Re: a little something i've been working on...
Nice montage, Tanya - I like the progression of the images, with your son basically turning around in the course of the series. The background looks just as you intended it on my monitor - not totally high key, but some texture left in it. The BW conversion looks excellent. Nice job! - MCC At 11:04 PM 4/12/2004 +1000, you wrote: A figure study, fairygirl style... *istD, FA 28-105m pz @ f9.5, 1/45, af360fgz, window light and white reflector. I must say, I'm rather proud of this one. Gonna have it printed up as an 18x18 inch print for my wall to commemorate my boy's 6th birthday (I took these shots on his birthday). - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: a little something i've been working on...
Very nice, Tanja. The balance of graytones is very good. On my monitor the only pure white is in the background. Paul On Apr 12, 2004, at 9:04 AM, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: A figure study, fairygirl style... *istD, FA 28-105m pz @ f9.5, 1/45, af360fgz, window light and white reflector. I must say, I'm rather proud of this one. Gonna have it printed up as an 18x18 inch print for my wall to commemorate my boy's 6th birthday (I took these shots on his birthday). He did most of this himself actually, it all started with me just asking him to stand there so I could prefocus on him for some shots I needed to take of myself for the newspaper. Well, he started showing off, and I liked the light so I directed him a bit, and snapped away. Gosh, my boy really is growing up, he is even developing little muscles! lol... Post processing and black and white conversions in PS, of course... I have purposely left some texture in the background for effect rather than totally blowing it out. Not sure how it appears on other people's monitors, but I have worked very hard to selectively adjust levels and curves for individual parts of these shots to ensure that no highlights are blown. There should be texture and detail evident in all of the body parts. The only pure white should be on the backdrop. http://www.tanyamayer.com/jaimynmontageweb.jpg Comments and criticisms greatly appreciated... tan.
Re: a little something i've been working on...
Hi Tan ... On my monitor the background looks a little different in each shot. Some frames have more detail, others less. If that' how the bg actually appears, imo, it distracts from the montage. Here in the US what you've done could be considered child pornography in some places. IAC, I like the concept, but the execution leaves me feeling rather ho-hum about the whole thing. Not sure exactly why - J's a cute kid and looks to be enjoying himself. Maybe it loses something on the screen ... hmmm perhaps the conversion to BW leaves something to be desired. IAC, it's not 100% for me. shel Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: A figure study, fairygirl style... http://www.tanyamayer.com/jaimynmontageweb.jpg Comments and criticisms greatly appreciated... tan.
RE: a little something i've been working on...
Hi Shel, thanks for taking the time to comment! Shel said: On my monitor the background looks a little different in each shot. Some frames have more detail, others less. If that' how the bg actually appears, imo, it distracts from the montage. Yep, that's how it is meant to look, it is kind of a progression with each individual pose... IAC, I like the concept, but the execution leaves me feeling rather ho-hum about the whole thing. Not sure exactly why - J's a cute kid and looks to be enjoying himself. Maybe it loses something on the screen ... hmmm perhaps the conversion to BW leaves something to be desired. IAC, it's not 100% for me. Fair enough! lol. I purposely chose to block out some of the shadows in his hair etc, as I wanted a high contrast, high key, result. Actually, come to think of it, I should have predicted that you would think that Shel, as we have such different opinions about contrast! I guess it just reinforces really what a subjective thing photography is. Or maybe, I just really like this cause of the mother side of me thinking how cute her little boy is. vbg BUT, Shel, this comment that you made; Here in the US what you've done could be considered child pornography in some places. ...honestly, has left me sick to my stomach. I cannot believe that anyone could possibly derive that from this group of images. I have intentionally cropped them so that they do not reveal anything that they shouldn't, and like you said, he is obviously having fun with these pics and hasn't been co-erced or forced to do anything unsavoury at all. As a result of this, I just tried to pull the image down but I can't connect via ftp for some reason at the moment. Anyways, as soon as I can, it will come down cause I just feel sick to think that anyone would see my little boy in such a way, and even worse that somebody should feel that I have tried to portray him in any way other than as his sweet, cheeky, innocent 6yo self. tan.
Re: a little something i've been working on...
Hi Tan, Yep, photography sure is subjective ... It could well be that you relate to the pics in a more motherly fashion, both as a mother to the child and as a mother to the photographs. I can certainly relate to that. As for the clid porn comment, don't take it too seriously. The climate here in the US is absurd wrt to so many things, yet having read newspaper articles and seen stories on the telly about such things, I'm amazed at how John Law sometimes proceeds against, what seems to many people, innocent and personal images. However, you're in Oz, so the small-minded right-wingers here can't do much about it ... shel Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: Hi Shel, thanks for taking the time to comment! Shel said: On my monitor the background looks a little different in each shot. Some frames have more detail, others less. If that' how the bg actually appears, imo, it distracts from the montage. Yep, that's how it is meant to look, it is kind of a progression with each individual pose... IAC, I like the concept, but the execution leaves me feeling rather ho-hum about the whole thing. Not sure exactly why - J's a cute kid and looks to be enjoying himself. Maybe it loses something on the screen ... hmmm perhaps the conversion to BW leaves something to be desired. IAC, it's not 100% for me. Fair enough! lol. I purposely chose to block out some of the shadows in his hair etc, as I wanted a high contrast, high key, result. Actually, come to think of it, I should have predicted that you would think that Shel, as we have such different opinions about contrast! I guess it just reinforces really what a subjective thing photography is. Or maybe, I just really like this cause of the mother side of me thinking how cute her little boy is. vbg BUT, Shel, this comment that you made; Here in the US what you've done could be considered child pornography in some places. ...honestly, has left me sick to my stomach. I cannot believe that anyone could possibly derive that from this group of images. I have intentionally cropped them so that they do not reveal anything that they shouldn't, and like you said, he is obviously having fun with these pics and hasn't been co-erced or forced to do anything unsavoury at all. As a result of this, I just tried to pull the image down but I can't connect via ftp for some reason at the moment. Anyways, as soon as I can, it will come down cause I just feel sick to think that anyone would see my little boy in such a way, and even worse that somebody should feel that I have tried to portray him in any way other than as his sweet, cheeky, innocent 6yo self. tan.
Re: a little something i've been working on...
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: a little something i've been working on... Here in the US what you've done could be considered child pornography in some places. Shel, explain this please. I thought Canada had some pretty ridiculous kiddie porn laws. If this series crosses the line in an American jurisdiction, I would be totally amazed by the stupidity of the law, and of the judge/jury on the case, not to mention the persecutor who is trying it. If you could quote the law in question that would be great. William Robb
Re: a little something i've been working on...
Bill, There are so many jurisdictions, and so many variations on the law that it would be impossible to quote anything. Most of what I've read about and seen deals with subjective interpretation of what constitutes pornography. My comment to Tanya was made because recently a couple was prosecuted in (maybe) Florida because the photo lab they brought their film to turned them in to authorities because the lab people thought the pics were porn. The photos were of the couple's child taking a bath. I honestly don't recall the outcome, although I do believe the child was taken from the parents pending the outcome of an investigation. There are more details, of course. shel William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: a little something i've been working on... Here in the US what you've done could be considered child pornography in some places. Shel, explain this please. I thought Canada had some pretty ridiculous kiddie porn laws. If this series crosses the line in an American jurisdiction, I would be totally amazed by the stupidity of the law, and of the judge/jury on the case, not to mention the persecutor who is trying it. If you could quote the law in question that would be great. William Robb
Re: a little something i've been working on...
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Tan ... On my monitor the background looks a little different in each shot. Some frames have more detail, others less. If that' how the bg actually appears, imo, it distracts from the montage. Here in the US what you've done could be considered child pornography in some places. I hardly think so, Shel. What would they call it, full upper nudity? Chest high Monty shots? She barely shows his belly button! And in one shot, you can see the [gasp!] upper part of his trousers! keith IAC, I like the concept, but the execution leaves me feeling rather ho-hum about the whole thing. Not sure exactly why - J's a cute kid and looks to be enjoying himself. Maybe it loses something on the screen ... hmmm perhaps the conversion to BW leaves something to be desired. IAC, it's not 100% for me. shel Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: A figure study, fairygirl style... http://www.tanyamayer.com/jaimynmontageweb.jpg Comments and criticisms greatly appreciated... tan.
Re: a little something i've been working on...
I keep forgetting that your statutes are mostly administered by the individual states. If your kiddie porn laws are anything like ours, the kiddie in the bathtub might well cross the line. Our law doesn't even require nudity. All that is required under Canadian law is for the subject to appear to be under the age of eighteen, and be in a pose that may be of a sexual nature. It's a pretty broad definition, since there is really no definition at all. It makes going after child pornographers the legal equivalent of drift net fishing. You may catch what you want, but you are going to hurt a lot of innocent parties doing it. William Robb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: a little something i've been working on. Bill, There are so many jurisdictions, and so many variations on the law that it would be impossible to quote anything. Most of what I've read about and seen deals with subjective interpretation of what constitutes pornography. My comment to Tanya was made because recently a couple was prosecuted in (maybe) Florida because the photo lab they brought their film to turned them in to authorities because the lab people thought the pics were porn. The photos were of the couple's child taking a bath. I honestly don't recall the outcome, although I do believe the child was taken from the parents pending the outcome of an investigation. There are more details, of course.
Re: a little something i've been working on...
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: a little something i've been working on... Well, according to what I've read, the child in the bathtub had no private parts revealed either. The concern in some jurisdictions is not so much about the actual nudity, but that children can be exploited, and that the photos seen may be but an introduction to something more ... Hmmm. Guilt by an association made by a third party. Wasn't there a movie about this sort of thing? Tom Cruise was in it. Something about punishing people for crimes they would commit at some future time or some such. Scary when you think about it. William Robb
Re: a little something i've been working on...
As someone so crudely posted, on one of my many lists, just because a certain obnoxious woman legislator had all the female parts necessary, that didn't make her a woman of the streets, did it? Of course, the language was a bit -- well, a LOT -- more colorful, but the gist is there. I do understand what you're saying, however. Even me, as a loving grandfather many times over, I have to avoid patting little ones on the po-po, and touching them as they pass on by. To grab one and have a hugging and kissing and tickling session, as used to happen in our family for generations, well...one has to be awfully careful, don't they. It might be okay when I finally get to 95 or so, but I wouldn't bet on that -- even then! Damned sad commentary on where the country is headed. Oh well, this being the pentax list, I guess we'd better studiously avoid talking about anything but photographic subject matter... keith whaley Shel Belinkoff wrote: Well, according to what I've read, the child in the bathtub had no private parts revealed either. The concern in some jurisdictions is not so much about the actual nudity, but that children can be exploited, and that the photos seen may be but an introduction to something more ... Keith Whaley wrote: Shel Belinkoff wrote: Here in the US what you've done could be considered child pornography in some places. I hardly think so, Shel. What would they call it, full upper nudity? Chest high Monty shots? She barely shows his belly button! And in one shot, you can see the [gasp!] upper part of his trousers!
Re: a little something i've been working on...
Whether this would be considered child porn (even in this little corner of hard-core right-wing America) would depend a great deal on who possesses it. A parent in possession of photos such as these or who has them on a family website - most wouldn't bat an eye. However, if these photos were found on someone's computer with other photos of children which are definitely pornographic, this would probably be a separate count. Otherwise, no law enforcement officer in his right mind would consider these child pornography. How do I know? My husband investigates crimes against juveniles for a living. When you know what actually is out there, these are nothing. - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 11:49 AM Subject: Re: a little something i've been working on... Well, IMO, based on news reports I've read, you're wrong. Daniel J. Matyola wrote: I don't think that Tanja's photos would be considered child porn anywhere in the US. They are quite innocent and very well done, IMO.
Re: a little something i've been working on...
I wish I could find the news stories about the particular case in question. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: a little something i've been working on... Well, according to what I've read, the child in the bathtub had no private parts revealed either. The concern in some jurisdictions is not so much about the actual nudity, but that children can be exploited, and that the photos seen may be but an introduction to something more ... Hmmm. Guilt by an association made by a third party. Wasn't there a movie about this sort of thing? Tom Cruise was in it. Something about punishing people for crimes they would commit at some future time or some such. Scary when you think about it. William Robb
Re: a little something i've been working on...
Hi, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: As a result of this, I just tried to pull the image down but I can't connect via ftp for some reason at the moment. Anyways, as soon as I can, it will come down cause I just feel sick to think that anyone would see my little boy in such a way, and even worse that somebody should feel that I have tried to portray him in any way other than as his sweet, cheeky, innocent 6yo self. Unfortunately, those qualities are exactly what some (fortunately, very few) people find sexually arousing. Equally unfortunately, the media have whipped up a frenzy about the possibilities of anything happening to a particular infant (the chances of which are slim to negligible) so that sexual safety is one of the first few thoughts that come to mind when viewing images of children. Youngsters still have their innocence. Thanks to having our noses rubbed in the prurient mind of the paedophile by media moguls profiting from the phenomenon, we adults have had ours forcibly removed. mike
RE: a little something i've been working on...
Child porn laws are vague because the definition of porn is vague. Most prosecutors are not going to go after parents taking bath tub photos, but because the perverts are sneaky the laws have to cover a broad definition. Nudity and pornography are not necessarily the same thing, it is the intent of the photo that becomes a problem. I think Tan's photos are nice, and I doubt that any thinking person would have complaint, although there are always those people who find perversion in the innocent - and that is why we have to protect them (the innocent, that is). David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 10:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: a little something i've been working on... I keep forgetting that your statutes are mostly administered by the individual states. If your kiddie porn laws are anything like ours, the kiddie in the bathtub might well cross the line. Our law doesn't even require nudity. All that is required under Canadian law is for the subject to appear to be under the age of eighteen, and be in a pose that may be of a sexual nature. It's a pretty broad definition, since there is really no definition at all. It makes going after child pornographers the legal equivalent of drift net fishing. You may catch what you want, but you are going to hurt a lot of innocent parties doing it. William Robb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: a little something i've been working on. Bill, There are so many jurisdictions, and so many variations on the law that it would be impossible to quote anything. Most of what I've read about and seen deals with subjective interpretation of what constitutes pornography. My comment to Tanya was made because recently a couple was prosecuted in (maybe) Florida because the photo lab they brought their film to turned them in to authorities because the lab people thought the pics were porn. The photos were of the couple's child taking a bath. I honestly don't recall the outcome, although I do believe the child was taken from the parents pending the outcome of an investigation. There are more details, of course.
Re: a little something i've been working on...
- Original Message - From: David Madsen Subject: RE: a little something i've been working on... Child porn laws are vague because the definition of porn is vague. Most prosecutors are not going to go after parents taking bath tub photos, but because the perverts are sneaky the laws have to cover a broad definition. Nudity and pornography are not necessarily the same thing, it is the intent of the photo that becomes a problem. I think Tan's photos are nice, and I doubt that any thinking person would have complaint, although there are always those people who find perversion in the innocent - and that is why we have to protect them (the innocent, that is). The definition of porn is vague because legislators have found it so much easier to have vague definitions. It means they can go after pretty much whomever they want to. My own opinion (not that it matters) is that laws have no right being vague, and that law enforcement should be fly fishing, not drift net fishing. William Robb
Re: a little something i've been working on...
It is sad that the straw-man arguments about child porn so often defer to these clearly innocent, not at all purient, pictures of children. But so often these argumetns are used as a continuing perjorative against any morality imposed on an art expression. Let us not take the side of defending real child porn because some individual may over-react to pictures like these.* To defend against the real problem of child porn is not the work of small-minded conservatives but supported by most people of all bents. Porn is not a victimless crime. Collin *You might continue to do so if you really think child porn should be allowed. But then you will, by definition, lose any moral standing to defend your position. Declaring morality to be immoral would beg the question, wouldn't it? You Kant have it both ways.
Re: a little something i've been working on...
Tanja, Tanja, Tanja... Don't take the pictures down. They're completely innocent. I can't imagine anyone seeing them in any other way. And they're quite good as well. On Apr 12, 2004, at 11:22 AM, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: BUT, Shel, this comment that you made; Here in the US what you've done could be considered child pornography in some places. ...honestly, has left me sick to my stomach. etc...
RE: a little something i've been working on...
Well, Tan, 'T'ain't my thang, I guess. Not bad, but not particularly inspiring, to me at least. I have a feeling that the media I'm forced to view it on isn't helping much. Maybe if it were blowed up real big (as you suggest is your plan), so that it covers like an entire wall, it might move me a bit more. I think it would have to overwhelm me to work, and on my little screen, it doesn't. Just goes to show you, eh? I think you have the right vision here, but I need to come over to your place to look at it. Or, bring it to GFM with you, unroll it, and hang it between a coupla pine trees. vbg I've read a few of the responses, and IMHO, this has nothing to do with child porn, anywhere in the world. Kripes, you could see more kiddy skin by going to the bloody beach on a hot summer day, or going to a swimming pool. Don't worry about that issue, it has no application here AFAIK. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Tanya Mayer Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: a little something i've been working on... Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:04:49 +1000 A figure study, fairygirl style... *istD, FA 28-105m pz @ f9.5, 1/45, af360fgz, window light and white reflector. I must say, I'm rather proud of this one. Gonna have it printed up as an 18x18 inch print for my wall to commemorate my boy's 6th birthday (I took these shots on his birthday). He did most of this himself actually, it all started with me just asking him to stand there so I could prefocus on him for some shots I needed to take of myself for the newspaper. Well, he started showing off, and I liked the light so I directed him a bit, and snapped away. Gosh, my boy really is growing up, he is even developing little muscles! lol... Post processing and black and white conversions in PS, of course... I have purposely left some texture in the background for effect rather than totally blowing it out. Not sure how it appears on other people's monitors, but I have worked very hard to selectively adjust levels and curves for individual parts of these shots to ensure that no highlights are blown. There should be texture and detail evident in all of the body parts. The only pure white should be on the backdrop. http://www.tanyamayer.com/jaimynmontageweb.jpg Comments and criticisms greatly appreciated... tan. _ MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
