Recent or Non Recent Professional Works

[DarkPenguin]

It's okay as long as it's got tits? Try xnxx.com for some "aesthetically pleasing" work then.

If one goes by photosig.com's rankings, yes.

[Rob C]

Deleted

[feppe]

It's okay as long as it's got tits? Try xnxx.com for some "aesthetically pleasing" work then.

I'm too shy for shooting such subject matter, but here's a great pair of tits - not my photo.

[Rob C]

I'm too shy for shooting such subject matter, but here's a great pair of tits - not my photo.

Gotcha!

Rob C

[bill t.]

Gotcha!

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!  Oldest trick in the book.  But I looked anyway.

[jjj]

This is a wall of my photos (10 photos) each blown up to 16 feet tall (almost 5 meters) on the wall of a facility in Kansas City, MO USA. The files from Nikon D3 camera were printed on an Inca Spyder Digital UV inkjet printer in 4' x 8' sections.

Crazy perspective on that shot. The kit in the room looks tiny as you aren't used to seing images that big. Nice work.

[Ray]

Ray, I´m not James, do not pretend to answer for him, but unless you are into fashion you will never understand. Simple as that; there can be no interpretation, no dictionary. You speak the language or you do not.

That´s why some can do it and others never will.

FWIW, tune in to:

http://www.wibagency.com/set.html

and once you get there, click on photographers and then click on Hans Feurer. You will see why I am still alive after losing my wife in the winter. That the camera can produce beauty like that is the only damn reason it´s worth living. I thank the guy almost every day for giving me that reason, a target however unlikely I´ll ever hit again.

Rob C

That's pretty negative, Rob..."I'll never understand". I actually prefer your sun-bronzed, healthy nudes on the beach to Hans Feurer's ridiculous models. How silly can you be??

A woman should look as though she's been designed to bear children and not as though she's doing her best to conform to the homosexual imagination.

[Rob C]

That's pretty negative, Rob..."I'll never understand". I actually prefer your sun-bronzed, healthy nudes on the beach to Hans Feurer's ridiculous models. How silly can you be??

A woman should look as though she's been designed to bear children and not as though she's doing her best to conform to the homosexual imagination.

Ray, this is going from bad to worse: so now I´m a poof?

Rob C

[Ray]

Ray, this is going from bad to worse: so now I´m a poof?

Rob C

Not at all! Didn't I say I liked your sun-tanned beauties?

Nevertheless, it's perfectly possible for a style of fashion, conforming in its origination to a homosexual imagination, becomes a tradition which is emulated by totally heterosexual photographers, who are compelled to earn a living through their chosen profession.

[Christopher Sanderson]

Folks, there is some decent discussion here and otherwise - try to keep the language and attitude appropriate for all who read this Forum. Why invite the Heavy Hand of Moderation?

[Ray]

Folks, there is some decent discussion here and otherwise - try to keep the language and attitude appropriate for all who read this Forum. Why invite the Heavy Hand of Moderation?

Chris,
We're all very polite so far. What's your concern? Homophobic backlash, perhaps? Let me state quite clearly. I'm not homophobic, but I think I have the right under the American Constitution to express my own perception and opinion of a homosexual influence in so-called art, or photography, when I see it.

I don't say it's wrong. I just want it recognised.

[Anthony R]

Chris,
Blah blah blah blah. I'm a lonely troll. Pay attention to me

[Schwenny]

May I ask why some of you destroy a great thread like this one? What's the purpose? I really did enjoy it until some strange individuals started to write stupid stuff. Do people get off from destrying for others what they like? Sorry but I don't get it...

[Ray]

[quote name=Anthony R date=Jun 9 2009, 11:30 AM)  
Chris,
Blah blah blah blah. I'm a lonely troll. Pay attention to me
[/quote]


If you're a troll, Anthony, please go away.

[Rob C]

Hey ho, here we go: political correctness is a pain in the ass and a direct contributor to the death of conversation, literature and even, possibly, participation in a forum as good as this one.

We have, in Britain, a huge problem with unemployment, uncontrolled immigration, the disenfranchisement and disenchantment of the lower classes of indigenous population and that is also the truth for Spain. In Britain, it has led to the rise of an ultra right wing party.

In Britain, it is not only politically incorrect (the very phrase should warn anybody with an ear of the worth of such a concept) to discuss such matters, but depending on who complains, you can be put on a charge and sent to prison.

So there we have it: there is a problem; discussion could resolve it; discussion is not allowed; the problem grows worse; discussion could resolve it. Is that the perfect Catch 22 or what?

In Spain, with all its many races sharing the same space, everybody can talk about it should they wish and some do and some could not care less. The political spectrum remains open and very, very wide. I think freedom to speak and think is better than its opposite.

This forum is private property for the owners to do with as they please. I hope they do not live in fear of offending someone. The only way of achieving that goal is to do nothing, to close the shop and go fishing. But even then, somebody will protest on behalf of the trout...

I think this place is better than that.

Rob C

[dmerger]

but I think I have the right under the American Constitution to express my own perception and opinion

Ray, your comment about the American Constitution is similar to comments made many, many times.  So, I’m not commenting so much on your comment but more to a general misunderstanding of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The First Amendment applies only to government restrictions on speech.  Chris is not acting on behalf of the government. The First Amendment is irrelevant to Chris’s request and your response.  Of course, you may still disagree with Chris, but it is incorrect to bring the First Amendment into the discussion.

Dean

[Rob C]

Not at all! Didn't I say I liked your sun-tanned beauties?

Nevertheless, it's perfectly possible for a style of fashion, conforming in its origination to a homosexual imagination, becomes a tradition which is emulated by totally heterosexual photographers, who are compelled to earn a living through their chosen profession.

If I am allowed to continue with a reasonable thread and a reasonable phase within it, I must take up battle with your contention about the "delete" imagination behind the photography. The "delete" sort of snapper was all the rage many moons ago, but since the tail-end of the Golden Era, it was the very girl-fancying sort who took the public imagination with a few notable, and, I think, mainly US exceptions to that rule.

The designers may or may not have that certain inclination, but the photographers are not generally the designers,  though Karl is an exception to that general rule of photography and design being quite separate functions. I know nothing of his private life so please do not read anything into that beyond the fact that he is perfectly capable of doing both jobs. However, I have to disagree with your terminology about being´compelled to earn a living` through their chosen profession.´

Ray, it is the very great difficulty in EARNING that living via that specific genre of the chosen profession that´s the problem, not the doing of it; not compulsion, but a huge wish!

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... We're all very polite so far. What's your concern? ...

Because one can be politely inappropriate, to put it mildly. It is simply inappropriate to:

- post a direct link to a porno site
- hijack a thread
- promote one's own agenda
- hide one's petty grievances behind American Constitution, etc.

It is not about freedom of speech, it is not about suppressing debate, it is not about shying away from controversial subjects... it is about doing it in a more appropriate manner, e.g. by starting your own thread in the Coffee Corner or in Discussing Photographic Styles.

This thread is about professional works (from the standpoint of "Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear"), in other words about photography... so can we please go back to posting and enjoying precisely that, great photography?

[DarkPenguin]

Less talk.  More photos.

[Ray]

Because one can be politely inappropriate, to put it mildly. It is simply inappropriate to:

- post a direct link to a porno site
- hijack a thread
- promote one's own agenda
- hide one's petty grievances behind American Constitution, etc.

It is not about freedom of speech, it is not about suppressing debate, it is not about shying away from controversial subjects... it is about doing it in a more appropriate manner, e.g. by starting your own thread in the Coffee Corner or in Discussing Photographic Styles.

This thread is about professional works (from the standpoint of "Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear"), in other words about photography... so can we please go back to posting and enjoying precisely that, great photography?

Slobadan,
All my comments have been about photography and/or specific images in this thread, apart from my response to people attacking my comments about photography.

I'm not really interested in the mutual admiration society. "What a great image", "Very nice" etc.

If one isn't promoting one's own agenda, are you recommending one promotes another person's agenda, or are you recommending one should have no agenda at all?