Discussion in 'Photography Beginners' Forum' started by ababysean, Jun 13, 2010.
what would your definition of this be?
Sexy? Nude? Just certain body parts?
lingerie or lounge wear, or less...quality work....camera in vertical orientation on many shots...no inappropriate, hacked-off horizontal framings of vertical compositions...excellent lighting control, with up to 10 or even 15 light sources so that each and every aspect of the image is well-lighted (Arney Freytag was once profiled in a story about him and his work at PB, and in the article he stated that he had 22 separate lights illuminating the photo!). Slightly too-warm color rendering as well.
Well, here's the thing... You're going to have to do some research...
That's the fun part though.
Get your hands on as much Playboy as you can find and start studying.
After a while the style should become clear to you.
haha well I've seen playboy before but a LOOOOOONG time ago, and I cant remember if it was full nude or just sexy poses?
A bit of both...
playboy - Bing Images
Playboy has changed over the years so you need to look at some recent ones.
To be honest, I am not that impressed by Playboy. I don't know what your goal is but I want to say, look at some of the masters of nude photography before looking at Playboy.
I would think slightly hidden nude, sitting on her knees on a bed with ruffled sheets all all around, then have the model be holding a sheet up over her breasts and then let the sheet flow down to the bed but have the sheet flow between her legs. So it looks like she's straddling a flowing sheet. That way u can see skin but it's still tasteful. U could keep the same pose and get the pic at an angle is u see her back and arch of her bottom.....but tasteful not trashy. She could also I could do an Annie Lebowitz esk photo w mylie Cyrus.....she had her nude, sitting with a sheet covering her whole front but the sheet was draped down her back to her bottom and her back had kind of an exagerated arch, then he photo was shot from her side. U can look the pic up on vanity fair. Um....u can use pearls too w different poses
just remember tasteful not trashy
I think for it to be tasteful (which is what I think Playboy strives for), lighting and composition should be at the forefront. It's easy to take an attractive person, remove their clothes and create class B smut. I would imagine in order to create a "sensual" and "sexy" feel while steering clear of the "sleeze" spectrum, one would most definately have to :
1 - Have some experience with photography & lighting
2 - Have the ability to be expressive through still photography
3 - Be creative in regards to composition and color
These are just my thoughts. What do I know? I'm a hack...lol. But I sound smart...Right? Right? LoL...
Yeah, the people that make their living shooting glamour and nudes for Playboy all suck. Never mind that most have 20 to 30 years' worth of experience in the field, they all suck. Look at the work of some dead guys for inspiration.
The modern Playboy - I agree.
The Playboy from years past, much different animal.
Back in the film days, I liked most of the work in Playboy... These days, it seems like it's more about selling porn than anything else.
Now, Playboy (back then) is not what I would call porn, but it's approaching that today. (I still wouldn't exactly call it full-blown 'porn' though...)
This would be in a studio, the same one I went to this past week.
It is listed as Glamourama, playboy style models.... lol
I want to go to learn and I'm not offended by nudity, but I just dont want vag in my face. (I'm a chick, I can deal with boobs and bottoms)
so who would be the dead guys? I should look at?
Separate names with a comma.