FA+
Shop
Photography vs. Illustration
16 years ago
On FA in particular.
Do you guys feel that photography has a special place in the fandom? There's been a lot of debate over the years regarding this subject, and I think it still falls in the same argument that involves poetry, story writing, and music.
While I'm not an experienced photographer, and I couldn't tell you the name of any special bend of lens or special form of lighting aside from Rembrandt Lighting, I do think that photography is extremely essential and is not limited to just the furry fandom, but also human culture in particular. Example? Look around you.
The tree outside your window, although it can't express its feelings, its physical presence can sometimes be emotionally overwhelming. Is it a tree that was always there since your childhood? Is the family dog buried next to it? And what about the rusted apartment building across the murky street? See how it crumbles and withers, making you wonder what lives were lived before the crust of the structure began to crumble? Even the people around you especially can be photographically captivating. The emotion spoken through the eyes. The smiles, frowns, tears, and wrinkles. My favorite part of the body which I find are very expressive are the hands. You can tell a lot from a person by the condition of their hands. No matter what you're looking at, once its captured on camera, it has greatly influenced and even helped in the advancement in our culture--and furry is part of it.
We spend thousands of dollars to have fursuits made, for various personal reasons. For sex? Sometimes. For roleplay? Sometimes. Just to have fun? Sometimes. In the end no purpose is greater than the other, because we all live our own personal lives and shouldn't say what someone does in their personal life is wrong nor right. Unless of course it causes harm to others. We then take photos of fursuits at cons or just walking around town greeting people and having fun with their children or dogs in parks or playgrounds. We socialize with people in their fursuits as well and take photos of the exciting, fun, and hilarious memories.
But here on FA, and even the Furry community in general, photography isn't as appreciative. I can understand that a lot of sex is involved with furry, more so than there was in the beginning. And because of this, a lot of furs with a passion for photography aren't praised for what they do.
Writers such as
toonces is probably the most well known furry writer on FA. His stories are so well written that you could almost find a visual reality in how his stories are told. Musical composers such as the acclaimed 
foxamoore is the greatest furry musician on FA, and quite possibly even outside of FA. A talented musician such as himself, doesn't need any introduction. But do you know any brilliant photographers who've made themselves a name through FA?
What upsets me though is when people use FA to post 'suggestive' photographs on FA and call it an art of photography. Photography isn't just a science, but its a lifestyle. And when the rules specifically state that no suggestive images can be put on FA but people do it anyway because they say its 'photography'? That's absolutely ridiculous. But on FA, its ok if the half naked guy or girl is wearing ears and a tail, because then its considered 'furry photography'. It's just another excuse to allow yourself to show off your body (whether its appealing or not) to the public to get some sort of ego trip.
While this journal isn't necessarily made in favor for any specific person, but through my speculation, my great friend
apollowolfhusk was banned for posting photos of women in bikinis in suggestive poses. The camera angles in some of the shots were considerably controversial, and that's why he was banned, from what I understood. Ok, I can agree with that. If he failed to listen to the rules then he should be punished, just like either of us. Including me, right? Of course. We expect everyone to obey the rules on FA. FA is a great website where we can post our drawings or photos or stories or anything! Our ideas, memes, songs, journals, commission information--its great! But if you're gonna punish Apollo for posting suggestive images, then why haven't these people gotten in trouble..?
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/889752/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1918490/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2240460/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2240467/
How are these images different to those that Apollo took (aside from the obvious fact that his photos had women)? These are men who're exposing their bodies and some of them are in suggestive poses. Skimpy underwear? Almost exposing the crotch? Is that not suggestive? I'm not trying to call these people out by any means, I just wanna know when the line is drawn by the Administrators of FA. Who decides which is ok and which is not, and what specs should be noticed of each photograph? Because if you ask me, the shots Apollo took aren't much different than these given some of the suggestive angles and near-crotch shots.
I'll agree that the administrators put a lot of time into this site and that every once in a while a submission is overlooked. You still see people posting their genitals which is a direct violation of FA's upload policy. I'm not calling out on the Administrators on FA either. I just wanna know what makes a photograph considered the art and science of photography, and how one images is considered suggestive to the other. I certainly hope that there was no bias decision in banning apollo for showing a half naked women, because we know that'd be extremely wrong. But how is it different from showing these real life images of half naked men? I just wanna know whats up is all.
ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS JOURNAL.
Discuss <33
Do you guys feel that photography has a special place in the fandom? There's been a lot of debate over the years regarding this subject, and I think it still falls in the same argument that involves poetry, story writing, and music.
While I'm not an experienced photographer, and I couldn't tell you the name of any special bend of lens or special form of lighting aside from Rembrandt Lighting, I do think that photography is extremely essential and is not limited to just the furry fandom, but also human culture in particular. Example? Look around you.
The tree outside your window, although it can't express its feelings, its physical presence can sometimes be emotionally overwhelming. Is it a tree that was always there since your childhood? Is the family dog buried next to it? And what about the rusted apartment building across the murky street? See how it crumbles and withers, making you wonder what lives were lived before the crust of the structure began to crumble? Even the people around you especially can be photographically captivating. The emotion spoken through the eyes. The smiles, frowns, tears, and wrinkles. My favorite part of the body which I find are very expressive are the hands. You can tell a lot from a person by the condition of their hands. No matter what you're looking at, once its captured on camera, it has greatly influenced and even helped in the advancement in our culture--and furry is part of it.
We spend thousands of dollars to have fursuits made, for various personal reasons. For sex? Sometimes. For roleplay? Sometimes. Just to have fun? Sometimes. In the end no purpose is greater than the other, because we all live our own personal lives and shouldn't say what someone does in their personal life is wrong nor right. Unless of course it causes harm to others. We then take photos of fursuits at cons or just walking around town greeting people and having fun with their children or dogs in parks or playgrounds. We socialize with people in their fursuits as well and take photos of the exciting, fun, and hilarious memories.
But here on FA, and even the Furry community in general, photography isn't as appreciative. I can understand that a lot of sex is involved with furry, more so than there was in the beginning. And because of this, a lot of furs with a passion for photography aren't praised for what they do.
Writers such as
toonces is probably the most well known furry writer on FA. His stories are so well written that you could almost find a visual reality in how his stories are told. Musical composers such as the acclaimed 
foxamoore is the greatest furry musician on FA, and quite possibly even outside of FA. A talented musician such as himself, doesn't need any introduction. But do you know any brilliant photographers who've made themselves a name through FA?What upsets me though is when people use FA to post 'suggestive' photographs on FA and call it an art of photography. Photography isn't just a science, but its a lifestyle. And when the rules specifically state that no suggestive images can be put on FA but people do it anyway because they say its 'photography'? That's absolutely ridiculous. But on FA, its ok if the half naked guy or girl is wearing ears and a tail, because then its considered 'furry photography'. It's just another excuse to allow yourself to show off your body (whether its appealing or not) to the public to get some sort of ego trip.
While this journal isn't necessarily made in favor for any specific person, but through my speculation, my great friend
apollowolfhusk was banned for posting photos of women in bikinis in suggestive poses. The camera angles in some of the shots were considerably controversial, and that's why he was banned, from what I understood. Ok, I can agree with that. If he failed to listen to the rules then he should be punished, just like either of us. Including me, right? Of course. We expect everyone to obey the rules on FA. FA is a great website where we can post our drawings or photos or stories or anything! Our ideas, memes, songs, journals, commission information--its great! But if you're gonna punish Apollo for posting suggestive images, then why haven't these people gotten in trouble..?http://www.furaffinity.net/view/889752/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1918490/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2240460/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2240467/
How are these images different to those that Apollo took (aside from the obvious fact that his photos had women)? These are men who're exposing their bodies and some of them are in suggestive poses. Skimpy underwear? Almost exposing the crotch? Is that not suggestive? I'm not trying to call these people out by any means, I just wanna know when the line is drawn by the Administrators of FA. Who decides which is ok and which is not, and what specs should be noticed of each photograph? Because if you ask me, the shots Apollo took aren't much different than these given some of the suggestive angles and near-crotch shots.
I'll agree that the administrators put a lot of time into this site and that every once in a while a submission is overlooked. You still see people posting their genitals which is a direct violation of FA's upload policy. I'm not calling out on the Administrators on FA either. I just wanna know what makes a photograph considered the art and science of photography, and how one images is considered suggestive to the other. I certainly hope that there was no bias decision in banning apollo for showing a half naked women, because we know that'd be extremely wrong. But how is it different from showing these real life images of half naked men? I just wanna know whats up is all.
ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS JOURNAL.
Discuss <33
Photography isn't just an art but its a science. So much study is done with photos involving the lighting and the subject matter within the photograph. Its the visual documentation of a subject for various purposes.
I just wanna know how the aspects of photography is judged by the administrators and the overall public on FA.
I do see so many horrible myspace pics though that I would want to eradicate photographs in general ... but this is my main place to find new art. There's plenty of good music, writing, and illustration. But there's also laughably bad attempts ... why should it be any different than photography?
I guess it's seen in a different light because other forms are more anonymous.
I could say, if it took you 30 seconds to take, edit and submit the photo then it may likely not be a quality piece of photography.
but I do agree with Kilter, music, drawing and writing can also have bad results from rushed, attention seeking efforts.
I find it interesting how there is so much blatantly pornographically drawn art, but pictures are completely forbidden..
There's a difference between showing sex as part of photography for art, and just taking a pic of a penis..
Still, I can see where it would be hard for FA to monitor that kind of thing, it would be too easy for porn ppl to infiltrate and start using FA to advertise for their sites
If it's drawn, it doesn't matter what it contains, every attempt to legislate under the guise of child protection it has been struck down.
If it's a photo, it's on the website that displays it to prove that the person in the photo is over 18 if it can even remotely be considered sexual or the owners can be indited under child porn laws.
It is a risk factor that FA has decided to avoid.
Is it sane? Is it fair? I don't think so, but I fault the laws, not the site.
Still, if they're not going to allow that sort of thing, then why are they?
Random guys in their underwear is clearly on the side of indecent, as far as it goes if one of them is 16
maybe if the admins specifically browsed through the photo submissions? well, if they don't already
BUT, they're in my scraps, which I think makes a big difference
As for Apollo getting banned- thats a shame I didn't know he got banned for the whole debacle. I personally didn't think his pictures were all that smutty I mean they were girls in bikinis. We draw far worse things in our artwork but they're okay? Some artists on here are SUPERSUPER realist artists and you'd SWEAR it was a photo. Some of his photos were less artistic but I could have seen them as good artistic references. No joke- the girls were in cute poses wearing cute bikinis They weren't shoving their fingers in their mouths or grabbing their boobs they were standing there looking pretty. Sure they were scantily clad but I dont know. I have this big theory if people just embraced nudity as beautiful everything would be better. People wouldn't be so self conscious about their own bodies and nothing would be shocking anymore.
That and maybe its because I'm an artist - I see nudity as beautiful. Sometimes something so simple as someone laying around being naked is really pretty. That and I've seen alot of guys post very racy pictures on FA for the sake of nude/partial nude photography and it look like a trashy porn magazine.
Basically this topic will never be solved. Too many cross overs. lol
As for Apollo getting banned- thats a shame I didn't know he got banned for the whole debacle. I personally didn't think his pictures were all that smutty I mean they were girls in bikinis. We draw far worse things in our artwork but they're okay? Some artists on here are SUPERSUPER realist artists and you'd SWEAR it was a photo. Some of his photos were less artistic but I could have seen them as good artistic references. No joke- the girls were in cute poses wearing cute bikinis They weren't shoving their fingers in their mouths or grabbing their boobs they were standing there looking pretty. Sure they were scantily clad but I dont know. I have this big theory if people just embraced nudity as beautiful everything would be better. People wouldn't be so self conscious about their own bodies and nothing would be shocking anymore.
That and maybe its because I'm an artist - I see nudity as beautiful. Sometimes something so simple as someone laying around being naked is really pretty. That and I've seen alot of guys post very racy pictures on FA for the sake of nude/partial nude photography and it look like a trashy porn magazine.
Basically this topic will never be solved. Too many cross overs. lol
There needs to be a set rule about photography because there is a fine legal difference to art and a naked body to be posted here on FA. FA prides itself in being a furry art website where you can post any form of furry art that you please. From poetry to illustration to music, and even photography. But FA does not support actual human or even animal genitals to be purposely exposed and flaunted in a photographic image. If FA allowed that to happen, then FA would be a completely different website than it was originally intended to be.
I think this can be resolved if an update was done to the rules here on FA. The definition of a 'suggestive image' is very, very vague.
If not, then yeah, something's wrong there. :P
There WAS going to be a rules update that clarified that "art" photos were ones meant to show off the user's personal artistic photographic skill, with lighting, framing, composition, all that stuff, and pics just to show off random 'stuff' would be considered something else. There was also wording to the effect of "people in photographs must be dressed by the standards required by most professional business establishments." So no underwear and shirtlessness and 'lookit me almost naked' myspace camwhoring crap. I don't think any of that stuff made it to the current active AUP despite that revamp being a couple months of work by myself, with input, help, feedback and approval from all but two of the other admins. That was all a year ago though.
I don't know what they're using as a standard now. I do know that Dragoneer had been adamant that he'd always intended "no nudity" to include no shirtless males too, when he took down a bunch of not-so-suggestive pics just cuz the topless dudes were "gross" fatties. Came as a surprise to all the rest of us, but hey, it's his site. That's why I'd tried the "by the standards of most business establishments" line.
But yeah, photography always has been, and probably always will be, just sort of a "do whatever and hope people don't bitch too much" attitude for enforcement here. Any attempt to set some solid, consistently enforcable rules, have just been argument and debate until people get bored or annoyed and move on to something else.
I completely agree that an update is in order to set a particular standard for photography. They should be taken seriously and composed like an actual art piece. They must take both time and effort. Because right now, the way the rules are set up now can easily make the Administrators look bias if a situation isn't handled fairly.
People had a hard time understanding that they're not the first ones being dealt with, and it isn't any more fair for the other violations to be the "first" to be dealt with. They get handled as they're found, and if people point out other violations, those >should< get handled immediately after.
For them to actually ban him though, he would have had to do more than just refuse, I should think. They could just delete them anyway if he refuses to take them down himself. If he re-submitted them after an admin removed them, that could be a suspension.
But then, since I left, it seems like Neer's less hesitant to hand out bans to people who really should be getting a more diplomatic approach. :/
Unfortunately, there's laws to prevent distribution of child porn, and prevention of distributing porn to minors, there's too many restrictions involved in posting adult pictures on adult sites for adults. It's for the children, remember, but it screws everyone over in a less-than-nice way.
Running a website like this requires a lot of security because stupid people think its ok to post pictures of their nude or half nude bodies on FA because furry porn is allowed here. BUT what they don't realize is there is a HUGE difference between furry porn and real life porn. Not to mention that FA is a website dedicated solely to art and not real life pornography. There would be so many more legal changes in FA's rules if FA allowed real life pornographic or suggestive images.