Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: MBehrens on February 24, 2017, 07:43:09 pm
-
http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/24/fuji-tried-to-promote-its-new-camera-by-providing-a-half-naked-model-to-photographers-6470997/
A Fujifilm UK, promoting its new GFX 50S camera brought out a topless model for the photographers - that paid to be there - to shoot. One photographer was outraged...
Is this the travesty that Mr. North, the only attending photographer that seemed to be outraged, claims? Or is it understandable, for the maker of a high-end medium format camera that will potentially revolutionize the rendering of skin tones in digital images, to use this tactic to promote its equipment?
I fall into the latter group, as if anyone really cares. Just wondering what the prevailing opinion is around here..
-
http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/24/fuji-tried-to-promote-its-new-camera-by-providing-a-half-naked-model-to-photographers-6470997/
A Fujifilm UK, promoting its new GFX 50S camera brought out a topless model for the photographers - that paid to be there - to shoot. One photographer was outraged...
Is this the travesty that Mr. North, the only attending photographer that seemed to be outraged, claims? Or is it understandable, for the maker of a high-end medium format camera that will potentially revolutionize the rendering of skin tones in digital images, to use this tactic to promote its equipment?
I fall into the latter group, as if anyone really cares. Just wondering what the prevailing opinion is around here..
I thought it was a great idea.
-
Failure of the marketing team to realize that times have changed? Whether you agree or not, we live in a more 'PC' world. Providing both male and female models, perhaps in bathing suits, perhaps both nude, might not have elicited the same response (well, the nudity might still).
If you really want to explore skin tones, ask all the photographers to get naked and take pictures of themselves. What a campaign those pictures would make! ;D
-
Embarrassing for Fujifilm UK, a high end product with low end publicity. Someone should lose their job.
Cheers,
-
Fuji got it wrong; the politically correct cat touched all the bases.
You see, sex is sin. A good woman is never, absolutely never naked and a good man would avert his eye should he accidentally happen upon one, for example, in the course of his employment as a window cleaner or plumber. That the lady may have just had part of her robe stolen is neither here nor there: she should always wear two. And a head covering at all times. That's very important: hair is incontrovertibly evil too, especially should it have any touch of curl.
Bodies are shameful entities and there have always been well-founded laws against any display of them; some such laws include stoning to death, burning at the stake beside some equally evil cat-loving old crone, and/or other similar sickos. It is incumbent upon the more progressive amongst us to raise standards and insist, shrilly, on purity of both mind, eye and, above all, camera. It's a well known fact that the making of images of absolutely anything that breathes is obviously sinful, and even those sneaky people working in so-called nature programmes must have a careful, supervisory eye kept upon them: sometimes, believe it or not, they show naked animals! What could one possibly tell one's daughter should she ever see a naked horse? It could ruin her lfe, fill her with a sense of perpetual disappointment for ever after. "My kingdom, my kingdom for a horse!" Now you see the gravity of this stuff, and will realise for just how long such filth has been promulgated!
Bring on the Taliban!
Rob C
-
Embarrassing for Fujifilm UK, a high end product with low end publicity. Someone should lose their job.
Cheers,
Correct. It was cheesy.
And, congratulations, Rob, for a great example of overreaction.
Nothing wrong with topless ladies, or men for that matter, it is just a question of when and where. And that is a matter of good taste and sensitivity.
-
The only mis-step I see that Fujifilm UK made was not letting the paying customers know up front what they were buying into. Had the topless models been parading the camera around like an auto-show event, this would deserved the disdain it received. But since this was a private (not public) event, the customers (photographers) were purchasing this time with the camera, the models were paid, there was no coercion or manipulation, I don't see where there is any reason for this response. And it sounds like the vast majority of the photographers at the event did not have a problem with the situation.
However the alternative to this mis-step which would be advertising a topless model shoot to promote their camera... could have been equally chastised as using sex to sell. Guess it was a no-win idea in this day and age. I would venture to say that this practice has occurred before and probably in recent history. But without social media to give the verbal minority a voice, the opinion of a single person would not have been heard.
-
there was no coercion or manipulation
how do you know ?
-
Correct. It was cheesy.
1. And, congratulations, Rob, for a great example of overreaction.
Nothing wrong with topless ladies, or men for that matter, it is just a question of when and where.
2. And that is a matter of good taste and sensitivity.
1. Thank you Anthony, it was a naught pleasure!
2. Ah yes, and who calls the shot?
;-)
Rob
-
Nothing wrong with topless ladies, or men for that matter. . .
I can only conclude that you haven't seen topless men in a retirement community, Anthony. :o
-
how do you know ?
Do you know?
Do you think there are not castings even for these little modelling jobs?
Or is it perhaps pity for the poor, affronted camera fans, driven by the police to look at the frightening spectacle that they found thrust before their terrified eyes, that moves you?
Get a life, even a little one.
-
Am I the only one who doesn't like the two choices in the poll at the end of the article?
The question is: Is this acceptable
Answer A: No, it's sexist and wrong
Answer B: Yes, it's only a bit of fun
My logic would be that if you see this as "a bit of fun" it might indeed be sexist and wrong
However if you think it's just a model shoot in which you see no more and probably less then on a lot beaches in Europe during summer and therefore acceptable I see no problem with it.
I bet a lot of people who criticize a situation like this are also the people who carefully erase their browser history every time they leave the computer, because they don't want their spouse to see what they are looking at when they are alone ;)
No proof, but just a hunch :)
-
If I were Fuji I wouldn't have done it. But offended or outraged? Nope. Bemused, by the outrage as much as the source of same? Yep.
-Dave-
-
Outrageous that didn't show any images from this shoot!
-
I can only conclude that you haven't seen topless men in a retirement community, Anthony. :o
Very true. But I am prepared to risk being shocked for the sake of art. :)
-
Or is it perhaps pity for the poor, affronted camera fans, driven by the police to look at the frightening spectacle that they found thrust before their terrified eyes, that moves you?
Careful, Rob. Seeing the unexpected can have catastrophic, long-term consequences, particularly on children. See here (http://www.theonion.com/article/us-children-still-traumatized-one-year-after-seein-1285) for a vivid account of the reasons why those responsible should not only lose their jobs but be publicly hanged, drawn and quartered.
Jeremy
-
Careful, Rob. Seeing the unexpected can have catastrophic, long-term consequences, particularly on children. See here (http://www.theonion.com/article/us-children-still-traumatized-one-year-after-seein-1285) for a vivid account of the reasons why those responsible should not only lose their jobs but be publicly hanged, drawn and quartered.
Jeremy
"Of the infants who saw the breast, 76 percent are unwilling to breast feed or use a bottle, forcing their parents to nourish them intravenously."
I see your point - other than to say I'd rather have seen Jan's, though, no offence intended!
As they say - be careful for what you wish!
;-)
Rob
-
If the woman was wearing stick-on male nipples, there would not have been a problem.
-
Why is nudity even mentioned in 2017?
How is person wearing clothes different from a person naked?
I just don't get it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Why is nudity even mentioned in 2017?
How is person wearing clothes different from a person naked?
I just don't get it.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's easy, Bernard: most naked people usually look less attractive than clothed ones.
That's why the ones who look better the other way around make so much money.
-
If the woman was wearing stick-on male nipples, there would not have been a problem.
There might well have been problems, Graham. She was wearing a pair of braces.
-
I can post a naked shot of myself if you'd like a bit of gratuitous art ;-)
That's very kind of you. I am happy to accept it is art without seeing the proof.
-
It sounds like the Fuji management...
(puts on sunglasses)
Was busted!
-
... Bring on the Taliban!
+1
Great post, Rob!
-
This makes me think of a rather colorful college professor of mine who has been shooting nudes for 40+ years. He always incorporates fully nude shoots into his Intro to Photography classes (designed for the normal non-photo students taking it for their art elective) and puts the dates of each shoot into the syllabus.
He mentions that nude model shoots will be part of the corse the first day and reminds them again a week prior to each one. Of course, all the guys in the class get excited to the idea of shooting a fully nude woman, or, even better, women.
However, what he does not tell his class, until they get there, is that the first one will only have male model(s), and of course plays it off as if why should it matter?.
Anyway, I see no problem with this and think the complaining is a gross overreaction. Maybe the way in which it was marketed and advertised was a little creepy, but (follow ups show it was a small event that was not advertised in a creepy fashion and open to only a select few) all fashion photographers I've known always want to fool around with skin tones and lighting the body. Not to mention, skins tones (along with other natural tones like wood, something I need to worry about with my line of work) are hard for the camera to naturally reproduce and something photographers will want to test out.
Insofar as not having a male model, having one could have certainly helped with it being less sexist, or perceived as being less sexist. Would it have helped with drawing more people? No; much less women go out of their way to see a man naked as vise versa. Not to mention, our society puts more emphasis on the female form being the superior one. (You have to go all the way back to Ancient Greece to see it the other way around.)
Also, the average woman is naturally more curvy, which helps with producing light and shadow and gradients. The average man is rather boring, flat chest, flat ass, hips and waist that are almost equal. You kind of need someone built like Atlas to really get nice light and shadow.
-
I want to know the ratio of outraged vs not outraged. If there were 24 who were okay with it and one who was not, who cares? And if that is the case the ONLY sin in this matter was that anyone paid any attention at all to the outraged customer. Isn't everyone 'outraged' these days?
-
I want to know the ratio of outraged vs not outraged. If there were 24 who were okay with it and one who was not, who cares? And if that is the case the ONLY sin in this matter was that anyone paid any attention at all to the outraged customer. Isn't everyone 'outraged' these days?
One needs look no deeper that into the affair of the YSL Opium perfume ads of some years ago.
It featured a healthy, nude Sophie Dahl stretched out on her back. It was pulled by the Advertising Standards body after, from the whole of Britain, it received about twenty or so complaints from the public. I actually recall penning a fax to the editors of the British Journal of Photography about it... (Better than writing to the editor of the Guardian, don't you think?) It did get published.
The complaints were all about inflamed enraged morality, but perhaps it might have made more sense had the complaints come from the Road Safety people. There could have been some logic there concerning distracted drivers in cities.
-
In this day an age nobody on this forum is going to be outraged by a topless shoot.
However, there will be plenty who will find this type of advertising totally inappropriate. Would I buy a camera because selected photographers took shots of topless women. You have got to be kidding!
Cheers,
-
Considering all the advances in modern optics and technology, the complainer could have used a lensbaby or gradual density filter to produce an image to his liking.
Or if he was shaking too much during the shoot, that could have been used also creatively to create some artistic effects.
-
Considering all the advances in modern optics and technology, the complainer could have used a lensbaby or gradual density filter to produce an image to his liking.
Or if he was shaking too much during the shoot, that could have been used also creatively to create some artistic effects.
I like it Les; a really positive spin!
Rob