onlyallfours.tumblr.com posted the following:Seeking help responding to this:                                                                                                                            "Concerned" has written to me: “I certainly have no objection to the occasional image of a woman on her hands and knees. However, the heavy concentration of these pictures in your blog, panders to those who think of women as objects to be demeaned, humiliated and degraded. You are fostering an unhealthy and potentially dangerous state of mind among your viewers who are, undoubtedly, all men. I can only ask you to sincerely reconsider the effects of what you’re doing. In my ‘view’ it’s among the worst sorts of pornography.”
My response:
This photomosaic was part of an exploration of contrast in imaging. Contrast is a vital function of portraying a subject in the visual media, somewhat lost in the riot of color that RGB monitors provide, and far more important in black and white images. The impact of an image is influenced by the differences in contrast in the elements which comprise the overall images, and the human eye can discern a  remarkable amount of content even at very low contrast levels. But the eye can also be misled by the careful choice and placement of the elements contained in an image. Photomosaics are themselves an exercise in this, as the subtle differences in the overall contrast levels of each of the individual photopixels, as well as their chromatic content, is utilised to paint a larger image.
This image is an attempt to use contrast at more than a pixel or a photopixel level, and follows earlier efforts such as using a database of images which are all girls with guns to create a photomosaic from a source image which is also a girl with a gun. Elements and source are not in contrast in the finished photomosaic.
Similarily, PM’s using the database of girls in variations of ‘doggy style’ poses and a source image which is also a doggy style pose are not in contrast. What then would efforts to use contrast between element and source look like?
Robert A Heinlein: “…ever notice how much they look like an orchid?”. There is some contrast (but not much), in a contextual sense, between elements in a PM which are human females with their butts up in the air, ready, willing, and waiting to be ‘pollinated’, and a PM source image which is of a bird pollinating a flower. Most of these visual meanderings are on the photomosaics Tumblr, but I was working towards pushing the contrast out to the limits. What, I thought, could be in most stark contrast to thousands of pictures of doggy styled women?
Some face with a bomb in his turban, an image so obscene that people died because of its existence. Talk about pornography (and beauty) being in the eye of the beholder.
And then ‘Draw Muhammad Day' occurred. People have died over imagery that does not strictly adhere to certain 'views' and yet 'concerned' thinks they have found dangerous pornography here on Tumblr. The originator of  'Draw Muhammad Day', Molly Norris, has fled for her life and abandoned her old previous identity, _on the advice of the FBI_, when threatened by barbarians with their precious 'views'. When I read what 'concerned' wrote I thought immediately of the so called holy men of the so called religion of peace, pandering to the worst in men, informing them on what is healthy or unhealthy. That is what “…to be demeaned, humiliated and degraded…” actually looks like, not images on All Fours Tumblr.
To you ‘concerned’ I say that yours is the dangerous mindset, not the bloggers here.
I created this PM a while ago but did not publish it at first. Now it seems relevant as an example of contrast between element and source. What could be more in contrast, lovely ladies of every description in eager position and a cartoon depicting an exemplar to more than a billion people; a murderous paedophilic slaver.
The black script translates to lan astaslem: I will not submit
onlyallfours.tumblr.com posted the following:Seeking help responding to this: "Concerned" has written to me: “I certainly have no objection to the occasional image of a woman on her hands and knees. However, the heavy concentration of these pictures in your blog, panders to those who think of women as objects to be demeaned, humiliated and degraded. You are fostering an unhealthy and potentially dangerous state of mind among your viewers who are, undoubtedly, all men. I can only ask you to sincerely reconsider the effects of what you’re doing. In my ‘view’ it’s among the worst sorts of pornography.”

My response:

This photomosaic was part of an exploration of contrast in imaging. Contrast is a vital function of portraying a subject in the visual media, somewhat lost in the riot of color that RGB monitors provide, and far more important in black and white images. The impact of an image is influenced by the differences in contrast in the elements which comprise the overall images, and the human eye can discern a  remarkable amount of content even at very low contrast levels. But the eye can also be misled by the careful choice and placement of the elements contained in an image. Photomosaics are themselves an exercise in this, as the subtle differences in the overall contrast levels of each of the individual photopixels, as well as their chromatic content, is utilised to paint a larger image.

This image is an attempt to use contrast at more than a pixel or a photopixel level, and follows earlier efforts such as using a database of images which are all girls with guns to create a photomosaic from a source image which is also a girl with a gun. Elements and source are not in contrast in the finished photomosaic.

Similarily, PM’s using the database of girls in variations of ‘doggy style’ poses and a source image which is also a doggy style pose are not in contrast. What then would efforts to use contrast between element and source look like?

Robert A Heinlein: “…ever notice how much they look like an orchid?”. There is some contrast (but not much), in a contextual sense, between elements in a PM which are human females with their butts up in the air, ready, willing, and waiting to be ‘pollinated’, and a PM source image which is of a bird pollinating a flower. Most of these visual meanderings are on the photomosaics Tumblr, but I was working towards pushing the contrast out to the limits. What, I thought, could be in most stark contrast to thousands of pictures of doggy styled women?

Some face with a bomb in his turban, an image so obscene that people died because of its existence. Talk about pornography (and beauty) being in the eye of the beholder.

And then ‘Draw Muhammad Day' occurred. People have died over imagery that does not strictly adhere to certain 'views' and yet 'concerned' thinks they have found dangerous pornography here on Tumblr. The originator of 'Draw Muhammad Day', Molly Norris, has fled for her life and abandoned her old previous identity, _on the advice of the FBI_, when threatened by barbarians with their precious 'views'. When I read what 'concerned' wrote I thought immediately of the so called holy men of the so called religion of peace, pandering to the worst in men, informing them on what is healthy or unhealthy. That is what “…to be demeaned, humiliated and degraded…” actually looks like, not images on All Fours Tumblr.

To you ‘concerned’ I say that yours is the dangerous mindset, not the bloggers here.

I created this PM a while ago but did not publish it at first. Now it seems relevant as an example of contrast between element and source. What could be more in contrast, lovely ladies of every description in eager position and a cartoon depicting an exemplar to more than a billion people; a murderous paedophilic slaver.

The black script translates to lan astaslem: I will not submit