Nude series

[Fotofashion.no]

Posting the image, since she is not really showing that much. You can view more photos here if you want

Crohnprinsessa

 

[Ray Hines]

I don't see the need to show the stoma. This is a very attractive lady sensitively photographed, above the waist why show more. Your other photos are very good and this shot does nothing to highlight the problems associated with stomas.

 

[photoguy99]

I saw it and immediately got it. It's part of her, now. It's part of her life, and part of her body.

Is she to be nude or not?

 

[weepete]

Ok, once I read it was a stoma (never seen one before so I didn't know what it was) this makes sense. Great lighting, interesting subject, asks questions and gets us to question our judgement of beauty while providing a contradiction with the juxtapositon. Ticks all the boxes for me.

The only thing I'd do is crop a touch more off the sides. But I do get why you've cropped it this way. But I'm really nitpicking there.

Anyway I think it's so good I'm nominating this for photo of the month February POTM Nomination Thread Page 2 Photography Forum

 

[mmaria]

I think this is a really powerful image. Beautiful.

You did a good job presenting her sensuality/beauty and on the other hand, something that she's struggling with (both physically and physiologically, I'm sure)
I like her expression, her posture, scars shown, the light... I like everything

Nitpick is the light on her left hand.. maybe to tone it down a bit because it's the brightest part on her

Agree with the nomination

This is one of my favorite photographs seen here, I'll sure remember it. Good job!

 

[rexbobcat]

I don't see the need to show the stoma. This is a very attractive lady sensitively photographed, above the waist why show more. Your other photos are very good and this shot does nothing to highlight the problems associated with stomas.

Not to get all social justice blah blah, but this response is part of the reason why it should be shown. Beyond the general hassle of having to clean it and keep it up, there are no problems other than people taking issue with it.

It's not any worse than photographing others who are out of the norm, such as amputees.

Or are we supposed to assume those people are damaged and should be represented as such also?

Maybe a better question might be, if you think she's so attractive why should the stoma matter?

This seems eerily similar to a comment such as, "You're really pretty, but you'd be even prettier if you lost weight."

Only it's worse, because this woman can't lose her colostomy/urostomy bag or her stoma.

 

[rexbobcat]

Part of this response comes from the fact that my mom's a nurse, my aunt's a nurse, and my stepmom's a nurse. My mom worked in dialysis and home health (taking care of the elderly), so I've seen the kind of conditions people have to deal with, especially in this area.

If I EVER had to deal with ANY of this, the last thing I would want to hear is someone telling me how they're so sorry I'm a scarred individual or complaining about how my condition that I can't change is making them uncomfortable.

Empathy is worth so much more than sympathy, and this whole "It's not a big deal but let me tell you what I think" attitude undermines common human decency.

 

[Ray Hines]

Did I say I had a problem with the lady having a stoma? Did I say it shouldn't be shown? I knew the PC Brigade would jump on my comments and claim that I was being insensitive to the ladies problems. Far from it. I have a friend who has a stoma so I know all about the problems associated with them. My point was, why show the stoma? The lady is very attractive and makes a wonderful model, the fact that she has a stoma is irrelevant, as has been proved in the other photos taken. Using someones disability or illness to display the condition is ok, using it just to show it, is not. The other photos taken of this lady shows that although she has a stoma it has not stopped her being a beautiful model, they should be an inspiration to others in her situation. This photo shows that she is 'different', why? She has a problem, yes, but she is not letting the problem stop her living her life. If the whole shoot had been aimed at showing the stoma in a model situation, then I would understand this shot. However, the shoot was obviously aimed at showing this lady as a 'normal' model, which it did very successfully.

 

[rexbobcat]

Exactly. It's irrelevant. Just like your anecdotal information is irrelevant to the assumed meaning in your initial post.

That's why it shouldn't matter if it's shown.

And I'm not being PC (that's not really the proper insult to use in this situation btw. A more apt insult might be "libtard feminist") . I'm just being logical about the implications of what you just said.

How would you photograph it to show that she's not "different?" No matter how you photograph someone who has a condition that is out of the norm, they're going to appear different to the viewer. That's the nature of the beast.

So it doesn't make it better to just get rid of the condition altogether in the photos, because that just makes the point stronger that they are different.

We don't want people to see them as different, so let's erase their differences.

"However, the shoot was obviously aimed at showing this lady as a 'normal' model, which it did very successfully."

Then why are you complaining about how it was shot...It sounds like you feel the photographer should be making some statement about how difficult it is to live with a stoma.

 

[Ray Hines]

Exactly. It's irrelevant.

How would you photograph it to show that she's not "different?" No matter how you photograph someone who has a condition that is out of the norm, they're going to appear different to the viewer. That's the nature of the beast.

Have you seen the other photos in the set? They show that the lady is not 'different'. This photo is unlike the others in the set. As I said, if the shoot was to show someone with a stoma, and to highlight it, it failed. If it was to show someone living a 'normal' life with a stoma then it succeeded, except for this shot. I don't feel uncomfortable seeing this shot, I just think it's being shown out of context.

So it doesn't make it better to just get rid of the condition altogether in the photos. It just makes the point stronger that they are different.

I'm a Type 1 Diabetic but I don't expect to have a needle in my arm whenever I have my photo taken. I am me, not a diabetic. This lady is a model, not a model with a stoma.

 

[rexbobcat]

Exactly. It's irrelevant.

How would you photograph it to show that she's not "different?" No matter how you photograph someone who has a condition that is out of the norm, they're going to appear different to the viewer. That's the nature of the beast.

Have you seen the other photos in the set? They show that the lady is not 'different'. This photo is unlike the others in the set. As I said, if the shoot was to show someone with a stoma, and to highlight it, it failed. If it was to show someone living a 'normal' life with a stoma then it succeeded, except for this shot. I don't feel uncomfortable seeing this shot, I just think it's being shown out of context.

So it doesn't make it better to just get rid of the condition altogether in the photos. It just makes the point stronger that they are different.

I'm a Type 1 Diabetic but I don't expect to have a needle in my arm whenever I have my photo taken. I am me, not a diabetic. This lady is a model, not a model with a stoma.

So people who have visible conditions should only be shot certain ways that don't display their condition too much, because that might be too on-the-nose? We should show the model that's she's not different by restricting her to certain poses and angles.

We'll give her confidence and normalize the visibility of such a condition by intentionally hiding it. Because that shows that she's just another model, well, except for that whole colostomy thing that we're trying to keep to a minimum in the photos for the sake of showing how it's not a big deal.

Therein lies the implicit hypocrisy of this whole position.

Where would we draw the line between putting her condition on display and showing that it's just another part of her?

The answer is that we can't, especially in the genre of nudes, so we should just let her model like any other model, lest we regress down the slippery slope. If this were a woman without a stoma, this debate wouldn't even be happening.

Tt shouldn't matter at all that her colostomy bag is visible. It's a good nude of a beautiful woman who just happens to have a stoma.

You're the one who's seeing it as anything other than that.

 

[Ray Hines]

It appears that you and I will not be able to agree on how we view this picture, so I will agree to disagree. I respect your views even though I cannot agree with some of them. I see a model with a stoma, you see a stoma model.

fjrabon and ruifon it would have been nice to hear your views on this subject rather than seeing crosses against my name and ticks against the rest.

 

[funwitha7d]

i clicked on the link and viewed the set of this woman and they are really beautiful images, particularly liked the shot of her with horizontal shear material fading into mist, thanks for posting

 

[fjrabon]

It appears that you and I will not be able to agree on how we view this picture, so I will agree to disagree. I respect your views even though I cannot agree with some of them. I see a model with a stoma, you see a stoma model.

fjrabon and ruifon it would have been nice to hear your views on this subject rather than seeing crosses against my name and ticks against the rest.

I disagree that the stoma detracts from the picture. And I didn't find any of your reasons persuading. It's a part of her identity, and if she felt comfortable with it being photographed then it should be in the image. I'm for photographic realism as long as the client/model doesn't specifically ask otherwise. Editing the photograph to get the stoma out, to me, creates a more manufactured image.

What is the image? It's of a model in underwear/nude. The model has a stoma. It would be weird if an underwear/nude shoot in normal circumstances didn't include at least some shots of that part of the body, right?

The image as is manages to simultaneously present her as beautiful while also being very intimate, brave and personal. It adds a dimension to the story. Could you take it out and have an okay image? Sure. Does the image communicate more meaning as is? I think it's difficult to argue otherwise.

What purpose does taking it out serve? Your argument seems to be "the stoma distracts from her." She seems comfortable with it being photographed and there's no reason to assume a lack of integrity on the OP that she isn't. So to me that argument is null and void. The stoma can't distract from her any more than her elbow can distract from her. It's a part of her. The image seems to present "this is a part of me, it isn't me, but it's a part of me and I'm comfortable with that."

It's not about the PC police or anything, it's about truth in photography when possible. We have to edit SO MUCH due to client request that to me, and many others, it's refreshing when things can be, to borrow a colloquialism, "one hunnid."

 

[photoguy99]

Depends on what the point is. If you're selling underwear probably no point in showing the bag. And there are some photos that show this sort of thing.

If the point is a nude portrait then the bag is important and should be included. The point of the nude can be to reveal, to conceal nothing. It's a bold statement, ideally.