Question: is it inappropriate to ask for a critique of a gal that is topless? I thought I would ask, as I don't want to offend anyone. My mom wasn't offended, but you never know. I wouldn't post it here just put a link to the image. I am mainly interested in finding if breast placement is correct. ;)
I guess I really need a moderator to reply.
Thanks,
Nancy

Maybe, as the newbie Mod, I am not fully qualified to reply about site policy - but a link and a warning seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I'm sure that the image is not....er....distasteful, now that would be a no - no.

Rô

Let's keep it PG or G (even links) please.

I'm glad the moderate wants G or PG only images. That is the main reason I come to this site, there hasn't been anything I wouldn't want my kids to see.

No problem, I understand and appreciate the opportunity to be part of this great group! :bigthmb:
~Nancy~Let's keep it PG or G (even links) please.

While the PG aspect is a valid concern, it is an interesting topic in terms of retouch/manipulation. We are so acutely aware of the condition of the human body (skin tone, shape, joint movement, etc) that making changes to a (semi) nude figure presents unique challenges.

OK, it's good to know that American mores apply here. It's also good to know that Americans represent only 5% of the world's population. I.o.w. the mores of 5% are forced upon 95%.
How democratic is that?

Just to keep things in the proper perspective!

Just to keep things in the proper perspective!
1) I don't have exact numbers, but I would reckon that well over 50% of the folks on this site are indeed American.

2) Using the American rating system is just shorthand to avoid a lot of explaining. I didn't know the letter system, but a quick Google resolved that.

3) Nobody is forcing anything here. Just setting out some ground rules for peaceful co-existence to enable the discussions to centre on the subject of retouching.

I think, in this case, it would be wise to reconsider your perspective.

Rô

Just a thought!
I'm a member of another photography forum that is 99% PG rated, but they have a members only area where links to nude/topless/anything not PG can be posted. It's all done in good taste and in no way porn etc, and this seems to work well on this forum http://photography-on-the.net/forum/
Forum can be viewed by members only, but you must have 500 posts and be a member for at least 3 months before you can post in that glamour/nude forum.

Might be something that could be considered, seen as quite a bit of retouching does involve some partially nude photos ;)

Question: is it inappropriate to ask for a critique of a gal that is topless? I thought I would ask, as I don't want to offend anyone. My mom wasn't offended, but you never know. I wouldn't post it here just put a link to the image. I am mainly interested in finding if breast placement is correct. ;)
I guess I really need a moderator to reply.
Thanks,
Nancy

i think that keeping everything G/PG is a little overreacting. Personally I havnt seen much emphasis at all here on the topic of retouching the body as opposed to the face, and I think it would be a chance to delve deeper into the whole spectrum of retouching. After all retouching does include photographs of all nature.

I actually tried to slim down and touch up a photo that might be above a pg rating, and it ended in disaster, it would be nice if people could get over inmaturities(and yes I really do believe the whole keep it PG thing is an inmaturity, no matter what your age) and be able to critique a wider range of photographs, so we could all have the chance to learn more.

After all, I'm sure that's why most people participate here.

Jayce

Thanks for the info Chris. However, the more I think abot it the more I'm thinking I'll keep this one off the web. The person in the shot is a "film star" (you figure out what that means, lol). I retouched the image, but I'm not the photographer and don't hold the copyright. People in the film industry usually don't want their "before" shots to be exposed (pun intended). One of the moderators privatly critiqued the work for me and that is what I actually needed, another pair of eyes. This site is soooo cool, I'm just happy to be a part of the community here. :wavey:
~Nancy~

Just a thought!
I'm a member of another photography forum that is 99% PG rated, but they have a members only area where links to nude/topless/anything not PG can be posted. It's all done in good taste and in no way porn etc, and this seems to work well on this forum http://photography-on-the.net/forum/
Forum can be viewed by members only, but you must have 500 posts and be a member for at least 3 months before you can post in that glamour/nude forum.

Might be something that could be considered, seen as quite a bit of retouching does involve some partially nude photos ;)

It has nothing to do with mores, or even my own personal taste, it's pure pragmatics. There are a lot of "restrictions" I've put into place here, based on the experience I've gained over a couple of decades of running forums and BBS's. They're precisely the reason RP continues as such a pleasant place to visit.

i think that keeping everything G/PG is a little overreacting. Personally I havnt seen much emphasis at all here on the topic of retouching the body as opposed to the face, and I think it would be a chance to delve deeper into the whole spectrum of retouching. After all retouching does include photographs of all nature.
Jayce

Personally I agree, but at the end of the day its Doug's site and he says keep it PG.
We want this site to be open to people of any culture and that includes uptight americans ;) There are people (even in europe) who are upset or offended by nudity or are concerned about their children viewing materials they feel are unsuitable.
I'm not a mother but I personally would not have a problem with a child of mine viewing images of nudity - provided it wasnt tacky porn rubbish. There are some wonderful nude photographers that create truely beautiful images. I also feel that if you have a problem with your child viewing naked people then you shouldnt leave them alone on the internet - aol parental controls are not baby sitters ;) But I do appreciate that not everyone feels this way and I respect their right to their own opinion. I would be ok with links as long as they were clearly marked as inappropriate for minors. But as I said before, its Doug's site and he doesnt want links either and I'm sure he has very good reasons for it.

My thinking is along the same lines as Nancy. I don't have a problem with nude images etc, but understand some do.
But I take great exception to people who would disrupt a board on the grounds that it contains a nude image. I know there are people who spend their time searching the net for sites with nudity on them, and then spend the rest of their life complaining about it or spamming the sites :vampire: . It's a shame that some people force sites to restrict their content, but thats the way the cookie crumbles :bawling:

I don't understand why someone could be ofended by an artistic nude.

May be, someone could explain it to me, really explain it.

Ok...I can sorta understand how some people might be offended by a nude pic...I personally don't mind as long as it is tasteful. But surely the rule should be applied across the board? :dizzy:

http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9387

Can you not just link like the other person did Nancy? Edited to answer myself...I see Doug said even links should not be done. :nod:

Well I guess that depends on your interpretation of "Artistic" and this is the issue and the reason why I asked for input from the moderator. The artistic value is questionalbe as the person is only topless, nothing hard-core, however, the pose is very provacative (and I had to remove her "bunny" tatto, so copyright isssues are also an issue). Since the site is Doug's it is really his call and I have no problems with that.
~Nancy~


www.photoart123.com

I don't understand why someone could be ofended by an artistic nude.

May be, someone could explain it to me, really explain it.