on for a few months at least, and I don't see how else to explain how irrational we get about pictures of kids.

I haven't any interest in getting into a discussion about this, mind you. That would be tedious, and anyways you can do the work yourself to see why it's true or not true.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 6, 2013)

sashbar said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Why the bloody hair pulled to one side?  Why the bloody smile?  Why that bloody color of bloody backdrop?  Why the bloody questions about it?  It is what it bloody is.  Don't like it?  That's fine too.  But do you need an explanation for the choice of every article of clothing on every model, or just bikinis?
> ...


I simply don't see any need to come up with an answer.  I don't see the point of the question to begin with, just like I don't see the point of asking any of the other questions I posed, which was the point of posing them to you.  And you haven't got an answer to any of them, though you're eager to pose the question, "why a bloody bikini?" as though that's somehow valid but the others are not.

Again, do you question every article of clothing on every model, or just bikinis?  What is it about bikinis that offends you?

From my own personal POV, the only ones who should be having strong reactions and questions like yours to an image of a girl in a bikini are extreme prudes and pedophiles.  I'm neither, so I don't have any actual questions about why, and I'd hazard a guess that there's not an answer I could give to satisfy you in any case, so why bother?  I'll just rest on my previous answer, "why not?"



sashbar said:


> No seriously, if you refuse to see any difference between a smile, a backdrop and a bikini


It's not that I "refuse" to see a difference - it's quite simply that I just don't see why any of them require explanation, nor why any of them should be considered risque or sexually charged or whatever is going on with the folks in this thread that are having such a problem with the image in question.



sashbar said:


> - just tell me: will you have a nerve to say to your client - a mother of an underage girl -  "Lets shoot her in a bikini".
> And if she asks you why, to tell her "WHY NOT?"
> Would you have a nerve to do it?
> No?
> WHY NOT??


Seeing as how I don't provide wardrobe for my clients, nor even advise them on what to wear other than, perhaps, "don't wear black (or white, depending) because I'll be shooting you against a black (or white, depending) backdrop for the composite you want me to do", it would mean that they'd have to have brought a bikini with them to the shoot.  I would infer from that action on their part that they'd like to use it.

So then, if I said "no, I can't shoot her in that beach attire you've brought specifically to get photos of her in", the mom would probably be the one asking, "WHY NOT???"  And then I'd have to explain that prudes on the internet might be offended by it, and pedophiles might get off on it - apparently more-so that the images they see in catalogs or the live bodies they see at beaches and playgrounds and so forth.

Frankly, I'd be more comfortable just going ahead with the bikini shoot than to try to have that conversation with them.

Suppose I set up a photo booth on a busy boardwalk by a warm, sunny beach somewhere, and use a green screen and a book of digital backgrounds.  I let the clients choose their background, and even have an assistant that prints the photo at whatever size they like on the spot.  Chances are, a lot of the people that walked in on impulse to get their photos taken would be in beach attire.

Then, here come some young girls who've been frolicking all over the beach in the sun and surf in their bikinis in front of thousands of strangers, and nobody has a problem with it at all.  They spot my booth and decide to get photos for themselves, mom and dad, and their FB page.  

Then, as if by magic, two steps toward my green screen to get in between it and my camera suddenly renders their attire sexually charged and inappropriate?

I beg to differ.


----------



## DanielLewis76 (Jul 6, 2013)

I must say again my main concern is that its been posted on a public forum. Now if my daughter was an aspiring model and I was ok for her to be photo'd in a bikini for a portfolio etc I still wouldn't be happy for it to be posted on a public forum for anyone to see.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 6, 2013)

DanielLewis76 said:


> I must say again my main concern is that its been posted on a public forum. Now if my daughter was an aspiring model and I was ok for her to be photo'd in a bikini for a portfolio etc I still wouldn't be happy for it to be posted on a public forum for anyone to see.



Why?  What about all the strangers that can see her at the beach?  How do you deal with that?


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 6, 2013)

People here really don't understand what they should really be concerned about. Lol

Disregard all the rest. I'd be wasting my time.  Look people.. a lot of you know photography pretty well but it's obvious you don't know predator mentality or MO. So stick to what you do know and just take this for what it is... a studio shot photograph.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 6, 2013)

In a general way, while continuing to express no specific opinion on the sexuality of these pictures, context DOES matter:

A girl in a bikini lying on a towel on the beach is _not the same_ as the same girl in the same bikini in the same position, on a boardroom table. Buckster's green screen can indeed change a non-sexual photograph into a sexual one. Or dinner into breakfast, or suicide into murder, or a diver into an astronaut.

Context matters.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 6, 2013)

The photo was taken out of context in this thread. Lots of accusations (many inappropriate when you start hinting at pedophile) and ideas about what predators do and don't look for and WHERE they look.. when really, this was just a studio shot.  As was indicated, this could well be for a number of reasons and only the parties involved could tell you what those were.

People in general often cause uproars over things they shouldn't.  I see that happen all the time .. make no mistake, while you're spending your time trashing a piece of photography for context, there are other children in REAL danger.. or REALLY being abused/harmed/inappropriately displayed for gain.

If you are so hard charging and want to do something to stop those issues, then go do it. Because on THIS thread, you're accomplishing absolutely nothing.


----------



## DanielLewis76 (Jul 7, 2013)

Buckster said:


> DanielLewis76 said:
> 
> 
> > I must say again my main concern is that its been posted on a public forum. Now if my daughter was an aspiring model and I was ok for her to be photo'd in a bikini for a portfolio etc I still wouldn't be happy for it to be posted on a public forum for anyone to see.
> ...



For the same reason its not ok to wander around a beach taking photos of kids.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 7, 2013)

DanielLewis76 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > DanielLewis76 said:
> ...



That didn't answer the question.. the question is, why can they be on a beach, in public, seen by EVERYONE in a bikini.. but not on a forum?  If they're on the beach in a bikini, I don't need the camera do I?  It's in public... I can see them.  I have eyes.  

So what's the difference and what's your answer?


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 7, 2013)

I really don't care how anyone want to rationalize it, it's uncomfortable to click on a thread containing images of underaged girls in bikinis. Why is "NSFW" not used in the title? We only use "NSFW" for 18 yrs and older women wearing bikinis?


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 7, 2013)

amolitor said:


> In a general way, while continuing to express no specific opinion on the sexuality of these pictures, context DOES matter:
> 
> A girl in a bikini lying on a towel on the beach is _not the same_ as the same girl in the same bikini in the same position, on a boardroom table. Buckster's green screen can indeed change a non-sexual photograph into a sexual one. Or dinner into breakfast, or suicide into murder, or a diver into an astronaut.
> 
> Context matters.



Riiiiight. It's a studio, not a stripper stage. This is getting idiotic.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 7, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > In a general way, while continuing to express no specific opinion on the sexuality of these pictures, context DOES matter:
> ...



When did I mention the specific pictures in this thread? It says "in a general way" right at the beginning of my comment. When you quote me, please do me the courtesy of responding to what I _actually said_ instead of.. I don't even know what you're responding to.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 7, 2013)

The moderators didn't seem to have any problem .. and one even recommended people not read too much into it (which happened regardless hehehe).. there's nothing criminal about the image and the photographer was quite obviously displaying it as part of a set.

I don't find it disturbing or offensive. I took it for what it was. People always have and always will blow things out of proportion though.


----------



## Mach0 (Jul 7, 2013)

As a parent, I wouldn't allow this shot. If her parents allowed it, it's not our problem.


----------



## Rgollar (Jul 7, 2013)

When I saw these pictures not once did it occur to me that it was just pictures. Not until I read the comments did I realize how much different I think then other people. I just did not see anything sick in my mind. Maybe because I have children and am used to kids in bathing suits. All I saw was a child in a picture nothing more so any other thought beyond that is just beyond my understanding. What I find so sickening is that we have to even to discuss this. Would I put my kids picture up in a bathing suit? I might have because I just dont think of it as being any thing then just a family memory. Now that I see so many people see it as something other then that is just scary so I would not now. I can see the concern some people have, I just cant comprehend people thinking any thing else. I guess I am just naive.


----------



## Geaux (Jul 7, 2013)

Can't wait for OP to come back and settle all this nonsense.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 7, 2013)

Geaux said:


> Can't wait for OP to come back and settle all this nonsense.



I would not try to settle anything if it were me.  I would not be shocked if they never posted anything here again.  If I were so concerned, I would report it to someone who might be able to do something about it.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 7, 2013)

Geaux said:


> Can't wait for OP to come back and settle all this nonsense.


how would anything the OP has to say settle anything?

There are a group of people here having a very strong negative reaction to this photo.  They say things like they'd put their foot up someone's a** for shooting or displaying this photo of THEIR kid.  Will that change with something the OP has to say about it?  I seriously doubt it.  And those of us on the other side who don't have a problem with it - are we likely to change our minds based on anything the OP has to say about it?  Also not likely.  So how do you expect that the OP will "settle it"?

Do you imagine that if the OP comes back and says, "why yes, I phoned the parents and got their permission before the shoot, detailed that some of the shots would be in bikinis, all shot in my studio, and then posted on the internet", that those folks having the strong reaction will suddenly think it's just fine?  Why should they?  Would such a statement by the OP convince them that it'd be okay for them to put similar photos of their kids on the internet, or allow other photographers to do so?  From their reactions and statements thus far, it sure doesn't seem like it - but WHY - that's my question.

I don't think any of them have actually explained WHY they're having such a negative reaction.  What is it EXACTLY that they think a posted photo DOES that's so bad?  Does it steal their child's soul, or something?  Why is it that they're okay with their child wearing that attire at the beach in front of untold numbers of strangers, but they're so bent out of shape over a photo of it?  Either way, people can see their daughter dressed like that, but in one situation they're flipping out and even using terms of violence like putting a foot up someone's a** as a reaction over it.

So, what I don't understand, in a nutshell, is: What, EXACTLY, do they think that photo DOES that's so bad that they should have a reaction like this?   I get that they don't like it, but WHY don't they like it?  What bad thing do they think might happen by having that photo posted or displayed on a photography forum, or in a museum, or on the wall of a talent agency, or anywhere else for that matter, especially when they're just fine with strangers seeing their kid on a public beach dressed that way?

Seriously, I don't get it.


----------



## Indofred (Jul 7, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> I really don't care how anyone want to rationalize it, it's uncomfortable to click on a thread containing images of underaged girls in bikinis. Why is "NSFW" not used in the title? We only use "NSFW" for 18 yrs and older women wearing bikinis?



I wouldn't say it was uncomfortable but I wouldn't have taken them myself and I wouldn't allow such photos of my daughter.
I'll go with personal morality.
However, not everyone thinks as I do so, as there is clearly nothing pornographic and no intent,  I must bow to their judgement in this case.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 7, 2013)

Indofred said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't care how anyone want to rationalize it, it's uncomfortable to click on a thread containing images of underaged girls in bikinis. Why is "NSFW" not used in the title? We only use "NSFW" for 18 yrs and older women wearing bikinis?
> ...


Would you allow her to wear a bikini at the beach?


----------



## Juga (Jul 7, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Tailgunner said:
> ...



I will not allow my daughter to wear a bikini until she is 35...


----------



## Geaux (Jul 7, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Geaux said:
> 
> 
> > Can't wait for OP to come back and settle all this nonsense.
> ...



buckster, i can tell you feel VERY strongly against others opinion that differ from yours, there's no need to "get it" or understand. It's their opinion vs yours.  

The Reason I said I wanted the OP to respond was to see if the bikini shots were taken during his daughters and friends sleepover party from the other thread. Not saying he's a pedo, as I'd never accuse anything of the sort based off of assumptions, just wondering how it evolved into getting a young girl in  a bikini (if they weren't swimming before). And yeah, it would make me feel a little better if he said it was a paid portfolio shoot for an upcoming model requested by the parents vs him just snapping photos of her in his studio without their knowledge.



as far as the photos are concerned, I really liked the lighting used just like the ones in your prior thread.


----------



## Designer (Jul 7, 2013)

sashbar said:


> You know what - I too do not see anything sexy there.  I am just curious: why the bloody bikini ??



Actually, that is offensive.

Meanwhile; the reason for the photograph, including the reason for that particular costume is simply fun for the girls.  They wanted a photo shoot, in all likelyhood chose the costumes, and perhaps even the poses.  Not having seen any other youngsters besides this one, I will have to guess that the others made very similar decisions.

Additionally, nearly any young person of this age will be experimenting with adult themes in any way that seems appropriate to them at the time.

Meanwhile, the OP just wanted to share.  Thank you, sir!  Good shots all!


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 7, 2013)

I think we have pretty much exhausted the various opinions of that particular photo on this thread. 
any other comments should be directed towards C&C. 
personally, I look forward to NoelNTexas posting more studio shots. this was a pretty nice set.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 7, 2013)

Geaux said:


> buckster, i can tell you feel VERY strongly against others opinion that differ from yours, there's no need to "get it" or understand. It's their opinion vs yours.


I'm simply trying to understand where they're coming from with such strongly held beliefs.  I don't understand why they feel that way, but I'd like to.  I'm hoping that if I ask, someone can explain it to me.



Geaux said:


> The Reason I said I wanted the OP to respond was to see if the bikini shots were taken during his daughters and friends sleepover party from the other thread.


How would that "settle" anything in the current discussion?


----------



## Geaux (Jul 7, 2013)

Geaux said:


> The Reason I said I wanted the OP to respond was to see if the bikini shots were taken during his daughters and friends sleepover party from the other thread.





> How would that "settle" anything in the current discussion?



you our cut out a huge telling piece from that sentence that would explain things and sort of settle why the images were taken. You took a part of the sentence and made it out of context.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 7, 2013)

Geaux said:


> Geaux said:
> 
> 
> > The Reason I said I wanted the OP to respond was to see if the bikini shots were taken during his daughters and friends sleepover party from the other thread.
> ...


Even with that part left in, I don't see how the OP can settle the current discussion, or "nonsense" as you put it, as I explained in my earlier post.  Everybody on both sides will still feel the way they do about such photos being posted/displayed - nothing changes, so nothing gets "settled".

If you disagree with that assessment, just tell me how you imagine it would "settle" anything.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 7, 2013)

I am disgusted at the insinuations that anyone who feels that these pictures are inappropriate must be a pedophile.

That SHOULD be an instant ban, right there. It's totally out of line, and borderline actionable in the USA.

In fact, let me call on the moderators right now: *Do the right thing, and ban everyone who made such a vile accusation, for a week. Right now. We have people ACCUSING OTHER PEOPLE OF PEDOPHILIA for god's sake.*

On what planet is that appropriate?


----------



## Buckster (Jul 7, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I am disgusted at the insinuations that anyone who feels that these pictures are inappropriate must be a pedophile.
> 
> That SHOULD be an instant ban, right there. It's totally out of line, and borderline actionable in the USA.
> 
> ...


I didn't see anyone actually accuse anyone else of pedophilia or of being a pedophile.  Quote the post(s) in question if you're going to make accusations and try to get people banned over it.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 7, 2013)

seriously people? Am I invisible here?
move it along please. this is just beating a dead horse now. 
also...if there WAS an actual accusation of someone being a pedophile by a member, please report that post and it will be looked into.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 7, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> seriously people? Am I invisible here?
> move it along please. this is just beating a dead horse now.
> also...if there WAS an actual accusation of someone being a pedophile by a member, please report that post and it will be looked into.


Is there a place on this discussion forum where we're allowed to have a discussion?


----------



## Overread (Jul 7, 2013)

*thread momentarily paused for mod review - take a moment to head outside and enjoy the summer and take some photos*


----------



## Overread (Jul 7, 2013)

And after reading through the thread will remain locked since it appears that even after 2 notices from a moderator people were unable to drop the subject. When a mod says to drop something you drop it - discuss in private with the specific mod if you wish to appeal the choice. 
The thread had moved far off course and honestly the subject deserved its own thread by now to leave this one to resume its original course.

Considering the very specific context that started the discussion I'm not going to split the threads - if you seriously wish to DEBATE this separate topic please start a separate thread with a generalist approach in the discussions section. Note that based upon the behaviour in this thread and the heated matter of the context of the discussion you get 1 chance only. 

OP you are free to repost the photos in a new thread for C&C if you wish.


----------

