Photographer's Request for Critique

Calling it a hamburger would have been a lie...

This is so disturbing....i am so speachless. Ah, ok, i know... this is art. What is next, pennis in a hot-dog?

KILLER!

Very funny! When is the taco coming?

Way too funny.

I know I shouldn't add anything but...............what about the secret sauce? Sorry, I'm leaving now.

And yes, it's pretty tasteless.

Your macro work is amazing...DOF astounding...lighting is perfect...your imagination is twisted...all the elements that make you a great photographer... Martin...What kind of stylist do you employ? food or what? Craaaazy!

That stupid little ditty, "You deserve a break today," keeps running through my mind, but the image that used to accompany it has been changed forever. And in fairness to the competition, they might wish to change their name to "Burger Queen."

Is that to have here or take away?

The two all-beef patties are nice and I am glad that you skipped the cheese and the special sauce.

I'm going to McDonald's :)

Martin I'm a true fan of yours. This couldn't be more original, aesthetic (ok she's not shaved perfectly) and it's technically excellent (lighting etc). Yummy!

Le Royale with Cheesse . . . ;^)

. . . David McCracken didn't think of this first!

Good enough to eat. Well done... or it is medium rare.

Great work, love it. 7/7

:)))

Seriously though- the time you spent to make this image work shows. What could have been done poorly was done tech excellent and thats what truly makes this image. Very well done.

very original and tastefully done

But I'm still cracking up. And it is very well executed.

I?m going to McDonals too... :)))

Excelent !!

Is this the secret of their success ?

. . . David McCracken didn't think of this first!

You may have missed the famous Mcdonald's tea bag :)

In lack of better words..

How can something so wrong be so right?

Hold the pickle, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us, all we asks is that you let us SERVE IT YOUR WAY! "Ahhhh, yes, I'll take one HAPPY MEAL!" Is that it sir? "Yes, make sure I get the TOY with that!" OK, Thank you...drive through please!

Would you like an apple pie with that...

Where's the beef?

Only question is - does it come with fries and coke?

This is the true hamburger , congratulation

Very funny idea... :) where is the place selling this hot burger, sir?

This site makes me cry. Camel toe chessburger on TRP... Yes! That`s it!

Great imagination and courage to take on what some might consider disturbing "art". I love it.

So photonet has finally become a porn site...indeed, a very perverted one.

Tell me again why this is NOT pornographic?

I had just recommended photonet to my son's digital photography class. And this pops up as the 'top photo'.

Really inexcusable.

...............

interesting... I mean, you are a very lucky man having a model that lets you do such things with her body;) Can be seen as "interesting", but apart the comic part into it after a while it remains the poor use that is being done universally of the female image... keep it without offense of course. bests, mkb

Nice idea, always better if served fresh!!!

:-D Will you take another some photographs but with the subject already expired? hmmm, how about 70-80 years old expired... Hahaha, asi nebudes mit zajem kdyz fotit stary burger...

I like it, definitely caught my eye, but then I've got an eye for these things :)

I suppose if it's offending some people you've struck a nerve, personally to me it looks more like a burger and less like anything else it may be.

exelente iluminacion.

Of COURSE not all nudity is porn.

This, for example, is nudity that IS porn.

Here's a simple litmus test...

Given that this is an open source and NOT FLAGGED web site, would you be OK with a 14 year old seeing THIS picture while going to the public library, doing homework for a digital photography class, checking on some good sources to learn from, entering PHOTO.NET, clicking on 'TOP PHOTOS'...and seeing this as the FIRST ENTRY?

Get real... it is a CLEVER photo, but it's porn and doesn't belong here.

Chip, I see your point. Believe me, I do. The debate of whether if this is porn or not is...well up for debate. Personally, I think this type of photo is inappropriate for this site too and a few weeks ago it may have been removed, however, Philip Greenspun has posted a new Terms of Use for this site that allows pretty much anything. My fear is that more and more images like this will dominate the pages here and this site will no longer be known as a photography site, but rather a site that anyone can get acess to to get a cheap thrill.

Give me a break. You can rant all you want about how this is porn, but there's a quadrillion other examples of nudity on this site that would then take the same label you're giving this one. What is porn?

To me porn is low grade imagery that is tasteless with few redeeming qualities, to say it off the cuff. This image is not that. It's creative, appetizing, humourous, and well shot. To a 14 year old it's probably not even clear what it is unless they've been reading porn magazines in the first place.

If the photographer were aiming to create the best porn shot of all time, I doubt they'd have spent the time sticking sesame seeds to a shaved beaver and stuffing it with condements. Give them a little credit.

In the public library there's a lot of nude images to be found, in art books for starters, and the kids surfing this site will probably find it boring if they're looking for naked women and smut, which they can find anywhere else on the net anyways.

Personally, I find the nude images on this site to be quite inspiring from a photography standpoint. I don't see many (if any) of them as porn.

Even if this shot weren't #1, there'd have been a boatload of other images not suitable for 14-year-olds, so perhaps it's best to either educate kids on the artistic qualities of these shots, or bar them from seeing them until they turn 18.

Touchy subject, but let's face it, kids can find far worse very easily, at least this image looks like a burger :)

Ty se odvazujes, Martine, Very daring image, I was always wondering how the Czech burger would be like... cheers Jana

Here's why this photo is PORN...and not mere 'nudity'

a) IT CONCENTRATES SOLELY AND SINGULARLY on a sexual organ, with intent to excite. We have several comments already that testify to that 'interpretation';

b) it presents said sexual organ in a way that is neither meant as 'artistic' nor 'medical', but as a sexual organ stuffed and covered with food, said food commonly eaten.

c) this is the type of photo expected and apparently commonly seen on porn web sites. Ergo, people go to PORN web sites with the expectation of seeing photos such as these, whereas mere 'nudity' for artistic reasons is apparently extraordinarily rare on porn sites.

d) in many countries you can be imprisoned for life for viewing such photos; you may be tortured; ostracized; and so on. This, in general, is not true for almost all 'nudity' shots.

Again, this photo is not worth the risk to young minds and viewers overseas to justify its inclusion here, IMO, without some type of screen to gate it.

I have no problem with the photo as a photo. I have a major problem with the photo as a super-easy-to find-and-see open source image.

Do those who take righteous indignation to this---so you have kids? Do you want THEM to see this while doing homework?

"Even if this shot weren't #1, there'd have been a boatload of other images not suitable for 14-year-olds, so perhaps it's best to either educate kids on the artistic qualities of these shots, or bar them from seeing them until they turn 18." -------------------------------------------

The first comment is, IMO, fatuous.

The second only proves my point; here's the sequence:

-- www.photo.net

-- TOP PHOTOS

-- INSTANT PORNOGRAPHY

How would you suggest I bar my 14 year old from seeing this? Ban him from photo.net? Should TOP PHOTOS be disclaimed as 'XXX adult material'? If so, where is that disclaimer?

It all depends on where you draw the line with porn, and that is a line that is impossible to agree on. My problem with this image is how it got such high ratings; sure it's funny and maybe original, but in my opinion, there are loads of images that are far more deserving of this position of ratings. The long and short of it is; if you want high ratings, include a vagina, ass or tits and you will get high ratings, stick grass in the ass and it will become fine art with the title "YOUR ASS IS GRASS"

Oh... and if you do it with good lighting, you get double 7s.

Hey Chip, fair comments, I can see where you're coming from.

That said, in the first few pages of top photos you can find full beaver shots, guys laying around with their units hanging out, you name it. Some photos that have received far less objections are set up so that the organs are the _only_ things in focus in the shot. I don't them overly offensive, same with this one.

There's no right or wrong on this one, but I still don't see how this image is any worse than many others on the site.

It's too bad this is happening to Photo.net. PhotoSIG has already gone this way.... It's a well done photo but I don't think it's appropriate here. Especially since there isn't the rating system to lock mature photos from viewing by minors like PhotoSIG has.

sigh...

do you think this will make photo of the week?

Chip, you've made some excellent points regarding your porn argument. I do however, disagree with your reason why you find this material inappropriate for this site. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're objecting soley because of potential younger viewers having access to images like this. Well, the internet is full of these types images and sites that host these images that do not have measures to stop children from visiting and viewing. My objection to these types of images on this site is the simple fact that it seems inappropriate for this site regardless of age. This is a photography site that caters to photographers, or at least it was once. The sad truth is, it's starting to cater to a circus of no holds barred, whatever goes. As Jonathan Farmer stated above, a hint of breasts, ass, and a toppings filled vagina will yield high rates. Why? Because young men are rating these photos with their hormones. If this trend continues and we start to see more and more questionable material on the TRP, it will only turn this once well respected photography website into a pornography website.

It will make photo of the week if the raters continue to give it double 7s which is a joke. As I said earlier, it's a funny picture which is I suppose fairly original, but to be getting the ratings it has is unfair to other photographs that are really deserving. IMO it can get double 6s as a joke, but that's all.

I apologize if I didn't clarify sufficiently.

I don't care WHAT's on the web site. I DO care if PORN is super-available without some sort of SCREEN, which is what happens with this shot.

BTW, full frontal nudity is just that--its not porn.

This is porn.

As I said, I think its clever. But I am a 51 year old photographer, the 'subject' is not new to me. Frankly I find it physiologically aberrant and a good reason to be vegan.

I don't want someone to get thrown in jail because they inadvertantly clicked on it.And I don't want kids to see it. Why should you?

http://tmbo.org/offensive/images/picpile/%5BNSFW%5D%5BTIAR%5DSammich.jpg and so on...

Although this is not porn and yes, it is clever, I do find it disgusting.

Richard,

I'm not going to debate whether or not this image is porn, but just out of curiosity, why do you feel this is not porn and the images from the link you referenced is porn?

Will, I am with you on this one. I wonder what women on this site think of this image? Would this kind of gross representation offend them? Over the next few weeks i am going to be uploading a BLACK SQUARE with a RED dot in the middle. Titled: Enjoy the Nude. Please join me, do the same and if people ask you why you can tell them to do the same. This is to protest what i have realized lately. Wanna get high ratings? show some meat. Wanna be on the TRP everytime show some flesh. Case in point this image. I love this site, it is been a tool to learn and grow as a photographer. For the last few months, nudes have dominated almost every page on the TPR, It is almost impossible to look at the first pages without seeing four, five nudes, day in day out, week in week out. Think and act before it is too late.

You know everyone is so quick to judge an image based on what fits in their own individual ideals and there is nothing wrong with that, but why should you get to dictate what is available to view on Photo.net. I agree that there are some photos on here that I would rather not see, but I'm not going to demand that no one else sees it either because it is possible another artist may appreciate it, while I can not. This photo may fall into that category for some of you. I can appreciate it for it's originality if nothing else.

Someone wanted to know what a woman's reation would be to this shot. I showed my wife and she thought it was rather clever and was genuinely amused. Other posters have asked what would happen if a child saw this image. While I didn't show this image to my own daughter, I'm relatively certain that she would have no clue as to what it is a photo of. This is an abstract shot. It is one person's artistic vision. Is it the best photograph ever, no, but it is unique. Certainly as photographic artists you can appreciate the photographer's vision and admire his willingness to push the envelope?

Black Square, Red Dot! Simple.

Hi Larry,

I am actually happy that Dr. Greenspun is back and I wish him well.

Curiously, I DID have a copyright issue with PN, but it was under Brian Mottershead's tenure, and is still a dispute I consider actionable, albeit for not much longer, given the extant statutes. The fact that Phil is back is sufficient for me to decide to drop the dispute. You may, if you wish, describe that as an 'evanescence of potential exposure'. Of course, ultimately judges and juries decide these things, but IMO it was valid and worth pursuing. Now a non-issue. Joy!

In other words, you may find it curiously refreshing that Dr. G's presence has added some immediate perceived value to the enterprise, as opposed to stripping it.

I DO wish Phil would be less willing to allow porn on the site. There was a golden period in 2003, albeit short-lived, when PN functioned in a unique pedagogic and artist role. Now it, IMO, is tending towards the unsavory side. Indeed, I recommended **today** that the students I know NOT use PN for the duration--I hope my recommendation will change when the commensurate gates kick in.

I've learned a lot in the last few years--after 40 years of photography I went 'pro' a few years back; had a pic in the LS Times a couple of weeks back, for example. But I LIKE how PG made PN and I hope he will understand the sum is far more a tradition than it's parts.

I AM annoyed with his (and his colleagues) helicopter flying though--that darned R44 buzzes my work place enough times to be truly annoying.

Phil. Stop it. Stay away from the bike path, OK? It makes me think you are a G-man.;-)

With PG back, I decided to subscribe.

Ka-CHINGGG!

Hey Larry--

Would you like a FREE sub to PN? I feel generous this evening, and am always of the philosophy that the most practical changes come from within.

BLACK SQUARE RED DOT is my and your way of saying enough is enough. Imagine the message that WE all can send if one thousand BLACK SQUARE RED DOTS appear regularly? Upload it as often as you can and title it NUDE. Check my name and you will find it. One nude is great, two is good, three is ok, but when quantity and quality are both disproportionate to the rest of the other categoties, those who are putting them and those who are rating in hope that they get to the TRP are making a mockery of what we ALL want to do here: share and learn about photography in a professional and FAIR platform. Your precious time is been wated; your talent obscured and your photos do not stand a chance to get the attention nor the recognition that they deserve. Remember: BLACK SQUARE RED DOT is your way of saying something have to be done soon so that ALL photographers (not just Nudes) have a FAIR opportunity to display their talent.

This pix is rather a boring, simple macro shot of a boring subject matter. It seems there's a lot of lonely amateur photogs on this site who have been rating any (good or bad) "naked girls" pixs with a high score. The group is like little snot-nosed boys clamouring to see pixs of naked girls. And kudos and loud cheers to the one who got the girl to pose naked for the shot. Sad.

Good nude photography can be elegant, artistic, and powerful. Don't ruin it.

Hi Richard--

Do you have kids, and if they had access on a public library computer, would you want them to stumble on this photo so easily?

And, Richard, we already have evidence from the early posts that this image was 'exciting', and thus pornography. So please: stop the denial.

There are a number of shots that focus on this 'subject' artistically and abstractly that are not pornographic. This is not one of them.

Maybe this will help.

I asked a hardcopy editor today when shots of, well, 'organs' would be publishable as non-pornographic. He said they're not if: "no insertin', no touchin', or no drippin'". This crude definition seems pretty universal.

Ergo this is porn. Kindly don't ask me how one arrives at this via the folksy definition. Don't let me think you are totally in denial.

Can we screen this. PLEASE? It just doesn't belong in an open source photo site with under age-access and overseas users.

If my 14 year old grandson was masturbating while looking at it, it might be porn! Right?

Is porn bad? That's not the question. You see, porn to one person is NOT porn to another. Put it on an adult site and it might not be porn - or it might be. This site is used by many in our school systems here in the USA. However, over the last 2-3 years many school librarians have now made the site unavailable. Does photography, in general, win on this one? I think not.

Exactly.

Can we PLEASE have a SCREEN on this?

Wow, I read this all and I'm amazed. Well, not really. Not to turn this into a political discussion, but, really, c'mon now. People wake up!!! If this is porn - I'm Suddam Hussein. I love this often used in many situations excuse - "but what about the children?" If you don't know by now - you are in denial. Children know way more than you think, and they learn it - in school. Yes. Thats right. This would be so boring to them, I'm sure they wouldn't even stop to look at this photo. Yet - YOU DID. I also like another one - "but what about all "those" countries, where they kill you for looking at this sort of photos?" Don't make me laugh and gag at the same time. Maybe they can worry about that themselves? What do you think? I know, it's a problem in this country - we have to worry about someone else's business. Here is an idea - worry about yours. You don't like it - don't take photos as such. Don't look at them. Don't like your kids looking at it - don't let them. Don't try to tell the world that YOUR way is THE WAY. Because it's not. Some people need to learn to be openminded. And they also like to blame others. Oh, poor you - they don't have warning. If it did - THAT would make your kids look at it. Not the other way around. THIS is a site where people express themselves via photography. LET THEM. You don't like it - make a better photo. Pornography-shmornography. Some people need to start taking more photos and spend less time being judgemental. Thats why we don't have anymore freedom in this country - cause people think this way. What's your next argument?: What would Jesus say? lol

You said: "Maybe this will help. I asked a hardcopy editor today when shots of, well, 'organs' would be publishable as non-pornographic. He said they're not if: "no insertin', no touchin', or no drippin'". This crude definition seems pretty universal. "

So, when you have a photo of a woman breastfeeding - there is an insersion, nipple, mouth, - hense - PORN?

I guess it's only bugs and flowers here on PN from now on, right?

Sincerely, I do not care.

But what bothers me is that a tasteless photo like this is on the first page on TRP. I`m sick to see boobs, asses and... recently vaginas rated so high! Let`s give meat a 7/7 in the name of liberty. Bullshit!

The funny thing is that porn, if that`s all about doesn`t bother me at all, but porny nudes, vagina/penis close-ups etc on photo.net really drive me mad. When I first visited photo.net, 10 months ago or so, there were nudes, but not such things like this. The next thing we will see on photo.net is a sexual act or a masturbation act. Well, then will be the end of photo.net. Let`s avoid this! In this purpose I will participate at the "Black Square - Red Dot" campain. Feel free to do so. "Feel free to say no" to the trend!

Or at least, photo.net should consider making a new category, "Genitals", cause "Nudes" category is unsufficient nowadays.

Hi George,

I didn't say 'WARNING', I said 'SCREEN'.

This image is porn and should be SCREENED from PN.

Well, what can I say - if you have it in your head that this photo IS porn - I guess no argument will change that. Opinions vary. I don't think it's porn. It seems to me that you would call many things porn. I suppose some photography books at Barnes and Noble will be porn too? Many famous photographers had far more explisit work, yet ... it's art. I guess we are in Dark Ages here at PN. Let's screen everything,huh? And where does that end? Where is a freedom of artistic expression? Ok, lets say this is porn ( even if I desagree). It makes you upset? Angry? Well, don't look. Go to the next photo. Some photos here I don't like. Yet I don't call for screening them. EVERYONE has a right to express themselves and EVERYONE has a right to chose to look at it or not. You see asses, breasts, other parts - keep going. You can't discriminate just based on your conservative view of things. I don't tell you that you have to like it. So, who gives you a right to decide WHAT should be screened and what shouldn't?

Yes George,

I am an overly experienced professional photographer that states clearly and emphatically that this photo is porn; should be screened on PN; and should not be super-accessible with two mouse clicks on the site.

I Do have a problem though--that problem is being right, and worrying about the integrity of the PN/user experience.

Yes, I do think you are wrong; I do think that in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that this would be construed as pornography; and that defense under the goofy guise of 'freedom of speech' is also perversion.

Am I in focus for you?

Best wishes.

Richard, you never answered my question. Read my question again.

Chip, I see it now - it's porn if YOU say it is. Time to start your own religion. And if you think that "Freedom of Speech" is goofy, - well, you live in a wrong country. Oh, and what does "overly experienced professional photographer " have to do with anything? Does it make you a better judge of things? Or automatically gives you a better taste? Just wonder.

There are three (3) nudes in the top 100 ranked by average for the last year.

This: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4935548 is the number one shot when ranked by rate recent average. Should make the people who hate nudes happy I suppose. I think the problem is with the rating/ranking system, not the images.

I'l put my vote in for this not being porn (certainly more pornographic stuff available elsewhere on this site). I also don't think it is a great shot. Creative? certainly. Not worthy of the ratings though. Problem is that too many people are immature enough that as soon as they see a flash of skin they whip out the 7/7s (among other things) and add the comments about how hot the image is thereby giving the anti "porn" folks lots of ammo to go about there rants.

Maybe we should the viewers, not the images.

Add me to the Red Dot movement.

I'm not a prude. I'm not against nudes. I'm not even anti-porn. But I do agree this picture is not appropriate for the PN I want to participate in.

I followed pointers to PN a couple of years ago as a novice photographer and liked what I saw so I stayed. It has changed since then and IMHO it is not for the better. I probably represent a large number of the more typical viewers/users. I look at the pictures of others to gain a greater appreciation of the art of photography and, rarely, I get brave enough to post comments and even my own pictures.

While I'm okay with "tasteful" nudes, I now find I'm careful not to go to PN while any family or friends are around because I just don't know what's going to come up and would be embarrassed for them to see some of the more controversial pictures there. I can't control their opinions of nude pictures but I am worried about their opinion of me and can control that by not letting them see what's there. Is that what we want for PN? To have folks like myself having to feel like we're sneaking around when we are accessing the site.

I know there are lots of people that want to put the blame on the other people and say well that's their problem not mine but that's just not realistic. For those who want to push the envelop and seek social changes, please go somewhere else. I just laugh every time I see a closeup of a woman's breast posted for critique. Come on. Are you really looking for comments that are going to help you take the perfect closeup of a woman's breast?

Since the trend toward more controversial pictures seems to be taking off I find myself coming to PN less and less. I suspect that when my subscription comes up next I'll simply let it lapse. I'm disappointed.

Gary, I feel the same! Every time (and even in this moment) I`m worrying that my family could see me make this comment for instance.

Red Dot Movement? It is simple: just open Photoshop or any other photography software and fill a square (or rectangle) with black, add a red dot in the middle and post the photo for critique. You are welcome and I hope more and more members will join us!

This conversation is pathetic. It may be art, but not a good photo. It may not be pornographic but it is disgusting. If you do not want it here start rating it with 3's. I myself will not rate it at all. By the way, this photographer does have a good, interesting portfolio (though maybe too erotic for some). This would be the only photo I have objection with.

Please join us if you really love this site: RED DOT BLACK SQUARE

Having read the comments - now I know: This is NOT a Burger !? Think I had to engage myself in fastfood earlier :-)

Weird discussion!

The photo is original and I can see a critical/comical message in it with putting hi profit junk food and the taste of paradise in one. I can't see this porn at all as it does not have anykind of arousing function.

In most western countries young people are more often obese than before. The trend is quite worrying. The hamburger culture is seen as one major reason - junk food, empty calories. The other option here has much less calories. In fact getting one as close as a hamburger usually leads to consuming calories:)

It is quite funny that one can see excessive violence and killing in the TV much more often than two nude people careing each other. And that's considered ok - weird!

Sloppy execution, needs more cheese.

Cohen: Yes, I would let my children see this. Viewed without a boatload of emotional baggage, it's just a bit of visual humor. You laugh, and move on. I suppose the photographer must have known it would get a reaction in present day U.S. culture, though, so perhaps that was the intent.

Why should photo.net or any other site take action to protect you from your own thoughts?

I need time for translate all :)

many people, divergent opinions and experience

There is not a topic which coudn?t be photographed it?s a matter of taste and opinion for me it was a desire to try something new

not common, not ordinary- humour, exaggeration, provocation

Hi Martin...first I would like to say I feel you did a fine job on this image...funky...but yet fun. I also feel you do not have to make any excuses why you made this image. These red dot people have a problem with P.net not you! If they do their problems are bigger than they could know...You are a fine photographer who is having fun and working hard... maybe they are jealous...(Just a guess on my part) I too am jealous of your portfolio...your camera skills are excellent... and I look forward to seeing more of your art. Juan

Again we agree. He has a fine portfolio. I just do not care for this image. Maybe we should post a nude lounging on a big red dot! Now that would be funny. It does seem Martin has achieved provocation. If this was an intent then I have to say well done. Cheers!

keep on showing funny pics :-)

George Spinner is my new hero. Martin, this is a great photo and there's no good reason why it shouldn't be here so keep it up. Chip, relax. To everyone involved in the red dot thing. I think people could argue that the only images that do not belong on Photo.net are ones that aren't actually photos, like little red dots.

Why wouldn't I be? I'm not the one showing porn to the public.

"Cohen: Yes, I would let my children see this. Viewed without a boatload of emotional baggage, it's just a bit of visual humor. You laugh, and move on. I suppose the photographer must have known it would get a reaction in present day U.S. culture, though, so perhaps that was the intent"

----------------------------------------------

Well Kevin, in many states that would allow DSS to come in and take them out of the home for their protection. And I agree.

BTW, you can call me Chip, unless you wish to be hostile, in which case just don't call me. Thanks.

I would say NO. This photo shows the part of the female body. Every child knows it since the time of the birth. This is only playing with the body. Have a look on your children playing when bathing. Even adult people can play :-) This picture only shows genitals in funny light.

If a photo does not have merit, rate it low. If enough of you from the 'Red Dot Movement' rate low, it won't be a top photo. If a meritless photo, thus rated by the righteous, is still ranked as a top photo, then it can logically be concluded that the majority in this PUBLIC forum disagree with you.

por?nog?ra?phy n. 1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

The purpose of this picture is obviously not to arouse. Google 'porn' to see the real threat to your children. The first link up, just one click away, gives your crafty children unfettered, free access to near unlimited porn. I think if people realized the ease of which porn is accessed, they wouldn't be so worried about borderline art. Honestly, your kids are not getting off on the 'genital burger'; they are more interested in Free XXX Photos and Next Door Nikki.

I believe no child should have unsupervised access to the internet. Porn filters do not work. If my child were to say, access a photo of a vaginal BLT, I would be there to discuss the merit, or lack there of, with her. I'm sure the experience would not scar her. As for this red dot business, you should be embarrassed. Fight poor photos with better photos and exercise your right to rate the work of others.

Rob....So well Said. Juan

Still at the top for the week. SO, I guess we should open another category and lets call it funniest of the week, after all that's why this image is still up there or is it really that all the raters giving this image high ratings realy think it's a better photograph than the other photos that fell into 2nd, 3rd or for that matter maybe the 50 photos that found themselves behind this image. I have nothing against nudes or porn, good nudes are art and get high ratings, porn is porn and a joke is a joke. Lets try to remember that this sight is to rate photographs on the merit of being good photographs and not to rate jokes.

"Well Kevin, in many states that would allow DSS to come in and take them out of the home for their protection. And I agree."

So this picture - female labia with all the fixin's - is "porn" to you. And in your opinion, just to look upon it somehow causes damage to underage viewers. Your solution? To have the state forcibly remove the children from their birth parents for their own "protection."

Really? This makes sense to you. I show my child a picture that offends your sensibilities and you think I have should have my child taken away from me. That's messed up.

But I guess once you start censoring people, it's hard to know where to stop, isn't it?

Torture, anyone?

This discussion is quite the example of what is wrong with today's society in my opinion. The perceived need for stringent censorship and to be politically correct etc. is drowning out the human experience. Must everyone conform to the ideals of another. Orwell's 1984 should have been titled 2006. Just being an antagonist. It's not like this is a rape photo or something; which would truly be bad. Get over it folks.

I find it shocking that the mere existence of a thought or image that they find disagreeable is enough to lead some people to call for censorship, action by the state or worse against the 'offending' party.

Put your red dots back in your crayon box and save your outrage for a worthwhile target.

Was your latest contribution a follow-up to my last comment? You and I seem to be on the same page, right? Cheers.

-JWrightwood

Shouldn't a furburger have fur? So this is the infamous pussyburger that got Bill Press and that Darius guy so worked up. Actually I think it is very clever and in very good taste.

Yum

Yes, Jim, it was. Cheers!

Jim, even if it would be a snuff photo (with the victim a woman, naked) some would claim that this is ok. Liberty of expression.

I`m not for censorship, I`m for the good photography and I`m against overrated bad taste nudes... even I wouldn`t call this a nude... However, all the stigmatized red dot movement isn`t about this. Maybe this started it, but isn`t really only about it. In my opinion, isn`t against nudes, isn`t against porn, it`s against photos (of a certain category LOL) that receive very high ratings regardless their artistic qualities.

In a word, teh red dot movement it`s aginst bad photography.

It is not ok? No... cause liberty of expression means that everybody is equal (so the same are their creations), that democracy means that everybody being equal is allowed to do anything. Oh, the society of 2006... it`s sick!... We are like in 1984`s Big Brother shit. Give me a break. We are all so hypocrits when stating things like that.

Democracy means the majority decides, not the individual (demos = folk; cratos = power). And liberty of expression doesn`t allow you to do everything you want. For instance I`m not allowed to walk naked on the streets (and I`m sure in USA is the same), I have no right to express loudly my state of spirit in the night waking up my neighbors, you cannot sale sex toys with toys for children, you cannot draw on the street walls (even though graffiti is lately considered a form of plastic art), you cannot paint the street in front of your house or anywhere else and so on! I can give you hundreds of examples of things (stupid ones or not) that in a democratic society you are not allowed to do, just to point a little the misunderstood notions of liberty of expression and democracy. I`m off.

Yes Darius. You are off! It sounds like you are taking this mundane discussion way too seriously. As for being hypocrits.... we all are to a degree, just some WAY more than others. The red dot thing is not just about bad photos, it is about folks whinning about not getting as far up the TRP as they wish they could. In the end who in the rest of the world really cares. I don't. I am sure they don't in Darfur either. Like I stated earlier; just antagonizing. Seems like I got to you. By the way, you have a great portfolio. The dots kinda detract from it though. I'd lose those personally.

Ups! As far as I can see Red Dot becomes to something like Torquemada, now we can see red dots in everywhere for any reason, just a nude skin it's enough sometimes. What's that?? If Darius statement about the origins of the RD movement are true (against bad photography) then extent it to the thousands of stupid pets shots, or insulse sunsets, lacrimous wedding memories who nobody cares, or merely out of focus, out of range, out of sense images jumping around us. At all, even for the initial (polemic) purposes RD has changed, now they are "The Voice Of Decency", or "The Big Brother", or "I'll Save You From Your Own Sins"... Sometimes I laugh a lot because there are a teenager rooky that (as he told us in his introductory text) he is here for learning, and suddenly from one minute to the other he is transfigured into the Moral Censor who decides what is decency or not... well... I laugh but just for a minute, after this minute I'm too serious, because this way of thinking and its comsequences are extremely dangerous. An ancient illness. The name of this illness? Fundamentalism. Intolerance. To Dallas, please stop wasting time qualifying things that you don't understand, and use your time for your original purpose, you have a lots of things to learn my dear little boy, not only about photography. About the picture here? I don't like it, but I don't dare to state any moral critique on it, I don't like because it's vulgar without any artistic value, and the subject don't deserves such culinary treatment just for a shot in order to be polemic. To Darius: "crater" doesn't means "power", this root comes from the greek word "cratera"=vessel, the recipient where people deposites their votes; a white peeble or a black one.

I enjoy nudes. Go look at my top rated photos and see. But I don't want to see porn on photonet. This is porn. I'm sorry a few of you are in denial about this.

Children and foreigners need to have some screening mechanism on this web site, for their own protection. This photo proves it.

My 'score' on this photo is 6 for originality and 1 for aesthetics. Porn, to me, lack aesthetics.

Let's keep porn off this wonderful site.

"Really? This makes sense to you. I show my child a picture that offends your sensibilities and you think I have should have my child taken away from me. That's messed up. "

------------------------------

In many states, showing porn to minors is sufficient basis to pull them out of the home.

I agree with this approach.

A screening system to protect foreigners and children from this kind of images?? And who set the rules? Who will take decisions about what can I see -or my childrens- or not? Why? Who are ashamed about their parts? Why? Who becomes nervous in front of the image of a vagina? Why?? why feminine genitals are bad or wrong or evil or nasty? I am responsible for my child, and I take the decisions, not you or someone else. On the other hand, for sure you're not awared about the violent scenes in the TV series that normally millions of our childs are watching, neither TV news about the war violence, bombardment of civilians, crimes, bloodsheds and genocides. THAT scare me, THAT ashame me, THIS is obscene, and not only the images, but the act in itself. Then, leave me alone, dont bother me because you're interested in transferring your own sexual ideas to your childs. It's your right, do it, but don't try to do it with me. My little son know everything about the marvelous nature of the human body, and he is educated in order to enjoy it, not to hidden because it's sinful. A vagina? he never will be nervous or ashamed in front of a real one (when it happen... baaad thing, believe me) neither a photo. Sorry, I don't want to offend you but for me it's a medieval concept. At all, here we must talk about other ideas, like artistic qualities, or technical skills, and everythings related with our central activity here in PN. Bad taste? for sure. Mediocre vulgar shots? Tons, believe me. But porno... come on, then you never seen real porno in your whole life.

Chip...first you suggest your 14 year old son to photo.net, then you are arguing that this is pornography and you shouldn't have suggested the site and how ludacris of photo.net to have this on their site. I'm sorry but, this is the first nude image you've seen on photo.net??? I'm sure not. It seems very stupid of you to ever suggest a photography website (except probably SportsShooters) to a 14 year old boy. Why? Because nude photography is a very large style/category in photography. Every single photo site will feature nude photography...get used to it. Why would you ever suggest a site to a 14 year old boy with thousands of nude images on it...im just not sure.

Secondly, this is absolutely not pornography. You have obviously not seen pornography if you thing this image is porn. This is unique, creative, and technically spot on in every way. This does not in anyway exploit or intentionally uncover a NATURAL BODY PART of a human being. In fact, it disguises it very well. (porno does not) To be very honest, I wasn't even sure what it was when viewing the thumbnail. You will know pornography on a thumbnail half the size of those on the homepage of photo.net!

I truly feel sorry for your son who has to deal with your conservative and overprotective parenting ways. (im being very blunt, yes). You can't keep their minds clean forever. You want grandkids afterall, right?? I think he will need to know what one of these is before that ever happens. I would hope at 14 year son would be mature enough to look at this image in an artistic way, rather than in attempts to............nevermind.

I am 18 and I am viewing this image with absolutely no issues. It is artistically, creatively, and technically one of the best images I have ever seen on photo.net and I have no issues viewing this purely artistically, not sexually.

We should be praising this image from Martin for its over-the-top creativity and out-of-the-box thinking.!! 100/100!!!!

Great work. I know that the criticasters will come back to read the comments. What is it with people. Seeing someone?s head blow off can be shown any time. Violence is spread all the time but if you shown nude, yes people we all are if we don?t have any clothes on, then suddenly hell breaks loose. Is it OK that my 12 year old son plays Tekken on his PSP? Does the blood looks a bit real? This is too mad. Love the idea, love the quality of the image. And if the next one is a penis in a sandwich, so what! Seeing the number of comments it sure is a KILLER! ;-)

Chip, buddy, you don't have the foggiest notion what porn is. This ain't porn. It's a vagina. With condiments. It isn't remotely sexual, except perhaps in your own fevered brain.

You want porn? Tune in to "24" on Fox and watch 'super-agent Jack Bauer' torture some swarthy-looking bad guy for your viewing pleasure. It's a wonderful example of genitalia-free pornography.

As to your thoughts that agents of the state should invade my home and take my children from me merely for viewing human genitals, shame on you.

The best statement that someone wrote here: "This ain't porn. It's a vagina" No more comments needed here. At all, after this non sense verbal battle I started to see this pic with tender... Oh mother! I'm a sinner now!!

Carlos we are all sinners...mother of god we must of seen one of these..."Vagina" things.... when we were born...right? This is were we all come from right...then we are all born of porn... Juan

Sorry Juan, I was trying to be funny... with poor success. And you're right, each one of us are coming from one of this marvelous part of the marvelous female anatomy. Indeed, I just love it, but not with onion nor peppers... ;-D)

Sorry...I too was trying to be funny...you were much more so!! My point as yours is...how can this be porn...it is where we ALL come from...Saludos... Carlos Juan Yes peppers give me gas too ;)...

Wow! That site is pretty cheesy. Oh.. wait.. some great stuff there. Bill Press' talents would fit right in there. He would be a star!

Just shows how good this site really is. The whinners should move to Fickr.

Just my opinion as always.

I am not aware that sexual organs with food stuck in them qualify as anatomical parts.

The sad thing about this is it is symptomatic of a major shift of PN from a global learning tool to, in part, a deviant-following clique. And this is deviant. Sorry to tell you. It's just not normal to stick food into sex organs and marvel at them as a piece of photo art.

I feel very out of place, frankly.

I have an idea about another non-pornographic and perfectly photo.netable photo. A photo of a gynaecological examination! How about that? A man dressed like a doctor with his hand fisted in a vagina! This is all ok! This is something normal and almost all the women experience this sometimes thus we could all post something like that, it wouldn`t be porn, and the photo should belong to the first place of the TRP!
Let`s do that! Freedom of speech!
Why shouldn`t we post scenes from a sexual act? It would depict a normal human behavior... I tell you that: this photo with the cuntburger is more obscene and perverted than a scene from a sexual act. At least the latter is something natural and normal and usefull. Even further! Let`s photograph a girl peeing! Why not? Are you ashamed of your bodies and of your physiological functions? Of course not! Don`t be so hypocrits! We all do that! Why shouldn`t we post things like that then?

Just some thoughts. Maybe will help you wake up and not play the devil`s lawyer ad infinitum. It has no sense and purpose to demonstrate that a grey garment can be white in a very-very bright light. You know why? Because usually the light is bright, very bright but not very-very bright, that means the garment will look almost all the time grey... I`m not sure if you can see my point here.

"Chip...first you suggest your 14 year old son to photo.net, then you are arguing that this is pornography and you shouldn't have suggested the site and how ludacris of photo.net to have this on their site. I'm sorry but, this is the first nude image you've seen on photo.net??? I'm sure not. It seems very stupid of you to ever suggest a photography website (except probably SportsShooters) to a 14 year old boy. Why? Because nude photography is a very large style/category in photography. Every single photo site will feature nude photography...get used to it. Why would you ever suggest a site to a 14 year old boy with thousands of nude images on it...im just not sure"

-----------------------------------------

Two days after this photo came up, it was the number one photo you saw when you clicked 'top rated photos'. Not 'nudes'.

What could be more easily accessible on a photography site than the top-rated photo? And that is unacceptable given that this is porn.

Which it is.

BTW, 'ludacris' is the ignorant mispelling of the name of a spoken language recording 'artist'.

Just so you know, dude.

To Darius, forgive my ignorance, but I can't see your point based on your example of the gray garment. About the matter, I agree with you just in one point, the rating sistem isn't too fair. That's all. But, what is the meaning of the ratings? For me the points are something like a candy, destinated to be a sweet to feed our egoes. No more. There are thousands of excellent photos underrated and another thousands of vulgarities overrated. So what? Then ratings aren't a reliable indicator of quality. And that's the end of the story. About nudity? Well, there are as points of view as persons in the whole world, then don't expect full agreements about nothing. At all opinions are like the asses, everyone has one. I respect your opinion and I will not try to convince you of the opposite, even sometimes is a constructive fact when I read your statements. But neither you nor I can impose or obligue other people to do what we think is right or good for them. We're adults, then behave as one. To Chip, if you still viewing porn in a vagina, then I am so sorry because of you. But the same, your life is only yours. Enjoy as you want. I'll do my own.

Can't believe this joke is now at #5 for the top rated photos of the month.

Nor can I.

I think the originality and fun factor is at least 10. That's what photography is also about, right? to attract viewers with an unusual sight. jana

Carlos--

Is this a language issue?

No; the issue isn't anatomical sex parts. The issue is sticking things in them to titillate and claiming it's not porn.

Remove the food and I would say this would be fine as a nude on PN. But presented this way, it's porn. And kids shouldn't find it staring back at them when they merely click on 'top-rated photos' to see the VERY top rated photo--which is what happened last week.

"No; the issue isn't anatomical sex parts. The issue is sticking things in them to titillate and claiming it's not porn."

What you are 'seeing' is evidently a product of your own fevered imaginings. Nothing is "sticking" in anything here. Lettuce, tomato, cheese and sesame seeds, Chip, that's it. If that's "titillating" to you, then that's your business, but it is not pornography.

You claim, as do most busybodies, to be looking out for the interests of "the children," but you need to put your own house in order first.

What would you suggest?

No arrests; perversions; illegal activity; divorce; bankruptcy; court cases; and so on. Exactly what is it in my day to day that needs such acute improvement? This photo is porn. That's independent of my opinion of it.

Want my opinion? It's clever. It's original. It's unaesthetic. But that doesn't change the fact that it is porn.

Tell us a little about your 'house'.

OK, Chip, Kids? well, kids are our responsibility, yap, and your kids were in touch with a single "click". Then? So what? Sometimes I wonder that you're worried because they ask questions to you about it and you don't have the answers, or you are embarassed about the answers you have. Well my friend, that's normal, If you could hear the questions of my little son... but, you know, its very healthy for them and for us, because I'm obligued to be wise and fair, and on the other hand I'm learning a lot about common sense hearing the thoughts of this amazing boy. Come on Chip, answer their questions and later ask them about their opinions, know their thoughts, fears and wishes, but not under the pressure of your moral parameters. They are independent persons, it could be healthy if you know their way of thinking. Perhaps you'll be surprised. Don't you? At all, again, a vagina is a vagina, a substantive, and a vagina condimented is a vagina performing culinary arts. So simple.

A sex organ is a sex organ.

This is a sex organ with food stuck into it.

That's not what nature equipped you (or someone else) with.

Do you get it YET?

Chip & Kevin, what do you understand by porn?

With due respect, I have reached the point in my life where I feel my time is important, and my comments are neither frivolous nor worthy of said interpretation. As such, in conducting this illustrative dialogue, it is incumbent upon you to take a few moments to see what has been said and what it means.

In the absence of that, such attempt at dialogue is persiflage, you are unlikely to learn anything, and PN fails to live up to its defined mission, IMO.

It is fatuous that we are having this discusion at this point.

I feel badly for the art of photography when we have reached a point in the technology where we can have such vapid cacaphonies of mere chatter on a pornographic photo.

Learn. Ask. Previsualize. Create.

Chip, Bill, Darius, who ever you are, don't you take quite a godly position when you preach your doctrine here. Is it really so hard to understand that not all people think alike, that values are different from person to person, people have different gods and many none. The success of this photo tells the democratic opinion of PN-members. Art, porno, moral, pure words, that's all they are.

I am, indeed, going to impose the requirement for reading and thinking, as opposed to some goofy emphasis on repeating.

If you can't read and think then don't respond.

Yep. I feel very comfortable imposing that. You should too.

You are really starting to babble here.If you wish to be more conservative than others in your interpretation of art, so be it. Please do not try to influence my interpretation. Get off it! This is not porn! This photo is of poor taste in my opinion but others seem to find something here. Let dead dogs lie. Move on. Protect your children from the world. Ingnorance is bliss so it has been said. Oh... and please stop proofing everyone's grammer. Some folks here are writing in English as a second language. Have some respect! As for thinking... your thoughts scare me.

Jim,

If my thoughts scare you then please re-assess your emotional mechanisms for dealing with reality. Best regards.

Jim,

If hip hop culture is an example of "English as a second language" then we ARE in real trouble.

'Ludacris' is a person. Not adjective.

I trust that anyone deemed capable of discussion in this educational forum knows the very basics of grammar--that is, the distinction between a noun and adjective.

Wow Chip. You are quite a tool. There's hip hop culture for you.

People like you be dangerus. You be like self ritecheus. You be thinkin' your shit don't stink.

Well.. the smell is foul. Done conversing with you. You seem incapapable of constructive communiction. People like you never hear others though they pretend to. Yours is a high horse. Careful. It is a shame you can not see yourself for what you appear to be. Maybe you should do some reading yourself. Look back at what you have written. Talk about emotional baggage. Maybe you should do some reassessing yourself. Have fun playing with yourself. Later.

I can prove this is a great photo and it is not porn:

Look how many comments it evoked, both postive and negative.

How much thinking? How much laughter? Maybe some titillation? Anger? Delight? Some people are aroused by shoes but shoe ads are not porn. The vast majority of views would not consider this erotic though perhaps shocking or outrageous.

Don't stop with this theme until you have sold billions and billions. [Hmmmm, I wonder which is greater, the number of these being shown on the internet or the number of these at McDonalds? Which do we eat more of?]

As for kids, if your 14yr old cant find porn on the net; then porn is the least of his problems. When it comes to sex, 14 yr olds are active learners and self starters?no one has to nag them to do that homework. At 14 they are finding porn and they arent looking for it on Photonet.

If this sight is about art you want to welcome all photographers to put up there are unfettered. If you do like it, rate it low, but fair. Either way, all pix should be viewed with trying to understand the intent of the photographer and to see why they felt this was an image that they thought was great.

When you start attacking people artistic creations it just spawns flame wars and discourages people from their most creative work then they leave to find where they can express themselves. If the people that are the real creative artist leave; what do you have then? The cost of art is putting up with bad art. If you ban what you think is bad art, then you have also banned good art.

But, remember arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded.

Apparently the image is now on the 'big board' of a well-known porn website. This was brought to my attention, and I confirm it is there. I had nothing to do with it whatsoever. In fact, I wish the photographer much luck in having it removed. Considering many of the people here made especial efforts to make this THE TOP RATED PHOTO on photo net--and it remains amongst the top rated photos for the month- I believe we have a huge problem on THIS web site, and it is time to clamp down on pornography here. But frankly, your efforts at making this prominent must have led, IMO, to it being picked up by a porn site.

At least the 'definition' of the image's category is an academic one.

I am appalled that some of you have made especial efforts to use this forum to personally attack my integrity and validity. My concern was for the mission of PN as an educational tool. Perhaps it succeeded, in that your fatuous sense of ambiguity of:'what is porn and what is art' is now a bit moot. It is time you did some soul searching of your own.

Hi Chip,

You did a bit of attacking yourself about their integrity and validity. What makes you think you can do to them but they can't do to you.

Looks like while they do sole searching, you should do some "are you really that self righteous reasoning".

Just my opinion.

By the way... I think the members of this sight have to focus on the fact that the ratings represent weather a picture is a good one and not just a funny one.

But then that's just my opinion once again.

I am not a great fan of junk food thou!! but this one is a clever one MK!

Jonathan--

I'm sure I'd pay some attention to your pure opinion if you spelt 'WHETHER' correctly.

Then again, I just read Huck Finn again for the 5th time, so spelling tain't need to be sivilized...but it usually is a pretty good filter.

Tut tut Chip. You also missed the 'sole searching' error.

Human kind never stops to surprise me... Chip, am I understanding right that you are afraid that a 14 year old kid sees this picture but you wouldn't have complained had it been a picture of an african kid with a gun, or a war scene or any of the other images which really show the crudest aspects of ourselves?

Come on....

I'll be extremely bold, but I'd like to share with you a little piece of advice: analyze WHY you are so much affected by such an image (or any other), trying not to blame the picture, or the photographer, or anyone else, but rather from a personal, internal point of view; no tricking yourself with the big words you obviously can say so well.

Else, leave it as it is...

Jou

Hi Chiped,

Maybe when I get to your age my spelling would/will have improved; but tell me Chip, doo (or is it do) you find that arrogance comes with age and wisdom as well?

Thanks for the spellling corrrections, one more point PN can advertise "spelling corrections by Chip or maybe they can call it a Chip Check.

No Jonathan;

Arrogance is within the purview of the young and inexperienced. As opposed to the knowledgeable and wise. I am not in the former. Best wishes and best of luck.

'Sole- searching' at least was pun-worthy;-)

Hi Jou,

Why would I be threatened by porn?

I am certainly not afraid of 1's and 0's....

No; porn is fine. But it's not fine on PN without a screen, because people elsewhere can be arrested for viewing the top-rated photo, not knowing it will reveal a porn image. And kids should be blocked from porn. But hey--I said that. Why not go and READ what others have said.

"I'll be extremely bold, but I'd like to share with you a little piece of advice: analyze WHY you are so much affected by such an image (or any other), trying not to blame the picture, or the photographer, or anyone else, but rather from a personal, internal point of view; no tricking yourself with the big words you obviously can say so well."

--------------

OK, am have finished analysing. CONCLUSION: Image is not registering any impact. Sorry.

Jonathan,

I am sorey that you are such an unhappy person. But I imagine, that given the pornographic photo here, that we would see some folks who are schooled at dissing rather than discussing. With best wishes.

Couldent be happier.

Great job just look at the critiques you have here . Felicidades !!

Hi Chip,

my very personal feeling is that kids should be blocked from much more harmful images/things than porn, many of which are every day accessible to them and which we don't scandal about.

Therefore I don't see a point in trying to fight porn from being published. We all try to prepare our kids to make an opinion of their own as mature as possible on many other topics.... I think the best thing we can do is help them understand what porn is, along with the satisfactions and deceptions related to it. I guess that's the only way that one can understand that this picture is more funny than offensive. (Ok perversion might be a second way.)

Anyways, I'm afraid we'll never share each other's point of view.

Jou

Hey Jonathan,

It is not worth your time. Just feel "sorey" for old Huck and bid farewell. A leopard can not change it's spots!

Cheers.

Hi Jim,

Chip is the unhappy one here and yes, I will take your advice.

My original point on this photo was that while the image does catch your eye, and it is funny, that does not warrant high ratings. The purpose of this sight is to rate photos as to how good they are. How will it look if at the end of the year, this image is at #1? Many excellent photos have been placed behind this image because the raters cannot decipher between a joke and a good photograph.

Just my opinion.

Regards

Jon

Hi Jon,

Yes, I am in full agreement with you. This image outranking other truely outstanding ones is a shame in my opinion.

Cheers,

Jim

1. To my fellow photographers: this is an image of comic value that raises a wry laugh and a smile, certainly it does not raise anything else.

The major merit of this image is in its basic toilet humour and original way it has been expressed. Humour, such as this photographic expression, has a place in a free society.

It is not an award winning performance as a work of art, nor as a photograph - and as this is a photographic forum it should be rated accordingly.

2. As a by the way to all: I am at least an equally experienced professional photographer as those who have previously commented. Also, I spent four years researching the socialogical impact and use of photography during the period from the end of WWII to 1990. A major part of my research involed the impact of images on minors and the impact of so called "pornography" on social behaviour. For this effort I have a piece of paper labelled "Doctorate".

On all accounts this image is certainly NOT pornography; moreover and realistically, in 2006 mostly all postpubescent 14 year olds living in free cultures would have sought out raunchy (read "vastly different to the above") images on the net or in magazines to satisfy their curiousity.

3. To the headmasters, stormtroopers, and grammar pedants who have commented in this thread: honi soit qui mal y pense.

If you look at the Top Rated Photos of the year, Nudes are overwhelmingly represented - and this says more about psychology or biology than photography. To balance a little bit more the Top Rated results, I suggest that the default "All" item in the Category box returns everything but nudes, and that we add immediately underneath "All including Nudes".

Regarding this picture, of course, it's not pornography and an immense majority of visitors seem to agree on that. The thought I'm left with after browsing through this thread is that it must not be easy for a 14 year old to grow up nowadays with a parent who sees in this picture the intent to arouse anything else than laughter.

This conversation is ridiculous...

It is fatuous to state this is not pornography, given that it is on a porno web site.

I sure didn't put it there!

is this porn too?

Just because something is available on a porn web site doesn't automatically qualify it as porn. Porn web sites investigators occasionally appreciate a little break during their studies, like this image for instance:

Flawless and very original image, BRAVO, 7/7!!!

For someone who has posted a complaint that you get pissed off when nudes get more views than your best work, I find it strange that you would give this image a 7-7. To me this is a prime example of funny getting higher ratings than good photographs.

Jonathan, it pleases me that you follow my postings :-) My forum posting was about about tasteless and pornographic nudes and the views they get and not about funny images as you mentioned which quite qualifies, in my opinion, Martin Kovalic's image as such.

Tasteless and pornographic nudes in the style "I will put my fat wife in a dirty pose so everyone can look at her because I get excited with stuff like that..."(like the one I provided the link in my post and hopefully you checked it out then, it has been removed by now...)

In my opinion, this image does not fall in this category. I also copy the link of my forum posting so everybody can see what I am talking about: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Id26 . Take care Jonathan.

Peace, Yianni

Martin Kovalik is a talented photographer, there is no question about that; but to have this image rated among the very best I do not agree with. Take a look at where it lies in top photos for the last 3 months; I personally find there are many images that are placed behind this image that are far more deserving of higher ratings and it is unfair for any photographer who has produced an outstanding image to be placed behind this. Yes there has been lots of discussion about the rating system and yes if someone thinks that this image should be up there with the very best, that is their opinion. I on the other hand think that many raters may have placed this image up among the best because of a good laugh and not because they find it to be as good as a photograph can be. This image may very well get the record for the most comments, but to be among the best I do not agree with.

Just my opinion-- happy shooting.

This photo is original and may be considered humorous. Some would call it thought-provoking, reasoning that it ironically underlines certain social stereotypes, trends etc etc (I can see that someone already expressed her optimism concerning the philosophical undertones potentially trapped among those vegetables).

If and for how long it belongs in the TRP isn't a thing for prima donna-s such as Chip to decide. What should have been better illustrated, and perhaps more rightfully critiqued, is the fact that the 'democratic' voting system currently implemented can and will (occasionally) lead to results such as these. However, this 'critique' can only be rhetoric and can only originate in an elitist environment. Photo.net is no longer such an environment. Even if it would be, Chip would still exhibit mediocrity. To his core. Now, will photo.net become a pig-hole? Probably not. Can Chip and other Chips censor it from becoming one, if the masses make their wet steps in that direction? I hope not. Omar al Bashir, Castro and Chip would all hope yes.

You know, I am quite mad. I do not like Chip at all. Thankfully, I am not alone. Yet I am not less disgusted by the rationalized censorship attitude that seems to have seriously smeared Chip's brain. Its stench disgusts me. Let me tell you something. Persons such as Chip (let's call them Chips) are generally very articulate frustrations. Chips are transparent, self centered, limited individuals. Allow me to put this in perspective. If someone needed to be burnt alive for not believing in the Ptolemaic astronomy, one or two Chips would gladly raise their robes, step forward, and sign the holy papers. What's truly sad is that their aberrant belief-system was too deeply rooted for any remorse or difference to surface. But enough disgust for one evening.

My sincere appreciation to people like "William W", for being more eloquent and contributing to the very important task of scattering the chip(s)..

well said...

I can not believe this is still going on.

whats life without a sense of humor? "porn" ..hardly! it's funny.. end of story. you photographers need to lighten up and remove the sticks that somehow got wedged between your ass cheeks! heres a reality check for all of you, not a single one of your negative comments will get this image removed, nor the photographer removed. they will not make him think twice before posting something like this again. nor will it change the way he shoots. if this image is a problem for you there is only one thing you have the power to do.. remove YOURSELF from your problem and find another website to be a part of.

the end.

I can't say that this is really pornography today - but it would have been 35 years ago, say at the time of the Oz trials. If it is pornography, it's pretty insipid.

I would say that porn can be artistic - although very few photographers can achieve this and it is very rare to see.

It isn't original - food n'vaginas is an overdone recipe and I can't see any humour or irony. Technically it is very ordinary.

Carlos summed it up well - crude and vulgar - or words to that effect.

Chip, I can't see that such mediocrity could be harmful to a child, certainly not in a discriminating (in its widest sense)and thoughtful culture - as opposed to one steeped in judgmental and censorious attitudes.

It's just noise, like excessive PS (is this worse than porn?)- the Web is packed with junk like this and you have to sort through the chaff for the wheat. I would have hoped however that PN would have found some way to do this - maybe creating a 'controversy' or 'up for debate' section.

The length of debate certainly does not qualify this as art either, plenty of other stuff, like politics, can do that - even better. I feel it is a worthwhile discussion though, and many of the comments from both sides of the debate above make some quite profound, legitimate and interesting points. Is PN about debating though? It's not why I come here - ever less frequently - but that's because of the PS.

Porn is when you cant see the face because the viewer doesnt want to see it. Art is when you cant see the face because the model doesnt want to show it.

Beautifully done. Lighting, colour, even the slight glaze on the top bun! And if art is to be thought provoking, this is truly art. And if you're turned on or find this pornographic, you're probably not getting enough. If pictures like this are censored, I'll throw away my membership. Martin... genius!

I say Chip, I had to register just to comment on a few things you have said in here. I think you come across as very immature for a man of your claimed age. You sound like a whining child. Here are some other points:

1. I happened to live in one of these so called countries where nudity is banned. They even cut fully clothed kissing scenes from movies there. They have proxies in place that you could not inadvertantly get through. I am pleased to be back in the UK.

2. I really do agree with a vast majority that this photo would hardly be cause for someone to "perv" over.

3. If you are going to criticise (English Spelling, before you pull me up on that one), make sure that you have made no spelling mistakes or grammatical errors yourself. (Which you have, otherwise I would not be mentioning it.)

I was a children some years ago and would never find this image traumatic at all, I had a very open mind education and that helped mi (I think) in having a healthy sexuality and a lot of exciting experiences. In fact this gives me a strong personality and presence and help to face frustrations that could cause traumas.

I think that we can all see the difference in some countres of what a healthy education is if we look at the USA and... Switzerland for example, where I had a lot of casual bed experiences as a 19 years student (always safe experiences thanks to the sex education I had). It is just NORMAL to do this. What is not normal is to have a gun under the pillow. I thik it's a lot more safe to have a rich sexual life without frustrations than a lot of frustration and a gun... bad mix!

BTW I don't like the photo it self but there are a lot worse images in this site.

I take this image more like a "let's laught about porn".

I find this very healthy in deed. It's weird the way this image provoqued those coments since it is provoquing but... nothing more.

porn is when 2-3-100 people are making love and the images shown are real explicit. This is ANATOMY, any child should learn what a vagina is. It's helpful for the future. I wouldn't want my son to be 18-20 years old and not knowing how a female's genitals and even breasts look like... :)

AGAIN--with feeling (a cadenza from Oct 23...)

It is fatuous to state this is not pornography, given that it is on a porno web site. (Someone placed it up in October after it hit PN.)

I sure didn't put it there

PN is not a porno site. So porno doesn't belong here.

OK?

Get it?

Got it?

Good!

Not porn

It is fatuous to consider Martin's image to be porn; the image above was also found on a porn site; I sure didn't put it there. Both images are placed as a joke and are not porn.

It is ridiculous to consider Martin's image as porn.

lovely photo....very creative

I am new to PN. Just followed the link kindly provided by some "righteous" PN member.Love what I saw.Thank you.

Porn ? No. Creative ? Most certainly. Shocking ? Not really. Offensive ? Not at all.

Any lasting value ? About 15 seconds.

chip... me thinks thou protest too much!!

martin... cut the cheese!