fine art nudes

[jake337]

The key point to be made is that even a very manly woman can be made to seem very feminine with photography. Proper use of lighting, and posing makes HUUUGGGEEE differences. I am a beginner so I can't tell you but maybe someone can lead you in the right direction if you are serious about fine art nudes, which lighting and posing become even more important than everyday clothes-on portrait shooting.

Very true. To some extent.

And I'm not saying this is the case here because I don't know the woman but some people (yeah, btw, it is not just women) will never make a good photo. One good reason why I will never do any retail photo again.

Do you turn down not so pretty women who want your services?

Ok, but if a not so pretty woman is paying you money to take their picture you better damn well know how to make her look her best.

 

[GeneralBenson]

A few thoughts on the OP (the post, not the person).

-I think B&W works better than color, but only because the white balance is off. With better WB, I think I would like the color more.
-The way the legs are posed that there is just one leg shadow isn't good. If you reversed the pose so the the viewer's left leg was forwards, it would have kept the shadows seperate, which I think would look better.
-I think the light is too hard in general.
-You mention coming away with over 500 shots. But don't think like that, I think people get too wrapped up in how many pictures they took, as if that has anything to do with how many good ones there are. You see it all the time with wedding photographers that say thing like, "You'll get over 1500 images!". They might not be any better (probably worse) than the guy who delivers 150 images, except that they deliver 1350 more images that aren't as good as the first 150. It's just more garbage. The only thing that ever matters is how many good images got made. No one cares if you shot 500 images and got 15 good ones, or if you shot 50 images and got 20 good ones. The final count is all that matters.
-I think there is a large area between pornography and fine art nudes that mostly gets ignored. Just because something isn't full frontal nudity, doesn't mean that it's fine art.
-I have to agree with the others. She is pretty mannish. And the the hard side light and very shadowed face sure don't help. And also...
-The hand pose doesn't help either. Her hands are a bit manly to begin with, but the pose of them is no where near feminine. I understand that you're trying to cover her boobs with something, but if I saw a crop of just the chest and hands, I would think there was a guy standing behind her, groping her breasts.

Live and learn though. Most aspects are better learned by doing them wrong first than by learning some rules and never understanding what their purpose is.

Cheers!

 

[doziergraphic]

-I think B&W works better than color, but only because the white balance is off. With better WB, I think I would like the color more.
-The way the legs are posed that there is just one leg shadow isn't good. If you reversed the pose so the the viewer's left leg was forwards, it would have kept the shadows seperate, which I think would look better.
-I think the light is too hard in general.

The thought on this shot was I'd seen some like this (done better of course) on the net and had it in the back of my mind to try this - she was the first since I thought of the pose. It was also late in the evening, and it was a spur of the moment thing that hit me. A shot I wanted to try but didn't really prepare for, and the sun was going down quickly.

Next one will be better planned.

-You mention coming away with over 500 shots. But don't think like that, I think people get too wrapped up in how many pictures they took, as if that has anything to do with how many good ones there are. You see it all the time with wedding photographers that say thing like, "You'll get over 1500 images!". They might not be any better (probably worse) than the guy who delivers 150 images, except that they deliver 1350 more images that aren't as good as the first 150. It's just more garbage. The only thing that ever matters is how many good images got made. No one cares if you shot 500 images and got 15 good ones, or if you shot 50 images and got 20 good ones. The final count is all that matters.

I'm still in the very experimental mode, so for every one pose, I probably took five shots (or more) with different focal lengths, sometimes playing with dof, etc. Told her we'd probably get about 10-15 decent shots out of it.

-I have to agree with the others. She is pretty mannish. And the the hard side light and very shadowed face sure don't help. And also...
-The hand pose doesn't help either. Her hands are a bit manly to begin with, but the pose of them is no where near feminine. I understand that you're trying to cover her boobs with something, but if I saw a crop of just the chest and hands, I would think there was a guy standing behind her, groping her breasts.

It would be very 'tacky' of me also to call her out on her looks here, but I never said I don't see the 'mannish' look she has. This is a hobby, but I've been paid by a few people (so far they're happy) and as you stated, do I turn down someone because of her looks? Like I said earlier, she was happy with the results, so NOW my issue is how do I deal with some of those features (some caused by me not lighting properly, some by nature!).

Is it my responsibility to make her look the way I THINK she should, or throw them out there with usual editing.

I'm sure there will be more 'clients' like this, so my goal with this post was to see if anyone has suggestions on how to either avoid this in the future (other than declining the job), or how to deal with it.

And I guess my 'fine art' attempt failed. No problem, I'll keep trying. But THAT'S why I posted and asked for opinions.

 

[reznap]

To the OP, sorry your photo wasn't well received. I agree with you that a photo can be critiqued without blasting the model. On the other hand, I don't believe you flattered her very well with the light and pose. The shadows/light isn't flattering to the models face (mainly nose and chin) and the skin on her belly needs some post processing to smooth out.

In my opinion, tasteful nude photos are mostly about the posing. This isn't posed ideally... I'd look into some examples and try to copy some poses you like. Also, I'd avoid the 'hand bra' at all costs. Different poses flatter different models.. so you'll have to probably try a few and see what works best.

Seems like a lot of work - and it's something I have no personal experience doing, but I bet it's somewhat fun anyway.

Next one will be better planned.

Good attitude to have. Good luck!

 

[mwcfarms]

My thoughts on improving the photo. The body is beautiful and in her pose she has no neck and chin is prominent. You want to elongate everything. Give it some flow. I don`t think that the light is awful here but isn`t flattering to her. Straight on shots are hardly ever flattering. Good luck on your next shoot.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

you guy are ***s, its not the greatest picture ever but she doesnt look like a "shemale" wtf?

and the constant use of 'wtf' is rediculous. learn some language skills. :cyclops:

Oh dude. You just slammed someone's language skills and misspelled ridiculous when doing so? Dude..... <sigh>

-1 for cocky retort fail.

I'm not a dude. I guess you might be able to be spell-check but you sure can't interpret obvious things.

 

[obx]

No they cant be posted here. They use to be allowed but that rule changed several months ago. (the ones you posted are probably fine though)

On a car forum that I belong to they have a Forum specifically for posting dirty pictures. Guys share photos of their wives and gf. Any thing goes on that website. Basically it goes as follow www.&$@#!$!forum.com/underground/ . Maybe the Photo forum should go underground and photographers can share any pics that they want. What do you guys/girls think????????? Are we going to see: www.thephotoforum.com/underground/ ??????????????

 

[OrionsByte]

On a completely different note, dozier, I love your avatar but it's really creepy in the context of this thread. I keep seeing little Ralphie behind a camera taking these shots... :lmao:

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Do you turn down not so pretty women who want your services?

Men or women. But, no, I don't turn them down. I just don't deal with this kind of photography.

I think there is a large area between pornography and fine art nudes that mostly gets ignored. Just because something isn't full frontal nudity, doesn't mean that it's fine art.

:thumbup:

The line between porn and art is very thin and moves according to people's personal perspective on life. Some of my painting work has been called porn... Not to say that your image is porn. It is not. But it is not art either in my book. Go to a bookstore and look at books of nudes. Also, here's a website where you can get some inspiration.

Fine Art Nude Photography Network - art of nude photography

Some photographers to check out are Jean Loup Sieff, David Hamilton (often considered porn in the US), Helmut Newton (one of my favorites), Herb Ritts,
Richard Avedon, Edward Weston, etc, etc. A lot of those guys were also fashion photographers and I don't think that is surprising.

Hope that helps.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Fine Art Nude Photography Network - art of nude photography

Gorgeous work in that site...

 

[doziergraphic]

On a completely different note, dozier, I love your avatar but it's really creepy in the context of this thread. I keep seeing little Ralphie behind a camera taking these shots... :lmao:

Even scarier, that's how I look behind the camera!

 

[oldmacman]

Here is an edit to adjust the lighting a little. I love the contrast in the actual pose vs what comes out in the shadow. I find there is a little too much space to the right of the image (meh, could be a personal thing).

 

[reznap]

Drunken phototoshopping!

 

[tevo]

The face and the hands speak male/shemale to me, which I can do without, the rest of you need to pay attention. Very Freaky.

Have you ever seen Seinfeld?

LOLOL Manhands!

I agree though.

 

[amanda0908]

The face and the hands speak male/shemale to me, which I can do without, the rest of you need to pay attention. Very Freaky.

Have you ever seen Seinfeld?

Man hands!