Sharing Nude Images – What is your point of view?

27 Aug 2011 admin In G+ Posts

Ah a way to share nude images…. sadly you need to go to 500px to see it… but thats not a bad thing….

I am interested in peoples opinion on this shot thou… its toned down a bit with more mood and less processing….

Please take a second to go take a look and drop a note here or on 500px….

Also if you are using a mobile device can you let me know how many steps this really is and if you can see the image easily or at all…. I am going to be doing a write up on sharing outside of G+ for content that is not supported here and need some suggestions from everyone on how best you have found to do it?

Drop your suggestions here…..

I want to take into consideration those who do not want to see nudity and also those who do….

Lux Kassidy by Brent Burzycki
Trying to achieve something a bit different with my photography…..

Comments: 95

  1. Tom Sparks 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    I like art nudes. But I want control of if and when I see them. This forum is too generic for that. I would have to create a circle of people who showed nudes or even racy stuff and NOT follow it most of the time.

    I put up a link to some of my work with implied images today with a note on the type of content. I figured that those who were interested could see it and those who weren't, would not have to un-circle me to stay safe.

  2. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Tom Sparks Can I ask why you need to filter the content? Feel free not to answer .. but I am curious the why behind the why also…..

  3. S. Ray 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Brent Burzycki I for one wish that G+ allowed nude photos. What gets me is how Picasa allows nude photos but G+ is supposedly very strict about it.

  4. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Shawn Ray I do not think Picasa Allows nudes.. where did you see that..?

    This is the TOS I found….

  5. Tom Sparks 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    It is pretty obvious why no nudes on G+. Even with circles, it is too much of a "public" forum. Also, Flickr lets any kind of image and it has become a toilet. Allowing nude images on G+ would kill the social usability and thus the income potential for Google. The PG13 only strategy has proven successful for iTunes.

  6. Tom Sparks 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    Plus, I don't want my 71 year old mom seeing it.

  7. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Tom Sparks See thats actually not totally obvious… but i again do understand it…. I do not want the place with a stream of porn flying by – but I also do not have any issues with seeing quality work as far as photography… or a way to detach a circle from my main stream and let the images fly….

    I guess part of me wants ease of access to find cool new stuff – and the other part needs to separate it from specific circles…

    Lets just say this – even when at work or surrounded by friends I do not care if nude images pop up on my screen.. I know this is very different for many…

    Thus my answer to the 71 yo mom issue…. yes… for many that might need a filter.. but honestly I would not want my 71 yo mom seeing alot more than just nude images posted on G+

  8. Tom Sparks 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Brent Burzycki Sorry, I think my tone sounded rude. I didn't mean it that way.

  9. Tom Sparks 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    I can't have it at work. I would not be working there anymore.

  10. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Tom Sparks ha – even if it was – this is a open forum……

  11. Tom Sparks 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    I like 500px. It shows the images well, the artists are usually more "artful", I can filter if I need to, and it is easy enough to link an image as you did. Because of my community, I am kind of cloak and dagger about showing some of my work and use a pseudonym for my art photography. I have two 500px accounts.

  12. Tom Sparks 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    It is an open forum. I may disagree at times, but I would prefer myself to be respectful.

  13. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Tom Sparks +Matt Hart thanks for the comments and the info….

  14. Michael Hocter 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    On my mobile (Android), I get a page with a black image when I click the link, and I just click the image to see it. Pretty much the same as on my laptop.

  15. Richard Meade 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    Well let's see, if you go to a Public Art Museum they don't have the galleries set up as Nude and non nude galleries. If you come across a nude image in a museum and you don't want to look at it, you move on. Seems simple enough. I would never pander to those who don't want to see nudes. You would end up driving yourself nuts. I have a warning on the opening page of my website, that there are nude images on the website. The viewer has the choice to continue or not.

  16. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Michael Hocter the experience seems to be different based on the phone type or carriers in some cases…..

  17. Jaime April 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    I think that nude are wonderful when done tastefully. Unfortunately, the majority of people that are going to post pictures are not going to be photographers and artists. I really don't mind following the links that people provide to other sites see their work.
    As for your your work +Brent Burzycki , I thought it was lovely for that style. I personally prefer more natural nudes.

  18. Tom Sparks 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    Yes +Richard Meade but that is your website. Places like FB and G+ are public spaces. As for the museum, if an educator was going to take students (children) they would want to know before they entered that it was safe for children. If I go to your website and see your notice and my children are playing in the same room, I can wait and enter later. If you don't give me a heads up, my children could be exposed to material that they are not ready to deal with yet. G+ is a public space.

  19. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Richard Meade its a good point…… to me thou and not the fact I am branching out a bit from glamour work – I am trying to better balance what I show and not… even on my own site is there a reason to post an image like this: as a precursor to a nude images.. as in click and get your nude image…

    To me is the same as a nude image – but clearly if you read the TOS – it might or might not be against the TOS here – solely based on the interpretation of the rules…

    I know she is naked…. I guess I could technically have her wearing something below those labels.. but is implied nudity the same as nudity? and is nudity porn? or adult content?

  20. Joseph Gaffney 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    I think adding "Censored" makes it seem an inappropriate image, like a landing page on a porn site. In its original form, its just an artistic nude. That said, I think that unless there were some way for parents to manage content for their kids, to their own levels and choices (we all have a different opinion of appropriate), I can understand the need to force nudes to appear elsewhere. Such as a site dedicated to photography, where artistic nudes are all part of the greater purpose of the site.

  21. Kevin Beaudoin 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    If we "Censored" Artistic Nudes, are we not saying what we do is in some way Very Inappropriate! I would rather show nothing at all then a "Censored" shot… Just my opinion!

  22. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Jaime April I guess that is the main issue – do people click to go.. I will happily and would love to draw traffic to my own site with my own images – if they are nude or not…..

  23. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Tom Sparks Clearly i do not have children…… and have not had to deal with issues of nudity and children… lets take an image like this one in this post… Is that really going to damage a child in some way if they saw it… I have never really understood that… I am not trying to stir the pot… but yet I am by asking…..

  24. Joseph Gaffney 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Brent Burzycki Thats the problem – I agree with you, but not everyone does. And everyone does have the right to parent how they see fit, whether or not it makes sense to us.

  25. Jaime April 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Brent Burzycki I think if they see your other work here on G+ and how good it is…If you provide links, people who are interested in photography will go. As far as children are concerned…I do not have kids, but I am a teacher, so I understand how this can be a touchy subject. Its really not that racy of a picture, but it is not say National Geographic. Parents have different views on nudity, how much is appropriate, and what kind for their children. Damage from the picture is in the eye of the beholder. I think the issue is that most pictures are not going to look like yours. If they did it would be a very different discussion. A line has to be drawn somewhere. For example, Someone is posting on G+ violent/gross cartoon with nudity. I think that if you can't post your photos, they shouldn't be able to post theirs. Most people are sadly, not going to make things beautiful and tasteful. And for kids…It is VERY hard to control where they go on the Internet and what they see (even at school sometimes! They are very clever) So, it's just simpler to click on a link. I know that's a very long explanation. I hope that makes sense.

  26. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Joseph Gaffney Yes – I agree.. it makes it feel more like "Porn" and the quotes are there for a reason… that said…I have no issues with offsite linking… the question is do people go?

  27. Joseph Gaffney 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Brent Burzycki I think they are more likely to go when they need to follow the link to see anything, as opposed to seeing a censored image. Partially censored kind of ruins the image, as opposed to needing to follow the link. I think curiosity works just as well as a thumbnail.

  28. Richard Meade 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    The problem is with the interpretation. FB doesn't have the ability to distinguish between what is art and what is porn. They lump everything that is nude in to one category and censor it. This is not the correct way to address the issue of art nudes being confused with porn. I think we all can agree that there is a huge difference in the two. As far as children touring a Public Art Muesum, I've never heard of any teacher prescreening a gallery for nude content in the museum. If that was the case, the children would never enter the museum. At least any museum that I know of. The prescreening is BEFORE the child goes to the museum, and that is the parents responsibility. My daughter grew up with and around all the nudes I have taken. They hang in my house and always have. She's now an adult about to get her PhD. She was brought up to appreciate the nude and to respect her own body. I more than likely will post some of my nudes here on Google+, and it will be up to the viewer to decide to look at them or not. As Google+ has stated, Pay attention to 8.4 FINALLY we are treated as Adults able to make our OWN choices! I like this.

    Google + Content in the Services

    8.1 You understand that all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of, the Services are the sole responsibility of the person from which such content originated. All such information is referred to below as the “Content”.

    8.2 You should be aware that Content presented to you as part of the Services, including but not limited to advertisements in the Services and sponsored Content within the Services may be protected by intellectual property rights which are owned by the sponsors or advertisers who provide that Content to Google (or by other persons or companies on their behalf). You may not modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on this Content (either in whole or in part) unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google or by the owners of that Content, in a separate agreement.

    8.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service. For some of the Services, Google may provide tools to filter out explicit sexual content. These tools include the SafeSearch preference settings (see In addition, there are commercially available services and software to limit access to material that you may find objectionable.

    8.4 You understand that by using the Services you may be exposed to Content that you may find offensive, indecent or objectionable and that, in this respect, you use the Services at your own risk.

  29. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Jaime April Rules are made to be perversed into all kinds of things … even right now this happens on G+ – a handful of us worry about posting something possibly innaproprite and in turn others do it daily and continue to ….. I think I will shoot for the driving traffic via G+ to my own site.. sadly the interaction, feedback and commenting is much less for me that way…. well ok we will not use this thread as an example but for a single image it seems to kill commenting… I think people value comments here higher than on a specific site…

  30. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Richard Meade 8.4 You understand that by using the Services you may be exposed to Content that you may find offensive, indecent or objectionable and that, in this respect, you use the Services at your own risk.

    That is a very interesting clause.. and I think its new…. Or I was reading another TOS version at some point…

    It is interesting because I find swearing in a public post way more offensive to me personally than nudity….. if I see a post with F this and F that… and I see multiple posts like that..I tend to just unfollow that person… I guess that is how I am in real life outside G+ also…

    This is a great conversation.. please take a second to re-share this to others you might think have an opinion good or bad…

  31. Mark Bienvenu 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    I like the desaturation on the image. Nicely done.

    Opinions on sharing nude images will vary by location and culture. In America, most people are fine with sharing images of graphic violence, sickness, death, or any other form of tragedy, but are strangely appalled at images of nudity.

  32. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Mark Bienvenu yeh go figure…… I run a website (fan based) about a cartoon rock band that literally 100's die in horrible bloody ways on every episode…..

    Yet – nudity ….. thats a problem…. neither is offensive to me per say – i just move on or switch the channel…

  33. Richard Meade 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    Brent, actually what I quoted from Google+ has been up since the beginning and is one reason many people have started to migrate to google+. On FB adults were consigned to posting on FB as to what some child might see. I have always had a problem living my life to the dictates of what a child might see. This is an adult world and most kids today know where and how to find porn on the internet and aren't the least bit interested in my black and white nudes. If they want to see two people having sex, they will find it on the internet if they haven't already. I'm very anti-censorship and I refuse to live my life or not show my work for fear someone else's kid may see it. The responsibility lies with the parents to prevent their child from seeing what they don't want their child to see, it doesn't lie with me.

  34. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Richard Meade yes it truly does become a parenting issue vs. a self censorship issue….. I can agree to that….. I would say there are no images from people I can following that I would not openly show to my kids if I had any…… I would rather have them exposed to it and able to discuss it than to not and try to hide it…..

    I hate to say it but if we removed porn, nude images etc this world would be very different… I would think suicide rates would go up and perscriptions for anti depressants would go up…

    It is hard to say how people blow off steam.. but I know one way……

  35. Humans are the only living thing on this planet that feel the need to cover themselves to protect them from shame

    We are talking about pictures and photos of people in the purist form not hard core pornography,

  36. Jaime April 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    I agree with everyone's points. Something to think about…When FB came out it was a shift from MySpace as far as the types of pictures that could be posted. Photographers were not the people posting the photos. I think that G+ is a good balance. Hopefully, it will stay that way.
    I do think it is sad that that this all is just about nudity, basically. I think violent pictures can be much more harmful.

  37. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Jaime April yes… they can be…. but then again violent photos can also be very educational and life changing… how to censor for anything is so personal it seems….

    +Andrew Namiki Roberts I know I cover myself to protect from sharp poky things and the out of control doors… who knows what could get caught in those things….and my days are hard enough already……. 🙂 That is the core issue thou – self policing of what is posted.. I know I can do it but I cannot speak to others…

    I have all sorts of work – from tame to very sexual and racy… I know I I limit myself all the time from posting some of it… or even showing it to friends… thou they do seem to ask a lot.. and want to be my photo assistant… so they must not hate it….

  38. Elizabeth Hahn 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Brent Burzycki I would have no problem clicking on a link to see your work. It's beautiful. I don't have children either, but I can certainly respect parent's wanting a way to limit their children's exposure to nudity. Whether it be kids getting on the internet themselves, or just standing behind Mom or Dad while they are on G+. The same goes for folks at work, I don't think it would be appropriate for a work environment.

  39. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +elizabeth hahn matters the work environment thou – I would not care at work…. now would any of my employees.. and bear in mind photos are not my line of work…..

    That said this image in this just became my highest rated work on 500px that I have ever had….. 91.5 at this time… so either the conversation here caused that or the nudity in the shot… it would be very interesting to actually know…

  40. Elizabeth Hahn 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Brent Burzycki True, work places differ, maybe I should have said "most"? I do like the way you have it set up, that you have to click to see. I would hate to see you (or other art photographers) lose followers because of well done nude shots showing up in their stream at inappropriate (for them) times.

  41. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +elizabeth hahn that is my biggest issue.. losing possible followers, clients etc…. based on difficulty of seeing what they want to or do not want to see… from landscapes to nudes……etc….

  42. Elizabeth Hahn 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Brent Burzycki I think the way you posted this one was perfect. Those interested will click through (I would think) and those not can move on and wait until your next landscape or something more to their liking. I'm guessing but I would think you would lose more followers because of a nude at a bad time then having to click once or twice.

  43. meh

  44. Tom Sparks 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    Okay, which of the 10 commandments is more grievous to break? Thou shalt not kill or Thou shalt not commit adultery?

  45. Tom Sparks 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    With that said, I am a school teacher. I know how some parents don't care enough about their kids to even notice what they do. Others pick at EVERYTHING. Where I live a teacher could catch hell from a parent because their child saw a Rodin sculpture. I caught hell for showing a PBS documentary about musical theater, hosted by Julie Andrews because one parent deemed it inappropriate.

    To answer the question about click-throughs. I prefer them. I'd like people to go to my site once in a while. I click links to photos here. I see G+ as a social site that is good for showing photos, not a website that is good for being social. The bulk of my content will remain on my sites.

  46. David Quinalty 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    I like the way 500px does it: they just have a check box that asks if you want to show nudes or not. Simple and elegant solution. I don't see why something like that couldn't be implemented for G+.

  47. Tom Sparks 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    That would work for me as well. Especially if the browser remembered the preference. Safe at work, enjoyable at home.

  48. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Tom Sparks +David Quinalty I will not even go into the possibly implications with 2257 –—-000-.html – thats another huge load of problems….

    +Tom Sparks I know these communities you speak of….. I will not voice an opinion, but I also know people could be much better parents if they stopped worrying about crazy stuff and spent time with their kids…

    +Susan Barrett Price ?? – Interesting comment…. don;t care or tired of seeing this conversation?

  49. David Quinalty 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    Sec. 2257? What does that have to do with G+ offering a simple toggle for showing nudity or not?

  50. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +David Quinalty in addition too…. because technically anything posted here that would be nude would need proof that it meets 2257 – Google allowing for nudes would put them on that wheel of liability….I am not a lawyer… and do not even play one on TV – but our society makes nudity very complicated….and thus why every service on Google has a clause for no nudity…. at least I assume this is part of it along with advertisers do not like nudity…

  51. Brian Covey 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    Good subject. Could be debated forever.
    Personally, in general, as an adult I'm getting pretty damn tired of my world being managed "for the sake of the children". Are there not adult places in this world where I can be myself without being concerned for your kid?
    One of the things I like very much about G+ is that it tends to be populated by ADULTS. Or at least by people who act like adults. I should be able to follow an adult poster who posts adult images if I so desire.
    I think there is a HUGE amount of hypocrisy around this subject. Porn is arguably the nets most popular subject and yet it is relegated to the back pages and is viewed only in private, subject to a great many pitfalls due to the fact that it is not seen as "legit" and therefore is open to a great many abuses like mallware attacks and such.
    These images that you are posting are artistic and adult. What in the world could possibly be wrong with that? Why are you forced to be careful, possibly subjected to draconian laws?
    If you don't want your child to see adult things then keep him out of the adult world, but leave my adult world to me and quit making rules for me, for the sake of your child

    Yeah, I've had that on my chest for a while! <grin>

  52. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Brian Covey so in the end we need choices and not rules….

  53. Beau Kahler 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    Great shot Brent! Wish I had models to shoot 🙁

  54. David Quinalty 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    I don't think Google would bear any 2257 responsibilities. Subparagraph (B) of Sec. 2257(h)(2) would seem to indemnify them from any age verification requirements. (I'm not a lawyer either, but I DO play one on TV.) If my interpretation is wrong, then Yahoo is at MASSIVE risk because Flickr is rife with sexually explicit content. But, I think because Flickr continues to allow explicit content is a clear point in favor of my interpretation of 2257.

    What I think is more important behind Google's stance on nudity is the advertising aspect. At the end of the day, Google isn't an Internet search company, they're not an Internet services company, they're not a social networking company, and until recently they weren't a mobile phone company. What they are, and always have been, is an advertising company. And, like you said, advertisers don't like nudity. Google's never gonna charge for G+, just like Facebook won't. Both rely nearly 100% on ad dollars to exist. This isn't the case for sites like Flickr or 500px.

    Getting back to your original question, however, I like the composition and pose of your photo at lot (love how the fabric frames her and gives nice lines to the image), but I'm not a fan of the super soft contrast and light and focus and what not. The mood feels like bad 1980's boudoir shots. But, really that's more a statement of my taste than a criticism of the technical nature of the shot.

  55. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +David Quinalty I think the only reason flickr is still around is because of limited policing of nudity…. this 2257 issue is very interesting…. take a porn site that uses someone elses content… or affiliate links to link to content – that content needs to be hosted on the sites that owns the 2257 related information. IE: If I own the shots it needs to be hosted on my site…. This is an issue if you are google as far as I see it….

    +Beau Kahler why no models? I am totally model limited also in my area…. it is one of the hardest parts of my equation…

  56. Beau Kahler 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    idk.. never shot one before.. don't have a studio. girls might get creeped out, idk.

  57. David Quinalty 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    But that's not an accurate interpretation of 2257. 2257 explicitly excludes hosting services from having to maintain 2257 records. "[T]he transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of the communication…" shall not be construed as being the same as "producing" sexually explicit content.

    I.e., you'd have to maintain 2257 records for the photos you take, but if you upload to google or flickr or 500px, those sites are just storing and hosting your photos and bear no responsibility for record keeping. Similarly, a porn site using someone else's content doesn't have to store those records, nor an affiliate link.

  58. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Beau Kahler never let not having a studio stop you… I have never had a studio.. I am simply 100% up front with the model… here is where I shoot – here are my referals, are you ok with that.. here is the model release, so you can look it over, here is the scope of the shoot…here is what is expected… as you see and know I shoot nude images, I make it crystal clear before the model ever arrives and in many cases make her sign the model agreement …. not the release but the agreement or scope of work….

  59. Beau Kahler 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    yeah, i need to try that.

  60. Jacy JoyPals 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    Sorry, IMHO, it will kill G+ and already killing 500pix.

  61. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +David Quinalty hmmm.. I wonder if its changed in the recent few years… I really looked into if a few years ago…. and it seemed much more against everyone to include the host….I do know that to get approval for visa processing on an adult site – the content, URL and many other aspects need to be held, owned or controlled by the same person….

    It's a complex question…….

  62. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Jacy JoyPals why? why do you feel that? Personal? Religious? Why would images you can pass over or filter ruin an entire site….?

  63. Brent Burzycki 27 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Beau Kahler with some of the wide angle stuff you shoot.. you could do some really cool skater girl shoots or punk, suicide girls style stuff….

  64. Richard Meade 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    If you don't like nudes, maybe moving to a middle east country might help or joining a religious organization that dictates your every thought and action. Other than that, learn to appreciate freedom of choice, because once you give someone else the choice to decide what you see, read or listen to, your freedom is lost. I'm very tired of prudes who want everything to be their way. And if your surfing the net while on the job? Then you're not doing your job.

  65. Zoe Wiseman 28 Aug 2011 Reply stop it. so many children end up at my gallery shows. I don't want to hear about censoring art, in any way.

  66. Danny Alex 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    I love nude girls, ero pictures, just try to not post something more explicit :p

  67. Brent Burzycki 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Richard Meade that might be slightly overstated about surfing the internet at work… but point taken..

    +Zoe Wiseman thats a funny photo….. something is going through the kids mind.. pretty sure it has nothing to do with photos….or their content…

  68. Brent Burzycki 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    So lets get a quick vote:

    Left Photo or Right photo is more offensive to you personally?

  69. Elizabeth Hahn 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    Probably the left (unless it was to make a point like you are here, then I would find it funny) If the censored boxes are there because I chose a setting that blocked nudity then I am fine with it. I think I'm more concerned about having the choice when and where I see nudity. I don't want it all over my google stream, but if I CHOOSE to see it, I should be able to. Basically as long as no one is hurt in the making of the photo, shoot what you want.

  70. David Quinalty 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    Agree with +elizabeth hahn.

  71. Richard Meade 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    Well the "censored" boxes makes for better titillation and a feeling of naughtiness, but I sure as hell wouldn't use it on any of my photos. I think what is at issue is weather the photograph is meant to titillate or is an example of light falling on a nude body. It's one of the reasons I rarely shoot nudes in color. Color images we can Identify with as something with a prurient nature. Where as, black and white has a more abstract aspect to it. Just one man's opinion.

  72. Brent Burzycki 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    +David Quinalty +elizabeth hahn

    Thanks… so what we really need is not facial recognition – we need boobie recognition…. or a junk detector….

  73. Brent Burzycki 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Richard Meade So then this image would be a totally different experience than a color image for you?

  74. Richard Meade 28 Aug 2011 Reply


  75. Zoe Wiseman 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    Thing about nudity and social networks, when people start flooding them with glamour nudes that would be seen in Playboy as opposed to a gallery or museum wall the 'management' has to paint all nudity with a broad brush. Let's face it, what you're showing us is a Playboy nude – beautiful no doubt. But, people trying to show their art get censored. If you look at my page and scroll down a bit you'll see one of my images that was deleted from Facebook of a models legs. So, I get really irritated when my work is treated like they treat porn or glam nudes. My work is not that.

  76. Elizabeth Hahn 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Brent Burzycki lmao @ boobie recognition.. I wonder if all artists could agree on a rating system – and use it? One person's art is another's porn – maybe it could be similar to the movie rating system? If boobies are showing it's R, etc? People could pick and chose what level they are comfortable viewing.

  77. Brent Burzycki 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    +elizabeth hahn Yep – I would slide mine to XXX and just click past the stuff I am not interested in…. but Yes… thou many magazines I see on newsstands – as in main stream stuff has more nudity than most of the stuff I shoot… Do pasties and a micro thong = ok to post or is that rated as nudity? I know cities – especially in beach communities that actually have a % of material in their local laws… as in in that bikini is less than 5 % you get arrested for indecent exposure… that is something every person should be able to determine on their own.. our country would be a very different place…. Maybe I should be a burning man I heard everyone is naked there…

    +Richard Meade See I find that interesting as simply to me this image as a B&W is in some ways much more sexual than the color version…..

    +Zoe Wiseman I did see your post about that…… thats Facebook grouping the image as you state…

    See this is where I have to be honest and thou I totally respect art nude images they effect me in a totally different way than lets say the stuff I shoot… I will not lie – I shoot stuff meant to tantalize, illicit emotion (that emotion is usually sexual) and I would happily shoot for Playboy or other similiar mags – even thou most of those images tend to bore me since they have very little creativity…

    The interesting part about your image (and do not take this as a bad thing) but its just a butt and legs to me.. it does not illicit any real emotion for me.. maybe I am sort of dead in that department based on my exposure to the stuff I tend to shoot… maybe it is something else…

    I have to say it does sort of bother me (not in a bad way per say) but I am trying to be different than playboy (as in my overall goal) the fact you think and group it as that means I have still not attained that….

    I have a friend here +mark daughn he shoots what I would say is very artistic nude work… as in he uses makeup, light, mood and story to obtain his images and make them thus much more creative than what playboy would ever do… if you get a chance take a look at his work and see if you would also group that into a "playboy" grouping..

    I am interested because you are actively shooting "Art Nude" work.. ie: B&W shape and form work…..

  78. Zoe Wiseman 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    I don't take it the wrong way at all. I'm trying NOT to illicit a sexual response. It's a DESIGN using a body. That's all.

    I thought the photo you showed was quite Playboyish. I've seen thousands of images in their magazines like it. And it is quite sexy. And that's not derogatory – sexy is awesome.

    I'll check out your friend when I am off my phone.

  79. Zoe Wiseman 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    Ah. Saw it. Its Pinup. Not fine art. More intelligent than Playboy – but not as good as Vargas.

  80. Richard Meade 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    Just curious what do you think of my post of July 13th?

  81. Brent Burzycki 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Richard Meade I assume you mean this post… there were a few on that day:

    Hopefully you want my honest answer – because that's all I ever give to people – sometimes people like the answer other times they want to hit me with stuff – either way I know I gave them what I honestly think vs. some pile of made up crap to appease them:

    Honestly it confuses me a bit… I see a girl with a nice body and shape yet I am not quite sure what the object is she is posed with… I think this might be a personal defect.. I see images like this and think to myself.. hmm – well ok…. is there a story? etc.. The most common ones I see are naked girl – posed on big cool looking rock… with some semi interesting lighting… Ok why is she there… brain hurts cannot compute…. I have always tried to rationalize meaning into things.. maybe its me being a guy, maybe its the way i am wired…. I want something with a story yet I need a possible end to the story also….I am also jaded by my photo background so I look at things that you might not want me to in telling your story or portraying your vision for the image…

    In this my mind says.. background paper – Naked girl – hey nice body – decent lighting but sort of flat for my taste…. cool contrasts thou..very dark background, white whites and she is in the middle… Is she saddened by the fact her background paper is wrinkled?

    This sadly is why I have never understood figure studies or Fine Art nude work…. and I know its hard to do well and I know I would not try it because I am pretty sure I would suck at it… just like shooting a wedding – There are some things I should not do… I could pull it off I am sure… but it would not bring me and personal satisfaction….

    Asking me what I think can always get you an answer – thou it might not always be what you want…. 🙂

    +Zoe Wiseman definitions of photography have always perplexed me a bit… Glamour – Fine Art – Nude – Pinup – there are so many grey lines…

  82. Landon Dacus 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    Nudes always seem to be hinting to seduction and have this feeling of intimacy, or they are weird and easy, or they are too physically technical. I am sure it is mostly what is mainstream enough out there for me to get my sweaty hands on… lol.
    I think that photo is beautiful on that intimate side.
    Also to your question, I love nudes, but what I would love more is a photo that uses the body without making me feel like a voyeur.. if that makes sense!? Share away!

  83. Zoe Wiseman 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    Having studied the nude and been a model for as long as I was – definitions come quite easy to me. Yeah, there are grey lines – but most of the time there aren't. Has a lit to do with culture, geographic's and perception.

    Some may think that a Tuscan villa is unique architecture but Ed Niles would disagree.

  84. Brent Burzycki 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Zoe Wiseman 🙂

  85. Jonathan Liles 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Brent Burzycki I really can't find anything to complain about with the image linked to on 500px. I've never been nuts about the bloom effect, but I can't deny that it's a beautiful and captivating image. Oh well, better luck next time!

  86. Jonathan Liles 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    And as to sharing nude images, I think 500px does it right. No hoops to jump through. Either see 'Nude Content' until you click the thumbnail or click a checkbox to show nude thumbnails. And best of all: no kittens.

  87. Richard Meade 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    So I gather that you see a story in an Ansel Adams photograph? Even if there were a story, it wouldn't be the story you or I see or Ansel saw. We bring to any work of art all our influences, teachings, prejudices and personal history. NONE of which exists in the work of art. The difference in how you photograph a nude and how I photograph a nude is obvious. Where as you want the viewer to fixate on the naked female body in an enticing seductive manner, I prefer to deal with the whole gestalt of the image. When I look at a good black and white nude, my first reaction isn't that the woman or male is nude, its what the image conveys as a complete object. I guess the difference in how you work and I work is that I'm juxtaposing two different objects, in my photograph you referenced, and in doing so, hopefully creating a new object that didn't exist before. You on the other hand just want to represent what is in front of your camera. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your approach, its just different than how I approach making a photograph. Your photograph may end up in a magazine and you get paid well for it. Mine might end up in a collection of someone who only collects black and white photographs. But I'm sure you understand why I wouldn't place any "censored" box over any of my photographs. Wouldn't make much sense now would it? This has been a good discussion and whatever you decide in how you deal with your images, best of luck to you in the future.

  88. Zoe Wiseman 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    The censor box for artists HURTS collectibility.

  89. Brent Burzycki 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Richard Meade thanks… and to you yours also….. more than likely I will never make more than I spend with my images… heck I would be happy to pay for my toys….and the models i use…. I think my biggest worry as I move more into refining my work is that it will become work and will no longer be what I use it for now… relaxation….

    You make great points…. I really do none of that with my images…. I think about composition but not juxtaposition.. I like about solely trying to make the center piece of attention (the model) look her best in hopefully some way that is not the same as every other image she has… I try to strive for a shoot that ends in both me and the model very happy with the results…..

    Add to this the lack of time, money and ability to pre-plan shoots as I know they should and I limit my ability to produce the true images I think and know I could make…..

    Balancing all these aspects is one of the hardest things I face in the work I do… and honestly in my life in general…

  90. Jaime April 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    Left photo is distracting and annoying. It graphics make it look cheap. Neither is truly offensive.

  91. Jus Vun 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    hi +Brent Burzycki i have also recently uploaded nudes but was not allowed under G+ policy . i think theyll hopefully bring a feature that will allow us to do so in future. for now, theres a fine line i guess that we have to tiptoe around. so i upload only discreet nudes or silhouettes 😉

  92. Brent Burzycki 28 Aug 2011 Reply

    +Kevin Beaudoin you had posted an image the other day – nude i think – was it removed? I had bookmarked the link and now its gone?

  93. k spoon 29 Sep 2011 Reply

    love it!

  94. Ronnie Fraizer 9 Apr 2014 Reply


  95. Hatsune Miku 12 Jul 2014 Reply

    if i post a really rude pic will i get blocked 

Leave a Comment!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *