Bar Stewards - feature - screen grabs - M2

[Neil Rowe]

I've removed my posts because a moderator has removed one of the stills, despite the fact that it's been on there since the 16th without complaint. I wouldn't normally bother about this sort of thing, but on this occasion it's hit a nerve.

The so-called offending image was completely out of focus and was part of the background detail, not the main point of focus. I could argue that the image was posted so that people may see what results we're getting from the HVX/M2 set up and not for titillation purposes. Anyone who did find it titillating really should get out more.

I received the following pm...


Apologies to the moderator for making the forum 'unclean'. However if you could explain exactly the difference between clean and dirty, or rather dvxuser.com's policies on it are, I'd appreciate it. I think it's a highly subjective thing, and if taken to extremes the Sistine Chapel (which I visited recently) is positively filthy.

If an extremely out of focus shot of a nude female is seen as dirty then I really think more common sense is required. Unless this site is run by puritans, in which case I do sincerely apologise for that out of focus naked lady must have ruined your Sunday prayer.

The thing that really causes annoyance is that there are people on this site who in the past have caused real offence to people and gone unpunished.

booth,

if your looking to recieve an explanation for my actions, you could have simply done so by cordially respnding to my PM, and i would have explained my actions to you with the same courtesy with which i sent you the original PM of:

title:"no more "muff"
body:" ..simply stated, lets keep it clean. "

i believe you had forgotten to contain the smiley in your original quotation of my PM to you. ..at any rate, I neither made or implied any derogatory comments or statements about your imagery or other content in my response to you, and im not really sure why the polite removal of one singular image which has quite obviously made at least one young poster rather uncomfortable has resulted in the rash deletion of all of your post content, and a rather abrasive public reponse. the image was not "extremely out of focus" and was easily recognizeable as being what it was. it was placed without any content warning on the thread, and in complete public view which causes any viewer of the thread to consequently view the said image. had it been contained within a link to the imagery along with some form of discretionary warning I would not have taken the action that i did. I am not here to judge whether or not your image is artistic in nature, or how out of focus is enough.. im simply here to advise the use of discretion and understanding on the behalf of the many other members of this site that may not perhaps be as comfortable with nudity as some. furthermore, i take no responsibility for the removal or non removal of other content which could be construed as publicly offensive that i have not had the formality of actually coming accrossed in my browsing of this site. i am sorry if you have found my actions to be errant, but if i am going to err, it will be on the side of caution. i sincerely hope that you understand the rationale behind what i have done, and consider repsoting some of the other info about your film. i am sure that as a member of this site you have many valuable contributions to make, and will find that with a little give and take this place makes a happy home.

sincerely,

Neil Rowe

 

[Justin Marx]

Wow, is this going to be a sticky? "THE HVX SOAP OPERA"

 

[Spartacus]

(...)and im not really sure why the polite removal of one singular image which has quite obviously made at least one young poster rather uncomfortable (...)

If the "young posters" father really was so strict, that he´d kill his son for seeing a nude pic in an educational forum about filmmaking, he should better cut his boys internet connection.
Porn is just one click away, in all its infamous glory - explicit and for free.
And how many underaged persons own camera equipement worth thousands of dollars anyhow?
Who has to be protected on this forum?
As a filmmaker I consider myself to be all about content. So was this post promoting anything illegal?
Was it pornographic, disrespecting women or glorifying premature sex?
Or was it about showing the capability of a piece of technical equipment?
If I recall correctly, some states in the US allow 16 year olds to drive a car, to own a gun and to be sentenced to death.
But you would`t let them see a naked body? That´s so hypocritic!
I as an member of this community hope that this post goes back online.
Regards,

Spart

 

[Anhar_Miah]

Look, Its a rather simple matter.

Just Place a discretionary warning as Neil Rowe has already suggested, its common sense and it stops everyones egos from taking a hit.

I have seen other posters sometimes place a "Warning Violent Content" type warning, its just an indicator, thus avoiding further problems down the line.

I'm Sure if you edit your Thread to include the Warning then the mods would have no problems to allow you to display your work.


Anhar

 

[Kenn_Christenson]

Look, Its rather simple matter.

Just Place a discretionary warning as Neil Rowe has already suggested, its common sense and it stops everyones egos from taking a hit.

I have seen other posters sometime place a "Warning Violent Content" type warning, its just an indicator, thus avoiding further problems down the line.

I'am Sure if you edit your Thread to include the Warning then the mods would have no problems to allow you to display your work.


Anhar

Quite right. It's all about common courtesy - they give you a warning before the TV show starts, if there's objectionable material.

 

[booth]

Was it pornographic, disrespecting women or glorifying premature sex?

Just to clarify, it most certainly was not.

Dear Spatacus, according to what happened, fundamentally the pleasure is pornographic.

That's the only reason I can see it being censored. And to me it's a ridiculous reason. If these people were in the clergy they'd censor the vatican.

Look, Its rather simple matter.

Just Place a discretionary warning as Neil Rowe has already suggested, its common sense and it stops everyones egos from taking a hit.

I have seen other posters sometime place a "Warning Violent Content" type warning, its just an indicator, thus avoiding further problems down the line.

I'am Sure if you edit your Thread to include the Warning then the mods would have no problems to allow you to display your work.


Anhar

What exactly is and isn't objectionable though Anhar? And through whose eyes? I personally and honestly didn't think it was objectionable or indecent and so posting without warning was entirely innocent. Perhaps I am lacking in 'common courtesy' though I'd rather believe that there was no need for it in the first place. I was just posting, in my opinion, screen grabs from our production to show examples to others who may want to purchase the same equipment - and also to get feedback from other members.

the image was not "extremely out of focus" and was easily recognizeable as being what it was.

I think I will agree to disagree. It was shot with a 105mm lens wide open. The point of focus was the male clothed actor in frame. In the scene this is important as it's his reaction to the phone conversation with the girl he's just slept with and her wrestler sized boyfriend. If the focus was on the nudity we'd lose his priceless reactions to the conversation. I could argue that there's no more nudity than the opening title sequence for Austin Powers 2, do we censor that?

It was recognisable as being a naked human being because the form of our actress was entirely flesh colored. For all anyone knew we may well have used a body stocking it is that out of focus that you really could not say for sure*. If I shoot someone with a flesh colored body stocking at a concert and they are out of focus is the same censoring necessary?

*I think on this occasion the mind of the viewer is actually adding more information than is in the image, and this may be the reason why offence was caused. This is perhaps why one viewer was led to ask the question 'is there muff in that picture?' If it was so clear, then surely the viewer would not have to ask.

it was placed without any content warning on the thread, and in complete public view which causes any viewer of the thread to consequently view the said image.

As stated I honestly didn't see that there was a requirement. However from your point of view there was, so why not edit the thread title to include a warning rather than remove the image and give me jokey reason for doing so instead of 'no more muff, simply stated lets keep it clean'? Don't remove my posting and then be jocular, that's adding insult to injury.

Sorry to carry this on I just feel that it's needless censorship and if upheld it will mean that other people may not be able to display their work regardless of artistic merit. Many thanks to the others on this thread who have spoken up and who obviously share the same views.

 

[Neil Rowe]

ok booth.. this is getting old.

all i did was remove your one singular image which was out of line for a public forum without proper disclosure or warning in the thread title. after the dust settled from your following siezure i gracefully educated you as to the facts of the matter. i dont really care how artistic you think it was, or how long you whine about it. the fact of the matter is that this is an international professional filmmaking forum which we try our best to keep both "work safe", and as un offensive as possible. Macgreggors material has warnings all over it, and thats the only reason why its still there. as another mod said to me.. we have a language filter on this site.. what would make anyone think we wouldnt filter out naked crotches. im not stopping you from sharing your image in the least, all im doing is asking that you use a warning in the thread title if your going to post something like that, or use a link which has a warning to the content. the only person stopping you from sharing your work is you. you had no reason to remove all of your material, and couldve solved all of this in a minute by simply asking me what was up in a reply PM or post. but as it is now, ive grown rather tired of your jabs at both the moderators and communities of faith which you seem to have no respect for. if you cant be understanding of other people or positions on the subject, than at least be professional about it, and respectful towards the people that moderate this site. your negative persistnace in this matter is not going to change the rules, so either play by them or find somewhere else to play. i am certainly not the only moderator behind this standpoint, rather i am simply the one who came acrossed the thread first. in reality i would be appreciative that the matter is being handled by me as i am assumably a little more graceful than other mods would be. im going to leave your thread open in hopes that you would re-post some of the things which you have to share with the community, as i do sincerely value your contribution to the site, but im not about to tolerate any more backhanded comments about my decision to remove your one image and request that you simply put a warning on it before reposting it.

 

[Barry_Green]

Thanks to Anhar Miah and to KCFilms for speaking up.

Look, the rules on this forum are not complex. They're really rather simple. Treat this place as if you were in someone's living room. Conduct yourself professionally and respectfully. No namecalling, no politics, no profanity (or we'll turn it into "poo poo" and you'll just look silly for having posted profanity).

And don't go posting pictures that include full frontal nudity, at least not without some sort of warning.

This is a worldwide forum. There are people of all age groups on here. There are people viewing these pages at work.

HOW HARD IS IT TO HAVE A LITTLE COURTESY? Must we whine "censorship" when a moderator removes a picture of naked genitalia, and requests that someone put an appropriate disclaimer on it? If that's someone's idea of "censorship", then I suggest DVXUser isn't the forum for them.

That image alone would have immediately called for an "R" rating from the MPAA. Was there anything "pornographic" about it? No. But was it out of line for a public forum like this? Obviously. I mean, it's just obvious. Probably not to Europeans who see far racier content on their televisions every night, but to Americans, that's an automatic "R". To our Japanese friends, they won't allow any depiction of pubic hair so they would have had a problem with it. To the roughly 1 billion Muslims, yes there would be an issue.

Is a little disclosure really that much to ask?

Is a little courtesy for those with stricter value systems too much to ask?

Come on. Let's give the whole "censorship" thing a rest, and respect the forum rules for what they are.

 

[booth]

i dont really care how artistic you think it was, or how long you whine about it.

Could I just say that with regards to my comments about artistic value, I was actually referring to the future work of others. I wouldn't be so vulgar as to claim my work is 'artistic' that's for others to judge.

you had no reason to remove all of your material, and couldve solved all of this in a minute by simply asking me what was up in a reply PM or post. but as it is now, ive grown rather tired of your jabs at both the moderators and communities of faith which you seem to have no respect for.

Perhaps I was hasty. I was angry at the time, apologies. Though I don't know if that extends to jabs at communities of faith. If it sounded that way then I apologise again as it wasn't intentional.

To our Japanese friends, they won't allow any depiction of pubic hair so they would have had a problem with it.

I'm really sorry to have to defend myself again, I'm really not trying to cause any more trouble, but I have to correct you. There was no pubic hair in the shot that I posted.

Thanks for allowing me a right to reply by the way.