Warning: Adults Only - Dan Radcliffe - Full

[Steve]

---  "kkersey_austin" <kkersey at ...> wrote:
>
> This thread seems to be veering toward the inflamatory
> and the offensive. Can we cool it down, folks? Stop 
> the name-calling at least? We *are* all *adults* here,
> right? :-)
> 
> Steve was right to warn us about the nudity in the 
> photo he linked to.
>  ...
> 
> (Now, I do think Steve's subject line was a bit, er,
> sensational? Enough so that I flipped to a different
> window real quick last night when I saw this chain of
> messages, and waited until I was alone in the room 
> before going back to see what was going on here!)
> 
> 
> Elisabet, ...

bboyminn:

The result of my Subject line might have been 
sensationalistic, but the intent never was. By your 
own admission, the Subject line did it's work, it
cautioned you before the fact and you acted 
accordingly. 

I didn't want there to be a chance that someone would
open the post and click on the link without reading it,
only to be shocked and offended by what they saw. That
actually could happen. Perhaps I could have chosen my
Subject Heading words a little better, but they produced
the effect I wanted, which was to give people an advance
caution about content.

I find it interesting, the turn this thread has taken.
I feared starting a war between the 'he's beautiful'
and the 'that's obscene' crowds reenforced by the 'that's
illegal' crowd. More than that, I actually wondered if I
would be Banned or put on  probation for posting it. 
That's part of the reason for such blunt in-your-face 
warnings.

Instead we have gotten into a discussion of the general
societal need for such warnings and how we relate to 
nudity in general. I am very glad I was able to stimulate
a worthwhile discussion.

That brings me to CONTEXT, as I have already noted. On
one hand when I thought this was simply a full version
of a previously cropped photo from the Equus photo shoot,
I found the image very appealing. I even found myself
mentally comparing it to Michelangelo's 'David'. Though
'David' is, in a sense, /idealized/ man. What I saw was 
a beautifully artistic male form; very emotionally 
moving.

When people started pointing out that it might be a 
Photoshopped Fake, the image quickly lost it's appeal.
It was no longer art, but a blantant attempt at
sensationalizm and explotation. I was left feeling very
cold. That's when I decided to contact DanRadcliffe.com
and DanRadcliffe.co.uk in hopes that they could do some
thing about this.

I have received a response from DanRadcliffe.co.uk, and 
they said they were aware of the photo but didn't want
to do anything about it as that would only bring more
attention to the site hosting the image. I replied and
pointed out that THEIR awareness wasn't the point. The
question was whether they had made Dan's People aware of
the image so that they could take whatever action they 
felt was appropriate. 

Someone from the group wrote me and told me that Jenna 
of DanRadcliffe.com was aware of the image, but no 
indication whether they had passed that information on
to Dan's People. 

Perhaps, I will hear from them again.

As to the idea that NO fully or indiscretly exposed 
images of Dan exist. I'm having trouble believing that.
The image in the viewfinder rarely is an exact match 
to the image of the photo (digital or print). It would
seem very reasonable that a professional photographer
would have taken the images covering more area of the
body than necessary, and they cropped them for the 
best artistic appeal and for modesty. Certainly, once
they had the final images, the originals could have
been destroyed. 

If find myself wondering if they used Digital Photography
or film/slide/print photography. The problem with film
photography is you have to have the film sent to a 
professional processing lab to get your photos and 
negatives back. That takes time and risks exposing the 
photos to a wider range of people, all of whom probably 
know the tabloids would pay a fortune for full nudes of a 
Star. Consequently, I suspect professional digital 
photography. They are far more secure, easy to post on the
net, easier to edit, and can be transferred with reasonable
ease to print medium.

I can't say for sure, but just generally understanding
the nature of a professional photo shoot, I don't think
you can crop photos that easily or artistically IN the
camera. Of course, I'm not a professional photographer,
so I could be wrong.

Thanks to all for such a positive response to my post.

Steve/bboyminn