IN many people’s minds, photography is one of the
unresolved problems of nudist park life. No park activity is more susceptible
than photography to an impulsive new rule, a revision of established
procedures, chronic misunderstandings and, generally, groundless fears.
Even under optimum circumstances, the nudist photographer must thread a cautious path through the warp and woof of on-going camp activities to capture and record for the graphic record what we mean by a “Nudist Way of Life.” Under less than optimum inconveniences paying guests, operates with a wide open depth of field focus, has sinister motives, never knows when to stop clicking the shutter, and sometimes, in his quest for variety and creativity, demands bizarre action and unprosaic poses which arouse suspicion and incite people to riot!
By and large, however, in any park where common sense prevails photography is not am unique problem. No newcomer should be allowed the use of a camera until a satisfactory probationary period of time has elapsed during which the good sense and name of the individual becomes well established. The old standard rule that no one gets photographed without his permission is as good today as the day it was made. Equally binding in the field of commercially used photographs is the rule requiring a signed photographic release of all recognizable individuals.
A visit to a park by a recognized, sincere-nudist, professional photographer is an occasion to rejoice‒providing your club desires publicity. By and large, publicity is the life blood of any new club, and with the fairly restricted programs of activities within most clubs, the turnover of membership will require a continuing effort at the publicity level to sustain the level of growth needed to provide the club owner with a living and to pay the rather imposing bills incurred for even fairly simple basic facilities. It is a rare day, indeed, when a professional even momentarily risks damaging his reputation by a thoughtless lapse of photographic etiquette.
Photographers wish to revisit the same park over and over again. It would appear, therefore, that a professional photographer would at all times exercise exceptionally considerate judgment. Our observation has been that such is the case. On occasion, however, we hear an isolated harrowing tale about a leading nudist photographer. Startled, we always sit up and take notice of the person recounting the incident and the circumstances surrounding the case. And then we check out the story for ourselves. May we present an example.
One of this nation’s leading nudist photographers was recently accused of taking “girlie shots” during a bona fide nudist convention and naturally while within the confines of a bona fide nudist park. As the story was told first-hand to us by a party directly involved, the photographer was sharply questioned and the interrogation led to a heated argument, whereupon the photographer in question withdrew from the park grounds. “He was caught red-handed!” was the way our recounter put the matter.
Even under optimum circumstances, the nudist photographer must thread a cautious path through the warp and woof of on-going camp activities to capture and record for the graphic record what we mean by a “Nudist Way of Life.” Under less than optimum inconveniences paying guests, operates with a wide open depth of field focus, has sinister motives, never knows when to stop clicking the shutter, and sometimes, in his quest for variety and creativity, demands bizarre action and unprosaic poses which arouse suspicion and incite people to riot!
By and large, however, in any park where common sense prevails photography is not am unique problem. No newcomer should be allowed the use of a camera until a satisfactory probationary period of time has elapsed during which the good sense and name of the individual becomes well established. The old standard rule that no one gets photographed without his permission is as good today as the day it was made. Equally binding in the field of commercially used photographs is the rule requiring a signed photographic release of all recognizable individuals.
A visit to a park by a recognized, sincere-nudist, professional photographer is an occasion to rejoice‒providing your club desires publicity. By and large, publicity is the life blood of any new club, and with the fairly restricted programs of activities within most clubs, the turnover of membership will require a continuing effort at the publicity level to sustain the level of growth needed to provide the club owner with a living and to pay the rather imposing bills incurred for even fairly simple basic facilities. It is a rare day, indeed, when a professional even momentarily risks damaging his reputation by a thoughtless lapse of photographic etiquette.
Photographers wish to revisit the same park over and over again. It would appear, therefore, that a professional photographer would at all times exercise exceptionally considerate judgment. Our observation has been that such is the case. On occasion, however, we hear an isolated harrowing tale about a leading nudist photographer. Startled, we always sit up and take notice of the person recounting the incident and the circumstances surrounding the case. And then we check out the story for ourselves. May we present an example.
One of this nation’s leading nudist photographers was recently accused of taking “girlie shots” during a bona fide nudist convention and naturally while within the confines of a bona fide nudist park. As the story was told first-hand to us by a party directly involved, the photographer was sharply questioned and the interrogation led to a heated argument, whereupon the photographer in question withdrew from the park grounds. “He was caught red-handed!” was the way our recounter put the matter.
Later, we met the offending photographer and “his model and the story certainly came out quite differently. Yes, the photographer was taking a picture of a bona fide nudist wearing “le minimum”‒the French equivalent of the briefest of bikinis. The photograph was being specifically taken to illustrate the French swim suit for a specific article which would contrast the suggestiveness of “le minimum” with the nudist convention that no suit would be less suggestive than this bit of cloth. Not having any photographs of “le minimum” the photographer had arranged with a personal nudist friend of his to pose specifically for such a picture. Yet the story came to us, by a first-hand witness that this was a breach of nudist photographic idealism and that it represented catching someone red-handed in doing something damaging to social nudism and its good name. No recognized, sincere-nudist, professional photographer who submits his work to nudist publishers only, is ever going to jeopardize his future nudist usefulness by damaging the reputation of the park in which he is privileged to photograph.
Recently a suggestion came to our attention through the pages of the Midwest Sunbathing Association News which we thought singularly considerate in intent but also singularly inconsiderate in effect. It was the suggestion that photographic releases apply to only one picture and that a signed release must be provided for each separate picture taken of an individual. The reasoning was that such a procedure would protect newcomers who are often enthusiastic to have their pictures taken and who may not be fully aware of possible consequences, and that it would allow many other people to possibly release their pictures for publication if first they saw a proof sheet and could verify that the photographs were sufficiently diffused, out of character, or unrecognizable to allow its release. Both of these reasons stemmed from good intent, but they hardly constitute reason enough for strait-jacketing professional, sincere-nudist photographers by thousands of releases covering equally thousands of specific photographs. In the first place, it is a camp director’s responsibility in his orientation program to caution newcomers on their “nudism-will-solve-everything” enthusiasm not to enter freely into picture posing until a sufficient length of time has elapsed to properly equate nudism’s effect and role in their personal lives. If our personal experiences over more than twenty years is our guide, a good six months is a fair length of time to allow some second thought to occur. And in the second place, many, if not all professional nudist photographers, are happy to learn of individuals who will pose for pictures on the proviso that the proofs first be seen before releasing the pictures. In short, there is no need to make a hard and fast rule which must apply to anybody and everybody when the exceptions to the rule can be taken care of under present operating procedures without adding needless rules to our already fairly big book of nudist rules.
Photography by the professional nudist photographer is actually a very smooth running facet of our nudist park life. The legal considerations ‒aside from the nudist gambit‒ make it so.
There are today a surprising number of nudist magazines but they all strive for permanence. That permanence can be assured only by having photographers well thought of by the subjects who do the posing. The complaints are not legion! In addition to the success of the magazine, nudist photography is often the missing ingredient which could provide success to a given park enterprise. To us it has always been amazing the number of park owners who have no conception whatever of how valuable a continuous publicity campaign can be to the real success of their park venture. With only rare exception, the best photographed parks are the most successful ones. Perhaps this is because a manager who realizes the value of photographic journalism is a person with better business acumen in the first place.
Be that as it may, by and large there seems no good need to further complicate the photography situation. The basic and necessary rules cove the situation quite nicely already.
(Source: The Nudist
Newsletter No. 140, September, 1963)
No comments:
Post a Comment