Looking for Freedom Input

menebo

Which of these pictures works better for freedom?

#1



or

#2



Thanks so much for the input!

Michelle

stirfry

Michelle -

What a cutie I actually thought about something similar today, doing a beautiful nude or maybe a scary ugly one .. just someone free in the physically literal sense . Yours is a much more palatable and cuter take on the concept!

Its worth mentioning that the judging and viewing audience are an international group, and may interpret your photo differently than your intent (see thread HERE). If your ultimate goal is to qualify, this might be worth considering moreso than if your ultimate goal is to use the challenge to advance on a personal level.

Of the two, though, I like the *punch* of the second one but overall I think the first one would be the winner for me if maybe the colors could be coaxed out a bit more richly?

menebo

I never thought of that!
I must have missed that thread. Thanks for the link and the comments!

Food for thought....

Tentacion

stirfry wrote:

Michelle -

What a cutie I actually thought about something similar today, doing a beautiful nude or maybe a scary ugly one .. just someone free in the physically literal sense . Yours is a much more palatable and cuter take on the concept!

Just in case you were thinking of posting a "nude", speaking from experience...I wouldn't. I posted a "Beautiful Semi Nude" back in the beginning, and it got removed due to "viewer" complaints. So if I understand it correctly now, the rules have been modified, no semi or nudes are allowed...but I would say ask Shay just to be sure.

As far as the photo posted here, I really like number 2 and the selective coloring.

I don't know if the "nude" of a child would be considered under the same rules. But some viewers might not lilke the idea of a nude child being posted and consider it "exploitation" or some other "terrible" thing. I would message SHAY and ask if the "NUDE" rule applies also to children.

Take Care
Donna

Good Luck

VisualXpressions

The color version for sure... I agree with Stirfry about the color needing more punch... As far as the content... I would go ahead and submit it and let the chips fall where they may...

Winston

Tentacion

VisualXpressions wrote:

As far as the content... I would go ahead and submit it and let the chips fall where they may...

Winston

IMO, I would INQUIRE in a PM to Shay first. i.e., why submit it and there could be the possibility of having it removed because of the "rules". Better to ask first, at least you'll know if it is ok or you have to do another shot for the round?

menebo

Thanks for the input
I sent Shay a message yesterday. Thanks for your input!

Michelle

Shay Stephens

If that is your child and/or you have permission to post the photo, then you can enter it.

dlscott56

Michelle,

I like the photos, both B&W and color. However, as some have already said, the flag stirs up various responses depending on the audience. If you're looking for the 'freedom' theme only, which I think you are, then the same set of photos without the flag would be a great expression of that, without the political implications.

LiquidAir

dlscott56 wrote:

Michelle,

I like the photos, both B&W and color. However, as some have already said, the flag stirs up various responses depending on the audience. If you're looking for the 'freedom' theme only, which I think you are, then the same set of photos without the flag would be a great expression of that, without the political implications.

For me, I think this shot would get across its message no matter which flag she was holding, but it would lose a lot without a flag at all. If I were planning to shoot a version of this, my first choice would actually be a French flag, but a British flag or really any flag with lots of red would also work well against the green field.

I like the color version quite a bit, albeit I wish the camera angle was lower. However I am not at all fond of the selective coloring. In my eyes this picture is really about the girl and her freedom, not the flag. Using selective color to draw attention to the flag is, for me at least, missing the point that I would choose to make with this image.

indiegirl

I wouldn't post this shot personally. There are too many sickos out there who take images like this and defile them for their own benefit. To me, the child is too old for the "cute baby bottom" look and given the circumstances of the world today, the shot makes me fearful.

From a technical standpoint, the image isn't quite in focus and the suntan lines bother me.

It's a great personal family snapshot!

Jesse

Tentacion

indiegirl wrote:

I wouldn't post this shot personally. There are too many sickos out there who take images like this and defile them for their own benefit. To me, the child is too old for the "cute baby bottom" look and given the circumstances of the world today, the shot makes me fearful.

From a technical standpoint, the image isn't quite in focus and the suntan lines bother me.

It's a great personal family snapshot!

Jesse

I have to agree with ya Indie, the sickos even go as far as to finding out where the child lives, and from I understand from local authorities, they are dang good at it...they can figure it out from the tiniest detail that we don't even think or notice for that matter.

Debboggy

indiegirl wrote:

I wouldn't post this shot personally. There are too many sickos out there who take images like this and defile them for their own benefit. To me, the child is too old for the "cute baby bottom" look and given the circumstances of the world today, the shot makes me fearful.

From a technical standpoint, the image isn't quite in focus and the suntan lines bother me.

It's a great personal family snapshot!

Jesse

It's a well taken photo, but I'm sorry, I have to agree with Jesse. It's sad that we have to be so protective and careful just because of the world we live in, but...

Shay Stephens

There are all kinds of sickos out there. Some even get their jollies with photos of feet. Shall we then also prohibit photos of feet? How about naked statues, paintings, suggestive flower photos? Some trees can also look suggestive. Shall we chop them down to deny the tree perv's out there? There is no end to the restrictions of freedom when you head down the road of trying to prevent any and all unauthorized uses of a photo in the hopes of combating the boogie-man.

dlscott56

Shay Stephens wrote:

There are all kinds of sickos out there. Some even get their jollies with photos of feet. Shall we then also prohibit photos of feet? How about naked statues, paintings, suggestive flower photos? Some trees can also look suggestive. Shall we chop them down to deny the tree perv's out there? There is no end to the restrictions of freedom when you head down the road of trying to prevent any and all unauthorized uses of a photo in the hopes of combating the boogie-man.

I agree, besides, it seems to be a moot point since the photo is now, and has been, already posted in this forum.

Tentacion

Shay Stephens wrote:

There are all kinds of sickos out there. Some even get their jollies with photos of feet. Shall we then also prohibit photos of feet? How about naked statues, paintings, suggestive flower photos? Some trees can also look suggestive. Shall we chop them down to deny the tree perv's out there? There is no end to the restrictions of freedom when you head down the road of trying to prevent any and all unauthorized uses of a photo in the hopes of combating the boogie-man.

Hmmm are you saying "Double Standards"?

I guess the point that is being made is that feet don't get raped (well unless you want them too..lol), trees don't get searched for and then kidnapped, tortured, maybe sold into human slavery...and even worse.

I believe the comment was posted in regards to Child Safety, and also I believe that not too long ago, a woman photographer was put in jail (I think they actually made a movie out of it) for posting photos of her niece (daughter) jumping up and down on the bed and she had her undies on, for kissing her mother's pregnant belly, all kinds of other photos that many believed were "innocent" and that most of us have in family albums, but NOT to Child Services especially with the rising amounts of incidents that have been occurring to our youth. BTW that woman is still in exile and lives now in another country.

Walmarts, CVS, Walgreens, and many other photo printing/reproduction companies are NOT allowed to print photos such as this, and are authorized to notify authorities immediately of such instances.

What makes this photo stand out more, is clearly due to that the fact that the compositon is not. or does not appear to be a "Candid Natural" but instead a "Setup" photo.

Shay, I guess the composition posted by PYRO in his thread fits your thought process here....:D

Personally, I have NO problems with nudity or semi-nudes, as you well know. I really do believe that the comments posted were soley for the concern of the child and the photographer.

I like the photo, and actually think it is pretty cool in B/W, which brings the "mood" down a bit.

TA
Donna

PS: Lifetime Movie "Snap Decision" - not sure if this is the movie I am talking about...but it is pretty close

indiegirl

I dig nudity. I love nude photography in general. But the last time I checked there wasn't a big tree or toe pornography problem on the ol' internet. There is, however, a huge child pornography problem. I'd prefer not to fuel that fire. Trees don't get raped. Feet don't get abducted.

This image in particular seems very easy to modify for ill purposes and I'd never post something like this of my children. I don't live my life in fear but I do take precautions to 1) keep my kids safe and 2) not contribute to a known illegal activity.

indiegirl

Just as an example: it took me less than a minute to find out where the photographer lived, her telephone number and address. Naked pictures of a child + the child's address = dangerous situation. This isn't a fear of the boogie man, this is a real and present danger to the child.

Shay Stephens

Everyone alive is in danger of being harmed or dying of something. Freedom assumes certain risks. I have to side with freedom because no matter how draconian the measures, there will always be a certain amount of bad people in the world.

menebo

Uncle!
I haven't checked the board for a day and look what happens. Okay, I can see where y'all are coming from and I'd never want to endanger the life or wellbeing of my child. My husband and I have discussed this and we are not worried about this picture. Clearly it is easy to find my information because I've listed my website, but the cats already out of the bag on that one.

Tentacion - You were right! I had no idea how controversial this picture would be. Too bad she isn't carrying a rosary too. Then we could hit all three of the taboo table topics (sex, politics and religion). (THIS IS A JOKE!)

Perhaps this is really a picture about oppression!

Thanks for all your thoughts. I really did consider all the opinions.

Michelle

menebo

It's Gone....
I've deleted the pictures from the begining of this thread and removed my entry. I hate that I felt 'guilted' into this and that I caved to it, but I would be eternally sorry if I had somehow caused harm to my child.

I've also removed the pictures from my public flickr account (where I upload to this site from). Of course deleting these pictures doesn't assure that there aren't still copies out there. (It's like trying to gather up dandelion seeds that your child has just blown all over the front yard. No way you can get them all!)

I LOVE nudie pictures of small children (what other time in your life does cellulite look cute on your butt?) as you can see from my website. Fortunately on my website you don't know if any of those are my personal children and you can't trace them back to a name.

I guess a photo contest isn't worth the heavy heart this gave me. (But I sure did like that picture!)

Michelle

indiegirl

Shay Stephens wrote:

Everyone alive is in danger of being harmed or dying of something. Freedom assumes certain risks. I have to side with freedom because no matter how draconian the measures, there will always be a certain amount of bad people in the world.

Ultimately and about nearly everything else I agree. I'm about as liberal as green is green. I realize I can't control the actions of others, that is why I choose to give them as little as I can.

I certainly am in favor of the freedom to post this image. This has never been about that. This is about my choice, my freedom, NOT to and my reasons why.

Jesse

Tentacion

Hi Michelle

Sorry that you deleted your entry, I really liked it as well, but I feared for the child who is a minor, and for you, not only as a parent, but as the photographer. I love nudes and semi's, but when it is of a child, the law perceives it differently and it is considered "skating on thin ice".

I apologize if you felt guilted into removing it, that was not my intent, nor the intent of other parents who expressed concern, I truely believe they were just looking out for you and your child's well being.

Being a parent also, I totally understand the "heavy" heart, but unfortunately we are living in a day and age when we must protect our children from predators and "child pornography" has become a very serious concern amongst many. As much as we would like to, we can't protect our children from everything, but we can when we are made aware or get that maternal gut instinct that "Something Is Wrong".

Predators aren't always strangers, sometimes they live in our very homes, a family member, a close friend, or a neighbor, and we don't even know it until it is too late and the damage is done. Then as parents we feel the anquish, the heartbreak, along with the feeling of being failures for not being more aware of our surroundings, for not having that "extra" insight, lets not mention what it does to our children, and the psychological problems it can cause down the road.

I expressed these thoughts to you, because I speak from experience, I was a child victim.

Take Care
Donna

kombizz

I am sorry I can not see any of your images!

Shay Stephens

Here is the problem, the fear is over-exaggerated. The chances of harm to a child are vastly greater by traveling in a car. Do people travel by car with children onboard? Yes! Why is that much greater risk acceptable in a car, but the tiny risk of online photos absolutely beyond the pale? If the goal is to protect children at all cost, then something doesn't add up.

Freedom, sadly, has been stifled by over-exaggerated fear. It is a shame.

Remember, fear is the mind killer.

thebigsky

Shay Stephens wrote:

Here is the problem, the fear is over-exaggerated. The chances of harm to a child are vastly greater by traveling in a car. Do people travel by car with children onboard? Yes! Why is that much greater risk acceptable in a car, but the tiny risk of online photos absolutely beyond the pale? If the goal is to protect children at all cost, then something doesn't add up.

Freedom, sadly, has been stifled by over-exaggerated fear. It is a shame.

Remember, fear is the mind killer.

Charlie

Travis

I've been following this thread from the beginning I noticed something very interesting and somewhat unnerving. When I first saw the photo, my initial reaction was "oh, cute photo and interesting idea on the theme - slightly soft focus - and I may have chosen a slightly different angle...", a photographers view of another's work. Until Donna posted her reply on the nudity and contests, it didn't really even register that the child was naked (if that makes sense).

Now here's the thing...as the discussion grew, I found that when I went back and looked at the photo again, I found that I felt guilty and somewhat dirty for looking at it. I still saw it as an innocent photo of a child running free in youth; however, my social conscious tells me that I should not enjoy looking at the naked rear of a child, even if I was seeing a message of freedom and not something more insidious.

I am the uncle of 3 nieces and a nephew that I love dearly and I would never consider taking a photo such as this. It is sad that because of all of the atrocities that have happened in world, the innocence of this photo is lost. I think it is a great photo - more so now than even before - because I feel that the inner emotional turmoil truly does depict a form of oppression that I seriously doubt was even expected by Michelle. I agree with everyone who said it probably shouldn't be published in this context but I'm also sad that I do feel that way.

Nice job Michelle. I think you unwittingly captured both sides of the theme. I'm sure you'll find something even better...

dlscott56

Shay Stephens wrote:

Here is the problem, the fear is over-exaggerated. The chances of harm to a child are vastly greater by traveling in a car. Do people travel by car with children onboard? Yes! Why is that much greater risk acceptable in a car, but the tiny risk of online photos absolutely beyond the pale? If the goal is to protect children at all cost, then something doesn't add up.

Freedom, sadly, has been stifled by over-exaggerated fear. It is a shame.

Remember, fear is the mind killer.

I have to say that I agree with this. It's very important to be an informed parent. I'm a parent, a Godparent, and an uncle, and have gone to great lengths to try and stay informed concerning the dangers that my children could face and how best to protect them. I think that I am an informed parent. I love my children and wouldn't want to do anything to harm to them.

I, however, would not have any problem posting the completely innocent photo that was in this thread on an on line forum such as this one.

I'm sorry to see we've frightened someone into removing it.

Tentacion

Shay Stephens wrote:

Here is the problem, the fear is over-exaggerated. The chances of harm to a child are vastly greater by traveling in a car. Do people travel by car with children onboard? Yes! Why is that much greater risk acceptable in a car, but the tiny risk of online photos absolutely beyond the pale? If the goal is to protect children at all cost, then something doesn't add up.

Freedom, sadly, has been stifled by over-exaggerated fear. It is a shame.

Remember, fear is the mind killer.

I think, to live your Life in Fear of the Unknown is Over Exaggerated i.e not crossing the street for fear of being hit by a car, that is an unknown fear, although you know that people get hit every day when crossing the street, the unknown fear is when it will happen to you if it ever will, so what do you do to remedy that, you become AWARE when crossing the street, "look out for cars"...but the Fear that has been expressed here, is a Known Fact and not the idle gossip of the old women or a statistic, and when you are aware of a Known Fear, it is called taking precautions to avoid a possible situation.

Example: Driving your child in a car...Yes it is a GREAT Risk, but you take precautions because you are aware of the possible dangers not only from yourself, but of others driving....Car Seats, Seat Belts, Following the laws of the road, Not driving under the influence, being a Good Driver.

I do not live my life in fear, but being a parent, I am aware of my surroundings, and you can only do your best to avoid the worst, and I guess by doing this, I can avoid that "Tiny Risk".

Have a great one everyone.
Donna

hgernhardtjr

Shay Stephens wrote:

Remember, fear is the mind killer.

I agree whole-heartedly with Shay. We have become a country possessed of unreasonable fears. I come from a large family who live/lived all over the world as State Department brats, government officials, or military personel. Now I am approaching 60 and a grandfather many times over. My many siblings, our children and grandchildren, living all over this great country, remain fine, healthy, and unharmed. If all the paranoias of today were true, how in this world could we have survived this long?

VisualXpressions

I thought the skin tone had a slight green cast to it...

Winston