# Nudes and Pornography



## jbylake (Dec 6, 2009)

First, please, please keep this thread decent, and if you have issues with nude photography, either moral, religious or other, skip this thread.

My question is this.  In your opinion, where does the line between nude and pornography get drawn.  

I mean open sexual acts, etc are obvious.  But at what point do you think that the line is drawn.

I am asking because a friend of mine shot his girlfriend in the nude.  He sent the film off for neg's, and his intentions were that I would scan them for him, or he would borrow my scanner and do his own PP.

However, the processor would not process the neg's because there was a (very) small area of pubic hair showing.  My suggestion to him was to learn how to develop his own negs, or go digital.  But that's not the point.

What say you?

What do you think, and again, please keep this tasteful, and respectful.

Thanks,

J.


----------



## mJs (Dec 6, 2009)

I think it's all about context.... manner of posing, I think it's ridiculous that the processor wouldn't do the negs over a little pubic hair.  I think a lot of North Americans are too uptight about nudity... get any photo mag from Europe (there's a couple i read from France), and it usually has nude shots in it... and many 'with bush'.  But they are creative shot, artful, with interesting lighting and themes.  Nothing really sexual about them.


----------



## jbylake (Dec 6, 2009)

mJs said:


> I think it's all about context.... manner of posing, I think it's ridiculous that the processor wouldn't do the negs over a little pubic hair. I think a lot of North Americans are too uptight about nudity... get any photo mag from Europe (there's a couple i read from France), and it usually has nude shots in it... and many 'with bush'. But they are creative shot, artful, with interesting lighting and themes. Nothing really sexual about them.


Kind of my way of thinking.  They wouldn't even return his negatives when they discovered they were nudes, breasts, and a small amount of "pubic region".

Man is he pissed.

J.


----------



## molested_cow (Dec 6, 2009)

I just went to Miami Beach Art Basel and one of the exhibits featured a black and white film of an orgy. I didn't really get to see it because it was too crowded, but did catch a glimpse of it. Does black and white make it "artistic"? Does the fact that it's in an art exhibition make it a legit art? I don't know. I think it all depends on what kind of message it conveys. I would say a softcore porn, when done very tastefully, can be regarded as artistic. Similarly, a artistically intended work when executed badly can become pretty tasteless. Then again, it's all up to the audience to define what they see.

I think in your friend's case, the processor rejected it probably was because of pure liability issue. I don't even understand why would a negative processor care if he's not tasked to make scans or prints.


----------



## jbylake (Dec 6, 2009)

molested_cow said:


> I just went to Miami Beach Art Basel and one of the exhibits featured a black and white film of an orgy. I didn't really get to see it because it was too crowded, but did catch a glimpse of it. Does black and white make it "artistic"? Does the fact that it's in an art exhibition make it a legit art? I don't know. I think it all depends on what kind of message it conveys. I would say a softcore porn, when done very tastefully, can be regarded as artistic. Similarly, a artistically intended work when executed badly can become pretty tasteless. Then again, it's all up to the audience to define what they see.
> 
> I think in your friend's case, the processor rejected it probably was because of pure liability issue. I don't even understand why would a negative processor care if he's not tasked to make scans or prints.


 

Well, MC, I'm not sure this even applies.  An orgy, no matter how tastefully done, still depicts a sexual act.

His photo's did not in anyway, go there.  So the orgy thing is a judgement call, but I don't think it applies in his situation.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## gian133 (Dec 6, 2009)

They wont give them back. Thats just stupid. 
i completly agree wit mJs


----------



## robbie_vlad (Dec 6, 2009)

The line is different for everyone, so it's hard to define a definite boundary. Personally, as long as it isn't meant for the sole purpose of being sexual and arousing, it can be artistic. 



jbylake said:


> Kind of my way of thinking.  They wouldn't even return his negatives when they discovered they were nudes, breasts, and a small amount of "pubic region".
> 
> Man is he pissed.
> 
> J.



This is illegal isn't it? They are pretty much stealing his artwork, to which he has artistic ownership of.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 6, 2009)

Nude vs. Pornography... that's a tough one. Here in the US we are obsessed yet uptight with sex and things become porn very easily. In France (where I lived for quite a few years) sex is a much more natural part of life so that fewer things get the porn label.

Good photo examples of the problem are David Hamilton whose work is seen here and in the UK as kiddie porn by quite a few people but accepted as just art in France and a lot of other countries. Same with Sally Mann whose work is beautiful. Hamilton bores me to tears btw.

So, anyway, tasteful nudes should have no problem at a retail processor unless you get the idiot from hell behind the counter. In a recent case of misguided holier-than-thou stupidity, a couple lost their kids to child protective services thanks to a Walmart employee. They are now suing Walmart and I sure hope they win.

And I have to admit that suing was the first thing on my mind when you mentioned the processor would not give your friend his film back. I would certainly talk to an attorney.


----------



## wescobts (Dec 6, 2009)

I guess it is in the eye of the beholder, I saw a picture of a woman from the small of her back to her shoulder blades, nothing else, and it was the biggest turn on WOW !! and I have seen open shots of the pubic region and found it just desperate. Class and good taste is very hard to define, but in your friends case, i feel the developer was going too far.


----------



## jbylake (Dec 6, 2009)

As far as legal issues are concerned, all he has is a civil case.  That requires hiring a lawyer, both in this state and a liason lawyer in the state of the the processor.  It requires $$$$ to do this, with no lawyer willing to take it as a "contigency" case, as there is no guarantee of a "payoff" for the lawyer. 

As far as I know, but am not sure, the film has been destroyed. But not sure.  The processor, according to my friend offered a roll of replacement 35mm film.

I would like to reveal the processor's name here, but am not relishing the fallout that might incur.

Guess that's pretty much that, as far as legal issues.

Back to the origional question, and I am going to suggest to my friend to by a basic negative development kit.  So as to be discreet, he can borrow my scanner.

So, where does the line blur on this issue of nudes vs. porn.  Here's my guess..If a sexual act is obvious, either in the act or implied, it may be considered porn..but breasts and a little pubic hair...I don't think so.

There are several Unviersities within a 50 mile or so radius here.  Would the fed's raid a art class doing charcoal schetches of nudes?  I doubt it.  Maybe it's just a rhetorical question that I shouldn't even have brought up.

J.:mrgreen:

J.


----------



## wescobts (Dec 6, 2009)

It wouldn't be the first time the "man" raided a school or place of higher learning, remember they still burn books :angry1: I would tell your friend to go digital, and consider the loss a learning experience.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 6, 2009)

Get a new lab.  Take the film somewhere that doesn't tell you what kind of pictures you're allowed to take.

Porn vs. art...  To me, I would have to see the picture.  It would be on a per image basis for me, regardless of what it showed.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 6, 2009)

jbylake said:


> I would like to reveal the processor's name here, but am not relishing the fallout that might incur.



As long as you're not making stuff up to make them seem worse than they were, I don't really see the issue.  How can they sue you for telling other people what they did to you or your friend?

lol, I wouldn't hesitate to call them on it, and let everyone know what they did so nobody else makes the same mistake of using their services.

If it's illegal to tell others about bad business practices, how does this site stay up?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 6, 2009)

Yes, all he has is a civil case. So what? Most cases having to do with our liberties and such are civil cases. Not criminal!

That's one. Two would be that there are plenty of lawyers who work on a "I get paid if you get a settlement" type of deal. Three is that there is such a thing as small claim court. I can't tell you about every state in the union but the ones where I used small claims had this nifty requirement that a private person didn't need a lawyer present while a corporation did. How many corporations will want to send a lawyer at $3-500/hr to defend their claim against a few thousand dollars...  

Which, by the way, does not mean you can't have a lawyer. You just don't have to have one. And in this case (although it would need to be checked for your actual area) it seems to me you have a winner. They may not like your photos but they don't have the right to take your film away even if for some strange reason they actually have the right to refuse to print the darn thing.

My wife worked as a film processor in the boondocks of a backwards state I will not mention. She saw plenty of nudes and they were not always the most tasteful. Did she confiscate films or call the cops? NO. She had no right to do so.

The only time she (and her manager) called the cops was when they had pictures of a corpse. It turned out that the photos came from a cop who was working the case but forgot to tell them what to expect.

So, unless you are not being quite truthful about those photos and they are are not as innocent as you make them sound, you (your friend at least) have a possible case.

So, the big question is: what are those photos?


----------



## RancerDS (Dec 7, 2009)

In trying to answer the question about porn versus nude art, will make references to other works.

The naked human form has always been artistically rendered by sculptures and paintings throughout history before photography came into being.  Since it was so "easy" to capture nudes on film, it became all to easy to carry it too far.  Playboy was my magazine of preference for seeing nude women.  While some were certainly not attractive, there were some that appealed to me greatly, namely the wife of famous tennis player - Jimmy Connors.  For a husband/father to allow their wives/daughter to pose, it's probably going to have to be seen as an artistic endeavour, tasty and with equal attention paid to all body parts.  Those fathers and husbands knew men (and women) of all kinds would be seeing it.

Since the advent of the Internet... have discovered DOMAI and Met-Art.  The former site just mentioned is very tasteful nudes but argumentatively may include those of tender age.  The latter site is definitely pushing boundaries on it being porn because of the model(s) posing in certain fashion with others and even more likely including models under the age of consent in the United States.  Yet there are not any sexual acts really depicted.  So while beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so too is pornography seen to exist while some feel it isn't present.  

There is nothing more heartwarming to me to see a woman breast-feeding her child in a public place.  It is a very human thing, very nurturing for the infant and much more healthy than formula in that the mother passes along immunities.  Yet a Wal-Mart can scream it is a lewd public display. Would a photo of a woman's partially exposed teat with infant suckling really be considered erotic?  And to think about all the free publicity female celebrities get from their "nip slip" shots <rolling eyes>.

As long as you are shooting pictures of person(s) being legal age or older, you aren't going to be legally prosecuted, but then you do have to remember that film processors could pick and choose what not to develop/print.  Just as if you owned your own business, you can refuse service to anyone.  So yes, shoot and develop your own (like B&W), use digital or Polaroid cameras and that hard to find film.  

Bear in mind your works could be displayed in a museum and/or art or photo gallery without disclaimers, but about any other venue would require the "18 and older ONLY", (excluding bars which require age 21 to enter).


----------



## jbylake (Dec 7, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> jbylake said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to reveal the processor's name here, but am not relishing the fallout that might incur.
> ...


 
No, not making anything up. I'm just hesitant to open up a can of worms.
I have no idea if the owner of this site, might be beer drinking buddies with the company. Also, calling it "bad business practices" is risky, as I really don't know what _their_ rights are.

As to the same point, a gun forum that I used to frequent occasionaly had a member do something like this (call them out) for bad business practices.
The owner of the company (they make aftermarket parts for a particular type of firearm), was not only friends of the site owner, but also a major advertiser and contributer to the site. (Powerful guy in his field). A pissing match ensued, and several members were threatened with lawsuits, and eventually banned. I don't know what happend after that, I quit frequenting the site, and withdrew my support. Lastly, on this subject, it really is my bud's problem, and it would be appropriate for him to call them (the processor's) out for a duel, not me. I'm basically the messenger, and was just proposing the question in the original post. I don't know the law(s) for different states. The information he got concerning the whole mess, concerning his right as a consumer, was from a lawyer. I wasn't present, I can only relay what I've been told. Therefore I didn't want to really get into the legal aspects of it, just what others thought would think of where to draw the line. Lastly, IMO, from what I've been told, I've seen more exposed at the beach, than he took in those photo's.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## skieur (Dec 7, 2009)

It would seem to me that if they destroyed his film, he should go to the police possibly with a paralegal and lay a charge: destruction of private property.  If they still have his negatives, then research as to whether a charge of theft is applicable.

If charges are laid, then following it up with a law suit in small claims court would have an even greater chance of success particularly if the negatives have been destroyed.  Small claims courts also usually do not require a lawyer.

I suspect that the processor has the right to call the police, but even the police cannot seize property unless it is evidence in an arrest and if it is simple nude shots of an adult there would seem to be no grounds for an arrest in most locations.

skieur


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 7, 2009)

Artistic vs Pornographic...
To me, porn is made with the intention to elicit sexual arousal (most likely with the motive/incentive of easy money).
Artistic nude could also be made with that intention, but hopefully with some artistic merits and higher motives.  
But really...for something to be judged as artistic vs pornographic...the viewer's own morals are heavily involved.  What some people find artistic or at least non-pornographic....other people will condemn as pure filth.  
There are some very talented photographers who post in the nude section at Photo.net.  Some of the works are very explicit, but are also very artistic.  I wouldn't call that porn....but plenty of people do.  
I often find it amusing when people (you know the type) freak out over a naked breast in a public setting or in a 'main stream' magazine.  As I mentioned, there are two parts to 'porn'...the material in question and the person who makes the judgment.  So when these people freak out, I wonder what it is about their mental make up, that makes them think that a human body is indecent.  (I'll skip the religious discussion  )


As for the friend and his photos.  It's unacceptable that he can't get his film back.  They might say it was destroyed...my guess is that some teenager (or mental teenager) swiped it for themselves.  
I don't know that developing his own film is the answer.  Just find a good lab.


----------



## kajiki (Dec 7, 2009)

as a general rule of thumb, I would have thought that any photo depicting sexual arousal, could be considered pornographic.....many more years ago than I care to remember, I worked behind the counter in a photo store. We had a minilab and one of the staff was a very 'right-on' lady. There was a roll of film from (I believe) a French guy, that featured some female nudity, but nothing else. The minilab lady refused to print his pix, but gave him back his negs and a withering look! Regional differences......he clearly believed she was crazy - the Europeans in general are quite relaxed about this kind of art. But not the Brits!


----------



## kajiki (Dec 7, 2009)

_I would like to reveal the processor's name here, but am not relishing the fallout that might incur._

_Walmart?_


----------



## jbylake (Dec 7, 2009)

skieur said:


> It would seem to me that if they destroyed his film, he should go to the police possibly with a paralegal and lay a charge: destruction of private property. If they still have his negatives, then research as to whether a charge of theft is applicable.
> 
> If charges are laid, then following it up with a law suit in small claims court would have an even greater chance of success particularly if the negatives have been destroyed. Small claims courts also usually do not require a lawyer.
> 
> ...


 
Please skieur, if you read the post directly above this one (quoted) you'll see that I specifically said I don't want to get into the legal aspects of this.  Maybe you are a lawyer, don't know, but I am not.  But that is not the point.  If you read the OP, I was asking, basically, where people draw the line between Nude and Pornograhic material.  Let's forget the legal aspects.  Thanks much.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## krayon (Dec 7, 2009)

Another item that I didn't see asked or mentioned.  If the photos were of a person who may be underage, or appear to be underage, then the processor may have a legal liability to destroy/turn over the negatives to the police.

Just a thought.


----------



## teneighty23 (Dec 8, 2009)

to me its all about a tease in a way, shows enough that it gets your senses flowing, but still leaves enough to the imagination, OR to you wanting more at least. it also should be done classy tasteful, and unique.


----------



## KD5NRH (Dec 8, 2009)

krayon said:


> Another item that I didn't see asked or mentioned.  If the photos were of a person who may be underage, or appear to be underage, then the processor may have a legal liability to destroy/turn over the negatives to the police.



Considering that they would be evidence at that point, destroying them would be a felony in pretty much every state.  Presumably the model's appearance doesn't raise that question, or the discussion would be going elsewhere.

As for suing the processor, the photographer would need to determine the value of the photos.  If that happens to be less than the small-claims limit in his state, then the lawyer isn't necessary.

As for the original question, you might as well ask what the prettiest color is


----------



## benhasajeep (Dec 8, 2009)

jbylake said:


> mJs said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's all about context.... manner of posing, I think it's ridiculous that the processor wouldn't do the negs over a little pubic hair. I think a lot of North Americans are too uptight about nudity... get any photo mag from Europe (there's a couple i read from France), and it usually has nude shots in it... and many 'with bush'. But they are creative shot, artful, with interesting lighting and themes. Nothing really sexual about them.
> ...


 
I have not used any.  But I know there are several mail order / online printers that will do nude, non-pornographic printing.  Others will do any with proof of consent / professional accounts.  Costco will deppending on store (artistic nudes).  Walmart will not, Walgreens will not.  The reason most store labs will not is the machies are in public view.  And they feel they can get in trouble if the nudes are seen by persons less than 18 yo.  I think I saw a link to a case where walmart was sued once (didn't read it). 

And I believe most labs have their rules available for customers.  I doubt he even has a civil case against the processor he used.  They would probably site the customer did not obide by their processing rules.


----------



## Actor (Dec 8, 2009)

It's naive to submit such photos to a processor and assume he/she will have no problem.  If you have photos of this nature always interview a prospective processor.  If they have a problem, move on.  If they don't, try to get it in writing.

Even if they are cool with nudes, processors are legally required to turn negatives over to the police if they think those negatives might be evidence of a crime, the crime in this case being child porn.

Buy a set of close up lenses.  Make the first and last frames of each roll a close up of the model's photo ID.  Be sure the model's date of birth is clearly shown.  Request that the processor not cut the roll.

In court you are only entitled to real and punitive damages.  I don't think any court would give you punitive damages.  Real damages would be the cost of the film plus any other costs involved in creating the negatives, such as payments to the model.    From what I've read so far it appears the model was not paid and the photos were not taken as a commercial venture, ergo you are only entitled to a new roll of film.

If you can take him to court and get him to state that he destroyed the negatives and _made no prints_ then you have won something.  If the photos later emerge you can press perjury charges and perhaps bring a new suit for damages.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 8, 2009)

benhasajeep said:


> Walgreens will not.



Absolutely untrue. Unless they have changed their policy in the last few years.

My wife worked for them as a photo tech (or whatever she was called) and she did plenty of them 3 years ago. They were neither artsy nor porn, they were just bad nudes. And they were a time of fun in the store when some of the other employees were invited to check them out. Not something my wife did but her main co-worker in the lab sure did.


----------



## benhasajeep (Dec 9, 2009)

Walgreens will not print pornography. They also installed a rule several years ago that the person processing the film or manager can decide to process film or not with any nudity in it (their choice if any or what amount is pornographic). This occured after some heavy pressure from AFA (church group). Pornography NO, nudity deppending on location. So, the correct answer for Walgreens is maybe. In my area NO.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 9, 2009)

benhasajeep said:


> Walgreens will not print pornography.



I will not disagree with that but, in your previous post you talked of "nude, non-pornographic printing." Not quite the same thing.


----------



## Roncgizmo (Dec 9, 2009)

jbylake said:


> mJs said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's all about context.... manner of posing, I think it's ridiculous that the processor wouldn't do the negs over a little pubic hair. I think a lot of North Americans are too uptight about nudity... get any photo mag from Europe (there's a couple i read from France), and it usually has nude shots in it... and many 'with bush'. But they are creative shot, artful, with interesting lighting and themes. Nothing really sexual about them.
> ...




Man! I'm not the type of person to get piss-off about every little thing, But this would do it! What right would they have to withhold and get rid of his film, his work and his art? even if this girl had her legs open wide and had a giant dong in her hand the worst thing he could of done was to give him back the negs and tell him not to come back. I would of called the cops, and that's something I've never done..lol The bottom line is, this guy had no right to keep your buddy's work. I remember hearing about a School trying to block some art that was made out of crap, yes crap and the school lost. Hell, if he's still friends with the girl he should take this thing to court for lost income..lol let's see she was going to buy the shots at $200 each and it's a 24 exp roll... maybe that store will think twice before they make a bone head move like this again..


  Sorry for the rant. but it really ticks me off when some idiot with no power try's to impede  on someones life and has NO RIGHT TO DO SO.


And now back to the point...lol My short answer (or opinion i should say) A little hair would not make it porno. even if she was touching herself in a way that you didn't have a full view of a well, zone I don't think it's porno. it's may crossover from art to sexy but I think giving the lighting ect it could still be artful (if that make any sense)


----------



## jbylake (Dec 9, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> benhasajeep said:
> 
> 
> > Walgreens will not print pornography.
> ...


 
I appreciate all of your input. Thank you. Just to answer one question, the girl in question is 26 or 27, not sure but around there. There were no, genitalia (spell?), exposed, just a low slung thong type underware with a little pubic hair exposed, but she had an open top that revealed mamalian protrubences, and nip's. That's it.

This thread has turned into a " legal issues" rather than a "what's your take on drawing the line between nude and porn" thread. But as one person put it, that was like asking "what's your favorite color"?

He/she was right, and this thread is going nowhere, and had I thought it through, a little, I should have had enough common sense to see that logic.

Thanks you all again, time to drop this one. My lack of foresight almost turned it into one of those "what's better, a Nikon or Canon" thread.

God, help me, if I see another of those, I think I'll blow chunks.:lmao:

But basically, through lack of forethought, that's exactly what I did. Sorry.

J.


----------



## sownman (Dec 9, 2009)

Nudity on it's own = Art assuming there is some quality.
Sex Acts = Porn, even if artistic

I have nothing against artistic nudity or porn. Both can be great.


----------



## xiangji (Dec 9, 2009)

over 600 hits... I'd have never have guessed...


----------



## William Petruzzo (Dec 9, 2009)

I think that it's based on intention, and intention in intention. (phew)

There's no objective authority governing what poses, angles, techniques, whatever, constitute pornography. Pornography is simply images designed to sexually arouse the viewer. That means that the angles, poses and lighting of a particular nude form in pornography are that way _because_ that is what will arouse the viewer. But, what sexually stimulates a viewer gradually changes continually. Just consider the victorian era (I believe that's the one), heavier men and women were considered beautiful, while thinner men and women were not so much. The inverse is generally true today.

At the same time, I don't think that something stimulating the viewer sexually necessarily invalidates it as artistic either. In fact, a great deal of art is created with the intention of stimulating something in the viewer--emotional or otherwise. So, in a sense, a photographer could approach his artistic subject with the intention of photographing him or her in such a way as to rouse the viewer sexually and _therein_ is his art. In his ability to move the viewer in one way or another. Now, granted, sexually stimulating the viewer is, well, kind of weak. It's just not that hard to do.

But my point is that the product doesn't classify itself as 'artistic' based on any number of qualities, like light, posing, composure, etc. The _artist's_ intentions classify his work as art by what he intends the art to be, or by what he intends for the art to intend to do. Blegh. That's a hard sentence to say.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 9, 2009)

bpetruzzo said:


> I think that it's based on intention, and intention in intention. (phew)
> 
> There's no objective authority governing what poses, angles, techniques, whatever, constitute pornography. Pornography is simply images designed to sexually arouse the viewer. That means that the angles, poses and lighting of a particular nude form in pornography are that way _because_ that is what will arouse the viewer. But, what sexually stimulates a viewer gradually changes continually. Just consider the victorian era (I believe that's the one), heavier men and women were considered beautiful, while thinner men and women were not so much. The inverse is generally true today.
> 
> ...


I agree, it's the intention behind the work that might be the determining factor.  
However, having said that...what about non-explicit images that are also meant to arouse?  For example, a photo of just the curve of a woman's neck or back might be erotic and/or stimulating to the viewer...and that might be the artist's intention.  But does that make it pornographic?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Dec 9, 2009)

Whatever, I just want to see some examples


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 9, 2009)

Big Mike said:


> I agree, it's the intention behind the work that might be the determining factor.
> However, having said that...what about non-explicit images that are also meant to arouse?  For example, a photo of just the curve of a woman's neck or back might be erotic and/or stimulating to the viewer...and that might be the artist's intention.  But does that make it pornographic?



:thumbup: Big Mike, you are absolutely right. I use this dancing-around-the actual-problem in my political art work and it flies under the radar. However, that is still a way to censor speech and my most interesting work is only shown in Europe...


----------



## William Petruzzo (Dec 10, 2009)

Big Mike said:


> bpetruzzo said:
> 
> 
> > I think that it's based on intention, and intention in intention. (phew)
> ...



I would say in a sense. But pornography isn't the only media that attempts to arouse the viewer. Advertising does it all the time. It would seem to me that the intention behind pornography which makes it unique against other types of images intended to arouse is that pornography aims to, *ahem*, bring the arousal to "completion". So to speak.

I think that is what makes it unique.


----------



## Wolfgang8810 (Dec 10, 2009)

Over a little "bush" his film was stolen but we kept one in office for 8 years!? Completly wrong but ALL processing places like walgreens and what not are required to pull any nude film. The best thing to do would be upp front about the content of the photos and if they wont do it go somewhere else. Another option is to find an Uncensored film processing place.


----------



## Nikkor (Dec 10, 2009)

I know the disclaimer says that this isn't a place to voice your religious beliefs etc, and I'm not, but personally I can't stand pornography, lots of girls are like that, call us insecure if you will.

But I can appreciate the human figure when it's photographed. I think it's about taste. If you've got some sleezy bimbos all over each other then you're starting to cross the line into the 'too inappropriate to call it art' category.

But when it's something well photographed, and edited, and set up then it's meant to intrigue you and not to, as someone said before 'complete arousal', that's what I find to be tasteful naked art.

I hope this made some sense. I think of pornography as more of an act.


----------



## Actor (Dec 11, 2009)

In the U.S. pornography is not a legal term.  The legal term is obscenity.  To be deemed obscene a work must pass (or fail?) three tests:


It must appeal to prurient interests, meaning it must be sexually arousing.
It must be considered as a whole.  One part cannot be extracted from the whole and used to judge the entire work.
It must have no redeeming social value.  For example, a photo which might otherwise be offensive has redeeming social value if it is part of a medical textbook.  If something can legitimately be considered art then it has redeeming social value.
The Supreme Court later added a fourth test


It must be offensive to contemporary community standards, meaning what is obscene in Boston might not be obscene in Las Vegas.


----------



## RMThompson (Dec 11, 2009)

Sometimes the line is directly linked to what the person is gaining from said photo. Let me tell you a story from early in my career.

I was interested in doing weddings, and contacted a local wedding photographer whose work I admired. He concetrated on highly religious stuff and in fact even used the term Christian photographer in his business name. Now, I don't mind that one bit, but I also had done some implied nudity, lingerie, swimwear work. So when I first talked to him and told him I wanted to shadow him, I asked him if it would be a problem and he said that they were all artstic and as long as I wasn't using these pictures for personal satisfaction it would be no problem. We even had a conversation about what makes something porno.

So we worked out a deal where he would build my website, something I was sorely lacking at the time, and I would work off the cost of this website by shadowing him during some weddings. It seemed like a win-win to me, I got the website AND some experience.

However, when he sent the contract over I noticed something strange. Even though it was October, he stated that if I was unable to complete my shadowing work by December 31st that year, I would owe him for the entire website; with NO discount for the stuff I had alreayd worked. It was distinctly written where if I owed him ten dollars at the end of the year, I owed him the ENTIRE amount. Keep in mind that I had no control over the AMOUNT of work he would give me, so he could very well intentionally keep me from working for him to pay it off.

When I confronted him about it, I figured there was a reasonable expectation, or at the very least, we could extend the contract or re-write it where I would only owe what I hadn't worked off. I emailed him but he was silent for a few days. I wrote back to ask if he had recieved my emailed, and here is what he said to me:



> After praying on it, God has told me that I should not be in business with a pornographer like yourself. I pray for your soul that you reptent from this work and join me in serving the Lord Jesus Christ.


 
I was floored. 

That's just ONE example how someone's views can change, and for what reason. I was artistic enough when he was going to swindle me, but a pornographer once he couldn't.


----------



## KD5NRH (Feb 26, 2010)

benhasajeep said:


> Walgreens will not print pornography.



Ah, but will they process it without prints?

At least here, the photo guys seemed to like the last couple times I dropped off film: 1-hr process, no prints, no scans, no cut - just dev it, roll it back up and drop it back in the canister.  I'm pretty sure they don't look at it either, because they know I won't in the store - it's not like I'm going to refuse to pay for one frame of the negs because it didn't turn out.


----------



## jackieclayton (Feb 26, 2010)

for me, its definitely how its presented.  there is sensuality, and then there is porn.  is there a natural artistic feeling to it?  or is there a suggestive, raunchy perverse feeling to it?  A nude women looking up at the sky with a peaceful expression would carry a completely diferent label if that same woman were looking at the camera with a "come hither" expression.  there was a thread once about how walmart called social services on a parent that developed a roll of film that had bathtime snaps of their baby.  THAT is over the line, in my opinion, but if that is Walmart's rule (no nudity) then either I can abide by that or find another film developer.  

In regards to merchants, they have to have a rule that encompasses all so that there is no room for interpretation like this.  its all or nothing.  whether we agree with it or not,  its really to protect them from liability.  While I may not agree with it at all, I have the choice of not using their services.  

I wish people here would seriously think about the context of the photo rather than saying "oop, she's naked, its porn!!!" but because of close minded people like that we will have to always deal with that fine line between art and porn.  Its a shame... we can build robots that fly to mars yet we have to get our panties in a wad when we see a naked woman....


----------



## pcacj (Feb 26, 2010)

jbylake said:


> I would like to reveal the processor's name here, but am not relishing the fallout that might incur.  J.



As long as you are only posting facts, I do not think they have a claim against you for identifying them.  I encourage you to identify them because that is how consumers have power to influence that which we do not agree with.  We are mature consumers and can reach our own conclusions regarding any desire to utilize the processor or not.


----------



## skieur (Feb 26, 2010)

"They wouldn't even return his negatives when they discovered they were nudes, breasts, and a small amount of "pubic region".

Man is he pissed."

It is understandable that they will not print them because they are afraid of liability, but they MUST return the photos to the photgrapher.

The way the law is written, only the police have the right to seize negatives and only if a charge is laid and someone is arrested.

I would go back to the processor, talk to a manager, and tell him/her plainly that if the negatives are not returned, then a police report will be filed for theft and that you may follow it up with a lawsuit against the individual and the business. Then follow through with it, if they do not return the negatives.

skieur


----------

