DSLRUsers.com

I've noticed quite a few posts recently that are NSFW but are not flagged at all. I mean, obviously anything from creativePixols will be soft porn, but apart from that it's kind of annoying to never be sure whether it's safe to view a thread at work or with the kids/gf watching. Specifically, I'm not thrilled at "Becky Does baseball" (ok, the title should have been a give-away) or the "nikon-butt" one.

Is there any chance we can have a self-labelling system for sexist/racist/adult themes?

Moz, interesting thought about self labelling. I should point out sexist and adult are not the same thing (nor racist for that matter!)

Moz, I agree we should have a warning of some type. Nothing personal, but I don't care for these type of images either and wouldn't view them if I knew what they were.
Not commenting on the standard of photographic skill, just the subject matter is not to my taste.
I guess the question is how to describe them or categorize them?

Could we have a duck warning label also?

I Apologise for the 2 threads i have posted, i shall change the titles now.

Matt. K wrote:Could we have a duck warning label also?

Have to agree with that, why are they the most photographed subject matter around?

I don't class some of these, glamour / racey images as adult or soft porn, they are purely and simply that. I personally tend to be very selective about what I open when at work. At home is a different matter, my wife has no issues and looks at the images from a photographic nature, my son on the other hand is not around when I view the forums.

But a rating system of just NSFW would be perfect, I don't think any further clarification need be there personally.

While we are on the subject, I want to thank everyone who put a 'Baby Photo 'warning on their thread titles

Some kind of warning for a thread that may be even slightly offensive or inappropriate might be a good idea. We're not all sailors.  BTW, What is NSFW????

I didn't really think that my images were adult/soft porn, but at the same time i can agree that looking at the images at work or at home with the wife/kids around might not be the best thing. So from now on i'll put a NSFW: title before any of my model shots.

Maybe a model/glamour forum could work to avoid that?


NSFW = Not Safe For Work

MattyO wrote:I didn't really think that my images were adult/soft porn, but at the same time i can agree that looking at the images at work or at home with the wife/kids around might not be the best thing. So from now on i'll put a NSFW: title before any of my model shots.

Maybe a model/glamour forum could work to avoid that?


NSFW = Not Safe For Work

Oh, that makes sense now.

At my workplace, my colleagues would be offended if i didn't share your work with them.

Thanks guys.

NSFW..... also being added to my BIRD pix's......

Glen wrote:I should point out sexist and adult are not the same thing (nor racist for that matter!)

That's debatable, but they're all offensive in most contexts though and I find it tricky to think of a good way to clearly distinguish them. Leaving racism out of it, the difference between glamour, soft porn and porn varies between people. How much of that is offensively sexist is also open to interpretation. But this forum tends much more towards the "boys club" side than the "art" side of the divide IMO. Racism... as we saw in OCAU recently, that too is open to interpretation.

Simpler to just ask people to put NSFW in the title.

What a stupid idea.

How on earth can someone who makes a post define what is and is not suitable for work when they have no idea where the viewer may work.

If I worked for the Liberal Party (which fortunately I don't) some of your own posts may fall into that category Moz, but the last thing I'd suggest is such a label on healthy political debate.

Surely if there is an issue for viewers that the content of the forum may be unsuitable for work there is a dead easy solution - view the forum at home .

And just to make things clear - my take on Matt's or Dan's images (and many others of the "glamour" type - sorry to single you two out) is that I find them the photographic equivalent of elevator music but I firmly believe in diversity and support their right to post them without feeling condemned to apply a self policing censorship rating to them.

Mothing Matt has posted goes into the NSFW catergory, in my opinion anyway.

Some of dan's shots have been borderline, but passable, again, imo...

Moz wrote:They're all offensive in most contexts though and I find it tricky to think of a good way to clearly distinguish them... <snip>

Simpler to just ask people to put NSFW in the title.

Sorry Moz I may have misunderstood your first post, looking at this. Are you suggesting NSFW = "may offend some viewers" as opposed to "don't view this at work cos you may be told that's unsuitable for work". To me these are two very different things. Where I work we are not allowed to browse bulletin boards for example so the whole site is really in the latter category (although it's actually possible to view the site sans pics at work since it gets through our firewall)

stubbsy wrote:What a stupid idea.

How on earth can someone who makes a post define what is and is not suitable for work when they have no idea where the viewer may work.

If I worked for the Liberal Party (which fortunately I don't) some of your own posts may fall into that category Moz, but the last thing I'd suggest is such a label on healthy political debate.

Surely if there is an issue for viewers that the content of the forum may be unsuitable for work there is a dead easy solution - view the forum at home .

And just to make things clear - my take on Matt's or Dan's images (and many others of the "glamour" type - sorry to single you two out) is that I find them the photographic equivalent of elevator music but I firmly believe in diversity and support their right to post them without feeling condemned to apply a self policing censorship rating to them.

Couldn't have been said better. I'm for one am tired of constant restrictions, regulations and political correctness crap.

If you are that concerned about getting traumatised by photos or having someone near you offended, do not use internet, in fact, unplug it completely and close your eyes, then you're safe.

Alex

If it's so hard to come to some agreement about what makes up "NSFW" maybe the thread title should read PNSFW instead? Where P = Possibly.

That way it's up to the viewer to decide both if they want to view the thread based on the possibility, and then they can also decide if it is NSFW (in their mind) once they have decided to view it.

I have a very good way of not viewing these images at work - my workplace has one of those pain-in-the-arse filters that stops most public photo sites. So most of these pics don't get viewed at work, and as they are no longer on the unread list when I get home most of them don't get seen there either

We've had many debates on the topic of voluntary vs compulsory labels on pic posts, and some ideas have been followed for a while and then fallen by the wayside.
Without wanting to be too regimented a site, we have some guidelines on pornographic images not being posted (pretty sure it's somewhere in the FAQ) but other than that there is no restriction.
Despite a few younger members, this is still essentially an adult group and we expect people are able to make adult choices.

Just look at the difficulty of getting people to use the new 'gallery' section! Getting people to label image posts correctly (and who defines the 'correct' category?) is next to impossible.

Best way to not be embarrased at work is not to look at the image posts.

What I would say though, is some people (me included at times ) tend to put titles on their posts which don't really describe the post - it would be good if this practice stopped

oli wrote:If it's so hard to come to some agreement about what makes up "NSFW" maybe the thread title should read PNSFW instead? Where P = Possibly.

That way it's up to the viewer to decide both if they want to view the thread based on the possibility, and then they can also decide if it is NSFW (in their mind) once they have decided to view it.

Many workplaces actually have an internet use policy that discourages the use of community forums, etc., anyway - maybe the whole site should really be classified as PNSFW???

sheepie wrote:Many workplaces actually have an internet use policy that discourages the use of community forums, etc., anyway - maybe the whole site should really be classified as PNSFW???

How about the whole Internet then?

Really pointless idea, in my opinion.

Would you ask someone who painted nudes - say Renoir - to stick a NFSW label just to satisfy a minority that didn't like the look of of a nude?

What about Mapplethorpe, Hamilton, or any of the great photographers to stick "NFSW" just because of a select few who couldn't get past the prospect of an image they didn't like the look of.

I highly doubt that seeing a bit of flesh or some violence will scar you for life. It's the Internet for crying out loud. It's not as if we haven't seen things before and if you don't like it when you've clicked on it, there's a shiny little X button or a red circle waiting for you to click it.

Nnnnsic, to be honest in most cases this topic (about labeling certain threads) is about people who are at work, who may personally not have a problem with viewing certain images but do not feel comfortable doing so in their workplace, that's all...

Isn't a workplace a place for work? If you are concerned about the appropriateness of images at work, do your work and view the photos at a more appropriate place. (I can say this even though I spend too much time on DSLR at work, but hey, I own the company!).

Perhaps they could be labeled 'Don't show grandma'.

Wile I understand the idea behind this, and can se why it may be wanted, most of the images in question wouldn't be considered inaproproate on prime time television or the side of a bus. I can't remember the last time I saw naked breasts on the site, if ever, unike anothe site that has implented a 'not safe for work' feature.

I know I'm not exactly a regular contributor, but my 2 cents.

oli wrote:but do not feel comfortable doing so in their workplace, that's all...

And this post defines the solution, as far as I'm concerned.

If you are not comfortable viewing this site at your place of work, do not view it at work.

I think it really is that simple.

gstark wrote:

oli wrote:but do not feel comfortable doing so in their workplace, that's all...

And this post defines the solution, as far as I'm concerned.

If you are not comfortable viewing this site at your place of work, do not view it at work.

I think it really is that simple.

You took out the important part of my post though. It's not the "whole site". It's only certain types of images...

Some people want to be able to browse this site in their workplace, but also be able to choose not to view the (relatively small amount of) threads that may show something not appropriate for their work.

oli wrote:

gstark wrote:

oli wrote:but do not feel comfortable doing so in their workplace, that's all...

And this post defines the solution, as far as I'm concerned.

If you are not comfortable viewing this site at your place of work, do not view it at work.

I think it really is that simple.

You took out the important part of my post though. It's not the "whole site". It's only certain types of images...

Well, no.

If you're at work ... and being paid by your boss to perform your assigned duties ... and you feel uncomfortable about looking at the site .... don't do it.

Some people want to be able to browse this site in their workplace, but also be able to choose not to view the (relatively small amount of) threads that may show something not appropriate for their work.

I sorry, but I wouldnt have opened this site at all while I was at my previous job, and in 5 weeks this contract will be up and I will probably be in the same situation again.
I come to this site because of my hobby of photography, and I dont see that any style discussed here is really appropriate for work.

There are many photos posted here that I normally wouldnt go out of my way to look at, and there are many photos posted here that I wouldnt go out of my way to take. But isnt that the point of coming here and seeing what others are doing, discussing ideas, techniques etc.
Im not going to agree to discriminate against any styles portrayed here.
Ive seen some posts with "nudity" in there tittle to warn others, but I havent seen anything that I class as soft porn posted without warnings.
I dont see anything here that I dont see when I visit friends with teenage daughters who seem to like skimpy outfits, or in the magazines in the waiting rooms at the doctors. Even the newspapers have photos of glamor, fasion and off their face celebrities almost waring clothes, and they are available at work.

I do not see anyone here has anything to apologise for or any need to have the NSFW warning.

moz wrote:ISpecifically, I'm not thrilled at "Becky Does baseball" (ok, the title should have been a give-away) or the "nikon-butt" one.
?

Interesting choices for examples - I would have thought that these photos are less NSFW than photos
I have seen on the covers of magazines such as Who, No Idea, Famous, Womens Day and similar,
which would be sitting around in any workplace without comment.

It has been said before, this is a forum for adults. I do not believe we should impose arbitrary limitations to cater
for workplace issues (as Gary said, if in doubt, don't view at work), people who may be offended by certain images
(if you are, and you stumble across such an image, close it and move on), and so on.

The lowest common denominator concept is available in many other sites, I do not want it here. I am
sure there are forums with more restictive guidelines for those with delicate sensibilities.

For those pushing the "dont view at work" barrow, what about those people who are on dial up at home (or don't even have a net connection at home), and would rather view things at work, say in their lunch break? I think a NSFW tag on some threads would be a good thing for those people. There are plenty of workplaces that let you browse the net in your breaks. And the argument about this forum being for adults. Thats fair enough, but what happens is MRs Phipps, the workplace wowser walks past when you are viewing one of Dans girlies bent over in a bikini?

I would also have thought calling another persons idea stupid was going a bit far. I would even consider it rude!

gstark wrote:Finally, I've seen examples of some members being rude to others. Please note that this is explicitly forbidden, and it's covered more than adequately in our FAQ. It's something that has never been a part of this forum, and it's something that will never be permitted.

stubbsy wrote:Sorry Moz I may have misunderstood your first post, looking at this. Are you suggesting NSFW = "may offend some viewers" as opposed to "don't view this at work cos you may be told that's unsuitable for work".

I thought it might be easier for people to understand than the notion of an offensive image. Normally on the net discussions about offensive content quickly degenerate, whereas most people accept that their workplaces have pretty clear guidelines on what counts as acceptable imagery to display. I was hoping to link to that rather than start a discussion about why there are so few women posting on the forum, and how there are only two visible ethnic groups. Because to many people here that's a good thing.

Call it NSFW, family vs adult, whatever, I would prefer to have a labelling system than to stop viewing images.

From my point of view, when I can assemble a set of images from here, DOMAI and another porn site, mix them up and my partner can't tell which images are from here and which from the porn sites... we have porn images. I think there's a place for that art-shading-into-porn imagery, just as there's a place for porn-pretentious-about-being-artistic, it's just that it's not a place that I would choose to visit to talk about photography. Much as I'll flick through a Ralph magazine while I'm waiting for takeaway to cook but I wouldn't subscribe to it.

MattyO wrote:I didn't really think that my images were adult/soft porn, but at the same time i can agree that looking at the images at work or at home with the wife/kids around might not be the best thing. So from now on i'll put a NSFW: title before any of my model shots.

Maybe a model/glamour forum could work to avoid that?


NSFW = Not Safe For Work

I'm only a newbie to this forum but shocked that people would be offended by MattyO's style of post, you could find these on billboards driving down the road or in damn kids mags I'm glad I found this thread before posting up any of this kind of image.

If it would work then a model/glamour section would be awsome.

MattyO wrote:So from now on i'll put a NSFW: title before any of my model shots.

Thanks Matty, much appreciated.

moz wrote:........I was hoping to link to that rather than start a discussion about why there are so few women posting on the forum, and how there are only two visible ethnic groups. Because to many people here that's a good thing.

Can you possibly post the evidence that led you to make this rather offensive assertion?

Cheers

moz wrote: I was hoping to link to that rather than start a discussion about why there are so few women posting on the forum, and how there are only two visible ethnic groups. Because to many people here that's a good thing.

What? What are the 2 if you don't mind me asking?

What ethnic group do I come under. I have Irish, Italian and Russian Jewish bloodlines.

Just to drag this back on topic, I do not think we should have a specific section as suggested, for a whole range of reasons.

And I have no problem with voluntary labelling "NSFW" if posters wish to do that, but this is not something
I would want to police. I can't speak for the other mods, but I would hazard a guess that they may have a
similar view.

norbs - on the work viewing issue, my point was really that I don't think we should set a standard
which would make the forum universally SFW, or for that matter universally acceptable to
people who may have a narrower view of what is acceptable. Viewing the forum is a matter of choice
for individuals to make.

moz wrote:rather than start a discussion about why there are so few women posting on the forum,

I would have thought that that was perhaps because we have so few female members. Those few that we have are, and remain, quite active, but it's a well known fact that women don't view on-line forums (and many other things) in the same way as men might.

I think that's an irrelevance.

and as for ...

and how there are only two visible ethnic groups. Because to many people here that's a good thing.

I wonder which I fit into?

And I wonder who the "many" might be?

I'm curious ...

Call it NSFW, family vs adult, whatever, I would prefer to have a labelling system than to stop viewing images.

I have no issues when, as an individual, one chooses to label one's posts in this manner, and in so doing one is choosing to recognise that others have different value sets, and may (or may not) take offence at certain types of content. We encourage you to post similar warnings when your images may not be dial-up friendly, and this is simply offering your fellow members a similar courtesy.

"The Naked Duck wrote:If it would work then a model/glamour section would be awsome.

No, that's not going to happen. Please remember that we're not a "look at what I've done" site. That sort of a section runs contrary to how we do things here, and I think it's contrary to the concept of providing serious critique for one's images.

There are plenty of places that provide that sort of content; we are proud to not be in that group. That said, we have very few restrictions at all upon the image content that members post, and we encourage controversial and/or artistic images.

And we encourage serious critique of those images.

I don't believe that there should be a mandatory NSFW on any postings.

If something is NSWF then maybe the site shouldn't be viewed in your workplace.....

The amount of "NSFW" shots really is minimal so I don't see what the bother is about.

One more point as the image is loading you do get a glimpse of the shot as it is opening..... here is a tip, if it is NSFW hit the back button.....

Greg B wrote:Just to drag this back on topic, I do not think we should have a specific section as suggested, for a whole range of reasons.

And I have no problem with voluntary labelling "NSFW" if posters wish to do that, but this is not something
I would want to police. I can't speak for the other mods, but I would hazard a guess that they may have a
similar view.

norbs - on the work viewing issue, my point was really that I don't think we should set a standard
which would make the forum universally SFW, or for that matter universally acceptable to
people who may have a narrower view of what is acceptable. Viewing the forum is a matter of choice
for individuals to make.

Greg, thats fair enough, and I whole heartedly agree with your point about people voluntarily labelling their work.

One thing though, and I might be drawing a long bow here. If I posted a shot of a particularly gory subject, say a partly amputated finger (it happened years ago. I took the photo for a mate who got his hand caught in a work machine), would the queasy people be offended if I didn't put a warning on the title?

Greg B wrote:norbs - on the work viewing issue, my point was really that I don't think we should set a standard which would make the forum universally SFW, or for that matter universally acceptable to people who may have a narrower view of what is acceptable. Viewing the forum is a matter of choice for individuals to make.

Exactly.

There's way too much "lowest common denominator" stuff imposed upon us elsewhere. I am not going lower our standards to satisfy some philistine who might walk past your workstation while you're reviewing this site.

gstark wrote:And I wonder who the "many" might be?

You, obviously, since you're so vigorously defending the status quo.

gstark wrote:There's way too much "lowest common denominator" stuff imposed upon us elsewhere. I am not going lower our standards to satisfy some philistine who might walk past your workstation while you're reviewing this site.

I trust this means the removal of the "no porn" concession?

I can't believe Moz's request for such a simple, voluntary courtesy has caused such a lengthy discussion.

As I understood it, Moz's request had nothing to do with actually being at work or not. Perhaps NSFW is not the right label, but the principle behind his request - that it would be nice for people to know before clicking what sort of content they're about to view - is the same.

I am generally opposed to censorship, but as I understood it, Moz was never asking that content on this site be censored - simply that thread titles reflect their content. Every TV program and Movie you watch has a rating, and people generally don't get all hot under the collar about that. How is this any different? It's not about "lowering our standards" or "imposing restrictions," but courteously allowing people to make an informed decision about what they look at on this site.

Why are people acting as though this is some sort of affront to their liberty?

macka wrote:I can't believe Moz's request for such a simple, voluntary courtesy has caused such a lengthy discussion.

As I understood it, Moz's request had nothing to do with actually being at work or not. Perhaps NSFW is not the right label, but the principle behind his request - that it would be nice for people to know before clicking what sort of content they're about to view - is the same.

I am generally opposed to censorship, but as I understood it, Moz was never asking that content on this site be censored - simply that thread titles reflect their content. Every TV program and Movie you watch has a rating, and people generally don't get all hot under the collar about that. How is this any different? It's not about "lowering our standards" or "imposing restrictions," but courteously allowing people to make an informed decision about what they look at on this site.

Why are people acting as though this is some sort of affront to their liberty?

Bloody good point Macka.

macka wrote:Every TV program and Movie you watch has a rating, and people generally don't get all hot under the collar about that.

Accept, it would seem at the moment, Home and Away viewers in Melbourne Seriously, this is a classic example of how some people may feel a rating is not appropriate while others are happy with it - and why any formal rating classification here would be overkill (IMHO).

macka wrote:...simply that thread titles reflect their content.

And if that is the request being made, then I agree. I also agree that the discussion has perhaps gone a bit off track (it doesn't help that racism, etc have been brought into the equation - not sure how that happened - and I'm still trying to work out which '2 visible ethnic groups' we have!).

If people just take it on board, and perhaps try to remember to title their threads appropriately rather than using a title to get attention then maybe Moz gets what he hoped for in his original post.

As for Moz suggesting a removal of the "'no porn' concession" - I think you're stirring a little too much here Moz! You know that ain't going to happen - there has to be a limit on such things, and we seem to have been able to self-assess that limit fairly well up until now.

A couple of points:

Leon - the reference to "racism" was in Moz's initial post.

The heading to this thread is: "Can we have a NSFW/Soft Porn/Glamour area?" which implies (to me at least):

1. Having a separate section where images which may be considered by some to be NSFW are to be posted - so who determines what is NSFW? If I post a shot of Alex (my 4 month old son) only wearing a nappy, could that be considered inappropriate?
2. By having such a section means that posters have to determine what should not be posted in other sections.
3. By having such a section means that moderators have to police images posted in other sections (and themselves, make the determination of what is "NSFW").

In terms of the discussion contained herein, I believe there are two issues:

1. Images that may cause offence: in the context of the images that have been posted on this site to date, if you are offended by an image of model in a swimsuit, etc, I say "move on". Society seems to be moving too far in the direction of protecting (and therefore regulating) every single possibility of 'causing offence'. Besides, how would I know if my image could cause offence to the numbers of people who have access to the images on this site?
2. Images that are NSFW: if that is a risk, don't open the thread at work (unless you are employed to peruse DSLRUsers.com).

At the end of the day, I have know idea what may or may not cause offence to you or what may or may not be appropriate at your work. (I know someone will come along with the comment that it should be obvious...)

What a ridiculous non-argument.

I don't see anything wrong with a voluntary label on your posts (why would it be any different from the dial-up warning label for instance?) to indicate that the images may be a bit racy. Give people the choice - IMO it has nothing to do with stifling creativity or censoring images.

Having said that, I don't really think the examples given (the baseball ones etc) are really that bad. I would think that if I opened them up I would be rather disappointed that they weren't a bit MORE risque, if they had a NSFW label

Macka,

macka wrote:I can't believe Moz's request for such a simple, voluntary courtesy has caused such a lengthy discussion.

Please reread the subject line of this thread. Moz's request was for a, and I quote, "NSFW/Soft Porn/Glamour area?".

That is not going to happen.

As I've previously made clear, there never has been, nor will there ever be, any restriction upon individuals thinking of the needs of others and placing such warnings upon images.

But I do query the underlying reasoning of those who feel that viewing this site (or parts of it) is not for work. My reasoning is very simple: you're at work, and you're supposed to be .... ah yes, that's it .... working!

If that's an issue, then don't view the site.

And if members simply observe common courtesies and post voluntary warnings using their own common sense (which I've often found to be commonly uncommon, I might add) to determine to which images such warnings might apply, then I really do not see that there's a problem.

I am generally opposed to censorship, but as I understood it, Moz was never asking that content on this site be censored - simply that thread titles reflect their content.

Well, no. He was asking for a whole new section; see the subject line, please.

Moz wrote:gstark wrote:
And I wonder who the "many" might be?


You, obviously, since you're so vigorously defending the status quo.

I'm not defending anything.

I am yet to be convinced that there's an issue that needs to be addressed. And I certainly do not accept that the suggestion for a new section, as embodied in your subject line, is in keeping with where I think this forum's focus needs to be.

And getting back to the question embodied in the quote, I really don't know who those "many" might be.

gstark wrote:
There's way too much "lowest common denominator" stuff imposed upon us elsewhere. I am not going lower our standards to satisfy some philistine who might walk past your workstation while you're reviewing this site.


I trust this means the removal of the "no porn" concession?

And I'm completely at a loss to understand what you're saying here. In the words of Pauline, please explain.

Des,

losfp wrote:I don't see anything wrong with a voluntary label on your posts (why would it be any different from the dial-up warning label for instance?)

Exactly. And there has not been one KM, mod, or admin here who has suggested otherwise.

And as you so astutely point out, it's voluntary. I don't see a problem.

As to opening images at work, my contention is very simple, and gets back to why you might be .... "at work". I certainly don't travel to North Ryde every day because I enjoy the traffic.

I happen to be very fortunate in that I'm permitted some lattitude in what I can and cannot do here; others may not be as fortunate, but it is they who need to manage what they're doing (and take responsibility for those actions), not the mods and admins here.