Nude vs. Naked, the Final Chapter
This one continues to generate mail. Once again it accounted for the bulk of our email this month.
Glad to hear McGee will be burning in Hell with the rest of us. A heaven full of Bible thumpers sounds more like Hell to me anyway!
Jim responds: See you there, I'll be the guy mixing the margaritas.
Bravo.... great editorial article, clear and to the point. This is an excellent magazine and I see nothing wrong with the images or content in any of the issues (and I read them all). The only comment I can make about that cover is "Superb photo, I wish I could be as talented as Joe to shoot a beautiful model in that environment so tastefully".
I just want to remind everyone that Christian does not equal narrow minded. Some of us are able to appreciate the naked form for its beauty and artistry. It is after all God's creation.
I'd like to commend Jim McGee on his professionalism and restraint in dealing with the whole nudity issue over the past few months. It's amazing to me that in the same month Playboy is turning 50 you're getting threats for publishing an image that doesn't actually reveal anything! These people would have a heart attack if they ever traveled in Europe and saw some of the signs there.
I don't do that kind of photography, but I found Joe's articles to be informative and interesting. Keep up the good work and please don't bow to the uptight minority.
Regarding the Naked vs. Nude subject: Screw 'Em!
They are the ones with the problems; narrow minded twerps. Ignore them. Regards, Dick
PS. Enjoy each month's edition of Vivid Light Photography. There is always something I learn from each edition.
Dick, you really have to learn not to mince words. Get to the point and say what you really think…
I for one will continue to read your work and hope you continue to publish great photos. Don't let anyone bully you. Keep up the good work.
Jim McGee, way to go! I love your work and glad to see someone who is not afraid to show the truth! Exceptional!
I am quite happy to see the way that you dealt with an obviously difficult situation. I thought that you presented a balanced rebuttal to the flood of comments. I really quite enjoy your publication and I wish you folks all the best.
In his article on the whole nude thing Jim McGee said "There are pornographic Web sites which go places most of us would never even go in our imaginations." Can you send me the links?
Just use Google Dude. You don't need our help to find that stuff.
Well written, and perhaps this has been mentioned before but I think you should do a issue with fine art and tasteful nudes. And maybe just allude to it on the cover to avert the hate mail. I cannot believe how some people continue to enforce their beliefs and religion onto others. Keep up the good work. I enjoy your mag.
I really think you should do an entire issue dedicated to fine art nudes. Include Joe's stuff, Chuck could do an article on lighting nudes and Mitch, Gary and Lennie could do articles on shooting nudes in landscapes. Do some black and white stuff to satisfy the fine art guys. You could even bring back Bill Hartley to shoot some underwater nudes! Work in a few male nudes to be politically correct the issue would take off and the uptight people would blow a gasket! It would be great!
My email box would explode!
The prejudice and narrowed minded view of the world is alive and well in your publication Mr. McGee! It seems as though you translate nude in art to mean female? I saw no reference to male nude photography or the validation of same. There are two genders after all, both equally beautiful nude!
Why don't you feature male nudes. Are you guys homophobic? ;^)
Not prejudiced or homophobic, it's a matter of focus. The cover in question was a female nude, and Joe's work in glamour photography is by definition the female form.
A male nude, or at least the most male part of the human anatomy did appear in our coverage of Allan Teger's work Bodyscapes. I have no aversion to male nudes, just no editors on staff doing that work at present.
Nikon vs. Canon
Again, Nikon claims that they have made the right decision with their DX format while Canon has made the wrong one by not posing any limits to their sensor size.
Sound familiar? Take a look at all the "right" decisions Nikon proudly made in the past as opposed to Canon making the "wrong" ones, and I am sure they will regret their mistake in a few years from now.
It is not my intention to bash Nikon: although I have been a loyal EOS user since 1987 and still have a nice set of EF lenses and bodies, I have just bought the Nikon D70 for my digital applications, because I think Nikon currently has the edge, especially in the "affordable" price range. And digicams depreciate in value much to fast for me to go really high-end.
But I am not selling off my Canon lenses yet because I am pretty sure that in a year or two, I will switch back to Canon when they are clearly on top again. But as long as I cannot afford a full frame sensor, I can not really use all my lenses the way they are intended and the D70 currently is a great alternative.
I just read the review of the Nikon 24-120 G VR. Sounds like a great lens. But I'll be damned if I'll buy one. I recently upgraded my two N90s to a pair of F100s but still do a lot of shooting with my FM2n. As a working pro I have to weigh my lens purchases against their usefulness and ability to pay for themselves. This lens is attractive but the fact that it's a G lens means I'll have to keep my current 24-120mm and carry two lenses when traveling. That is NOT an attractive solution Nikon.
For years Nikon has bragged about not leaving their existing customer base behind and about their lenses being backward compatible. Now with Nikon abandoning the aperture ring on all new designs I feel betrayed. For the first time I am seriously considering trading in all my gear and going over to Canon.
I've looked at the Digital Rebel and the D70. The Rebel is junk. I'll be staying with Nikon.
I recently purchased a Digital Rebel after reading Joe Farace's review of the camera. What a wonderful camera. I can't believe how much digital frees you up to experiment. Thanks for the review guys. You helped me make the decision to take the plunge.
I also own this lens, and I think you were too easy on it in your review. Putting the focus ring in the middle and the zoom ring on the outside is really off base. I've never had a zoom set up that way before. You didn't even mention the barrel distortion that jumps out at you when you shoot straight lines. For those of us who are used to constant aperture zooms, the lens is really dark when out at 120 mm.
On Fred Miranda's site, there are some people who got rid of this one as soon as they got it and bought third party lenses. I know you don't want to alienate potential advertisers, but you should be a little more critical in your reviews.
Gary responds: I just went through every reviews of this lens on the Miranda site. They all loved it with only a couple of exceptions, one with small complaints, and another with bigger complaints (whose writing and spelling call into question his veracity). Sorry, I stand by my review!
New Laws and Photographers I can't believe more photographers weren't interested in this issue. There are very few posts. Do we have to keep learning things the hard way?
I too was surprised at the small amount of reader feedback. I thought there would be more dialog on this issue. - Jim McGee
The parallel between gun rights and this bill is a good one, but this bill is potentially more perverse. Mention is made of the patriot act and the violation of photographing potential terrorist targets. Are these targets listed anywhere? Might not Mount Rushmore, the Washington Monument and numerous other subjects be considered terrorist targets? Will Cameras be banned from the National Mall?
What about the reasonable expectation of privacy. Might not Barbara Streisand feel she has a reasonable expectation of privacy hiking through Yellowstone Park? It has been shown, especially in the United States, that a law might be interpreted so many ways that innocence does not prevent you from being sued or charged. Our best defense is as few laws as possible. Also, the claim that we all know what constitutes "misuse" is false. The government and supreme court have been trying for years to define "poronography", and they are no closer today to finding a definition (actually further away) than they were 50 years ago.
"Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" might be a little easier, but virtually any other claim of "proper Conduct" would vary with every politically correct cause and be a legal nightmare. You'll end up spending all of your money on lawyers rather than expensive telephoto lenses.
On Individual Editors Gary Stanley's articles, in his writing style, are a welcome read each month. Appreciate his knowledge-sharing and views on where, when, why and how. Great job!
I always go to Lennie's column first. I've followed him for years and I really enjoyed this month's column.
I loved Dr. Leonard LeeRue's article on the Pika. I found it to be most informative and very enjoyable to read. I know what a Pika is but I have never seen one. I now know more about the Pika and plan on learning more about them. Thank you very much for submitting your article Dr. LeeRue.
Peter M. Noyes
Yes, there is great photography material on the Internet, And It is free! Thanks from a 67 year old grandmother, just starting to use a digital camera. Now with your help I plan to improve the photos I up-load to my genealogy web site and become a better photographer. I will bookmark your site.
New SLRs from Nikon and Minolta
We received quite a few emails like these this month. Both manufacturers are being tight lipped about new models.
What's going on with the new digital SLR from Minolta? Is there anymore information available since PMA?
Have you heard anything new about an 8 megapixal Nikon ???
Feedback On Past Issues
I've just discovered your site and your back issues section. I don't know whether to be happy or not. It's a ton of great reading, but I haven't gotten anything done at work for the last few days.
Re: Photo business cards.
In my experience the average Joe doesn't know the difference between a large-format landscape photographer and a sports photojournalist :(. To him or her, it's all "photography".
Hence I restrict my photo business cards to my name, the words "PHOTOGRAPHER", and my contact details. I then add one or two VERY simple graphics (i.e. the default shapes available in Photoshop CS) and print it on my finest glossy photo paper, for added punch.
And that's it! The punter/potential client/whatever has all the information that he/she needs or wants, on a piece of paper that stands out because of its unusual texture.
I think that putting more detail on your business card does nothing for business impact, & possibly detracts from its intended purpose.
If you like, you could omit the graphics for equally effective results. Just my two (euro) cent's worth.
I'm trying to plan a trip through New England this fall. Is your fall shooting guide still available anywhere? I couldn't find it in the back issues page. Dave Goldman
We've added a link to the fall foliage guide to our back issues page. For those who don't know the guide is a series of links to sites in the U.S. and Canada for planning your fall shooting. It include guides that predict when areas will peak and links to bed and breakfasts, hotels, etc.
materials contained herein © Copyright Vivid Light Photography Magazine
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004