tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30664106.post2065553003477357058..comments2023-11-29T00:37:27.962-08:00Comments on PRETTY GIRL SHOOTER: Everything You Want to Know About 2257 But Are Afraid to AskUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30664106.post-29116826481679919192009-05-04T17:44:00.000-07:002009-05-04T17:44:00.000-07:00@John,
You're right. I don't post sexually explic...@John,<br /><br />You're right. I don't post sexually explicit content on this blog, i.e., I don't post content that, in my understanding of the code, falls under 2257's shadow.<br /><br />If I were to post such content, I would be considered a "secondary producer" and would be required to adhere to 2257's regulations as it would pertain to this blog.<br /><br />While I may physically produce content that falls under 2257's umbrella, that role is not the same as being the "primary producer."<br /><br />BTW, on almost every shoot I work, there is content produced that falls under 2257 and, during the same shoot, there is content produced that does not fall under it. Example: During a production, I might shoot "mobile content," i.e., content that will be later viewed on cell phones. But that content only includes partial nudity of a type not covered by 2257. Afterward, with the same performer, I might shoot content that is covered under 2257.jimmydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04250574229270573468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30664106.post-70689307620089568972009-05-04T15:37:00.000-07:002009-05-04T15:37:00.000-07:00Granted we don't see ALL of what you shoot on this...Granted we don't see ALL of what you shoot on this blog, but using yourself and the content we see in this blog as an example, do you need to worry about 2257 record keeping?<br /><br />You're not photographing "actual sexually explicit conduct." Note that I haven't read the book, but I have read 2256 and 2257.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30664106.post-71617895820314907772009-04-28T15:26:00.000-07:002009-04-28T15:26:00.000-07:00First off, as usual Jimmy, your blog is a joy. It...First off, as usual Jimmy, your blog is a joy. It's because of stuff like this that I get to tell people unabashedly that I'm a follower of your blog. As I explain, "I just read the articles." ;) <br /><br />Seriously, though, as a lawyer who <I>just this morning</I> had to raise my hand and say, "Stop!" to a judge who was overstepping his authority, I'm not at all surprised with the way things are going in our country. It's like somehow, around about the time America's first King George took the throne, we all lost our collective heads and forgot the principles on which this country was founded. We no Common Sense anymore. <br /><br />On another note, I'm in complete agreement about your comments to Sunny. I would so love to get her in front of my lens (probably more than one of them!) in her "granny suit." <br /><br />At any rate, thanks for the tip on the book. Even us lawyers-cum-photographers (and there is NO 2257 pun intended there, I assure you) who don't regularly practice in that area of law can get befuddled at times by 2257, so it's nice to turn to someone who has already waded through it and written a readable explanation.Rick Horowitzhttp://www.soshootme.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30664106.post-41465126767539677002009-04-24T14:04:00.000-07:002009-04-24T14:04:00.000-07:00@ unbearable lightness,
Stephen's book most cert...@ unbearable lightness, <br /><br />Stephen's book most certainly is NOT intended to encourage photographers or models to give up their art. Neither is my update. You, of course, already knew that.<br /><br />All I can say is consider the source of 2257: The Federal Government. <br /><br />Just cuz politicians, the Justice Department, and certain political action groups say something is something, most of us know their assumptions about things like this rarely have much to do with truth and reality. When it comes to things like sexual mores, war, and a lot of other stuff, our government has proven itself to be little more than self-serving, propagandizing, sycophants who cater to what they pretend to preceive are poplular beliefs and to those who put the most $$$ in their pockets. 2257 is no exception to this.<br /><br />While we might not have much choice but to comply with 2257, we don't have to agree with the gov's notions of what constitutes porn or photographic breaches of morality. <br /><br />BTW, if more Grannies looked like you in front of a camera, with or without clothing, many younger models would, more often, be given a serious run for their money.jimmydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04250574229270573468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30664106.post-35860529285515717922009-04-24T13:45:00.000-07:002009-04-24T13:45:00.000-07:00I am a model, but models must be concerned about t...I am a model, but models must be concerned about this, too - even those of us who are 18-year-olds disguised as grannies (everyone knows my age is nothing but a disguise - all models want to look old!). <br /><br />So I have my copy of the book, and to be honest, it gave me pause. For several weeks I wasn't sure I wanted to model anymore - nude or otherwise - because 2257 suggests we can assume our work is pornographic and act accordingly. I do not like this assumption.<br /><br />Thank you for a great post!unbearable lightnesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16146661740927787207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30664106.post-41786550826654043362009-04-24T13:22:00.000-07:002009-04-24T13:22:00.000-07:00Thank you for your comments on the shooting height...Thank you for your comments on the shooting height and having the model's head on axis.<br /><br />>>There's always going to be people, men as well as women, who truly subscribe to the "size does matter" point-of-view. I'm not one of them.<br /><br />I agree that size doesn't matter.<br /><br />Thank you Jimmy.<br /><br />KSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30664106.post-21467817494485319162009-04-24T12:43:00.000-07:002009-04-24T12:43:00.000-07:00@KS, Generally, I like to shoot with my lens in an...@KS, Generally, I like to shoot with my lens in and around belly-button level. (The model's belly-button, not mine.) This usually puts my ass seated on an apple box which, being somewhat lazy, is also a "plus" in my mind. <br /><br />Experienced models instinctively bow their heads slightly (unless I direct them otherwise) in order to make on-axis eye contact with the lens. <br /><br />Obviously, some models have wider/larger nostrils than others and nostril-size definitely dictates head-position directing. With some models, you can practically shoot right up into their nostrils without it seeming like you're doing an internal sinus exam. With others, you have to watch closely (when shooting from low) and find an angle, coupled with head-positioning, in order to avoid a distracting problem.<br /><br />As far as chest puppies go, I personally go for smaller to medium-sized breasts. That's probly why I sometimes call 'em "puppies" instead of "big dogs." :-) <br /><br />I don't think glamour automatically means big tits. Yeah, big tits might often mean big tips if the model works in a strip club but, photographically, it's not an issue. Leastwise, for me. After all, a beautiful, sexy, gorgeous woman is a beautiful, sexy, gorgeous woman regardless of cup size. I don't ever try to light or photograph a model in ways that might enhance her cup size. (That's what PS's Liquify Tool is for if I'm inclined to give the model a little extra on her chest.)<br /><br />I am, however, aware that some models (and women in general) are a bit concerned about their cup size. I guess that's why so many plastic surgeons have booming businesses enhancing breasts. There's always going to be people, men as well as women, who truly subscribe to the "size does matter" point-of-view. I'm not one of them.jimmydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04250574229270573468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30664106.post-19743865488631761312009-04-24T12:22:00.000-07:002009-04-24T12:22:00.000-07:00Hi Jimmy,
Beautiful shot of the Russian model—she...Hi Jimmy,<br /><br />Beautiful shot of the Russian model—she’s one of my favorites of the model’s you’ve shown.<br /><br />When you created this shot, you were down much lower and shooting upwards. Do most models instinctively know to bow their heads slightly, or do you instinctively provide guidance to avoid the nostril shot? Similarly, was turning to head away from the camera part of your strategy to minimize the nostrils?<br /><br />In your post, you referenced chest puppies. I suspect that, *in general*, the larger the better. But if a model has an A cup size, does that limit her ability to do glamour shots? And when you are presented with a model A cup model, do you photograph differently? With regard to differently, I am not only referring to physical photography wise, but also psychological wise. In other words, do you use certain photographic techniques to enhance her appearance, and do you feel the need to assure her?<br /><br />My own bias would be that all cup sizes are desirable because there is an audience for all cup sizes. It’s a matter of preferences. I would think a large part of the shoot would be the photographer’s and model’s ability to create and capture a certain look. In other words, attitude plays a very important role. All that said, most images I see contain women with C+ cup sizes. So I am curious how a professional views those models with smaller breasts and how those models are treated and photographed.<br /><br />Thanks Jimmy.<br /><br />KSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com