Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014] - NSFW (maybe)

[Black Z Eddie]

Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0100 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0103 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0113 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0134 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0142 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0155 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0168 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0176 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0184 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0190 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0196 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0326 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0345 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0359 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0361 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0384 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr


Reptile Super Show @ Fairplex [Jan 2014]-0390 by Black Z Eddie, on Flickr

 

[sifu]

i see only one reptile i would want to touch... nice pics

 

[Redliner]

A bat in a reptile show?

Other than that, good work on the pictures.

 

[Jay]

Regarding the picture of the woman's caboose, I now consider you one of those photographers.

It's not cool to do, it is crude, broadly paints photographers with a tarred brush and IMO violates a womans right to privacy.

 

[Black Z Eddie]

Regarding the picture of the woman's caboose, I now consider you one of those photographers.

It's not cool to do, it is crude, broadly paints photographers with a tarred brush and IMO violates a womans right to privacy.

1. Get off your fucking high-horse, cynical whiny liberal. It violates nothing.
2. Next you generalize someone, try reading the definition from your own link. Anybody with half a brain can see I don't match that description.
3. It was just 1 photo, not 10, not 100. Just 1 in the midst of all the reptiles (and bats). If you didn't have your head up your ass, you'd see it was meant more for humor.

Once you learn how to read, next time you see my name on a post, don't open it.

 

[Redliner]

1. Get off your fucking high-horse, cynical whiny liberal. It violates nothing.
2. Next you generalize someone, try reading the definition from your own link. Anybody with half a brain can see I don't match that description.
3. It was just 1 photo, not 10, not 100. Just 1 in the midst of all the reptiles (and bats). If you didn't have your head up your ass, you'd see it was meant more for humor.

Once you learn how to read, next time you see my name on a post, don't open it.

Quite a reaction, eh?

It might not violate anything, but it is still lacking class. Humorous or not, I still feel like a teenager took that picture while laughing to himself.

 

[Black Z Eddie]

Quite a reaction, eh?

It might not violate anything, but it is still lacking class. Humorous or not, I still feel like a teenager took that picture while laughing to himself.

Yeah, I just can't stand whiners that'll make a mountain out of a molehill...then, act all preachy. I can understand those viewpoints if I'm consistently posting such photos.

Class or no class, the photo is clean. There's nothing dirty about it. Apparently, it evokes an emotion when viewed. hehe

 

[Top Geek]

That's a nice set of... lizards.

 

[Adamar]

Next time just say that it's your girlfriend.

Nice pictures, except those bats who are batshit ugly.

 

[Dr_Grip]

1. Get off your fucking high-horse, cynical whiny liberal. It violates nothing.

Actually, it does. It's an obvious and gross invasion of privacy, even if she is showing her ass in plain sight. But even if you don't agree on that, taking, let alone posting such a photo shows a lack of class and, much more importantly, respect from your side.

If you don't get that, I pity any woman that has to share the same space as you.

 

[sifu]

you asked for her permission to share that photo?
i would recognize that bottom anywhere..

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

It's an obvious and gross invasion of privacy, even if she is showing her ass in plain sight.

Interesting line of thought. Not my style of photo, but what would you consider the difference between a publicly displayed butt being seen by hundreds of strangers at a reptile show, and being seen by hundreds of strangers on the Internet? Does the venue of observation really make that much of a difference?

The point can be taken even further - what makes it different than any of the decades of famous street shooters that are revered for candid shots of unknowing subjects? Is it because it happens to be a bum? Why would a photo of an unidentifiable (unless you're sifu, apparently) bum be more intrusive and invasive than an identifiable face?

 

[Dr_Grip]

The rule of thumb most photographers use (and that mostly is accepted by courts, at least over here) is that pictures of indivduals (and their body parts) are off-limits, while groups (again, rule of thumb, a group is "more than five people") are fair game.

The idea behind this is that even in public space, you have a reasonable expectation that what you do will not be recorded by third parties and thus recorded and taken out of the context, time and place.

That's why businesses over here have to put up signs that they use CCTV on their premises and are not allowed to monitor the sidewalk in front of their property.

EDIT: Additionally, there's the matter of class, common sense and respect when it comes to taking a highly-sexualized close up photo of a butt. If the picture would show the whole person, it would not be that bad. But uploading a butt closeup (a view not available like that to someone who was there in person) to the internet means objectifying the woman in a sexual way. And that's not right.

 

[Redliner]

Interesting line of thought. Not my style of photo, but what would you consider the difference between a publicly displayed butt being seen by hundreds of strangers at a reptile show, and being seen by hundreds of strangers on the Internet? Does the venue of observation really make that much of a difference?

The point can be taken even further - what makes it different than any of the decades of famous street shooters that are revered for candid shots of unknowing subjects? Is it because it happens to be a bum? Why would a photo of an unidentifiable (unless you're sifu, apparently) bum be more intrusive and invasive than an identifiable face?

Well, you are reducing her to a sexual object, for starters. Sharing a picture of her without consent would be a different matter because you would be showing a person, not a butt, and that (showing only a part of her anatomy) usually has degrading connotations. I would be much more comfortable if said picture showed the entire girl, since to me at least, it would be like saying "look how hot she is" instead of "check this butt".
Also, I am not sure I agree she is "publicly displaying her butt". She is wearing tight pants. There?s a difference. But then again, that is my opinion.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

The rule of thumb most photographers use (and that mostly is accepted by courts, at least over here) is that pictures of indivduals (and their body parts) are off-limits, while groups (again, rule of thumb, a group is "more than five people") are fair game.

The idea behind this is that even in public space, you have a reasonable expectation that what you do will not be recorded by third parties and thus recorded and taken out of the context, time and place.

That's why businesses over here have to put up signs that they use CCTV on their premises and are not allowed to monitor the sidewalk in front of their property.

Eddie is in the US, and thus German regulations are entirely irrelevant, don't you think?

EDIT: Additionally, there's the matter of class, common sense and respect when it comes to taking a highly-sexualized close up photo of a butt. If the picture would show the whole person, it would not be that bad. But uploading a butt closeup (a view not available like that to someone who was there in person) to the internet means objectifying the woman in a sexual way. And that's not right.

So your opinion is that butts are inherently a sexual object, but only if the butt is the sole subject of the photo - if a whole body is captured, then the butt is no longer sexualized? Who's doing this sexualizing, anyway - surely it's up to the person viewing the image whether it's sexual to them or not? If I'm standing in the street and someone takes a picture of my feet, does that make the photo inherently sexualized because the rest of my body was excluded and foot fetishists may find it arousing?

Well, you are reducing her to a sexual object, for starters. Sharing a picture of her without consent would be a different matter because you would be showing a person, not a butt, and that (showing only a part of her anatomy) usually has degrading connotations. I would be much more comfortable if said picture showed the entire girl, since to me at least, it would be like saying "look how hot she is" instead of "check this butt".
Also, I am not sure I agree she is "publicly displaying her butt". She is wearing tight pants. There?s a difference. But then again, that is my opinion.

I don't understand any of this, really. The subject in question was in public exactly as shown in the photo - this was not a creepshot taken in a bathroom, or a changing room, or even a bedroom - this was in the middle of a tortoise petting zoo at a reptile show. Everyone in the area experienced the same view as Eddie, does that mean they all reduced her to a sexual object upon seeing her butt in tight pants? Similar to Dr. Grip, you seem to think that a picture of the entire person is OK, but to exclude things like hair and torso is somehow objectionable.


At any rate, I'm just having fun kicking the grey areas a bit. The overarching point is that the subject of candid photos in public spaces is a huge blurry mess of opinions and it's interesting to see where people draw the condemnation line.

 

[sifu]

'tis a nice bottom

 

[Dr_Grip]

Eddie is in the US, and thus German regulations are entirely irrelevant, don't you think?

Yep, and I clearly marked them as providing examples. I never said they directly affect him. You are building a strawman.

So your opinion is that butts are inherently a sexual object,

No, I am saying the way it is pictured sexualizes and thus objectifies it. By removing any identity, any personality from the person pictured and reducing her to "ass", a sexualisation happens.

Claiming that the photo of the ass was posted on non-sexual aesthetic grounds would be building another strawman.

At any rate, I'm just having fun kicking the grey areas a bit.

And that is why I will withdraw from this discussion with this post. The subject, IMO, is too important to use it as intellectual sparring.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I'm not entirely certain your use of "strawman" is correct, but if you don't want to debate the point I'll accept that.

 

[Black Z Eddie]

I'm telling you right now, yeah, you, the namby pambies that's easily offended by bootie, when a nice piece of ass falls in my line of sight, I'm taking the shot...and...and...and most likely will be posted. Given some of the self-righteous and "oh my god the sky is falling" overreaction here, I think I'm going to kick it up a notch or two next time. Time and opportunity will tell. But, rest assured, it will be in the same line of quality ass.

 

[Dr_Grip]

I'm not entirely certain your use of "strawman" is correct, but if you don't want to debate the point I'll accept that.

What I mean by "strawman" is that you try to make me defend a point I never made, deflecting from my original point.

Additionally, I am more than willing to continue the debate on the subject if you are interested in it - but not if, as it sounded to me, you are into the debate because you like a good argument

I'm telling you right now, yeah, you, the namby pambies that's easily offended by bootie, when a nice piece of ass falls in my line of sight, I'm taking the shot...and...and...and most likely will be posted. Given some of the self-righteous and "oh my god the sky is falling" overreaction here, I think I'm going to kick it up a notch or two next time. Time and opportunity will tell. But, rest assured, it will be in the same line of quality ass.

And now please tell me that that ain't sexist, disrespectful and in very bad taste. Respecting women is for "the namby pambies that's easily offended"?

And that's not even getting started on the impression you are making in the name of the whole photography community.