The mysteries of fashion

[RBSinTo]

This was taken at Nathan Philip's Square in front of our city Hall here in Toronto, on an horribly contrasty, f16 kind of bright sunny day.
I saw the young woman with the tattooed body and the unique clothing walking ahead of me, and I raced to get this shot before she disappeared into the crowd.
I don't even begin to understand what this all means so I'm just posting it without comment.
motorized Nikon FA
Vivitar Series 1 135 f2.3 AI manual focus
100 ISO colour slide
exposure about 2.8 @ 1/4000th

[Donald]

I believe I hold to and promote the principles of feminism, of the right of women not to be objectified as in so much of the mainstream media and in equality and right to choose, but ..........! If I was to walk down the street in my underwear, I'd get arrested. And as for the body adornment, I don't understand the current craze in the western world. Fashions come and fashions go and I wonder what all these people do when it all goes out of fashion.

[RBSinTo]

I believe I hold to and promote the principles of feminism, of the right of women not to be objectified as in so much of the mainstream media and in equality and right to choose, but ..........! If I was to walk down the street in my underwear, I'd get arrested. And as for the body adornment, I don't understand the current craze in the western world. Fashions come and fashions go and I wonder what all these people do when it all goes out of fashion.

Donald,
I agree completely with your comments.
While I am not a fan of "body art", I can appreciate the workmanship that goes into quality, artistic tattooing, which I believe this is.
However, I really do think that the woman's apparel was incredibly tacky.
I showed the shot to my wife and wondered why the girl didn't wear a top that tied at the neck and across the lower back so the art would be better exposed.
My wife reminded me that no one considers me to be a maven of fashion, and suggested that perhaps the subject is large-breasted and so cannot wear a top without support. I didn't bother to try and catch her, so I never did see her from the front. In the end everyone does what they do (RBSinTo's Law) and this photo is the result.

[Dave A]

Yup I don't get it but I have now problem with it. One persons bad taste is another persons artful expression I guess. I will come clean though and admit I have 3 small tattoos.

Dave

[mknittle]

Ya know that probably cost more than your camera body.

[RBSinTo]

Ya know that probably cost more than your camera body.

Most certainly it cost more than the gear I used to take the photo:
motorized Nikon FA-$200.00
Vivitar Series 1 135 f2.3 AI lens-$200.00
100 ISO colour slide-free (from a now digital photobud)
processing-$25.00 (sigh)
But what is your point?

[Shadowman]

Well if you've got em (tattoos) you've got to show them. Nicely captured.

[KimC]

I am intrigued with body art, although it's not something I would do to myself.

I have to agree with you Robert, the woman's outfit does nothing to display the beauty of her body art.

[mknittle]

Most certainly it cost more than the gear I used to take the photo:
motorized Nikon FA-$200.00
Vivitar Series 1 135 f2.3 AI lens-$200.00
100 ISO colour slide-free (from a now digital photobud)
processing-$25.00 (sigh)
But what is your point?

just seems like a lot of money for something that does little but bragging rights. I didn't mean anything against your gear. If I had the room I would shoot film too.

[mknittle]

I am intrigued with body art, although it's not something I would do to myself.

I have to agree with you Robert, the woman's outfit does nothing to display the beauty of her body art.

The problem is it begins to fade almost immediately and eventually then as we get older and our skin loses its elasticity the tattoos make it more noticeable. That said I have seen some really good ones but it is a high buck short term investment that can turn ugly

[RBSinTo]

just seems like a lot of money for something that does little but bragging rights. I didn't mean anything against your gear. If I had the room I would shoot film too.

I'm sure you meant nothing by it and no offense was taken.
Film is all I shoot, as I just can't get excited about this whole Digital business.

[mknittle]

I'm sure you meant nothing by it and no offense was taken.
Film is all I shoot, as I just can't get excited about this whole Digital business.

When we move out of this goofy state and get a place with some more room I well probably give film a try.

[Daisy Mae]

I believe I hold to and promote the principles of feminism, of the right of women not to be objectified as in so much of the mainstream media and in equality and right to choose, but ..........! If I was to walk down the street in my underwear, I'd get arrested. And as for the body adornment, I don't understand the current craze in the western world. Fashions come and fashions go and I wonder what all these people do when it all goes out of fashion.

To be fair Donald..she's not in her underwear..I can tell because she has a deeply unflattering top on over her bra...and some kind of dreadful elasticated waisted bottoms.

I jest.

I suppose my point is ..so what?

She is her own special creation.....it isn't a feminist issue in my view..I simply can't see the gender aspect at all...enlighten if ye will.

and..I don't like tats..on anyone...personal taste.

[FootLoose]

The problem is it begins to fade almost immediately and ...

They have the tattoos "refreshed" regularly to maintain the colours.

I think it is ironic that people who follow fashion and constantly "update" their wardrobe have themselves tattooed - in the name of fashion - because that is one layer that can never be changed.

[Steaphany]

I'm standing with Sharon on this one.

So, I'm curious Donald, what about this gal, the fact that she's tattooed, and her choice of attire leaving a fair bit of skin visible, has the result that she is no longer a person, but is now an object ?

In most western countries, adults dress themselves. Rarely is anyone forced into specific clothing selections and there may be laws regarding indecency, but no one regulates taste. Someone may be seen by others as having a poor taste in their choice of clothing, but it is still their choice. Even if this gal was wearing nothing but a bikini, sufficiently concealing all those naughty bits, she would still be a person and not an object.

In regard to Kim and Robert, does having a tattoo come with a clothing requirement mandating clothing choices must prominently and clearly shows off the tattoo, all the time ?

At my pay the bills job here in North Texas, a part of the bible belt, conservative country folk, has a fair number of of co-workers, at various levels of the company, both female and male, with tattoos. Dress is often casual and the tattoos are evident, but rarely on exhibit by clothing choices to show them off.

Finally, on a photographic technicality, even though we can not see her face, the tattoos that this gal has does provide sufficient ability for recognition, necessitating that a model release should have been secured prior to public exhibition or commercial use of this image.

Granted a thread on CiC is not commercial use, but this is a public forum. As I understand it, guests can access these discussions and view the posted photos, so this should have been a situation where a model release was signed by the gal in this photo.

I wanted to reply earlier this morning when I first saw this thread, but the days discussion have brought additional aspects to light and I'm reminded of a meme from twitter that was posted by, of all things, a clothing company who includes sizes for large framed women:

We are each here to be true to ourselves, to be respected and not superficially judged, which brings a courtesy of not judging others.

[Saorsa]

I believe I hold to and promote the principles of feminism, of the right of women not to be objectified as in so much of the mainstream media and in equality and right to choose, but ..........! If I was to walk down the street in my underwear, I'd get arrested. And as for the body adornment, I don't understand the current craze in the western world. Fashions come and fashions go and I wonder what all these people do when it all goes out of fashion.

Talking to a fellow sporting 'tribal' tattoos, I asked him "What Tribe"? He blustered and bluffed for a bit but obviously didn't have a clue.

[Mike Buckley]

this should have been a situation where a model release was signed by the gal in this photo.

My understanding: The legal requirement for model releases varies from country to country. Indeed, in some countries the photo in question would not be legal unless the model release had been signed in advance of taking the photo. If the photo in question was taken while the photographer was on public property in the U.S., and if there is no commercial use by the photographer, no model release is necessary. I'm not a lawyer but that's my understanding.

[Steaphany]

I'm not a lawyer either, but remember reading criteria that reference uniquely recognizable features, intending clear view of a person's face yet tattoos can be just as unique.

I'm not holding the issue over anyone, just being a bit nit picky on a technicality.

[JBW]

I am intrigued with body art, although it's not something I would do to myself.

I have to agree with you Robert, the woman's outfit does nothing to display the beauty of her body art.

I feel the need to point out a point? I can't tell from this shot if it is beautiful body art. It may be. But the focal point of this shot is the ladies bra and over garment.

if the shot had been cropped a bit or had the bg worked a bit perhaps the tattooing would be the focal point but as it is....
Brian

[Donald]

I'm standing with Sharon on this one.

Okay, I'll crawl back into my hole on this one. I think I made a bad job of the wording and of conveying my thought and ended up giving the wrong impression of my views.