the photographer's corner... fictional facts and factual fictions

The title of this column is "Paper or Pixels?" but it could just as easily be "Nude or Not?" They are both rather simple questions with complicated answers.

Paper… We all know that paper is made from soft wood trees like pine. Its ground into pulp, certain material are subtracted by processing, the whiteness is made by bleaching and by the time its all done we have a nice canvas we can write, paint or color on. We use it to express our thoughts, our feelings, our creativity, our disgust or discord, and most importantly of all, our freedom.

Pixels… Pixels are dots used to display an image on a screen. The word pixel is a blend of the words picture and element. A computer monitor is made up of many millions of pixels arranged in a grid which are lit up by an electron gun to create an image we can see. While pixels are the smallest complete element of an image, they are comprised of even smaller elements. In a standard monitor each pixel has three dots within it: a red, blue, and green dot. In theory these dots all converge at the same point, making them visibly seamless, by the time its all done we have a nice canvas we can write, paint or color on. We use it to express our thoughts, our feelings, our creativity, our disgust or discord, and most importantly of all, our freedom.

Paper has been around in general public use for many hundreds of years. Pixels, in the form of computer monitors, have been around in general public use for something like 25 or 30 years.

Paper is reliable and doesn't call for outside purchases to use (no computer or net service needed), but it is also slow and very expensive. The newspaper publisher trying to distribute his content this way must print millions of copies and ship them at great expense all over the world to reach the same audience as the publisher using pixels.

Pixels are modern, efficient and economical. As an example a newspaper publisher can create his content and distribute it online in minutes to millions of people around the world. It can be done at the cost of a simple web site server costing just $200 a month.

A modern pixel based publisher can reach a million readers / viewers in minutes for $200.00. An old style paper publisher can reach those same million readers / viewers in months for $1,000,000.00.

Over the last several months multiple media types - from national entertainment shows like Inside Edition, to local TV stations in at least 3 states - have repeatedly used the contrast between paper publishing and pixels publishing to present the TrueTeenBabes publication in a bad light. Let me explain…

In August, knowing a local media type was coming to interview me at the Florida studio I drove just under 7 miles to the nearest Barnes and Noble bookstore and purchased 3 books:

"See Me, Feel Me" by Chicago's Richard Murrian and his previous book "Reanna's Diaries" each feature over 200 photographs of beautiful females, most of which are under age 18, including popular web models Reanna Taylor and Jen Hilton. Every model in those books is photographed with her breasts fully exposed, including when some of the models were not yet old enough to drive a car. "Reanna's Diaries" was sold out, but they told me there was several on backorder.

See Here

"Age of Innocence" by Englishman David Hamilton also contains hundreds of photos of fully nude minor females. The text of that book starts with this paragraph:

"Virginity is paradoxically erotic. Young girls, reaching the Age of Innocence, are not only physically attractive and beautiful human beings but are also emotionally challenging; they embody the promise of life at its fullest, of excitements taking shape, and the essence of sexual allure"

See Here

"Radiant Images" by San Francisco's Jock Sturgis. Much like the two mentioned above, this book includes nude minors - but both males and females, in hundreds of quality photographs.

See Here

Other books by those photographers, as well as Sally Mann, John Kelly and others that work with topless or nude minors were sold out.

As the TV, radio and print media guys try to tell me how bad the TTB publication is, how they feel it should be illegal, and how the small outfits selected by TrueTeenBabes models are too revealing, I pull out those books and ask them to explain to me why the models in the books can be fully nude, but the models on TTB shouldn't be in daring outfits, when they are the same age.

The answer I get every single time is something along the lines of; "But that's a book" or "Yes, but that's a book in the art section" or more commonly, the weird answer of "But your photos are on the Internet and you don't know who is seeing them"

Read that again. "But your photos are on the Internet and you don't know who is seeing them". So, I'm guessing that somehow the Internet is the dirty illegal thing, not the pictures. Interestingly, every single one of the media types we have talked with in the last 8 months has an Internet site or two. So, are they illegal? They can deliver content by pixel, but I shouldn't?

That brings us back to the "Paper or Pixels" question. Somehow each of these media types seemed to think that the nude minors in the paper published books are worthy, justified, "just fine" and not controversial. But, at the same time, my less revealing photos of minors are bad, dirty or should be outlawed because they are delivered by pixel and not paper.

"Paper or Pixels?"

Read between the lines. Think about the pressure they apply. Look at the direction they are pushing and approving of - nude minors in books. It is very clear that to get the media off my ass, to get their approval and for them to allow the girls to do as they please within the law, I simply need to change the way I produce images and publish the result.

Let the girls go fully nude and put it on paper in book form.

One media type jumped my case about girls covering their breasts with their hands. He went to local law enforcement and tried to convince them it was "fondling" and I should be arrested (with his cameras along at the time). He went to the top First Amendment attorney in the area and tried to convince him of the same thing and more. Not once did he ask the law enforcement people or attorney to state that the fully nude minors were illegal or go after the operators of Barnes & Noble, just the minors with breasts covered by hands.

Listening to the way these media types justify the books mentioned above, the nude Brooke Shields pictures and movies (done at age 10 and 12), and all the other items out there, it seems that I need to let the models get fully nude and put it on paper. The media types approve of it. They don't hide in bushes outside Barnes and Noble video taping, but they did sit across the street and tape me mopping the floor for 30 minutes. They don't track down models, studio renters or staff and stalk them like some prey in the African bush, but they did that here all summer long.

"Paper or Pixels?" "Nude or Not?" The answer seems to be a combination. If I select paper and nudity it appears I'll be left alone, get lots of media approval, and be distributed worldwide by major corporations like Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com (same books and more available there).

Think about it. Fully nude minors get approval where lightly covered doesn't, simple because its paper and not pixels.

I can't for the life of me figure out what the difference is in our modern connected world. "Paper or Pixels?" If I did a book it would be the same models, studios, locations, cameras, make-up, staff, lighting gear, outfits (or no outfits) and personalities. There are only three differences (1) The models are topless or fully nude in some shots, (2) after the models go home the images are retouched and prepared differently for print as compared to pixel publishing and (3) paper publishing takes a long time and is very damn expensive.

I may be 47 years old but I'm fairly modern. I know that digital publishing is much less expensive and the workflow is more efficient. I selected to go that way with TTB. It simply makes sense from a purely business point of view.

I'm having second thoughts.

A one hundred page, full color, hardback book with fully nude images of models like Lana, Ashley Nicole, Tina and Kaylynne can be done for about $25,000.00 for the first press run of 2000. "Age of Innocence" sells for $55.00 at B&N, and I bought the last copy when I was there in July, so it must sell well. Figure they pay about 60% or more for it, meaning about $33.00 each or more, it seems I could triple my investment and get the media off my butt - just by letting the models go fully nude!

Think about how stupid that really is. With the media's push I'm actually thinking about letting the models go fully nude, and making a better return on my investment, and getting the major corporations to do the distribution.

Seems I have some serious thinking to do the next few weeks.

I'm already dizzy thinking about how the lack of common sense and utter stupidity by these media types recently. There was a time when you could read serious news and a "journalist" was true to his craft. Its not like that any longer. They don't report news, but rather try to create it.

Just a few months ago I wrote in an online forum about how NBC hired "Muslim looking" people and sent them down to a NASCAR race in the deep south and had them start chanting and praying in other people's way to see if they could get "rednecks" to react and start a fight. Of course NBC would use it as "Breaking News" on Dateline and pat themselves on the back for their journalistic discovery. The NASCAR fans didn't do a darn thing and NBC went home with no "news" to broadcast.

Inside Edition actually used this headline "Scantily Clad Young Girls Found on Teen Modeling Websites". That was 4 months after I had communicated by email with them and explained that TTB is 5 years old, its old news, and huge national shows had already covered it.

They still promoted it as if they had just discovered something the rest of the world had never seen. Reminds me of Geraldo going in Al Capone's vaults live on TV 20 years ago to find nothing.

One section from the Inside Edition story truly shows the total lack of journalistic style, education and skill. It reads:

"So how do these sites get away with it? In most instances, they skirt the law by putting just enough clothing on the girls, and by not having them engage in, any blatant sexual activity."

Read that again. Get away with what? Being fully legal?

Their story is about exotic looking girls on TTB. We know that these girls could do illegal things on there, but they don't. Their bodies are fully capable, but we don't break the law.

Lets change it to exotic cars. We all know that a new Ferrari can break any speed limit in the country and drive illegally. These types of cars are fully capable of breaking lots of laws, but that doesn't mean they do.

"Speedy Exotic Cars Found on American Highways"
"So how do these drivers get away with it? In most instances, they skirt the law by driving just enough under the speed limit, and by not driving them in, any blatantly dangerous way"

Read that again. Get away with what? Driving legally in a fancy car?

Posing legally in an exotic outfit, or driving legally in an exotic car, when did that become the subject of such poor journalistic work?

"Paper or Pixels?"

"Nude or Not?"

I'm just sitting here looking for answers to the questions that bother them so. Drop me a note and let me know if you have my answers.

Jimmy Stephans
Clearwater, Florida. USA
September 5th, 2006