Lauren (NSFW)

[otherprof89 30]

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....

I appreciate the critique. But, again, I don't see where people are picking up on a concept of a message. This is a personal portrait. There is no grandiose feminist message. People assume "empowerment" means some grand thing whenever a female is involved, but in this case it's simply about a girl having her portrait done, comfortably, without it being laced with sex appeal.

I do agree with you on the elbow. From what I can remember she wasn't pressing back, but it does appear that way. Something to look out for in the future

Samuel Goldwyn once said, "When I want to send a message, I call Western Union." A beautiful image doesn't have to say anything, and people who argue about what it is saying, and whether it should be saying it that way or at all, may be missing the point which is the image itself. Politics belongs in some photos, e.g. the Fahey-Klein Gallery in L.A. just opened a show of civil rights photos. But most of those photos out as images, even without the context. Roger Fry once wrote about one of the first Chinese artists to visit England. They took him to the great museums and galleries and tried to wow him with the best they had. It turned out that a lot of the renaissance art left him cold, because he didn't get the stories or iconography. As images, they did not move him. When he got to the impressionists, he was wowed. Reading Fry made me look at images differently. Now I ask things like, "If I didn't know this was a reference to the Annunciation would it be worth looking at?

 

[Austin Greene]

Oh, wow. I come back from a weekend of engagement shooting and just noticed how much this thread blew up. I do really appreciate that so many of you liked the photo, and I'll do my best to get you another soon enough

Keep shootin'!

one day, maybe 10 - 20 years time I imagine she will look back fondly at this image, its not something many would be into but she is attractive and this is a lovely photo, noting more nothing less but what a great record for her from this time, I'm not so clued up on all the technical things but just like it.

My assistant on this day had the exact same thought. We're now in the process of getting a shoot together for her as well!

I love the image. Very beautiful, natural, and the color is so rich and earthy. My next request for you is to get her in one of your gorgeous landscapes!!!! My heart trembles at the very idea!!

More and more I think I've found myself inching towards that end of things, portraits mixed with really vast landscapes. At the moment, I think I'll pick up a bit too much distortion with the 17-40, but I'd certainly like to give it a go.

I want to make a picture like that, but never get a model that will do it

Like other folks mentioned, you'd be amazed as how open people are once they realize you aren't a creep. My goal in every shoot is for a subject to be as comfortable with me as if we were best friends or family. Make them comfortable, and the shoots will come

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....

I appreciate the critique. But, again, I don't see where people are picking up on a concept of a message. This is a personal portrait. There is no grandiose feminist message. People assume "empowerment" means some grand thing whenever a female is involved, but in this case it's simply about a girl having her portrait done, comfortably, without it being laced with sex appeal.

I do agree with you on the elbow. From what I can remember she wasn't pressing back, but it does appear that way. Something to look out for in the future

Samuel Goldwyn once said, "When I want to send a message, I call Western Union." A beautiful image doesn't have to say anything, and people who argue about what it is saying, and whether it should be saying it that way or at all, may be missing the point which is the image itself. Politics belongs in some photos, e.g. the Fahey-Klein Gallery in L.A. just opened a show of civil rights photos. But most of those photos out as images, even without the context. Roger Fry once wrote about one of the first Chinese artists to visit England. They took him to the great museums and galleries and tried to wow him with the best they had. It turned out that a lot of the renaissance art left him cold, because he didn't get the stories or iconography. As images, they did not move him. When he got to the impressionists, he was wowed. Reading Fry made me look at images differently. Now I ask things like, "If I didn't know this was a reference to the Annunciation would it be worth looking at?

This is a really cool, really informative piece of history. I'm reading up on it now!

 

[beagle100]

Oh, wow. I come back from a weekend of engagement shooting and just noticed how much this thread blew up. I do really appreciate that so many of you liked the photo, and I'll do my best to get you another soon enough

Keep shootin'!

one day, maybe 10 - 20 years time I imagine she will look back fondly at this image, its not something many would be into but she is attractive and this is a lovely photo, noting more nothing less but what a great record for her from this time, I'm not so clued up on all the technical things but just like it.

My assistant on this day had the exact same thought. We're now in the process of getting a shoot together for her as well!

I love the image. Very beautiful, natural, and the color is so rich and earthy. My next request for you is to get her in one of your gorgeous landscapes!!!! My heart trembles at the very idea!!

More and more I think I've found myself inching towards that end of things, portraits mixed with really vast landscapes. At the moment, I think I'll pick up a bit too much distortion with the 17-40, but I'd certainly like to give it a go.

I want to make a picture like that, but never get a model that will do it

Like other folks mentioned, you'd be amazed as how open people are once they realize you aren't a creep. My goal in every shoot is for a subject to be as comfortable with me as if we were best friends or family. Make them comfortable, and the shoots will come

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....

I appreciate the critique. But, again, I don't see where people are picking up on a concept of a message. This is a personal portrait. There is no grandiose feminist message. People assume "empowerment" means some grand thing whenever a female is involved, but in this case it's simply about a girl having her portrait done, comfortably, without it being laced with sex appeal.

I do agree with you on the elbow. From what I can remember she wasn't pressing back, but it does appear that way. Something to look out for in the future

Samuel Goldwyn once said, "When I want to send a message, I call Western Union." A beautiful image doesn't have to say anything, and people who argue about what it is saying, and whether it should be saying it that way or at all, may be missing the point which is the image itself. Politics belongs in some photos, e.g. the Fahey-Klein Gallery in L.A. just opened a show of civil rights photos. But most of those photos out as images, even without the context. Roger Fry once wrote about one of the first Chinese artists to visit England. They took him to the great museums and galleries and tried to wow him with the best they had. It turned out that a lot of the renaissance art left him cold, because he didn't get the stories or iconography. As images, they did not move him. When he got to the impressionists, he was wowed. Reading Fry made me look at images differently. Now I ask things like, "If I didn't know this was a reference to the Annunciation would it be worth looking at?

This is a really cool, really informative piece of history. I'm reading up on it now!

 

[beagle100]

modestly fine!

 

[FITBMX]

Lovely and tasteful, I really like it! Good Job!!!