A Colorado teenager whose yearbook picture was rejected for being too revealing is vowing to fight the ban with her high school’s administration.Nice photo. All it needs now is a stripper pole.
Of course it's a civil rights issue because any hootered blond can tell you about freedom of expression and stuff.
She'll get her 15 minutes, and maybe an offer from Playboy. Anything beyond that will require discipline, moxie, some intelligence, an agent and hard work.
Or a sex video.
9 comments:
What ever happened to all the dudes in a bad fake tux and all the girls with a plain black drape over the shoulders, shot portrait-style? Like they did way back in...the 90's.
No wonder everyone under 25 thinks they are some sort of precious irreplaceable snowflake.
you came of age before digital, i think that is why.
the digital age has changed everything, including how we view the world as its viewing us.
Good point. My first internet connection was in college, and it was primitive. (I still remember typing emails on Telnet, where there was a delay of 1-3 seconds between what I typed and its appearance on the screen.) I didn't have broadband until I was most of the way through grad school.
Apparently she can have the photo in the yearbook, in the form of a $300 ad. Seems kind of hypocritical to me. If the argument is indecency, it shouldn't matter which page the photo appears on.
Speaking from a photographer's point of view...
...digital photography has changed yearbooks. It used to be that kids either went to a photography studio for a senior portrait session, or if they couldn't afford a whole session, they would get the standard "head shot" done with a photographer at the school, or a studio that offered a one-shot deal. In either case, photographers worked with yearbook restrictions (usually masters background, head and shoulders shot, no hands or props in the frame, head centered, facing front, slight tilt but no severe angles)
I've worked with a couple of seniors this year, and while the school is still requesting a lot of similar restrictions (head size, portrait, no props) they seem to realize a lot of parents have such lovely digital cameras that the kids just aren't spending the money on senior portraits anymore, so the "masters background" requirement has dropped off the list in favor of "non-distracting background".
So that is what happened to the old days of guys in tuxes and girls in a wrap uniformity.
However, even in the restrictions listed above, I found that at least the local schools around me are pretty relaxed - Some full body shots - clearly hiking photos from vacation - were submitted and accepted by the school. As a photographer with OCD, it makes me cringe.
I look at this shot and think it is horrid for a traditional yearbook photo - the banister is distracting in both the foreground and the background (depth of field is too wide) her right eye is not fully in the photo, her right arm is nowhere to be seen, it's a 3/4 body shot instead of a head shot, and the tilted horizon is giving me a headache.
As to the "freedom of expression" - if you want the freedom of expression, start a blog or print your own damned yearbook. Editors have the final say in their own production. If it were me, I would reject the photo for all the reasons I stated above even if she were wearing jeans and a t-shirt.
What banister?
*shrug* Drama queen wanting attention gets attention.
Meh.
Now, I feel both jaded and "youth"-ish.
We could have done without the mullets back in the '80s.
Hindsight is 20-20
A few years ago a Minnesota senior who was heading to college via the ROTC program had her photo rejected because she posed next to an artillery piece. There was nothing provacative about the pose, but the howitzer violated the school's "no guns" policy!
Post a Comment