What is NSFW?

dogwood

There's a HUGE photography market for photos of models and lot of times those models are scantily dressed in swimwear or lingerie.

Yet I've noticed massive inconsistencies in the people forum about what should be labeled NSFW or not. Some photographers post bikini photos there and no one blinks an eye. Other photogs post a shot of girl in shorts and a tank top and it gets labelled NSFW.

So assuming you're surfing dgrin on your employer's computer and time, when should a photo be labeled "NSFW"? Is that really the responsibility of the photographer or should you, as an employee, really be surfing a photography site on the job at all? I don't care if you're on a lunch break, if it's not your computer, well, it's not your computer, it's your employers and they get to control it. If you really must surf photography sites and aren't sure if your employer would approve, why not get a smartphone, take a break and do it on your own dime?

Why do I care? Because a lot of really good pro photographers post photos here and eventually get tired of the "NSFW" label or people being upset because they posted a shot of a pretty girl in a swimsuit. And they stop posting photos here. The forum then turns into a "first time using a strobe with my kid" type of forum and honestly, that does not represent the work most of us working pros shoot to pay the bills. Once the pros stop hanging out here, the amateurs stop getting feedback beyond, "Atta boy!"

Anyway, just had to get that off my chest and was told it's not an appropriate topic for the people forum. I would love to see dgrin grow into a phenomenal resource for photographers of all levels. But I believe labels like NSFW will hamper that growth. For now, I'll be spending more time on g + and 500pixels where pros are allowed to post pics of girls in swimsuits and no one bats an eye.

cab.in.boston

What is NSFW depends entirely on what one's "W" is. Photography being such a popular hobby, we could (not saying we necessarily do) have some dgrinners who are receptionists at churches and some who edit film for Vivid Video. Obviously the definition of what's "safe" for those environments is entirely different.

I do about 98% of my dgrin time at work during lunch/breaks, so obviously I'm using their equipment and network. My employer knows that so many people spend so much of their time at work, and so they have a disclaimer when we log in that says that "limited personal use of internet and computers" is allowed, so long as it's appropriate and doesn't interfere with work. Of course they have filters to prevent certain types of sites and reserve the right to monitor any and everything you do. So per my employers policies, there is nothing wrong with me being here during work hours.

We have the GF forum, so I know there is little-to-no risk of getting nudity when I open a thread in the People forum, but if the title is simply a woman's name, it could be someone's grandmother at a birthday party or it could be a very shapely person proudly displaying her, um, assets. While there may be no nudity, I think you can appreciate that not all workplaces are the same, and pin-up/lingerie/bikini photos, while totally legitimate, may be a little more questionable for some of us.

I personally don't think requests to put NSFW are (or should) be driving reasonable photographers from the site. I think it's a little obnoxious for someone to just assume that near-nudity/lingerie/bikini photos are okay for them, therefore they should be appropriate for any and everyone. And even if it's not a workplace issue, I'm sure there are people who appreciate portraits but just don't personally prefer to look at scantily clad women or men, so some type of notice of the contents of the photo are appreciated. Even if it's not a label of "NSFW," maybe something like "swimwear" or "lingerie" in the title shouldn't be too much to ask, IMO. Of course, once you hang out here for a while, there are certain members who, when they post a thread of a woman, you just learn to know that it will be, while not necessarily NSFW, at least a little bit more questionable for my workplace.

Other than that, I don't know what to tell you. If you are of the opinion that anything short of actual nudity is totally acceptable and you shouldn't have to label it and you get offended if someone asks you to, then that's your opinion. But I would hope that as a reasonable person, you would understand that different workplaces have different levels of appropriateness. I would personally rather open a thread (at home on my own equipment) labeled NSFW and think "wow, there's nothing questionable about this at all" then to open a seemingly safe post at work and have it be over the top. Yes, I could just avoid the People forum entirely, but there's a lot of good stuff there that I don't want to miss out on, I'd just personally rather be able to decide whether or not to open a thread based on the title.

basflt

it also depend on other factors

-environment , people you work with

-religion . obvious

-culture , in my country nobody would care a bit
people decide themselves what is NSFW or not

zoomer

NSFW is accepted by pros as well as casual shooters. No big deal to add it any time it may be an issue. If you want to increase your views just add NSFW to the title .
Certainly not what is driving people away....and or not attracting good photographers to the People forum.

Yaflyyadie

Have someone ever thought how we land on this earth?
What is wrong with mother nature?, NOTHING.
We are the ones that restrict art, love, what we eat, what we say, when to sleep if you should or not cry or smile.
Have you ever being so nervous that instead of shutting up your mouth began to smile ?.
Who is going to rate that and how, DISRESPECT, STUPIDITY OR A SIMPLE HUMAN VERY NORMAL REACTION.
We rate something NSFW if it does not apply to our way of life, creed, and many other factors, included education.
One thing is Art and other is Pornography, all depends who and how the subject/s get imprinted in the picture, how explicit they are and where the picture is shown to others.
Art, since ancient times was a free expression that we are changing constantly destroying its value according to our points of view.
Remember when witches were made very well cooked hamburgers not so far back?, what was banned in the 1920's is not today, but, who rates that?


By the way, I'm new to this forum, I really love it and perhaps my opinion is of no value, but I have learned from the Pro's and advanced photographers here very good advise to improve my skills and become someday a good photographer and not a pixel killer.


I might be wrong but it is JMHO.

wolf911

IMHO

500px has a check mark to include or not include nudes, so even there it's being done. Other sites you have to verify age. In every situation there is a right time and not the right time to view partial nude or fully nude pics. A heads up is nice for those different times regardless of home, work or on the road. A designated forum is handy for NSFW stuff and I don't think NSFW is gonna keep people away. Internet and acronyms are every where.

dogwood

cab.in.boston wrote: »

Even if it's not a label of "NSFW," maybe something like "swimwear" or "lingerie" in the title shouldn't be too much to ask, IMO.

Personally, I think this makes a LOT more sense than NSFW. A lot more.

Honestly, I shoot a lot of swimwear and none of it features nudity. To label a swimwear photo "NSFW" seems ridiculous to me. I send out promo items all the time that would be considered "NSFW" here. At some point surfers need to take responsibility for their own actions at work. If your boss doesn't want you looking at swimwear photos, they probably don't want you looking at landscapes or sports or wedding photos either. Just my two cents anyway.

And by NSFW, I'm not talking about nudes. I've just noticed photos that you would see in Victoria's Secret being labelled "NSFW" on the people forum and after a while, it just gets silly. I remember someone there questioning a beauty shot that featured a model with bare shoulders. They thought the bare shoulders made the model look "naked".

Anyway, I appreciate the different comments and opinions here. And especially the idea of labeling photos with the swimwear or lingerie in the subject title.

ImageX Photography

Good posts, Dogwood.

I think this is a photography site first and foremost. Why should it have to cater to a very specific group of people just because they choose to surf from their employer's computer? Sure, if it's REALLY an NSFW post then there is no issue marking it as so. What if there is one person who considers a miniskirt above the knees NSFW though...... should we have to mark it "NSFW" or "miniskirt above the knees" now? I think most of us have a handle on what is really a NSFW post but there will always be someone who is more sensitive than the next. Other than true NSFW posts, who's responsibility SHOULD it be when browsing from work? I think the answer is obvious.

Look at this post. OMG please use caution though!!!!!!! It's ridiculous that these very nice images had to be marked NSFW. http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=204127 Everyone will be marking every post NSFW soon just to be safe for the person at work.

DavidTO

Unless the image includes nudity or strong sexual suggestiveness there is no need for the NSFW tag. If it does require NSFW, then it really should be in Go Figure anyway, which one has to opt into.

Having said that, it would be awesome if you guys would label your threads with an indication that it includes swimwear or boudoir or whatever. It's not a policy that it's required, but I do think that labeling your threads like that would be a way to play nice with the rest of the community.

sweet caroline

ImageX Photography wrote: »

Good posts, Dogwood.

I think this is a photography site first and foremost. Why should it have to cater to a very specific group of people just because they choose to surf from their employer's computer? Sure, if it's REALLY an NSFW post then there is no issue marking it as so. What if there is one person who considers a miniskirt above the knees NSFW though...... should we have to mark it "NSFW" or "miniskirt above the knees" now? I think most of us have a handle on what is really a NSFW post but there will always be someone who is more sensitive than the next. Other than true NSFW posts, who's responsibility SHOULD it be when browsing from work? I think the answer is obvious.

Look at this post. OMG please use caution though!!!!!!! It's ridiculous that these very nice images had to be marked NSFW. http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=204127 Everyone will be marking every post NSFW soon just to be safe for the person at work.

Oh, how funny that I just found this thread with a reference to my pics! I marked it that way so my dgrinner friends with kiddos wouldn't open it with kids nearby. It is obvious in most of those images that the woman has on nothing but an unbuttoned shirt and panties. It's just a simple courtesy. I don't see the label as anything negative. I ended up labeling "mildly NSFW" because they aren't super racy. No one told me I had to label them this way.

I'm glad this topic is being discussed and there are a lot of valid points being made on all sides of the issue. For my part, I err on the side of caution, but I don't flip out if someone fails to label a lingerie image as NSFW. My common sense, based on my life experience, in my world, is that a lingerie photo is NSFW under most circumstances.

Tracker

In this PC charged world, get simply accused of "sexual harassment" (because of something you had up on your monitor, say a lady in a swimsuit or the pictures above) when someone else walks by and then you won't EVER have to worry about the "W" in NSFW.

These days, I'd be afraid to have Winnie the Pooh up on my monitor because he always runs around with no pants on.

divamum

I've never thought of "nsfw" as a pejorative and am surprised by these reactions to learn it's considered a loaded term - never even occurred to me. I see it used in all sorts of contexts from overtly political content to youtube funny videos, to lingerie shoots, so I just assume it means "not necessarily G-rated" rather than "bad"; it's certainly never stopped me from looking at something, even if I choose my time and place. Also, Caroline raises an excellent point not mentioned in the threads where this subject first erupted: kids who may be hanging over their parents' shoulders, and the parents don't want to share those images for whatever reason. There may be any number of reasons why somebody doesn't want to open a thread of skin-showing beauties, at any time, in any place; I think "nsfw" is just a way of indicating "possible R-rated content" rather than anything else.

I have to say, though, I did see ImageX's (excellent) shots in the threads where this was first raised, and I gotta say - some of them didn't come across as only "scantily clad", they projected "sexually provocative", eg the photo in post #14 of this thread . It seems to me to have an obvious sexual mood and implication to the posing with the two girls breast-to-breast pulling at each other's panties. I couldn't care less about it myself, but it certainly comes across with a sexual tone - even though they're fully clothed - and I think THAT is where the difference is between "just bikini shots" and "nsfw" is for some folks.

Seems to me that "glamour" "lingerie" or "swimwear" is an excellent compromise to give the potential viewer an indication that there might be some implied nudity, but doesn't come loaded with baggage that there's something "wrong" with it. I honestly don't see where the problem is in indicating the content of a shoot in a post. Folks do it all the time with (for instance) newborn shoots, senior shoots, engagement shoots, headshots etc - it's not like nsfw (or "lingerie" or "boudoir" or whatever) is really any different than descriptors for other kinds of shoots. Anyway, just my 2c. Seems to me that indicating in thread titles that they are "glamour", "lingerie" or "swimwear" tidies up any possible confusion without any negative implications for photographer or viewer.....

DavidTO

Excellent post, diva!