Lauren (NSFW)

[Austin Greene]

From a shoot this past weekend. Lauren does volunteer work for battered women, and is a generally awesome person. She wanted to do an implied nude shoot that wasn't about sex appeal. It was a blast, and we'll certainly be working together more in the future

P.S: I am not posting this in the nude subforum because there isn't anything showing. Therefore, I thought it would be appropriate for here since less is showing then some swimsuit shots others have posted. Yes, she's naked, but she is modest.

Hope you like it!
Austin


Lauren by TogaLive, on Flickr

 

[photoguy99]

I think a lower camera angle would help with the message of power.

 

[Austin Greene]

I think a lower camera angle would help with the message of power.

I can't say it was about "power." We weren't going for something that turned her into a god. That's very different from empowerment, imo.

More along the lines of accomplishing an implied nude shoot, minus the rampant sex appeal that leaks into these types of shoots so easily.

 

[bribrius]

she seems like a nice person! Not so sure i see anything for empowerment here. I do like the premise of the photo. The hand placement on the chin does strike me as a little awkward, i cant understand why just does. Her butt on that rock probably isn't too comfortable. So yeah. I don't see the empowerment. Nice photo anyway. The lack of sex appeal you nailed (and i mean this in a good way). This would be hard to do for empowerment imo. Nudity in itself comes with a certain sense of vulnerability.

 

[unpopular]

The little bit of sky is simultaneously distracting and essential. With it the eye is drawn out of the frame, without it the composition is stagnant.

 

[Austin Greene]

The lack of sex appeal you nailed (and i mean this in a good way).

What you just described is exactly the empowerment we were going for. Separating a female body from the sex appeal so many assign from it. In her mind and my own, that is empowerment. I think folks just have different meanings for the word, I'll edit the original post.

 

[bribrius]

The little bit of sky is simultaneously distracting and essential. With it the eye is drawn out of the frame, without it the composition is stagnant.

interesting you mentioned that. I was looking at it too but couldn't really make heads of tales of a better suggestion. You typed what i seemed to lack the wording for.

 

[Austin Greene]

The little bit of sky is simultaneously distracting and essential. With it the eye is drawn out of the frame, without it the composition is stagnant.

I'm quite happy if that's the case, and appreciate the perspective Can't agree with the second half, though. Everything here is pretty much exactly as intended.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

I think about how cold she must be.

 

[unpopular]

Everything here is pretty much exactly as intended.

This has no bearing at all on if it was a successful choice. By admitting that it was intentional only says to me that you've made a poor choice.

You have every right to be proud of the image, at least visually. But don't be so confident that you overlook the obvious. The image is very good, but it's not a perfect masterpiece. The gooey background is a mistake in my opinion, and the bit of sky - albeit the best choice given the circumstances - is nonetheless problematic.

As for the concept, I'm underwhelmed. By simply covering her naughty bits and claiming it's a feminist piece, you're essentially saying that women must be "modest" - else they are subject to being sexual objects; that the only non-pornographic place for the female form is if it is essentially obstructed from view. Covering her breasts in particular only furthers the sexualization of female anatomy within the context of your intent.

It's a fine nude portrait, and if it were left at that it would have been successful. Placing this socio-political baggage onto it though calls into question it's legitimacy.

As an image, it succeeds. As a statement, it fails.

 

[tirediron]

Everything here is pretty much exactly as intended.

This has no bearing at all on if it was a successful choice. By admitting that it was intentional only says to me that you've made a poor choice.

You have every right to be proud of the image, at least visually. But don't be so confident that you overlook the obvious. The image is very good, but it's not a perfect masterpiece. The gooey background is a mistake in my opinion, and the bit of sky - albeit the best choice given the circumstances - is nonetheless problematic.

As for the concept, I'm underwhelmed. By simply covering her naughty bits and claiming it's a feminist piece, you're essentially saying that women must be "modest" - else they are subject to being sexual objects; that the only non-pornographic place for the female form is if it is essentially obstructed from view. Covering her breasts in particular only furthers the sexualization of female anatomy within the context of your intent.

It's a fine nude portrait, and if it were left at that it would have been successful. Placing this socio-political baggage onto it though calls into question it's legitimacy.

As an image, it succeeds. As a statement, it fails.

I'm pretty much with UP on this. I like the image, I think it's well done, 'though I wish you'd used a polarizing filter to knock down those reflections on the water at least somewhat, and that bit of sky bothers my eye. As well, watch your posing; this is a very tricky shot in some respects, and while I can't tell if it's actually happening, the way she has her right arm positioned makes it appear as if she's pressing it into her breast.

As for the message. Sorry, but I don't get it. Not one little bit. I always look at images before I read any text in a post so that my thought process isn't 'polluted' by the poster's, and I can form my own conclusions. In this case, I got 'gentle', vulnerable' a sort of 'lady in the lake' thing. That said, I'm not sure how I would have shot an implied nude to show empowerment, so....

 

[pixmedic]

very tastefully done!

 

[JoeW28]

I like the image, I think it's a good one. Kudos to your model for having the courage to do this. Here are my suggestions:
1. The sky in the upper left is distracting--either remove it/clone it away or crop it out.
2. If you could repose, I'd have a bit more of her feet/ankles out of the water. As it is, they are cut off...and a long flowing line is lost.
3. Love, love, love the light on the left side of her hair--beautiful stuff there.
4. There is a tendency for people who shoot some nudes outdoors to just have a cute chick and hey, she's outside! Look for ways to find aspects like color/shapes/texture/form/light to either integrate or contrast the model with in the environment. To put it another way, integrate her into the surrounds so she either fits in or she contrasts with it. Here are some ideas...
--she's got some triangle action going there with her legs...any chance of a tree trunk nearby she could align with?
--she's in water, change the angle you're shooting at and get a reflection.
--or shoot with a longer exposure and blur the water to create a soft, ephemeral feel that would match her expression and pose.
--or put her on her stomach as if she's a creature of the water and emerging from it on to the shore.
Don't take these suggestions as criticism of the pose or of the shot, just ways to compose her that utilize the environment better. She's a good model and it's a lovely shot but you've got tremendous potential here.

 

[Austin Greene]

This has no bearing at all on if it was a successful choice. By admitting that it was intentional only says to me that you've made a poor choice. You have every right to be proud of the image, at least visually. But don't be so confident that you overlook the obvious. The image is very good, but it's not a perfect masterpiece. The gooey background is a mistake in my opinion, and the bit of sky - albeit the best choice given the circumstances - is nonetheless problematic.

By admitting that it came out how I'd like it to come out says it was a great choice. I've said nothing about the photo being a "masterpiece" or anything of the like. You've assumed that. Instead, all I've said is that the photo came out as I had thought it should. That says nothing about the quality of the image, or the composition for that matter. I'm all for critique, but try to keep things from getting personal.

As for the concept, I'm underwhelmed. By simply covering her naughty bits and claiming it's a feminist piece, you're essentially saying that women must be "modest" - else they are subject to being sexual objects; that the only non-pornographic place for the female form is if it is essentially obstructed from view. Covering her breasts in particular only furthers the sexualization of female anatomy within the context of your intent.

First off, I've not mentioned this being a feminist work at all. Another assumption on your part, and a poor one. You might want to curb those, considering everything you mention here has nothing to do with the point of this image. Per the client's request, she asked that we make a photo that keeps her own beauty in tact, without showing off her other features. There is nothing feminist about that. There is nothing about that saying that the female form has to be obstructed, or that women have to be modest. Quite the opposite. You've successfully, and completely misconstrued the entire concept.

It's a fine nude portrait, and if it were left at that it would have been successful. Placing this socio-political baggage onto it though calls into question it's legitimacy.

As an image, it succeeds. As a statement, it fails.

Just keep in mind that you are the only one associating that baggage with it. It is not meant to be a statement, it's meant to be a portrait in a specific context. This is not one of those cases where a photo is meant to carry a huge message. Instead, you've tacked that message onto the image through your own rhetoric. You have no business doing that, and frankly, it isn't fair that you'd expect it to live up to some grand feminist concept you've invented for it.

If you're going to make assumptions, and then draw your own circumstantial conclusions from them in such a grievous nature, do me a favor and don't do it with my photos.

Again, I'm all for critique. But proper technical critique does not involve personal assaults, or assigning your own ideology to a photo. If you think the top left is distracting, great, leave it at that. If I've placed that light there, then it was a choice, and I'll stick by it. If it was a poor choice, I'll learn from that. However, if it think it adds something to the photo, then I'll leave it. It's not being over-confident, it's called standing by your decisions.

EDIT: I do realize that part of the miscommunication here could be the fact that she is covered here. This is part of an entire shoot. Many of which, she is completely uncovered. The only reason I'm posting this image alone is: A) I'm not a monetary supporter of the forum so I don't have access to the nude forum and therefore cannot post, and B) I won't be posting those images in the first place out of respect for her own privacy. In that sense, anyone seeing this image and trying to consolidate whatever "message" they might assign to it, along with the fact that she is covered, might find those two points in conflict. I still, however, think the root of the problem is trying to ascribe a message in a place where one was never meant to be.

 

[Austin Greene]

very tastefully done!

Thank you. Glad someone can see it as a photo without pasting their own ideology to it