I've seen more revealing photos on the cover of Cosmopolitan. I don't see why anyone had a problem with it.
Hmmm.... Think...think.... HMmmmm..... After reading Joe's response, once again, I find myself thinking about what makes photography any different than sculpting, painting, or drawing. Especially nudes. Having been in Europe, I found (like Joe) that the mindset is completely different. Not getting into the whole history, moralism or philosophy or it, they don't mind it. However, over here, in some areas it can be considered a moral sin and bring the wrath of God (At least a church membership corps) down on you. All for something that we see in our mirrors every day.
To be perfectly honest, I love nude photography (not shooting in the nude!). I love the plays of light in 'nude study' and the creation of beauty in glamour. It's not for everyone though. The puritanical condemn it, the left wing condones it. I ask, does this harm the image of women in general? Not this type. It wasn't even close to pornography and did not demean the woman photographed, nor do I believe it reduced feminism the world over. It was a well done and created photograph of a beautiful young woman.
It IS an aspect of photography, in that it has a certain style and technical process that has to be adhered to. It wasn't "sleazy" or degrading. Like a lot of people, I would say to those who don't particulary like that style of photography, "Don't look". I don't like porn either. It has no artistic value as far as I can see and is exactly the opposite of what I mentioned above. However, it IS a multi-billion dollar business in the US alone and can not be ignored. I can't see comparing Joe's work to that of some sleaze lord in his backroom pumping out snaps of people having sex. Just not the same in any way or form. The only common thing is that a camera was used to create an image.
One last thing. Some of the sexiest photographs I've ever seen were done with the model fully clothed in winter gear (you know, the shapeless colorful down jackets and such). It was the expression and her eyes that made the photograph. It was not Porn.
I agree completely with Joe in this matter. The photograph in question was extremely well executed and much more tasteful than some I've seen of models fully clothed. This image was obviously not intended to imply anything pornographic, but rather to portray a model at her best...which is exactly what Joe has done. I also find it refreshing to read his comments and see that there are still some photographers with ethics and values when it comes to shooting nudes.
On a lighter note... "I tried photographing a woman nude once, but she made me put my clothes back on."
I think the image is great! She has worked hard to achive a body of such shape and beauty. I am glad that Joe captured this in such an elegant way. Joe did state that if you are bothered by nude images, then do not look at them. To the same point, this publication is not just about nudes and nudes should not be forced upon readers by being on the cover. For me, I do not feel that this is a nude as much as it is a creative use of talent and props. We must be careful how we express our craft for others are watching and will gladly blow the horn even if they do not read our publication!
I was surprised to see the negative feedback about last month's cover photo. I personally take no offence to this picture and everyone is certainly allowed to take it as the will. However, this is certainly not pornography. There is a difference between nudity and sexuality and it's unfortunate that some people are blind to this difference enough that they are offended simply by the sight of the human body. One person even went so far to say that God meant for people to be clothed. If that was the case, wouldn't we be born with cloths on?
As for the image being unavoidable on the home page, there is far more skin shown on the covers of quite a few non-pornographic publications...be they web sites or at the check out of your local super market. If you find this image offencive, it must be a hard life, finding offencive things all around you.
If a woman puts on lipstick and makeup is still a woman?
"God did not intend for man to go through the world naked". Then why am I born nude? And where is God when I need him to pay for my clothes? I DID NOT have a problem with the cover. You see more skin on the news stand at the grocery store. I love the web site, keep up the good work.
Get a grip, people. I've never traveled to Europe, so I can't attest to what's said about the mentality regarding nudity, etc. However, I've lived in the U.S. all my life, albeit not very long, and I know that it's sickening how you-know-what-driven Americans are, yet they take offense to a photo of a nude figure whose view of her most private parts is completely obstructed.
Nudity as an art? Yes. Nudity in glamour? Yes. Porn? Not by a long shot. I won't get into how God intended for us to go through life - naked or clothed. Who cares? If you want to get theological about it, stop taking pictures and take up priesthood! Joe has captured an image, a stunning and dynamic one, I might add. The subject, or model, happened not to have any clothes on. If this is immoral, we can all hang up our cameras, domke bags, and photog vests and call it a day.
Using that image on the cover? Hmmm... can I piggyback off of other comments about the non-pornographic magazines whose covers bear (and bare) more flesh than this image? Can I piggyback off the editor's comment about clothing the model with a bikini revealing more flesh than this image? The cover of this magazine features different photographer/editor images each month, and hey, Joe's number was up. You can't judge a book by its cover, and expressing even a hint of disloyalty to VividLight Mag for its choice is self-righteous if ever words or actions could be.
Get over yourself America. You're obsessed with weight, appearance, and a number of other things... Stop being hypocritical when it comes to the cover of a thorough and intensely helpful magazine for every photographer out there - pro, enthusiast, amatuer... Grow up.
Regardless of what you think of pornography, this image did evoke some response when I loaded VividLight.com at work one day. Fortunately, I have internet access at work during free time, and my boss is cool with that. They don't police me either, but my boss (a woman) did inquire as to what I was looking at. It was an awkward moment.
But what's truly sad is that I think this is a bad photo. The woman looks uncomfortable, as if she were just about to fall off a pedestal. There are shadows throughout. Frankly, I find the image off putting just because of its poor quality.
Love the shot, don't understand why anyone would find it offensive.
Please don't let a couple of closed minded people discourage you Joe. I love your columns and read them every month in Vivid Light and Shutterbug. The great thing about the Web compared to magazines is that you can write about this kind of photography. Uptight people have made that impossible to do in magazines. What ever happened to free speech? Everybody is so afraid of offending a vocal minority but the majority of adults have no problem with the human body. Now how about a couple of buff guys for us girls? Weren't there any fireman hanging around that firehouse? :-)
The image is just fine and tastefully done. By definition and by it's nature pornography is inteneded to pander to a purient interest.
Sorry, but this image doesn't pass the smell test for porn.
Duke Geren Portland, OR
I find your articles very informative. I have no problem with naked people on your cover. It was a great photo. Keep up the good work!
I am a 40 year old man that has traveled the world quite a bit and been taking pictures since I was 12 years old. And I really do not under stand why some people are, in my humble opinion over reacting to the photo in question. I mean you can see much more skin than in this photo any night of the week on any of the network television channels. And no one seems to mind all of that nudity and open sexual situations.
The human body is an amazing creation from an artistic and technical/mechanical point of view (yes I am an engineer). And when you come across a beautiful body, and that form is displayed in a tasteful and artistic manner, that occasion should be celebrated.
We are not talking about a spread from Hustler here where the intent is to stimulate the viewer sexually but an occasion where the human form is well lit, tastefully posed and documented (photographed) in such a manner that it stimulates the viewers imagination in an artistic manner. Like the great works of art of human history.
I think that some people need to open their minds along with their eyes and learn to appreciate the beauty and many wonders that are walking around us each and everyday.
I think the remarks of the negative emails says more about the authors of the emails than it does about the cover photo. As a photograph it is superb and can be appreciated for that fact alone. And, as has been pointed out, the woman is exposing less than she would were she wearing a well-accepted bathing suit. Maybe the negative letter-writers had imaginations that were just too active, e.g. thinking about the interaction between the photographer (in projection themselves) and the model.
While I have no problem with those who want to photograph nudes in the name of art, I agree with the reader who asked that these images not be used on the "cover" of your magazine. I, too, have used my lunch hour at work to read your magazine. (Some days the anticipation of the new magazine is all that made me get through the morning!) I would NOT like to have my boss walk in as I was opening the magazine! Nor, for that matter, would I like one of my grandchildren to be staring over my shoulder! Thanks for considering this viewpoint. I LOVE your magazine! Thanks!
My interest is Nature/Landscape photography but I was not offended by the cover. I didn't find the photo glamerous however, but felt the pose was awkward and not esthetically pleasing.
Okay, I know I've already left one comment so forgive me for the second helping. Just a thought, but I've noticed there has never been a monthly contest with the subject of nudes or figure studies. With all the positive feedback in response to this shot, is it possible there are others out there who may be interested? (Hint to the Ed's) For those who question the quality of Joe's work, perhaps this would be your opportunity!
I think the image is fine. There is cause to apprciate the beauty of the human form in a variety of composion types. While we can create many different subject to view none is so numerous as our image. Good job.
It is a good photograph. What is the problem!?
Without a doubt there is a difference between 'naked' bodies and 'nude' shots. The difference is the suggestion. If you think there is no difference, then next time you go to the office, why not go there wearing just your underpants, after all you will be revealing no more than if you were to go to the beach or swimming pool, so why should it be a problem in the office? As to whether or not there is anything inappropriate with placing such a picture on the cover, that is something every individual will decide in their own way. For example, I have no problem with the 'nude' cover shot, but I did think that the helmet she was holding made the whole shot look quite stupid, but that of course is my point of view, both creatively and otherwise...
"Here's my take on this: If nudity offends you, don't look at it. But don't impose your moral standards on others with the excuse that you have the moral high ground".
Here's my take on this: Whether or not nudity offends me is not the issue. Don't impose your photography on me with the excuse that I should accept what you accept.
This pendulum swings both directions. It's like the 1st ammendment gives a person the right to do, say and print anything anymore. The same ammendment gives me the right to express an opposing view without someone trying to make me different than the rest of the world. I'm am different because I'm an individual.
I took offense to the image. You started the nude article in the back of the issue and before I knew it it was smack dab on the front. I have my computer in my living room and opened your issue in front of my kids. I did not appreciate that one bit. What I want to know is it really neccessary to have it? Are you trying to get more viewers so that you get more advertisers? I know sex sells, but I am not buying.
Perhaps people are really put off on how horrid the lighting and pose is. Four different light sources casting hard, visible shadows all over the damn place? Looks like the lighting on the Red Skelton Show from the 1950s. And that pose! Who makes a model lie back, head back and make her look at the camera down past her feet? She seems to be barely able to lift her head, giving her a horrible double chin, sagging cheek adn a clear look up her nose. Farace has taken some good shots, but it looks like he had a few too many shots with the models the night before on this occasion. Oh, I doubt ANY bikini would reveal more than her being bottomless, because even a string bikini, much less a brazilian, boy-cut or tanga cut bottom, would cover more than her nudity (by definition, as a matter of fact). Kind of strange that someone who is a publisher and editor can't wrap his mind around that simple linguistic definition. Perhaps the editor only goes to beaches where completely sheer microscopic g-strings are allowed.
Always been a bit bewildered by a nation that finds showing sadistic killings and murder in detail more acceptable than showing a naked person or certain parts of the human anatomy. The recent Janet Jackson hysteria in a nation that has no qualms about murdering thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis is a point in case. The picture in question wasn't anything in particular, - but offensive?? No. Get a life!
We are all naked under out clothes. Yep, folks, there's nothing but bare bodies wherever you look, just covered ones. Many less covered than that lovely young lady.
I liked the picture and I agree with the photographer, if you don't like this type of picture dont look at it. However, I have to say that I think Eric in the feedback hit a bulls eye with his observation, you put it on the cover so you in effect forced those who would not normally look at this type of photo to view it? I would love to read you response to this.
People tell a lot about themselves when reacting to a photograph, often more even than they tell about the photograph (or the photographer) they are talking about.
When we are uncertain about ourselves, we tend to reject anything we don't agree with. A stable mind can accept other opinions without agreeing with them.
(Sorry for my English).
I think the image is inappropriate for your cover or opening page.
It's all in their head. No worries. Nice photo
I think some people need to get a live and move on in the world!
This is a stunning photograph!!!
Keep up the good work.
PS. The photo will even pass the censorship here in the UAE, and trust me, they are very strict!!!!
Pretty lady--great lighting--foo on the prudes.
I think society has set up a scenario in our minds that no matter how much skin is covered (or not covered) it is still better than a photo like what you put on the cover. People probably were offended by the photo because it was set up like a playboy photo. I personally was shocked when i saw it, but then studied it and realized that nothing was showing that wouldn't be showing anyway, and forgot about it. I was not offended.
In regards to Joe Farace's photo, I have to say that I expected some kind of negative reaction. In fact I've been expecting it since he began his column. In America there seems to be a really conflicted viewpoint on nudity. Idon't understand,but I support your inclusion of the articles and photographs.The scariest thing about the issue is the guy who now considers you to be illustrating articles with pornography. Yikes!
I don't think the photo is inappropriate, for it is done in good taste. It certainly is not the Penthouse type of vulgarity.
There appears to be three issues under discussion here all at once and they are quite different. These are:
• Is the image offensive? • Is it appropriate for the cover? • Is it a good photograph?
With regard to the first, I did not find it so. I also agree with Joe’s comment that the nudity issue is very American. I am American, but live in France. The French found the whole Janet Jackson, Superbowl thing amazing. They could not understand what all the fuss was about. This month’s Photo Magazine (an excellent French photography magazine) is a tribute to Helmut Newton and the cover picture is his famous one of the four models walking toward the camera – as most who know Newton’s work will recall, there are two images, one with the models clothed and one with them nude – naturally, the French editors chose the full frontal nudity image for the cover. It is an incredibly striking and beautiful image, but would certainly offend some American sensibilities.
With regard to the second, I must admit a certain level of sympathy for the views about it being on the cover that comes up immediately upon clicking on the URL. It does force the cover on you, unlike a news stand where the cover is mixed with many others. I also have sympathy for opening it at lunch at work or in front of kids. There is so much porn on the Internet, though this clearly is not porn, that it could cause a supervisor to do a double take and, as one comment pointed out, could lead to an embarrassing moment.
With regard to the third, I have sympathy for those who have commented that they do not like the image from a photography point of view. I agree, it looks very forced and the model looks very uncomfortable. Also, why a fire helmet? Is there some 9/11 reference we are supposed to get here? I just do not like the image; then again, I am not really fond of the naked moose on this month’s cover either!
An interesting debate with comments running from Cosmo to Iraq to photographic merit; keep up the great work.
I am so fed up with these kinds of comments. If I were running your magazine (a good one) I wouldn't waste the editorial space responding. Naked, nude, whatever....Good photography is good photography and I enjoy viewing all.
I thought the shot was tastefully done, but I can also see the point of those who open it up in a work place or in front of young children. I can deal with explaining the difference between art and porn to my children, but sometimes in the workplace it can put people in a difficult position. I work in a training department where I find many of the articles very useful to me with taking photos to be used in training. I could have come under fire if the wrong person saw the cover image as I opened it. Perhaps a warning might help those who read your publication in the work place; that way they could choose to open it at work or wait and read it at home.
As far as the quality of the shot, and the topic it covered, I thought it was great. For those who questioned why it combined artistic nudes with fire equipment missed the entire point of the shoot. They were probably too hung up on gawking over the picture to read the story that explained where the money earned by this calendar was going.
I think anybody that doesn't like it should Start their own magazine. My opinion may be a little biased though.
Is absolute incredible this exaggerate Puritanism. I feel that are extremists attitudes. And sorry, but every extremism is almost the same even is about “the nudity” (even is less then on a regular beach or on the magazines cover) or is the extremism of al-Qaeda or of a terrorist organizations on left or right. Think about in this opinion half of paintings from Louvre or Greek statues from National Art Museum in London could be closed to the view of pupil or even to be destroyed for the puritanism point of view. Fortune there are not so many (despite sometimes are so aggressive).
My comment concerning nudity is to first ask why half of the world’s population seems to be excluded as subjects of fine art nudes? These people are men. I photograph exclusively male nudes. And if you think there is flack about female nudes, you should try displaying imagery of men.
I strive at all times to avoid any sense of pornography in my work. To me, the line is drawn more easily with a man. No erection means not pornographic. My work typically shows frontal nudity, which in the eyes of some may be erotic, but certainly not pornographic.
The problem with displaying nudity is not the seeing of the human body, it is the puritanical Christian culture that permeates this country. When people in more secular societies view my work, they immediately see it as fine art. The only way that this specious debate on nudity in art will change is if we as a population become less judgmental, less up tight, and more open to the beauty nature has bestowed upon all of us.
I think these people that complained need to get a life!
I thought we were talking about the model on the cover, not photoshop. I think Farace's picture was very good. It did not offend me and if it did I would just not look.
There are holier than thou people everywhere and they find fault with everything. I thought the pictures were tasteful and not crude. Joe Farace always does a beautiful job.Some people find fault with almost anything, they just like to be contrary. Keep up the good work, we outnumber them.
There's nothing inappropriate about that image. Not even close.
I think this was tastefully done. Has anyone seen Britney Spears lately. Now that is vulgar and damn near pornographic!!
Most photographers manipulate their images to make them appear the way they wish, whether it's with chemicals, emulsions and light in the darkroom or pixels from digital media on a computer.
The eventual use of electronic cyber-technology to dodge, burn and otherwise 'alter' them was inevitable - why would it not still be a photograph?
If the photo 'becomes' an illustration when opened in PhotoShop (or even an affordable photo-editor), then by the same logic, scanning a print into a computer would make it just "a Jay-Peg".
Similarly, would bringing your sweet, gray-haired gandmother "into" a Stones' concert make her a rock-and-roll acid queen? Of course not! She'd just be one more person at the show who's half the Mick's age.
Seems like the same reaction to Sport Illustrated's Swim Suit edition. Congratulations.
The whole sexuality issue has been programmed into the western culture by the monotheistic belief systesm as being bad, evil or whatever. IMO the general negative responses you have received are the results of pushing these deeply (subliminally programmed?) buttons that says they must react because they have a "self image" or some self-importance issue they must protect. When one studies ancient history, nudity is a non-issue - it was part of their life system. Life has many forms of beauity. Man seems to take subjective issues and pretend they are objective. If nature wasn't naked, we couldn't enjoy its beauity in our photography - at least it seems that way to me.
Of course it is a photo. Photos have always been manipulated, the distinction between photo and NOT photo is whether the light from a subject formed the image. Photos may be severely manipulated for the purpose of illustration, combined, posterized, smeared, processed, whatever, but they are still photographic. For example, I would say even those polaroid images where the emulsion has been sqooshed, changing the colors and adding amazing patterns are still photos as long as the original photo image has been used.
Look at that dumb photo and tell me it has any merit at all. It's foolish. You have a nude woman lying on her back holding a fireman's hat over her breasts and wearing white go-go boots. It's cheesy. It's dumb. And it's vulgar. It has nothing going for it. Nothing.
This is a reply to the nude/naked debate, and not to the Photoshop debate:
I didn't think it was that great a picture. She looks uncomfortable, even a little fearful, which is what bothered me.
The other thing that bothered me about this as your 'cover' image last month is the same thing that bothers me about most photo magazines. I'm no prude, but these kinds of pictures - always of women - have a soft porn feel, and while I don't really care what my local magazine merchant thinks about me, it feels odd, as a woman, to be buying magazines with naked women on the cover. Especially when they're not particularly artful - but are most often in come-on poses. (Joe Farace flatters himself if he thinks his picture of this woman is anything like 17th century European painters and sculptors. Forget Michelangelo - his women were just men's bodies with misshapen breasts.)
As part of my job involves photography, I consider it professional development to at least scan Vivid Light's contents each month at my office (which is open-concept). Nix that when it looks like I'm surfiing for porn.
I'm reconsidering my opinion of Vivid Light for its dubious artistic as well as commercial judgment.
I think the picture is very good. Showing just enough skin to appeal to the testosterone filled man but also and more importantly it is a well done photo with great lighting and a beautiful subject matter, I think it is tasteful and interesting.....
I think it is fine. It is a little Vicotrian to get bent out of shape over this photo on the cover a photography magazine. If you really step back and look at it from an open mind, what is the big deal?
Being a Christian, it seems that I have accidentally subscribed to something that I want absolutely no part of. I believe that a woman who would allow herself to be photographed in an immodest way has no respect for herself, and regardless to what the photographer says, he has no respect for her. I was about to enter the landscape contest. Forget it. Unsubscribe me. I just realized what your magazine is about. It is adding to the problems we already have in this society.
The question is whether the photograph was inappropriate or not. Whether or not you appreciate or even find this type of "glamor" shot valid as a form of photography, many photographers are making an extremely good living designing and executing such shots, particularly in the UK. That means it IS a valid form of photographic expression whether we like it or not. The fact that it was included on the cover is irrelevant. I'm sure the editor is trying to portray a multitude of images in the journal and this would include cover art.
P.S. For those who think the photograph lacks any artistic or technical merit I suggest you compare it with Volume 10 in 2001!
You can see much more at almost any beach, maybe those who were offended would feel better if the young model was wearing a Victorian dress up to her neck and high button shoes.
Great photo,Joe! Nudes in art have been around a long time....Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,right? I guess where some see beauty, others see porn.... I'm sure there are people out there that would scowl about a naked baby on a bearskin rug....the eye of the beholder... The comments about the cover photo puzzle me. To see the photo in question I have to click on a link on the home page. So if you don't want to see Joe's latest nudes,don't click on the link!
It becomes an illustration if there is any modification to the original digital data. It is no longer an original.
"It becomes an illustration if there is any modification to the original digital data. It is no longer an original."
oops The heading said photoshop.
Picture does't bother me either. It is another facet of photograpy. It was nice in my opinion. I took my head out of the sand years ago when I was in College and strode thru an Art Class while changing Class, now this opened up my eyes. :-)
I feel there is beauty in all which aspires you. Keep up the good work Joe Farace.
I just think the photograph is tasteless and inappropriate for this type of newsletter. This is not a mens' magazine or a porno link, and the photo was unnecessary.
The fact she appears to have been naked under the covering device makes it even more tasteless, and I would not have expected your group to support this trashy sort of thing when there are millions of more relevant shots you could have used.
Naked vs Nude. What you had on the cover was not nude. I have no problem with any image that is tastefully done - naked or nude. Mind you to using any photographic image as vehicle for the display of nudity is equally disgusting. It is all a value judgment -- there was nothing wrong with your cover photo.
Nicely done..no problem.
The human body is a sculpture of nature and we all have a body, so why it obscene to view ourselves? Note that I'm only refering to non-pornographic (ie: no sex act) images and there's nothing pornographic about the cover photo, so relax people! Pshaw ...
Having missed last months issue ( I didn't get it online) I was reminded to see the issue going back and the responses of some of them on the cover page. To say the least, it is hypocrisy. God made man and woman, naked. Sin made us realise that we are naked and not God. However, if we see God's original work in different form (through the work of the Photographer) its no sin and the question of temptation should not arise. A thing of beauty is a joy forever. Let's enjoy what is given through the eyes of art and nature and not start a hypocritical forum
I am stunned by the response some viewers have to Front Cover Ed 34. I thought nothing at all of the photo other that's interesting and continued reading.
I am an artist as well as photographer and have painted many nudes and looked at many nudes in academic and coffee table texts. Some of the art book shop's best books have nudes on the cover.
Would the puritans demand to be unsubscribed if Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" appeared on the cover? I guess... notwithstanding that the bulk of nudes of that time were commissioned by the Church. Photography is just as much an art form as painting.
There is no doubt in my mind that Joe's intentions were exactly the same as mine when I paint a male or female nude. I don't know what sort of mind could say Joe's had "too many shots with the model the night before" but it's the same mind that knows all about brazilians, boy-cut, and tanga cut bottoms . The only one I know about is a Brazilian but at a guess the others are to do with the same subject matter but I don't care either way because my mind doesn't rest there.
Not so long ago the Pope (yes Pope John) said art is a God given gift and it is the duty of every artist to use it to their utmost ability. I'm no Catholic but if its good enough for the Pope it's good enough for me and good enough for Joe. Any one who is offended by art and an artist's individual interpretation to the degree that such an innocent photo compels them to cast such negative judgment makes me feel very happy that I move in artistic cirlces with people with open intelligent educated minds and the highest ethical standards imaginable.
I rely heavily on Vivid Light for my photographic updates, read it enthusiastically because the articles are great not to mention the wonderful photography. Heaven forbid if the puritans start dictating what should and shouldn't be published.
Well done all of you for an exellent high standard publication and I won't be unsubscribing.
I've been reading through the posts and I just want to say that I'm offended by this month's cover. Hasn't anyone noticed that moose is naked!
If God had intended moose to go through the world naked...
Oh never mind ;-)
"God did not intend for man to go through the world naked"
ROFL is all I can say. I guess that's why we're born in our underwear
To be honest, this is the first time i remember seeing a cover.
Regarding the semi-nude woman on the cover, I find it is too simplistic to see things in terms of right and wrong, good guy or bad guy. One must take into accountt a number of factors: context, culture, trends (political and societal), audience and individuals. As a culture what is appropriate is also in flux from decade to decade. One thing is certain for me, that Anglo-Saxon cultures have issues with nudity/sexuality. It appears to be more of an outrage for many Americans to expose a child to a nude than to murderous violence. Everyone has values, its a way of arranging our priorities in life. The problems arise when one set of values interfer with another.
This is the kind of photograph I love. The reaction to the photograph says more about the person looking at it than the anything else. It is an innocent image showing nothing that should offend anyone. But what you think of the images says so much about you.
One of my favorite images I have taken I call "G-rated Photo, R-rated Theme, X-rated Thoughts" It has gotten the same type of reaction. How dare I publicly display the photo. Worse how dare I publicly display a photo of my wife like that. Somehow the model makes a difference? For what anyone knows it could be me in the photo an old middle age guy in a bit of drag. http://www.pbase.com/image/27655123
So, I say the picture on the cover scores a perfect 10. It made people think and reflect. This is really the question, what do you think? So, do you think nice image well lighted and well composed (this is a photography magazine site after all) or do you think "I wish she would move her hat or leg" or is it, "oh, my she is naked how terrible they are going to burn in Hell".
I fit in the group that looks at the picture for lighting composition and technique. I'm a photographer coming to a photography magazine to improve my skills. I say don't worry about what pious people think and continue to give us great cover photos no matter the subject.
Actually, I don't care one way or the other. I just don't particularly like this photograph. I'm glad other people like it, but it doesn't work for me.
To everybody: this is a photographer magazines, is absolutly normal that we found nude as fine photography. I don't see the problem.
I think the righteous among us should understand that it is not all about them. If they don't like something, fine. Don't look at it, or listen to it. But they should not be allowed to impose their flawed values on others.
Please do not give in to those would impose their views on others abilty to look, listen, or to learn. I thought it was a great photo.
"Is there a difference between naked and nude? " Well that depends Are you artistic or are you perverted and have no concept of art?
"Is visible nudity what makes the difference in a photography? "
Visable nudity make a difference in a photograph v. what? The invisable nudity?
"Does the fact that the model was naked when the shot was taken make a difference regardless of what is visible? "
Cheers to the model and the photographer! I have no doubt in my mind that was not an easy shot for either person. I wonder what that would look like as a B&W Infared photo. Very artistic photo, Very tactful, Very Appropriate for the article.
Look around folks, this model is much classier than what kids out in public look like.
Be safe out there Jan
Absolutely Unbelievable - how can such a non-offensive photo cause such a debate is beyond me.... After reading comments like "temptation I'd rather not be exposed to" & "God did not intend for man to go through the world naked" used to describe this photo, I had to go back & check if I was missing something !! Are these people serious ??? Do these people actually leave the house or even shower naked ???? Basically if this photo is causing you temptation problems or offending your christian morals you really need to get a life......quickly. Or just spend the rest of your life walking around with your eyes shut.
PS: I really missed Joe's article this month - hopefully this crap is not putting him off posting his articles here in future - I for one really enjoy his writing & pics !!
Is it porn? Certainly not. Is it provocative. Definitely. But the real question is, does it improve or deteriorate your magazine? I think it degrades an otherwise very fine e-magazine. Please keep these images off your cover.
This is a photography magazine. Although the image is racy, it is not, in my opinion, inappropriate. You see this kind of stuff on photo magazines all the time, sitting on mainstream shelves in mainstream stoors all around the US. This is not porn.
This is artistic, and it brings out emotion. For some it may be too powerful, but so be it. Get a life you prudes!
He said: “Joe Farace flatters himself if he thinks his picture of this woman is anything like 17th century European painters and sculptors. Forget Michelangelo - his women were just men's bodies with misshapen breasts.)”
I said: “While I may be of Italian descent, I don't think I'm Michelangelo, so I'll spare you any pithy comments comparing my images with his paintings or the statue of David..”
The very point of my original statement was that I don’t think that my photograph is “anything like 17th century European painters and sculptors” but if I did not make that clear originally, I hope I do so now.
I'm feel very sorry for those that objected on the grounds that the picture was in appropriate, It say's a lot for the society we live in, when our society produce pornography like they were sweets for our taste buds, yet I bet that those who oppose the picture didn't think twice about the way we treat our fellow human beings, in places like Africa, Iraq, Afganistan and Palistine, know wonder we have a very sick society. we need more tolerance and empathy.
Sadly people with narrow minds, I bet go to Church on Sundays and think they are very christian.
The picture represented youth and beauty no more no less and the model earned enough for the day. keep up the pictures
I'm TOTALLY offended by the naked moose on the cover!!!
I think we should send patrols of tight bunged square jawed christians to put pants on every moose in the woods.
Makes about as much sense as being offended by last month's cover.
Well first I don't see any problem with the cover. Second I like Joe's articles on shooting glamour and I'm not particulary offended by nudes.
I thought it was funny though that every person who had a problem with a female nude on hte cover was a guy. That says something but I'm not sure what about those people.
All this got me thinking though, how do you guys decide what image goes on the cover. I know it's usually an image from the current issue. But how do you decide what image to use?
The fact that the model was "nude" is not the issue. The issue is one of expression by the photographer of a nude model. Was it well conceived and excuted? I would say it was. I see no difference from a photographer's approach to nudes than their approach to a landscape of the same quality. I shoot both myself. If you place a landscape on the cover page, I have to look at it which is no different than your selection of this "nude" photo for the cover page. Keep up the great work and select a variety of cover images. If I only want cows and mountains, there are a number of nature web sites to visit which I do also.
needs to be more revealing
I believe there is noting wrong with the photo. I actually believe it is a nice example of Art. I think the original purpose, of including the image, was to support the technique of Digital photography and having the correct white balance. How to take such a photograph with a white background and keep the correct skin tones. Those whom believe it is inappropriate, are those who are insecure and are uncomfortable with their own self.
I don't have a problem with nudity and I've never understood why anyone else would either. That said, I don't really like the photo in question - not because of the nudity, but because the model looks incredibly uncomfortable.
It's time the Woe=rld got its priorities sorted out. It seems that we think nothing of portraying in graphic detail murder, wars, brutality and all manner of horrific violence, but everyone gets upset at the perfectly natural human body!
I blame religion ;o)
Ian Birmingham England
What is the point of the picture? It's a beautiful female form (what we can see of it). It's not erotic. It looks very posed. It reminds me of a well-executed calendar shot for a construction company. My PC training tells me it is demeaning to women. My male chauvinist side warns me someone is going to try to sell me something.
In short, it must be an excellent picture, because it sparked all this discussion. It is, however, a subject that appeals to people's taboos, like photos of corpses.
Considering the times and the insane number of sexual harrassment suits out there, this cover is quite dangerous. I enjoy the e-zine and often read it during my lunch hour at work. I really don't need some overzealous person catching a glimpse of something this innocent and start some kind of racous because I'm trying to enrich the skills of my hobby. While I do read all the articals, this is one column that I save for when I get home. Keep up the great work but watch the covers!!
The shot is cheese(cake). It's not what I would consider an artistic nude; it's solidly in the pin-up camp. The white go-go boots and rhinestone choker strip away all credibility. It would be better suited on an auto parts calendar in a greasy garage than it is here.
Now, by way of "definition," for me at least: what is an artistic nude? A shot of a female or male body that explores the lines, planes, and shapes of the body; that explores the sculptural essence of the body; that doesn't make me feel cheap while looking at it. Sorry guys, but this one doesn't even come close.
I am also a glamour nude photographer and I think the image was not only tastefully shot, but it also highlighted the model's beauty. I think most moral issues with nudity are created out of lack of knowledge on what would be deemed morally acceptable and the lack of education only makes you wonder what else our society is not teaching us. I am happy to see your publication showing all that photography has to offer, nude or otherwise.
I was not offended. It was done tastefully. On the other hand, showing it on the cover is more like what Playboy would do than a reputable photo magazine. The picture is fine, the location is questionable.
Its unfortunate that we have so many people looking through the lens of various cameras, but cannot tell the difference between art and porn. Maybe they should be wearing coke bottles,take an art class, or perhaps both.
When I saw the the model on last months issue, I diden't view it as pornographic material. But, if other readers where disturbed by the image and label it as nudity or pornography. So be it!
Some people need to get a life!
Sometimes when I'm taking a break at my desk at work I browse to this web site. With photographs of nude or semi-nude people on the cover that could get me fired; so I don't access your magazine from work anymore.
I do believe this photo is very suggestive. Yes, you are not able to see her anatomy, however it's the principal of the women not having clothes on. If she were wearing a handkerchief or a bathing suit the pose is still suggestive. She’s in a submissive pose. Tasteful, but suggestive I think.
I agree, if I were viewing Vivid Photography and my children were present, I would not want this photo to pop up. At work should be work related websites regardless of lunch break!!
The model: each of us has our own reasons for approval or disapproval - giving those reasons changes no one's opinion. As for me, I like landscape and wildlife photography, and no amount of rationalization (read "technique") changes that. If I want to see female models, I'll look elsewhere. You're on probation.
On the subject of the nude photograph on the cover:
I totally agree with those wishing to ban this kind of image. Not only on the cover of this magazine, but on the cover of any magazine. And also inside the magazines, and anywhere else too for that matter. The one and only purpose of this image is to sexually arouse the (male or lesbian) viewer. There is a small possibility that it also strives to degrade/objectify women.
Not only don't I not want to see such pictures in the future, I don't want to see pictures of sex organs either, so I demand that the editors in the future censor all pictures of flowers. After all, flowers are just another version of sex organ, and would you like to have a picture of an erect penis on the cover of the magazine? I should think not, so all sex organs should be banned, vegetable or otherwise! Also, since all kinds of nudity are moraly degrading to the viewers, I demand that the editors in the future make sure there is no nudity at all in the magazine. The moose featured on the latest cover is just another attempt to arouse some of the readers, so it should have been stopped before being let loose on the general public. In fact, any pictures of animals that are not wearing clothes covering at least 60% of their skin/fur surface (and obviously sex organs as well) should be banned from any exposure. In fact, the very taking of pictures such as these ought to be illegal.
Does the above sound utterly ridiculous? If you honestly think it doesn't, I appologize for I will have failed in my irony. If you think it does, then there is a very good chance that you agree with me that the picture we are debating was nothing to get upset about.
Whether you like or dislike the picture, and it's use on the cover, is really irrelevant to me. Everybody is free to, within the boundaries set by law, publish the text and pictures they wish to.
An observation that I have made is the difference between the USA and Sweden (where I live). I have come to believe that there is a fundamental difference between the censoship between these two countries, that is reflected in the debate over this picture: in the USA the censors (or the publishers own censorship) is mostly concerned with not revealing too much naked skin and sex, whereas virtually unlimited violence of the cruellest sort is acceptable. In Sweden the censors (or the publishers own censorship) are more concerned with not showing too much violence. When I have children of my own, I would rather have them seeing people make love on TV than have them see somebody get brutally murdered!
Maybe a warning so that I could wait until an appropriate time to view the image. At work this could cause some very uncomfortable issues with those who have no idea of the intent of the site. I would rather not have to deal with the "I can't believe you are looking at porn" wether it is or not isn't really relavent to that conversation. so I guess my opinion is just give us a warning so we can choose if it is an appropriate time or not.
NUDE PHOTOGRAPHY IS AN ART, BUT IT'S FOR MATURE AUDIENCES ONLY.
I don't think it's the fact that the model is nude that is bothering people, at least it's not what is bothering me about the image. What bothers me is that it's more of a "porno" nude than and artistic nude. The high boots, the pose, the look on her face, and the firefighter's hat, all remind me of something I would see on the nudie calendars my Father puts up in his shop!
Excellent photo. I have no problem with it being on your cover. As it is there a very few magazines that will cover nude photography technics.
Hasn't anyone noticed? The moose on this month's cover IS STILL NAKED!!!!!
:-) (smiley face inserted for the humor impaired)
The photos fine. Cannot understand how people can have an issue with it.
I'm biased, probably because I've been photographing nudes for 40 years. This isn't 'technically' a nude to my way of thinking, and it's certainly not titillating. But as they say, "it's the thought that counts!".
It's odd, but "ho hum" to me. It simply makes me curious as to why the juxtaposition of the item she's holding to her nakedness underneath it all. The operative word is underneath. Even a totally skimpy bathing suit as in the like of Rio qualifies that the wearer is not nude, but obviously showing a lot of skin.
Overall, I'm not in the least bit offended, just curious about the photographer's motive and the use for a cover.
Honestly, a catwalk shot is far more provocative! Or the covers of other photo magazines--like Photo or even American Photo. People who take issue with it are likely still caught up in the U.S.'s 18th century conundrum--and that is of course their right regardless of how silly I think it is.
It doesn't bother me at all. On with the show!
I saw absolutely nothing wrong with this shot. I see more on a public beach than what this young woman was showing. I should look so good !
>>> a slightly rewrited Eric's e-mail >>>
I thoroughly enjoy your site. I am an avid people and mainly portrait photographer and the tips and insight that you provide are invaluable. However, I was disappointed to see the image of the moose that was chosen to grace your cover (home page) this month. I do not have any desire to view images such as this. I understand that the articles that you write on this area of photography are of interest to some people, and of no interest to others. For those who do not wish to see images such as this, they can simply skip those articles. When this image is displayed on the opening page, all readers of your magazine are forced to see this image, even if only for a few seconds. I would prefer that images of this nature were limited to the articles written about them.
(Also, for those of us who read your magazine during our lunch break at work, we don't want to have to worry what images will be popping up on our screen when we open your site.) <<< end <<<
It seems horrible, isn't it? Well, moose picture is so unnatural. How can someone give it to the cover page?
Man, wake up. You are not allowed to present your opinion as the only right. This is dictature. I know what is it but probably you not.
I am not offended, or ashamed, to see the naked human form especially when it is not exploitative. It seems unnatural to be offended by what is only natural.
Re: Nude vs. Naked You are nude until confronted with someone who is fully dressed, then you're NAKED.
(Comment on last month's nude cover.)
I am a new subscriber and am enjoying Vivid Light. I was thrilled when my photo took a second place in the Weather category in April. I immediately emailed my friends and sent them to your link to view the photo--with a rather embarrassing disclaimer about the nude on the cover.
As a photographer, I realize that this is one aspect of our trade. Not everyone shoots nudes, of course, but there are some who do, and do so well. However, since my range of subjects does not include nudes, perhaps you can begin to imagine the ribbing I took for having a winning photo in the magazine that month! Combine this with the fact that I choose not to photograph nudes because of my personal convictions...and many of my friends share those convictions. Those convictions are not excuses, but rather deeply personal beliefs by which people conduct their lives.
I must say I am thankful for the artist's comments about America's obsession with nudity...too true. I lived in Eastern Europe for a few years and deeply appreciate their acceptance of the human body as "natural". However, I understand and appreciate my more conservative friends' positions as well. Since cultural sensitivity is a main ingredient of my work as a photographer, I feel discretion in these matters is important.
The sum total of my experience with this cover has equaled to much less-than-stellar public relations for Vivid Light Magazine among my circle of friends...unfortunate. Perhaps a link to an article within the magazine, rather than an in-your-face cover, would have been a more appropriate choice to extend to your readership.
It is just a great photo of a beautiful woman dressed in something and boots and lying down.
I do not see a problem with it. Fine art nudes show alot more than this photo.
I have been doing nudes and "naked" for years now. Both women and men. I find that there can be an enormous amount of expression in the image. A well executed nude will evoke many emotions; however I have yet to undestand the feeling of "discust". which so many people say.
The image on the cover was very attractive and most suitable for the magazine. The artistry of the model, the clean lines, the beauty of the skin and curves blend into the fire helmet and evokes the beauty there also. I would admire to take a few lessons from the author.
I am distressed that the Americans are still living in the Victorian Era. One would think that by now, we would have emerged from the genre of cover everything to a more expressive time with the human body in all its forms.
To close I have a black and white photo of my son hholding his new born son. My grandson was 6 days old when I took it. Both of them are naked. The image is hung over my desk, where anyone can see it. And most who have see the love that is shown between a father and his son.
I am new to this forum, and all I can say is that the girl has a beautiful body and if people think it was inappropriate need to lighten up. (I only wish I looked that good). Photography is about life and images for all aspects of life, and being a women I am not one bit offended by it. Next month put a man on the cover in a suggestive pose and you probably will have the same response. We can't please everybody, but it sounds like reading some of the responses that a good majority liked it.
Americans are absolutely obsessed with sex. It is on every TV channel, billboard signs, magazines, everyday jokes, you name it...its got it. Doesn't say much for Americans. Meanwhile, we have the highest ever divorce rate and teen pregnancy is unreal. I can go on and on about what these things lead to... But we are led to believe that we don't have any problems.
The genious who decided to not only publish the picture, but put it on the cover, has completely thought things through and decided that the image has not in anyway caused any individual to have any kind of sexual thoughts. Instead, it is deemed as art. Here's something for you...Without Testostorone, I'm pretty sure it would not be art.
Sex is a serious problem and is growing worse and worse. I don't know the exact history, but I sure it started with a short skirt, then a bikini, then something more revealling... Now we've got kids pregnant at 9 & 10, with STD's, using drugs, with destroyed lives before they even become a teenager. All because they had seen sex everywhere they turned and thought that sex was normal, and was wonderful, and glamorous, and an expression of love. You really think that they're responsible enough not to look at pictures like the one on last months cover and not have any problems. Adults aren't even capable of doing that.
Pictures like this one are not art. They are lack of self-control.
Naked, Nude what's the difference, it is all art unless it depicts sexual scenes or minors and then it is pornographic material.
I don't think it's offensive at all, just not a very good pose. I'd ditch the firefighters hat altogether, pose her flat on her back looking up (to profile her face and breasts) with the arm closest to the camera hanging down and the other reaching over her head. I'd keep her legs together and bent at about the same angle but with knees toward the camera. A very faint tuft of pubic hair would look great in that shot.
This image is absolutely well done and perfectly acceptable. You could place this on the cover of Cosmo and it would be considered tame. We have to accept the fact that there are prudes in this world and they will always complain about something that offends them.
No problem with nude photography. I'm a nurse and very comfortable with the human frame - my own and everyone else's. However, I would prefer not to have it on the front cover because I enjoy reading the magazine on my lunch break at work and there are people there who would find even the suggestion of nudity inappropriate. Now I need to read it only at home...and for that I am sorry you chose to put it on the cover.
This is a 'problem with nudity' seems to exist here in the US as much as it does in a Moslem country. I'm an expat Brit. I love the freedom of speech and liberty for all, I love the rights and privilieges of living in this country...But. When it comes to naked (or nude!) flesh there seems to be a desire to be outraged on the part of a vocal minority. In a somewhat similar case, that of Howard Stern, my answer is if he bothers you...don't listen to it. But don't listen to it just to have a reason to be outraged. The only problem is, with this picture being on the 'cover' this option is taken away. Still no publicity is bad publicity, eh? ;-)
It's really sad that we Americans spend so much effort trying to hide what God made so beautiful, yet we actively promote all the things we humans have made so ugly (like violence, abuse, etc).
I am offended by landscape photographs. Some may like it, but there are those who don't. I am one of the latter. From now on, never put landscape photographs on your cover. While I don't want to and don't have to look them, being on the cover means I have to see it at least for a fraction of a second. Please comply for moral reasons, of which I know the best!
I find it troubling that there are people who subscribe to photographic magazines that find the human form repulsive or pornographic. If one goes toa museum, an art Gallery, The Sistien Chaple there are nudes. Are these pornographic. The Europeans are so much more liberated than our puritan nation. If you do not like to look at what the creater made then you do not deserve to have a photographic hobby or eye.
I don't mind nude images that have truly artistic value. For some reason this particular pose does not incorporate that for me. It appears on the "trashy" side. I'm not quite sure what puts it so squarely there but it reminds me of something that should be on the cover of Playboy--certainly not the kind of art I find agreeable for your type of magazine.
RE: Nude/Naked Article.
Quite honestly, I found the pictures to be quite acceptable. Take a stroll into your local magazine/bookstore which stocks international magazines and you will see that cover or inside photography/artwork, many publications are less "conservative" than the images published here.
I fail to see what is wrong with a model being nude in the shot if it is tastefully done. Be it on the cover or inside the magazine.
I, for one, happen to think that the opinion that nude/naked art is okay on the inside of a magazine, but not acceptable on the cover is a reflection on one's dual perception of sex . Ie, that it is something to be hidden and enjoyed in the private/secrecy of one's own personal space and not to be made public.
The photos are beautiful and should be shared. To say that such images are okay inside a magazine, but not okay on the cover of the magazine is hypocritical thinking.
I can't imagine anyone being shocked by the fact that we can tell that the model isn't wearing anything. We see this all the time on national television during family viewing hour in adds for things like skin care products and the like.
I think that human beings are so worried and concerned with covering their bodies. Honestly, what the hell is the big deal with seeing someone naked? It is natural. It is more natural than walking around with fabrics and zippers/buttons all over your body.
Photographing nude females is a recognized art form that dates back to antiquity. It doesn't matter if "certain body parts" show or not. Your cover photograph was deserving of its cover prominence. Some people are entirely too caught up in political correctness and are entirely too sensitive to public displays of nudity and human sexuality. These "up-tight" people need to get a life!
You know-I am not really sure about this one. I have grappled with this question on more than one occasion and have come up empty handed every time. I am sitting here trying to write a speech on the ethics of nude photography and this was the exact question I had. Is or what is the difference between art and porn or rather the perception of nude expression. I have come to the conclusion that in societies eyes within America that there is little difference between Hew Heffner and Michael Angelo any more. As far as the world is concerned I fear there is a feeling of utter loss in true nude art due to the overwhelming number of people with a camera that cannot express anything unless it involves nudity. An example of which would be my own portfolio. My wife loves doing nude photography. She feels much more free to express her inner-self without the hindrance of clothing being involved. This is a problem however due to the overwhelming number of armatures out there that just want to get a girl naked in front of them. When I posted photos of my wife and child (FULLY DRESSED) in my net-model portfolio I got zero response to it for the use of light and color or dare I say it, attempted artistry. In contrast to this, when I set up my wife's portfolio there was a sudden rush of mail streaming in wanting to take nude photos, there was a rush of voting on her portfolio to give her semi decent marks where as my portfolio did not receive even one vote. I say semi because many of these photographers want to leave room for themselves to say that they can do so much for her portfolio diversity if she will just come get undressed for them sometime. (Not to mention that all the expenses are left in the photographers hands only to get no response to the photographs taken or even a pat on the back for a job well done!!!! So why bother paying for everything if you are not going to receive any recognition of your work. IE: “Great job! You are very talented” mailed to the model and nothing ever sent to the photographer that paid for the shoot and the model, worked to make the model comfortable, and captured the photos that caught their eye to begin with) Am I jealous? Not at all. I chalk this up to being part of that perception that armatures bring to the photography world because they are only concerned with getting as many females nude in front of the camera as possible with no real plan or need for a shoot. I am an armature photographer myself. I am currently a college student and I do not ask for nudes. I have all but given up on model photography due to the presumption of models that they hold the key to all the artistic expression that I capture and I am personally fed up with the use of arrogance of photographers that think that by demeaning a photograph that obviously at least has a purpose, they can further their own sexual desires cohersing a woman undress uninhibitedly in front of them for their camera. I am personally thinking that this is nothing more than many photographers stroking their own egos (MALE AND FEMALE) that they are doing something for the model rather than themselves. Although I digress to say that there are more than just a slight weight difference in the number of males vs. females that are accused of this, but it is a circle of ego trips and sexual fantasy that causes this as well so to all that have a problem with nude photography because of their "moral High ground" I say this; get out of the photography biz all together because it is here to stay and nothing that we say or do is going to change that whether we despise it or love it. Perhaps looking at it as a form of who someone is, sexual fantasy or otherwise, makes it worth remembering though. We have all seen the markings on the bathroom wall that said "I existed, I was here". I only ask that the people that are using these tactics of arrogance and sexual fantasy to evaluate the reason for making their mark and accept the label that society has to put on everything in order to catalog their own order of hierarchy for art and porn.
A photo,which has been adapted in photoshop, in any way becomes a wor of art. The creator has changed the "real" into fantasy to suit their ideals and preferences. Not so much an illustration but an illusion.
I think that this photograph is beautifully done and people need to LIGHTEN UP! It's NOT pornography!
Excellent image by a prominent photographer and excellent writer. Pleased to find your magazine. It is a service to photography. I am subscribing. Thanks
Personally, I think you need to give equal time to a just-as-eye-appealing male model with a fireman's helmet on his .... less public area. It's only fair. I love the one guy's comment "God did not intend for man to go through the world naked" -- I assume he means, because 'God gave us the ability to make clothes' -- I wonder what he thinks about God giving us the ability to use genetic engineering or stem cells for research....? I love these types of discussions!
I think the girl looks uncomfortable and awekwardly placed.
i think that the pictures are fine even if you can see everything if people find that offensive, they should just look away
I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH THE PHOTO. THE LADIE HAS MORE COVERED THAN THEY ON SOAP OPERAS. I LIKE IT. SHE WOOD BE ACTRACTIVE WITH OR WHITOUT ANYTHING.
Photography and girls go as far back as the first images were made with the help of light and light sensitive materials. If you want to take nudes or semi-nudes of pin ups. . . . there are enough female exhebitionists available. It should get boring after a while and if it does not then the photographer becomes suspect of being a voyeur.