Experimenting a bit. "wife on a pipe"

[katsrevenge]

Thanks for the input guys. Good points. I was out shooting portraits in midday with harsh sun for a challenge. We just found this pipe down where we were shooting and played around with it a bit. I'll mess with the photo. I did have one speed light on her but with the midday sun I don't think it was enough. Nude would have been a nice interesting shot. Don't think my wife would be too keen on me putting it online though haha.

True. But a I bet she would like it even less if you hired a nude model!

why should it bother her ? It has never bothered my wife when I have done nude shoots to me it's no different to shooting a landscape, it's only a problem if you can't separate sex and photography

Well, I'd be OK with him shooting male models. He'd be more than OK with my shooting females, LOL... but men? Not so much.
For us, it's not so much a matter of trust as it is a matter of the bounds of the relationship.

What has it got to do with your relationship, it's photography

It's a nude body of the opposite gender. If it works for you and your wife, that's great... but it won't work for everyone. That's all.

 

[unpopular]

better than a wife on the pipe, I suppose.

 

[gsgary]

Too many prudes on here

 

[unpopular]

Didn't mean to offend those hipper than I, but crack really isn't my cup of tea.

 

[Granddad]

Too many prudes on here

Do I take that to mean that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint on the subject is a prude?

Same question to those who "Agreed".

 

[unpopular]

It's not a matter of the individual's involved in the shoot not being able to separate sex and photography (or porn and art)

99.97% of "art nudes" is essentially soft porn; tasteful, perhaps, but erotica nonetheless. It is very seldom novel, and is almost always unnecessary. I think the number of genuine "art nudes" i've seen can be counted on one hand.

OTOH this does bring up an interesting question: why can't human sexuality be art?

 

[katsrevenge]

Too many prudes on here

Do I take that to mean that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint on the subject is a prude?

Same question to those who "Agreed".

The really funny part of this is that both myself and my guy have solid backgrounds in college level art. That includes a lot of nude figure drawing. I've seen more nude butts than most people have. He used to go to 'open draw' after graduation so he may have seen a few more than I. The interesting bit about drawing the nudes was the differences in body types. Our art proff went out of his way to get as many different types of people in, from all walks of life and all ages. We drew nudes in order to learn how to 'see' and recreate the human form..not to just look at a nekid person!

Being prudish has nothing to do with it. LOL, not after that nude bum. It's just boundaries. I think most relationships would have them.

The Op's idea is neat (I think anyway) but a nude wife would not have added anything to it. What would being nude add?

 

[pjaye]

why should it bother her ? It has never bothered my wife when I have done nude shoots to me it's no different to shooting a landscape, it's only a problem if you can't separate sex and photography

This is the stupidest rationalization I have ever heard. It has nothing to do with separating sex and photography. Nudity does not equate to sex. For some it's about modesty.

 

[unpopular]

We drew nudes in order to learn how to 'see' and recreate the human form..not to just look at a nekid person!

I remember being pretty excited because the one woman I thought I'd NEVER get to see naked volunteered for figure drawing class.

I think a lot of us guys were pretty enthusiastic about the idea, and at the time I am not sure if I'd ever seen a naked woman in person before, let alone *this* particular naked woman.

Yeah. It was pretty disappointing ... context.

But in this particular image, if the model were nude it would have just been silly IMO, and yes, it would have been sexual. Whether or not that is offensive to you, well, that's kind of your call to make.

But honestly, I don't think it'd necessarily be any *more* sexual and silly than it already is - and it is already a kind of silly photo. Perhaps it'd be a little less silly if she were nude, as it is now a woman posing in a mildly sexy way (*not pornographic*, but yes, this is a somewhat provocative pose) on an irrigation pipe wearing a sweater is kind of silly - at least if she were naked then it'd be more sexy. Though, once I got over the naked boobies (and I do like naked boobies), I'd probably be wondering what the heck is she doing on an irrigation pipe, naked? But so what! Naked Boobies!

Ok. I'm not trying to be offensive here to the OP's lovely wife (though i probably am), but rather, I'm making a point. If this image can only work if she were nude, then it's relying on the provocative nature of an attractive person in a mildly sexual pose *being* naked. It's relying on the viewers sexuality, rather than the photographer's artistic insight. There no dialogue, aside from what you'd expect from a group of thirteen year old boys looking at a playboy!

In my opinion, that is sort of what defines pornography, it is solely about the sexual/sensual/erotic/whatever nature of the model and nothing else. I've seen many of images that is shot and lit well, but the only reason I'm looking at them for more than a few seconds is because the model is naked - and yeah, I like looking at naked women.

If she were dressed, it may as well have been any other well-executed portrait. If the only thing that separates an image from any other is the nakedness, then it's not an "art nude" - it's just porn/erotica. I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with that, but it is what it is and you have to be aware of this when you're working with these subjects. To create a genuine "art nude" is probably the most challenging assignment you could give yourself. Simply adding a fig leaf here or a whip of hair there in strategic places won't suffice.

Otherwise, just admit it's porn/erotica and get over yourself. And for god's sake, don't call people prudes because you're too shy, pompous or self-righteous to admit it!

 

[Donde]

I don't know about being nude. I think that steel pipe would be awfully cold!

 

[Derrel]

Some of the stupidest chit being shovelled here in this thread. Absolutely shovelled. Bring in the John Deere manure spreader, the hay fields desperately need some more fertilizer.

 

[chiefpackman]

Some of the stupidest chit being shovelled here in this thread. Absolutely shovelled. Bring in the John Deere manure spreader, the hay fields desperately need some more fertilizer.

Haha, I do find it slightly entertaining.

 

[FITBMX]

Some of the stupidest chit being shovelled here in this thread. Absolutely shovelled. Bring in the John Deere manure spreader, the hay fields desperately need some more fertilizer.

John Deere isn't the answer to everything! J.I. Case, Allis Chalmers, I.H. , Ford, and Oliver all made really nice ones! I don't know why everyone has to go straight for dumb old John Deere!!!

 

[Granddad]

Some people engage in witty repartee to wrap up a conversation; others agree to disagree...

It's all about respect for differing viewpoints.

 

[katsrevenge]

We drew nudes in order to learn how to 'see' and recreate the human form..not to just look at a nekid person!

I remember being pretty excited because the one woman I thought I'd NEVER get to see naked volunteered for figure drawing class.

I think a lot of us guys were pretty enthusiastic about the idea, and at the time I am not sure if I'd ever seen a naked woman in person before, let alone *this* particular naked woman.

Yeah. It was pretty disappointing ... context.

But in this particular image, if the model were nude it would have just been silly IMO, and yes, it would have been sexual. Whether or not that is offensive to you, well, that's kind of your call to make.

But honestly, I don't think it'd necessarily be any *more* sexual and silly than it already is - and it is already a kind of silly photo. Perhaps it'd be a little less silly if she were nude, as it is now a woman posing in a mildly sexy way (*not pornographic*, but yes, this is a somewhat provocative pose) on an irrigation pipe wearing a sweater is kind of silly - at least if she were naked then it'd be more sexy. Though, once I got over the naked boobies (and I do like naked boobies), I'd probably be wondering what the heck is she doing on an irrigation pipe, naked? But so what! Naked Boobies!

Ok. I'm not trying to be offensive here to the OP's lovely wife (though i probably am), but rather, I'm making a point. If this image can only work if she were nude, then it's relying on the provocative nature of an attractive person in a mildly sexual pose *being* naked. It's relying on the viewers sexuality, rather than the photographer's artistic insight. There no dialogue, aside from what you'd expect from a group of thirteen year old boys looking at a playboy!

In my opinion, that is sort of what defines pornography, it is solely about the sexual/sensual/erotic/whatever nature of the model and nothing else. I've seen many of images that is shot and lit well, but the only reason I'm looking at them for more than a few seconds is because the model is naked - and yeah, I like looking at naked women.

If she were dressed, it may as well have been any other well-executed portrait. If the only thing that separates an image from any other is the nakedness, then it's not an "art nude" - it's just porn/erotica. I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with that, but it is what it is and you have to be aware of this when you're working with these subjects. To create a genuine "art nude" is probably the most challenging assignment you could give yourself. Simply adding a fig leaf here or a whip of hair there in strategic places won't suffice.

Otherwise, just admit it's porn/erotica and get over yourself. And for god's sake, don't call people prudes because you're too shy, pompous or self-righteous to admit it!

LOL, oh yeah, there was some of that, in the first few classes, (freshman being freshman, heh) but it stopped really quickly. There is just not much sexual about a bright room and 20-30 people with big drawing boards. Most of our models were not students either, some were older (one was a Vietnam vet with serious scaring from napalm) and only a few were what you'd call 'conventionally attractive'. The prof was of the mind that anyone can draw a pretty girl and make her look good but only a good artist can find the beauty within someone where it is hidden by age, hard living or whatever.

To me, this wife on a pipe was already interestingly sexual but yet not. It was somewhat coy, and that made it charming in a silly way. It would have been nicer if she'd looked directly into the camera. It would have played more with the idea of body as something gazed at, the sexual undertones of the pipe, and her autonomy while still being somewhat silly.

I've only ever seen one bunch of "art nudes" that I thought were more art and less 'looky pretty nekid lady with boobs!'. It was a series of women who were not conventionally pretty. Some were very heavy, others scarred or missing bits (breast cancer, I think) but in those pictures they were gorgeous.

Perhaps it is just easier to deal artistically with a nude body in other media without it ending up feeling like porn? Not that there is anything wrong with porn.... but most of it isn't art.