Maturity, ratings and stuff?

[Tamara Artis]

Thanks for the article! if you have more show it please

[Tamara Artis]

Exactly! Give me an option to show in search and write a little side not that says, if I decide to flag my profile as adult, it will show only in adult search. We have it for land, for products we make and sell, for pics we post on numerous websites but not for profiles... 

[Qie Niangao]

---

I just wanted to know and be sure what is allowed and what is not!

---

'Tis unknowable. As with all good pr0n, they'll know it when they see it.

Either relish the risk-taking -- it's more exciting that way -- or be safe and specialize in pictures of rainbow-farting unicorns.

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Tamara Artis wrote:

Fix your TOS

 

And for that test you said, I believe it hides you from search, but I want to be in search and have no need to put naked pics in my profile. If its not allowed, remove it and go on do other stuff

I just wanted to know and be sure what is allowed and what is not!

---

An M or A profile is in search, but ONLY if the searcher has set those flags to on. Thus, it doesn't show on anonymous web searches (google, bing, baidu crawling, as well as people who search SL from the website when not logged in).

But if you are logged in (web or world), AND set your search to look for M and/or A, it will find profiles in the ratings you have set.

 

[Nyll Bergbahn]

I visited your gallery just now Tamara and if it was me, I'd leave the nude photos in place. They are tasteful (maybe the BDSM ones are a bit risque) but hardly likely to cause offence to anyone. You're 2746 metres up and only people who want your photo services will visit. However, I would move the 18+ sign down onto the door itself or beside it as it's out of normal camera view where it is above this high doorway to that room. It's a lovely gallery

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

SL screenshots are -NOT- Photos, no matter how many times screenshoters and digital artists in this community try to call themselves photographers, they are NOT such. They are digital artists, working with cartoon renders.

---

I think you are mistaken. Photography is simply capturing an image. Literally it means

Drawing with Light

. It used to be done on film, now it is digital. In the real world, photographers capture screen shots of the real world.

"Photography is the art, science and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film, or electronically by means of an image sensor." - 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography

---

Second Life and its spin offs are the ONLY places you see digital artists try and spin themselves as photographers - because they'd be laughed out of any real community be so claiming. I no other 3D medium will you find a pack of idiots claiming this. And idiots is what they are.

It is almost as absurd as a grand theft auto player claiming they are a car thief. But its a bit more like a new age herbal remedy person claiming to a doctor - its simply the wrong and misleading label.

 

It has so little relation to actual photography the claim is absurd.

And there's already an established name for what they do do, digital artist.

Your own definition shows this.

 

3D pictures - those are NOT photos. They are digital art. A photo has something real in it, it has a photograph in it. Not a cartoon character.

If I take a single frame of a Mikey Mouse cartoon and tried to pass that off as a photo, I'd be institutionalized.

 

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I'm getting a bit confused here.   When you say "photograph," do you mean an image taken with a camera and uploaded to SL or something different?

 

 

[Tamara Artis]

Mickey mouse photo

[Tamara Artis]

I am thinking of snapshots taken is Second life, saved on my hard, edited, uploaded back to SL and displayed for people to see

[Phil Deakins]

"Photographer". It's an interesting sub-topic.

Both you and Charolotte are right - and you are both wrong. You are wrong because Charolotte's view of it says you are wrong, and she is genuinely right. Charolotte is wrong because your view of it says she is wrong, and you are genuinely right. Both viewpoints are valid and right.

I disagree with your term, "digital art" for it. Imo, digital art is akin to painting but the medium is digital. That's very different from taking a snapshot in SL.

Whether or not taking snapshots in SL is taking a photograph is certainly debatable, and imo it is. Whether or not those who take snapshots in SL could be described as 'photographers' is another matter. In the same way that everyone can slap paint on paper and even create a recognisable likeness of something but cannot be seen as a genuine 'artist', perhaps there's a difference between taking normal snapshots in SL and setting up a shot to take a snap of. Taking simple SL snaps is akin to taking simple snaps on holiday (on vacation if you're the US). People who do it can't be descibed as 'photographers' even though they are taking photographs. Setting up a shot in SL and taking a snap of it is akin to an RL photographer. They do just that, even if they don't physically arrange what's in the shot.

So, imo, whether or not someone who takes snapshots in SL is a 'photographer' depends entirely on what s/he puts into the snapshots. If they are the normal snaps, then the person isn't a photographer. But if they are arranged shots, often artistically, then the person is a 'photographer'. Whether they are a good photographer or not depends on the quality of their work.

It may be that some people in SL call themselves photographers because they take pictures of things like weddings. Anyone can take those pictures but not everybody can take them with some genuine composition in mind. RL people do the same thing. Neither are particularly artistic, although they both put proper thought into the compositions. Both take pictures and, imo, both are photographers.

ETA: It ocurred to me that you may be rejecting the word 'photographer' because SL pics are not pics of anything real. In that case, I would say that within the SL world, those pics are of real things within the SL world and, because of that, the word 'photographer' in the SL world is valid.

[161488303349]

i vote for that

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Tamara Artis wrote:

I am thinking of snapshots taken is Second life, saved on my hard, edited, uploaded back to SL and displayed for people to see

---

In that case, so long as the images aren't overtly sexualised, they should be OK on M land, since they're not "photorealistic" in the sense they might be mistaken for a photograph of an RL model  (which is what the Adult Content policy is worried about).

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Ok, one more and I will stop derailing this thread, this person calls them Virtual Photographers. I think that is fair. We don't really walk when we walk in SL, but when we say,

walk this way

, everyone knows what we mean. Easier then saying, cause your computer to display your avatar moving towards this place.

http://virtualgeographic.tumblr.com/

 

---

 

Well, if I could walk that way....oh, sorry, you were being serious.

I agree with your point of view in that the skills needed to get a good image in SL are much the same as those needed to 'capture' a good photograph, but I suppose technically what is done in SL is not photography in that light does not fall on a medium. The point is that the methodology used is exactly the same. See the image, capture the image. Some do that well—you, for one—and some do that poorly. I see no real reason not to call SL image capturing photography, technical definitions notwithstanding.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Ok, one more and I will stop derailing this thread, this person calls them Virtual Photographers. I think that is fair. We don't really walk when we walk in SL, but when we say,

walk this way

, everyone knows what we mean. Easier then saying, cause your computer to display your avatar moving towards this place.

http://virtualgeographic.tumblr.com/

 

---

 

Well, if I could walk that way....oh, sorry, you were being serious.

I agree with your point of view in that the skills needed to get a good image in SL are much the same as those needed to 'capture' a good photograph, but I suppose technically what is done in SL is not photography in that light does not fall on a medium. The point is that the methodology used is exactly the same. See the image, capture the image. Some do that well—you, for one—and some do that poorly. I see no real reason not to call SL image capturing photography, technical definitions notwithstanding.

---

Light does not fall on a medium? What do you think produces the images you see on your screen?

p.s. Oh, and thank you

[Melita Magic]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

---

I just wanted to know and be sure what is allowed and what is not!

---

'Tis unknowable. As with all good pr0n, they'll know it when they see it.

Either relish the risk-taking -- it's more exciting that way -- or be safe and specialize in pictures of rainbow-farting unicorns.

---

Ah yes that was a Supreme Court justice or some such who said that, right? "I know it when I see it." I tend to agree with that btw. And I think most wouldn't confuse a painting of Venus deMilo with Hustler magazine. Even if it's a bit soft focus as most SL pix are.

Rainbows are one thing but what if it was Skittles instead? *realizes she just walked into a punchline about 'taste the rainbow'*

To the topic: On the subtopic of photography in SL (I usually read the OP and then read backwards thorugh a thread, and I don't read all posts, but in an opinion thread it's OK I think, if more than one person posts the same thing in essence...that's to pre-empt someone saying 'but I just said that' or 'read my post you are wrong' Lol...)

Of course it's photography. People keep denigrating SL 'skills' as if they are not skills. They are skills. Some are better at it than others, so, it's a skill. Pretty simple, I think. Also there is more to it than point and click - windilght settings, and composition and framing of the photograph even if nothing else is done to it post snap. But even pre snap you can adjust settings, lighting, composition, choose the framing (what is seen or included), choose the pose, choose the props, even change the dimensions of the snapshot. 

Just like in real life.

I don't see any difference except the equipment. And the newness of it so the lack of reputation (outside SL and it seems for some, inside SL too.) But in RL when photography first came out it was looked at with sideways glances and not included in gallery shows, etc. Not respected at first.

JMO

[Rhys Goode]

I have an "A" rated avatar.  The dreaded scarlet letter.  And I have no idea why.

OK.  I am and adult, all my friends are adults.  Hell, even my kids are adults.   BUt that is not what the big "A" is all about.

I do know that I have no "A" rated groups, and no "A" rated pics.   My "G" rated alt has both "A" rated groups and bare ass naked pics in her profile, but the powers that be in LL have given her a "G" and me an "A".

I went through several rounds of filing tickets with LL about why I was rated "A", but none of the resulting suggestions fit the facts. The LL help staff are simply clueless about this issue, the feedback reads like the messages in a forum thread:  Well intentioned but wrong.  I've looked at a random sample of "A" rated avatars, as near as I can figure looking at the content of the profiles, they are assigned completely at random far as I can tell. Hardly any "A" rated avatars have any content that would merit the designation.

Consequences.  Well, if someone does not have "A" enabled in search, then my existence in SL will be edited out of their search results.  But if they are standing next to me, they can still read my profile.  Pretty scary, if some prig was trying to limit access to "A" rated material, all the would need to do is click on my avatar and look at my "A" rated profile.  I can only hope that they survive the experience. 

Scariness aside, I do manage to sleep soundly at night, in spite of the mystery linden rater.

 

[Tamara Artis]

Heya:) 

Its maybe cause it says you're a Domme and have a bdsm place in your pics? I do hope you don't run any business lol

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Light does not fall on a medium? What do you think produces the images you see on your screen?

---

Light doesn't fall on of the screen to enable us to see the images. Light is emitted by the screen. The screen is the light source. That's what produces the images on the screen so that we can see them. Even if you took an RL photo of the screen, your camera wouldn't get the image because light fell on the it. It would get it because the light for the image is generated and emitted by the screen.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

To the topic: On the subtopic of photography in SL (I usually read the OP and then read backwards thorugh a thread, and I don't read all posts, but in an opinion thread it's OK I think, if more than one person posts the same thing in essence...that's to pre-empt someone saying 'but I just said that' or 'read my post you are wrong' Lol...)

Of course it's photography. People keep denigrating SL 'skills' as if they are not skills. They are skills. Some are better at it than others, so, it's a skill. Pretty simple, I think. Also there is more to it than point and click - windilght settings, and composition and framing of the photograph even if nothing else is done to it post snap. But even pre snap you can adjust settings, lighting, composition, choose the framing (what is seen or included), choose the pose, choose the props, even change the dimensions of the snapshot. 

Just like in real life.

I don't see any difference except the equipment. And the newness of it so the lack of reputation (outside SL and it seems for some, inside SL too.) But in RL when photography first came out it was looked at with sideways glances and not included in gallery shows, etc. Not respected at first.

JMO

---

 I don't think it's a question of skills or the lack of them.    

Clearly photorealistic or hyperrealistic drawings and paintings require a great deal of skill and artistic ability to create.  However, they are not photographs -- that's the point.

[Nyll Bergbahn]

I think we should move on with the definition of what is photography and not live in the past. When for example does a photograph digitally altered and enhanced become digital art and no longer a photograph? Sure some people just take casual snapshots and never bother digitally enhancing them but any serious photgrapher does, I have a 675 page book on digitally altering photographs with Photoshop and various other guides too. You can edit photographs to add or remove objects or people, adjust levels, curves, colours, even replace an entire sky with a more suitable one. Some digitally altered photographs may not even be recognisable to the original photograph.

I've taken shots with my LG mobile phone with its 5 MP camera and my Sony CSC camera of Second Life screens. Are they photographs as the cameras are real but the subject is emitting light and not having light cast on it? Of course they are photographs. They are creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film, or electronically by means of an image sensor, which is the Wiki definition of Photography. Is there any real difference between this and taking the same shots with the inbuilt Second Life camera? With Niran's I can adjust all the usual settings and in addition many others such as field-of-view, f-number and and focal length (see below).

[Drake1 Nightfire]

So, apparently, Rhys Goode and myself are the only people in this whole thread that have a profile that is other than G.. mind you, neither of us have curse words or adult photos in them. Something is very very wrong with LL. This need to either be fixed or allow us to actually set our profiles to a level and let us make them apropriate for said level.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

To my mind, the question of whether or not something's a photograph only matters in particular contexts, and, in those contexts, primarily legal or quasi-legal, the definition is usually provided for us.

For the present purposes, LL distinguish between images that people are likely to think are photographs of RL models (what English law would call "photographs or pseudo-photographs") and other sorts of image.   So, for these purposes, the question isn't "how was the image made?" but "how does it appear to the ordinary observer to have been made?".   

An image that appears to be a photograph, in the normal, everyday, sense of the term in English, of a nude model is, as far as LL is concerned, Adult Content.    An image that appears to have been created in some other way may or may not be.    In practice, in contexts other than SL,  it's a simple enough test, or at least prosecuting authorities  (who are the ones who normally worry about how such images were created, at least if they appear to be of children) find it so.

 

[Nyll Bergbahn]

Sorry Innula, my reply was for Phil rather than your post in the context that you can photograph light emitting sources, they don't need to have light falling on them. I clicked the wrong post.

[Perrie Juran]

Reading this discussion of "what is photography" reminds me of an a recent experience I had RL.

But first I would like to say that "the definition of a term or word can change over time as people apply different definitions to the term."  With the advent of capturing screen shots in Virtual Worlds, we have added a new definition under the term or word "photography."

But back to my experience.  I am RL a very avid amateur photographer and have made friends with several professional photographers.  One of these friends invited me along to a small get together of other professionals who get together to compare work and discuss what they are doing.  And when I say 'professionals,' I mean people who's prints sell for as high as several thousand dollars in major galleries.  To say the least I felt very out classed and overwhelmed. To their credit I will say they all treated me very well.  But with one caveat.

I only use a digital camera and the friend who invited me has migrated to digital, I'd say 80% of his work now is digital.  But all the other photographers there were still FILM photographers.   And a few of them, the attitude was that 'digital photography' is not 'true photography.'  They will not use a digital camera for their work.  One of them goes as far as to display the negatives next to her prints on the walls in her gallery as proof to her customers that these are "true photographs" they are buying!

I did learn a lot from them that night as they discussed how they came to choose their subjects, frame their pictures, decide on lighting and camera settings.  But they all had this sadness that the 'art of film' was being lost.  It was a very interesting experience for me.

 

ETA:  This reply was meant to be in general, not to Charlotte.  Stupid Lithium.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

Sorry Innula, my reply was for Phil rather than your post in the context that you can photograph light emitting sources, they don't need to have light falling on them. I clicked the wrong post.

---

In that case, we aren't in disagreement. Of course we can photograph light sources. Melita had written to the effect that light falls on the screen and so we can photograph it. I corrected the idea that it can be photographed only because light falls on it. I could have added that light falling on something does not allow us to either see it of photograph it. It's light refelecting off something that does that - except light sources, of course

Overall, I've posted that, imo, a photographer in SL can be called a photographer. I think you're saying the same thing.