Women's view of nudes

I sometimes do the odd nude, but usually stick to other stuff. I have been a pro

photog for 7 years now doing photojournalism and more recently moved into the

commercial side of things. One thing that I have picked up viewing nude images

is the difference in shooting style and character to an image if shot by a male

vs. a female. I think women percieve their bodies far different to what we as

males sometimes do. Some of the stuff I have seen on PN is downright ugly and

borders on pornography and have no place here. Others are well lit and executed

shots. What do the female members of PN think about the female nude? How would

you like to have u'r o bodies portrayed?

check out my work for my answer to your question

http://www.zoewiseman.com

Zoe: Nice work. The 2003 self portrait looks a little like my platinum prints, but softer (more feminine).

My criticism is a lot of the nudes I see on PN are that they just look like cheesy bedroom

shots of some guy's girlfriend. And the ubiquitous/mandatory tattoos don't help either.

Most of the women in my life don?t like pornography, but sometimes do like Nude Art. I've discovered a way to tell the difference between the two. At least, it works for me.

 

Nudes rated highly by anonymous raters tend to be pornography, and nudes rated highly by named raters, tend to be Art.

 

I suspect the purpose of the anonymous rating system is to keep pornographic images high in the Top Rated Photos. This gets more ad clicks and makes photo.net more money.

 

On the top rated photos page, change the 'By' field from 'Rate Recent Avg', to 'Average' and see what happens. The quality of the images takes a rather startling jump, and most of the pornography drops away.

 

I find it appalling that new visitors have to select 'Average' to see the best we have to offer in any genre.

 

I've stopped telling my friends about photo.net; I'm embarrassed by all the badly done nudes.

 

I've got an idea for a photo.net slogan.

 

Porno without Passwords!

 

Peace,

Bob

What a timely question with all the pseudo-dirty bedroom shots popping up (no pun intended) all over this site. I believe nude photography (or painting or sculpture or any other form) is meant to be a celebration of the human machine. So far, Angie Chiara has some stellar work.

 

A couple of shots I think are worth looking at are

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3983750

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5965387

 

 

The bottom line for me, a shot should not be t&a just for the point of looking at someones boobs. That's nothing but degrading no matter how perfect the shot is.

I could not agree more with the above, reason why I posted the quesyion in the first place. I like light on skin, and the way it can be used to showcase it. Nudes for me need not be naked, be it men or women. There are alot of body parts that can be photographed apart from breasts etc. I am not saying that these can not be shown - just not in the way that alot of people (IMO) are showing it. A whole lot of these shots tend to be glamour type shots that would easily make it into a whole host of mens magazines. And the best bit is the ratings they get. Take one woman snap a couple of shots of her naked, dont bother about light and voila - we have 6/6 or 7/7.

hi there, the name is what has attracted me to my very first forum on the computer of any sort. Would love to know what you think of my images, I am toying with something with older women. has been a long time between cups of coffee since I last put any energy towards working in nude. but here I am starting to formulate ideas and even getting a wee bit excited about the possibilities. So for that reason I would love to here what you women think of my images or I guess even more so if you find them offensive. Should I stick with the flowers or perhaps blossom out , that is my question to you.

http://www.photo.net/photo/6007792

 

many thanks

roger

I have been a pro photographer for about 30 years and only have interest in photographing male nudes. As female, I would only want to see nude photos of myself fat-free with flattering lighting. Topic is irrelevant as long as dignity is preserved ? in my opinion.

IMHO the "cheesy bedroom shots of some guy's girlfriend" are not the main problem - at least they may be a genuine expression of personal appreciation. They often have a naive emotional power which outweighs technical failings and lack of originality.

 

The nudes which seem to irritate women most are the blatantly pseudo-erotic shots, usually taken in a studio or some very unpleasant derelict building, of a model (or worse, models) who look at best trying-to-please and more often bored or downright dubious of the whole enterprise. In an attempt to show the maximum they are typically posed in obviously uncomfortable positions, wearing the mandatory high-heeled shoes, and flood-lit so that the effect is far from flattering.

 

As always the impact of the resulting photo is very personal but it is clear from the comments that a proportion of male viewers will be very impressed with the artistic frankness, excellent lighting and (amazingly) the emotional contact with the model - and of course her beauty - whereas the female viewers ... don't comment at all.

 

I, along with most art photographers, obviously hope our work does not come into this category and although nudes are important in many of my pictures they are usually there for the viewer (male or female) to identify with, in appreciating the situation or scene. I have been encouraged by the high proportion of comments from women photographers which suggests they find the images empathic rather than exploitative, and the fact that all my models are "volunteers" who have seen my work and are pleased to join in the creative process.

 

I think most women like to be represented by pictures of feminine beauty and sometimes eroticism but not in a way that diminishes their personal humanity.

At present,in the default view of the Top Rated Photos, this image is number one.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6020818

 

If you change the 'By' field to Average, this image is number one:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6022102

 

Which do you feel best represents the Art of Photography?

I take little note of ratings since they can so easily be manipulated. I think the number of positive comments is a better guide - in your examples 2 <i>versus</i> 24.<p>But this is moving away from the original subject...

A Question for Female Members of Photo.net

 

How does it make you feel that John Peri is the 'most interesting' photographer at Photo.net?

 

http://www.photo.net/photos/johnperi

 

Peace,

Bob

Why only the female members? I'm a male member and understand his popularity but don't

particularly respond to his work myself. While technically it is most often impressive, it

usually leaves me cold. That's because, for the most part, his subjects are kept at a distance

and feel like objects in his stories and/or backgrounds. I rarely feel an actual emotional

connection to his subjects. At least, however, he is technically proficient and an obviously

serious photographer. So many of the nudes on the site are nothing more than pinups and

that seems way more unfortunate.

I also want to give my two cents here. Peri-phenomenom is something I don't understand at all. Mostly his shots are like smutty petit porno snaps although admittably there are a low number very good shots among them. Sometimes his shots make me feel like his portfolio is a trophy catalogue - although, and I emphasize, this is just a subjective feeling and not a fact. Seems he has a regular tailender group behind him. I think that is the key for his "success". Just like Fred said his photos leave me cold and empty bar the ashtonishment that I get from reading the comments of his tailenders.<p>

Well, isn't it great that we aren't all the same. Long live diversity.

Thank you Juha. I viewed the Peri-phonomenom. It reminded me of a bad cattle call. Sissi by Janosch Simon shows classic lines, a regard of the female form and some modicum of modesty. It is easy to photograph for shock value-it is difficult to show the body in the true work of art that it is.

Hmzz I'm more interested in the fact that (in general) European, and even better, Russian nudephotography is of a much higher artistic standard then the American.

I'm a member on different photosites and it really strikes me that American nudephotography almost always has a tendency towards Playboy/Hustlerstyle where as Russian/European nudephotgraphy looks more to the "Art" side of the equation.

A good example is sascha hüttenhain, she really makes gorgeous work, classy in every aspect. And I could name several (male) Russian photographers as well who do the same.

 

I think it all has to do with sexual liberty (or the lack of it) but maybe I'm wrong.

lol, an edit button would be nice since I altered Sascha's gender in a blink of an eye

Olof, there are good ones in the US too: I am thinking of the Michael Ezra, who is a member here too.<p>

- <a href="http://www.photo.net/photos/Micheal Ezra">Ezra at PN</a><br>

- <a href="http://www.michaelezra.com/">Ezra's homepage</a><p>

... :) ok, he appears to have Russian background. At least he writes poetry in russian.

This is an interesting thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ib5b

 

WW

Sylvie Blum is a great nude photographer:<br>

- <a href="http://www.sylvie-blum.com/">Sylvie's home page</a><br>

- <a href="http://www.g5ive.de/eros_art/galerie/pic/SylvieBlum/pic-show.shtml">Sylvie's another gallery by Sylvie"</a><br>

- <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=fi&q=Sylvie+Blum&btnG=Google-haku&meta=">Sylvie in Google</a>

<p>What's truly depressing is just how quickly these type of posts turn in to a John Peri bashing exercise. The guy has done nothing wrong and truthfully by denigrating his work we are by proxy denigrating the women he has photographed.</p>

 

<p>Let's be honest, what most of us are really pi$$ed about and I'd include myself from time to time, is that he's popular. His highly stylised captures of women are no different from the landscape or wildlife porn I see posted on this website from time to time--mea culpa. :)</p>

 

<p>I've felt a little frustrated too at times of the profile that nudes enjoy in the popularity stakes but let's face it--it's not John Peri's fault that his work is popular.</p>

John Mackay, you are definitely right in that it's not Peri's fault. It definitely isn't. I'd put the fault down to his tailenders (some might call it a ring) who seem to understand nothing about the finesses of photography. I don't agree with you that his photos are being stylised. They are snaps taken without much planning, in his own words, "photos of what is there". That's documentary. Next question: documentary of what?

I overlooked a female photographer from times gone by: Lee Miller. She was one of the all time legends and she did beautifull nude shots inbetween war shots and fashion. At one time she lived with Emmanuel Radnitsky, better known as Man Ray.<p>

<a href="http://www.leemiller.co.uk/">Lee Miller -archive</a>

On the John Peri issue: Oh, to be great enough to be hated. ( :

But, on topic, I agree with Jonathan that women do not necessarily wish to be depicted in a sexless manner, and that some level of eroticism is fine as long as it remains respectful of the woman and glorifies her strength and power rather than degrading her.

To me, there are two types of nudes that can work very well. One is the nude portrait (see the work of Jim Adams) which captures the model's personality and essence. Sometimes it even seems incidental that the model is nude because the emotion of the work is so powerful. The second type is the nude landscape (see the desert images by Stalker Stalker, the seaside images by Jonathan Charles, or my own portfolio if you prefer male nudes). In this style, the model acts as more of an object, but not in a degrading or uncomfortable way (any more than lying naked on cold rocks in winter is uncomfortable, anyway). The point of this type of image is to make the human body a part of the landscape itself. Stalker Stalker's work is often too slick for my tastes, but does exhibit nice form overall. (His nude portraits of blindfolded and shackled models make for an entirely different discussion, one which I will avoid for the sake of sticking to the point.)

Honestly, as a female, I would rather be the subject of a portrait nude. It is way more romantic than lying on cold rocks in winter. But I can see the purpose in either style.