27/08/2008 16:43:29

LoGill

You should post some of your other images and share you vision through those too....as this site is clearly, according to the homepage not specifically for one style of imagery.

The categories set up by the administrators clearly cover the following image styles.

Architecture, Art Nude, Beauty, Editorial, Everything Else, Fashion, Fine Art, Glamour - non nude, Glamour - nude, Landscapes, Portrait - family, Portrait - kids, Portrait - other, Press/PR, Sport, Still Life/Abstract, Wedding and Wildlife. 

It is for model and photographer's profiles and the latter, from my experience, apart from the rare exception,  is never on one specific focus. Most photographer, as you do, cover many styles and subjects. In deed we combine these when when doing location work with models....

I agree entirely with you perceptions about the galleries.

Art

27/08/2008 14:05:14

Look !!! there's an elephant in the corner  

For me - I generally perceive this and a model / photographer portfolio site.. so even though I  take everything from landscape to street photography I only post model related work here.

Although there are exceptions, my general perception would be that there are more glamour images here.. even alot of the adds are glamour related (when not floggin Thai Brides)  

Thorstens point about taste  - or lack of  - I couldn't agree more
If I could change the main gallery it would be so that every uploaded image doesn't sit there - as these are often repeated when photographer , then model and then stylist or whoever posts images .. that clutters up the gallery tends to be percieved as repetitive.  .. thankfully there is the feature gallery - but alot of good dtuff slips past  depending on who spots it !

Anyway - Good blog ! 

L

27/08/2008 09:06:04

As of 9am this morning, browsing the first 10 pages of the main gallery I find a total of 20 images in the traditional "glamour style" out of 120 images. How anyone perceives this site as a mainly glamour site is seriously beyond me. Now if I was working and not cooking a bun in the oven, maybe the gallery would have a good few more in it lol

26/08/2008 23:03:01

ciaran wrote: My take on it, is that landscapes etc. are best kept for other sites. Yes this is a photographers/models site, but I just don't see any gain/benefit for posting non model related photographs. In fact I think other non model images "dilute" the impact of the gallery.

As far as I understand it,  this is a site for 'photographers, models, studios, agents and all those associated with photography in the traditional 32 counties of Ireland' . Part of the reason I joined is the fact that folio32  is open to all styles and subject matter and is specifically local to Ireland.  It is not  just for the focus of model only images. There are many other sites out there that are specifically dedicated to 'model only' images and bar anything else which is kinda where 'your take on it' is edging.

Folio32 administrators have categorised subject matter, so the poster  can select  what category to post to and the viewer can choose what category they want to view.....I personally enjoy viewing all image styles and subjects.


I work in many areas of photography both commercially and as my hobby, passion and expression.  I do not like 'model only' image sites and I do not like 'landscape only' image site, I find this singular segregation of image subject, restrictive, and in many ways negative to development of new ideas and influences. 

I also dont think quality images of any subject dilute the impact of the galleries, its the lack of quality images that does that.  A  high quality model image beside a high quality still life image both command appreciation and thought to the technical and creative aspect that have brought them about.  Each stand on their own merit for light, colour, atmosphere, emotion, presentation, etc, etc,.

Anyway I do hope the anti 'other image' viewpoint is not in the ascendency on folio32.

Art

 

26/08/2008 19:04:49

Lol.. porn it's not :) If people came here looking for porn, they'd go away sadly disappointed.

My take on it, is that landscapes etc. are best kept for other sites. Yes this is a photographers/models site, but I just don't see any gain/benefit for posting non model related photographs. In fact I think other non model images "dilute" the impact of the gallery.

26/08/2008 14:40:44

Ruthless-Imagery wrote: it was porn, pure porn

That's a rather rash statement to make and without knowing which image you are referring it's impossible to say whether it has merit or not. However, I would have serious doubts that anything would appear on folio32 that could be considered pure pornography. There are many many images on folio32 that are just tasteless, plain and simple and one can only guess at the reasons photographers produced these. I suspect in most such cases photography was used, like I mentioned earlier, as a means to an end.

I doubt that Jim intended for this to turn in to a discussion on pornography, but be that as it may, I think it's worth considering just what pornography is. It's all to easy to throw fine-art nude, glamour and erotic photography under the banner of pornography. It's not easy to define what pornography is as it depends so much on moral and cultural values in different societies. The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy, in an article entitled Pornography & Censorship offers a variety of definitions. It makes the point that one cannot simply define pornography as material that is sexually explicit and cites the example that "Displays of women's uncovered ankles count as sexually explicit in some cultures". It then goes on to provide a number of alternative definitions of pornography, but rather than endlessly quoting the article, I'm going to suggest that readers should click on over and read it for themselves.

I suppose in the context of this discussion it's worth considering the work of great photographers such as Robert Mapplethorpe, Bob Carlos Clarke, Steve Diet Goedde and Helmut Newton. At one time or another, I'm sure that art critics out there have described some of their works as nothing more than gratuitous pornography, but is that a fair reflection on their work?

I just think we need to be careful when referring to images as porn, particularly when it concerns images here on folio32 as I know that all reasonable steps are taken to remove pornography from folio32 should it appear here. Unfortunately, images that I consider tacky or distastefull, others will consider acceptable. And there are an awful lot of images here that are very tacky and distasteful, but which I certainly wouldn't consider pornographic. Such images don't do the models featured in them any favours and they're certainly not good for the overall reputation of photographers, but that's another discussion.

- Thorsten.

26/08/2008 12:51:09

i think some of the images posted here would be more suited to an out and out porn site. yes i am quite modest personally. nbut i am also an artist, i have studied art, and respect it in every form. and i would like to think i know the difference between art nude and porn. i was very embarrassed to come accross one particular image in the main gallery while viewing this site in front of my ten year old step son and mother in law. it was porn, pure porn. and i was quite disgusted.

26/08/2008 10:37:10

I cant add much to what's already been said except that I agree with
pretty much all of it. There is absolutely no doubt that there are
photographs on this site which are a bit close too the bone in terms of
they're suitability for general viewing.

Ive seen a clever thing
done on another site where an opaque warning is placed over photographs
containing nudity, with the photograph only being revealed when the
warning is clicked on. That allows the viewer to judge for themselves
whether they wish to see the photograph or move on without being
"offended".