I always find some difficulty in settling upon categories when organising my photos. You know; waterfalls, wildlife, cityscapes, portraits, nudes etc etc.

When recently processing a few landscapes, the term phallic symbolism sprung to mind. What do you think? Appropriate? Or would you think 'roots and rocks' would be better?

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment Click to view attachment Click to view attachment Click to view attachment Click to view attachment Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Hmmm...thought you would have gotten some answers by now. You've really given us a hard one here.

Is this a real question or are you just dicking around?

First the Thai lady boys and now this. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Ray, just curious if you used a tripod or not. You'd think it would be the opposite but I find with these kinds of subjects my compositions usually turn out kind of stiff if I hand-hold.

I think the Kodachrome Basin is at least as phallic as the Far East:

Is this going to become another 'mine's bigger than yours' thread ??

Ray, what were you taking pictures of?

Don't forget Ka-ule-o-Nãnãhoa, on the island of Moloka'i, a legendary fertility stone...

http://www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/...imageid=1365972

Rock formations and tree roots. Oh! You mean the location.

The first two from the left were taken on the island of Koh Samui in Thailand. Unfortunately, the lighting wasn't too good. The others are all of the ruins of Ta Prohm in the Angkor Wat vicinity.

Not necessarily! Panopeeper's rock formation has the advantage of much more interesting lighting, but have you got a rock formation like this, Gabor?

Click to view attachment

LOL, that's good too!

The Kodachrome Basin is a horny area:

http://www.panopeeper.com/USA/KodachromeBasin/20D20406.jpg

http://www.panopeeper.com/USA/KodachromeBasin/20D20407.jpg

Is this topic "Members Only"?

No, I think Ray's last shot is more miss than member.

Then that must be the category.

For cross reference purposes, Gordon. One simple category is often not sufficient to find quickly the precise image one is searching for.

But I understand what you mean. I'm not particularly serious with this question .

Phile under Phallus...
ouch!
Click to view attachment
(Hampi,India,Lumix LX2)

That guy do circumcisions ?

I can't really find anything in my personally archives that goes completely with this theme, but I have stumbled upon a series I was working on a few years ago. This type of work can get a bit hairy if not kept trim in the first place, so I've kept it to just a few images. I would imagine a showing side by side with some of the images in this thread could be arousing in the right circumstances or at least fill in the gap to an otherwise knotty subject matter. I've named this series " the vagina monologs"
.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

Interesting shapes and formations. I'm reminded of the following shot taken a couple of years ago near Angkor Wat, which in turn reminds me of the recent movie, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", based on the short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

Click to view attachment

It's interesting (or not, you decide) that megalithic circles in the UK have stones that alternate between wide 'feminine' stones (usually a diamond-like shape) and upright, narrow 'masculine' stones. Some standing stones are particularly phallic. I'll have a hunt through my collection & see if I can find a photie or two to illustrate.

I swore I was going to stay out of this one, but I came across these while rooting around in my archives, and what the heck. Most people suspect me of some sort of perversion anyway, so what's to lose?

Peter J



Click to view attachment


Click to view attachment


Click to view attachment

are those aerials or micros? nice.

Thanks Witz; they're macro ice details.

thought I'd throw this ass into the mix...Click to view attachment

Jeez, Matt!!!!! That image may earn you a spot in the Pree-verts' Hall of Fame. I'll probably see you at the induction ceremonies next summer.

Peter J

Do I have to name this one "orgy?"

Dave

Click to view attachment

Does anyone get the painful point...?

Rob C

This is much less painful. Believe it or not, I had no idea of any phallic significance when I took this shot in Sapa, North Vietnam a couple of years ago. But now I come to think of it, two girls could be lots of fun.

Was I trying to say this, or was I just captivated by the spooky mist?

Click to view attachment

Well, Ray, the light looks happy enough!

Rob C

Thought this might fit in here:

"Regarding photographs and Photoshop, I constantly hear the word enhance.
I hear it even more in junk email touting male virility.
I wonder, is there a connection?"

-Stephen Johnson

No, it´s over at the other end of the kiosk - under car magazines

Rob C

Rob, you are so rude . The ladies don't look too unhappy either. I notice also a big root on the left.

Click to view attachment

Very phallic indeed!

And ray, I think that is a very appropriate tag for those photos. Side question, how hard did you push the greens (in post) in those shots...?

The greens are probably overdone. I confess to having some difficulty in deciding between as natural and realistic a result as my memory can serve, and a result which pleases me at the time of processing, even though it might not necessarily be realistic. Often, after I've attempted to get the colors as realistic as possible to make a print which I hang on my wall, some time later I'm sure to think, "I should have given more vibrancy to those colors".

I think it might be better to err on the side of vibrancy.

They also tell me that size matters, but as I look at these things from a different perspective, I couldn´t really vouch for it one way or the other.

Now I´m all aquiver.

Rob C

I often wondered where those e-mail came from. Now I know: Adobe.

Hate to spoil the boys will be boys fun. But some of you may be interested in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Georgia-OKeeffe-Came...276&sr=1-10

Georgia O'Keeffe and the Camera: The Art of Identity

From the book:

"...[O'Keeffe] was most bothered by the sexualized interpretations of her art..."

but

"...[Stieglitz] promoted the sexual interpretations of her imagery to which she objected."

Bottomline:

- One's intent for one's work can be interpreted by many viewers in many ways.

- Sex sells.

Wonderful book, BTW.

Interesting conclusion, which sort of forces the question why political correctness effed up my calendar business almost overnight.

Rob C

I cracked a smile when I saw this, butt I digress.

Sorry, but I think you folks are a bit off the mark. Now THIS, my friends is one great-looking ass. (The goats are none too shabby either, if that's where your tastes lie)


Click to view attachment


Peter J

Did you notice the goat in the middle is standing?

Rob C

Rob, the goat in the picture is a North American bipedal. They're quite rare these days; the few that remain are much sought after by Irish dance companies.


Peter J

I suppose the message here is that all of the photos exhibited in this thread are 'as pure as the driven snow'. There's nothing even remotely smutty, or salacious or pornographic about any of them.

Any thoughts and impressions that there is, exist only in the mind of the viewer.

But how do you know that? Consider the case of Peter J´s Irish dancer: long a major constituent of the satyr (Roman breed, not Grecian) tradition, there is little historical record to link the beast with either driven snow or purity of any other kind.

This is clearly another blatant assault on the sanctity and honour of this site, and as such, I demand that the Authorities remove this entire thread immediately.

As Mr O said: there will be change!

Rob C

Despite Steiglitz's eroticization of O'Keefe's art, he was a great photographer. The problem, as with many great artists, he had a great ego.
Minor White too, while he taught how to "be" and a new vocabulary for photographic artists, he was also a craftsperson, as was Weston, Adams, and Steiglitz. They knew their medium and used it to get the most they could from it.