The secret of good nude photography?

[antoniobassiphotography]

I realized that some PN photographers that do mainly nudes hit 9 digits in viewers. That's an unbelievable

number to reach in a few years. In most cases, the models are absolutely beautiful and flawless and are

made even more sexy, perfect and sensual with original and expressive poses, great lights, awesome

make-up and striking clothes. However, most of these works look all the same and become almost

"soulless" but sometimes you see photographs that have something more than the average. In these

photographs, the artist (and repeat ARTIST) seems to have gone beyond just the curves and the lights and

shows something that can touch the viewer deep inside. I would say that sometimes the photographer

can brake those barriers that are the human basic instincts and go beyond. One of these artists is

definitely John Peri, by the way.

 

So, my question is this: when is a nude photography GREAT and when it's not? What's the secret?

[joshroot]

I hate to burst your bubble, but the popularity of any given nude image has far more to do with how attractive the model is than it does with any talent by the photographer.

 

Correctly exposed, pretty girl, showing body parts that aren't seen in public. BAM! You have a popular image with the majority of the viewers.

[michaelging]

Josh is right, what makes a beautiful Nude photograph is a Beautiful Nude Body.

[twmeyer]

no it isn't... t

[jgalyon]

yes it is...t

[lex_jenkins]

I know when I'm *not* seeing good nude photography. When my first thought is something like:

 

1. That's a vagina.

 

2. That's a nekkid girl in a bed.

 

3. That's a nekkid girl inexplicably draped across a rock.

 

4. That's a girl doing yoga. Why is she nekkid?

 

Few photographers ever manage to reach any deeper than that in terms of communicating much of anything other than "I can get women to pose nekkid."

 

Great photographers can make a rock look sexy. Most nude photographers make nekkid women look about as sexy as a rock.

[tonmestrom]

"Great photographers can make a rock look sexy. Most nude photographers make nekkid women look about as sexy as a rock"

 

That about covers it

[brucecahn]

What is the secret to a great nude photograph? It is definately not that the model be beautiful. Several things are required. A solid knowledge of the basics, a lot of experience, a game plan--I go into each shoot with a list of ideas with sketches, and most of all a little Divine help.

[seismiccwave]

Hmmmmmm....I bet you if I pose nude you will not get a single view.;-)

[david hibberd]

"Josh is right, what makes a beautiful Nude photograph is a Beautiful Nude Body."

 

Absolute rubbish. There are countless crass worthless photographs of "beautiful nude" bodies and stunningly beautiful nudes of less than perfect bodies. Look with your eyes.

[antoniobassiphotography]

<TEXT><P>http://www.artphotogallery.org/02/artphotogallery/photographers/alfred_sti

eglitz_19.html</P>

 

<P>http://www.artphotogallery.org/02/artphotogallery/photographers/alfred_stieglitz_3

2.html</P>

 

<P>http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=86532&handle=li</P>

 

<P>In these photographs, it doesn't seem to me that the focal poit of interest is the

beauty of the model. First of all, he doesn't show her face and the look in her eyes that

often is what triggers a more sexual idea. Second, Georgia O'Keeffe didn't have a great

body but she was her lover and they had a romantic relationship, she wasn't just a pretty

model.</P>

 

<P>The lighting on the first one is incredible: he lights up the breasts and the vagina to

give more relevance to them but at the same time just give the concept of

<B>"female"</B>, almost like a tribute to femininity. Her vagina is covered by a soft and

very dark bush that recalls what's inside without showing it out and her nipples show up

just enough thanks to the soft light. On the other hand, as to draw your attention away

from the sexual body parts, he enhances the outlines of her body with a bright white

background to form a very elegant pose.</P>

 

<P>Same comments for the second one although everything is more contrasted and

overdone. The subtle game of seeing but not seeing is even more clear here.</P>

 

<P>The third one is, in my opinion, an absolute masterpiece and the coronation of what I

was talking about before: <B>the tribute to femininity</B>. The concept of female,

mother, birth giver (life giver) is present in man's culture since the beginning of the

artistic experience. I think about those little figurines representing a big fat mama with

huge tits and big ass... The very feminine Georgia's hand combined with her breasts

showing tenderly from her vest take the viewer far beyond just sex and sensual. Again, her

nipples are visible but not so present since the attention is all captured by the hand like a

magnet.</P>

 

<P><B>JOSH</B>, I really don't think that "<I>the popularity of any given nude image

has far more to do with how attractive the model is than it does with any talent by the

photographer</I>". I really think it's exactly the opposite.</P></TEXT>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<TEXT><P>... I might not be a professional photographer but I can see beauty as I can see

vulgar attempts of creating something beautiful ... That's the difference between a great and

a mediocre photographer, the first sees and captures beauty, the second tries.</P></TEXT>

[mrstubbs]

"... but I can see beauty as I can see vulgar attempts of creating something beautiful ..."

 

But! :) You will look at both...because they're nude..right?

 

I'll agree with Tom and John. And Josh and David.

 

And just keep looking...to be sure.

 

I mean ..it's sort of natural isn't it...that in general...most of us...are attracted to sexual images. If we wern't ..we wouldn't exist!

 

"...the first sees and captures beauty, the second tries..."

 

Taken a little differently...both see...and both try.

 

Nothing wrong with trying!

[Norma Desmond]

And once in a while MEN are nude. :)

 

(It's usually safe . . . penises hidden in shadow, Greek-like athletic poses, or dancers.)

 

Antonio, when you say "go beyond," I fear you mean just being more technically perfect,

better lighting, better backgrounds, etc. But, soul? Unless high heels add soul or the

superficial perfectly-placed wine glass on a table somewhere in the vicinity of the "nekkid"

woman adds soul, I don't see it where you do.

 

I'll let Josh defend himself (he's more than up to the task), but I think he was being ironic.

Some seem to have assumed that what he suggests makes many nudes "popular" he would

also seriously consider makes a "beautiful" nude photograph.

 

I've read hundreds if not thousand of critiques of nude photos on PN. A large percentage

of critquers mistake "beautiful model" for "beautiful photograph."

 

When I first read the thread, my answer (also ironic) to "What makes a good nude?" was

going to be:

 

1. high heels.

 

2. two nekkid women instead of one

 

3. two nekkid women on all fours instead of two nekkid women standing

 

4. a nekkid woman with rope

 

I hope that people would know that I was making fun of what I so often see in the nudes

category here on PN. By the way, I also occasionally run into something fresh and moving.

Usually those nudes humanize the person and bridge the distance between photographer

and model or viewer and model. Sometimes those "good" nudes will visually comment on

the stereotypes. And sometimes, they will be beautifully-rendered form studies that don't

necessarily seek to humanize but somehow are transformative in their figurative approach.

There are plenty more possibilities for "artistic" and "creative" nudes if only creative were

the goal.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I like looking at hunky guys as much as the next fellow. But

there are plenty of magazines, tv commercials, and videos available for that purpose, not

to mention strolling down Castro Street in San Francisco on a sunny day. But I come to a

photo web site with a different agenda.

[Norma Desmond]

I wanted to add something. I think a lot of artists and photographers (and people) are horny

and there's nothing wrong with that. Some very creative folk are motivated by sexual desire.

To me, that's a great thing. There's a difference, though, between what energy gets put into a

photograph or other work of art and what the final product is that emerges.

[joshroot]

I sense a few of the hard working nude photographers getting a bit huffy. Keep in mind that I said "popularity" not "quality".

 

I was more being cynical than being ironic. But the crux of the original question was based around the staggering number of views that nude some nude images get compared to other images on the site.

 

And quite frankly, these views are NOT coming from within the photo.net community. Yes, nudes do get more views from members of the PN community than other images. But the split is not nearly so drastic. These views are coming in from google searches, link lists of "hot" nude images, etc. While some of those people are likely to be serious photographers like ourselves (or at least like we think of ourselves) most of them probably are just people looking for nudity. And so, I stand by my previous statement that the POPULARITY of any given nude image has far more to do with how attractive the model is than it does with any talent by the photographer. Put two images up, one of a skinny busty toned goddess and one of an average dumpy woman and see which one gets the most views (I say this knowing that a vast majority of us are plenty average and dumpy ourselves).

 

What makes a QUALITY nude image, in my eyes and probably those of most of the PN community, is about the same as with any image. Lighting, composition, moment, attention to detail, a connection between model and photographer. And I'm not going to lie, it still helps to have a pretty model. Amazing images can (and are) made using average nude models. But most viewers (including photographically educated ones) are going to like an attractive model more than a less attractive one, even if in a subconscious way.

[cooltpmd]

Can someone get that Hansburger guy to stop taking nudes?

 

He's killing me.

[brucecahn]

You mean Hans Jurgen Bauer? Fine photographer, excellent use of color, good sense of humor.

[cooltpmd]

Didn't mean to offend the Hans crowd.

[antoniobassiphotography]

OK, in order:

<P><B>Anthony</B></P>

<P>No doubt that in nude photography the sexual element is the basic one and it's

present in every image. The fact is that when I look at photography I don't stop on the

sexual element at all. If I want to fool around I prefer to look at real girls on the street to

get that: a nice butt, a semi-open shirt, an exchange of looks, a little flirt... There is only

one nude website and very few pictures that I have visited and commented on PN, and I'm

sure Josh would be able to check if I'm telling the truth... Nobody said anything about

those three Stieglitz pics I have posted the link for. <B>That is nude photography for

me</B>.</P>

<P><B>Fred</B></P>

<P>I don't mean more technically perfect, I mean something beyond that having assumed

that the photographer in question masters his technical skills. Haven't you read what I

wrote earlier and the pictures I have linked? Here it is my favorite again:</P>

 

<P><a href="http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?

artobj=86532&handle=li">Georgia O'Keeffe</a></P>

 

<P><B>Josh</B></P>

<P>I didn't think about the Google thing, now I can understand the outrageous number of

hits of those pages. However, I wouldn't be very happy if I were the photographer

knowing that most of my viewers are people looking for "material"...</P>

<P><I>I stand by my previous statement that the POPULARITY of any given nude image

has far more to do with how attractive the model is than it does with any talent by the

photographer</I>. If you measure the quality of the photograph by how popular it is and

how much it sells knowing the average expertise and artistic knowledge of most viewers

(very low), I agree with you. But here we are in the philosophy forum and I am talking

about something else and you know that. Again, nobody said anything about the images

above and what I wrote. I spent so much time doing it, also because I am a really slow

typer. What about that Stieglitz photo of the hand over the breasts? Don't tell me there

isn't something there that doesn't have anything to do with just the beauty of the model.

That's what I am trying to examine and understand.</P>

[joshroot]

Antonio,

 

I wasn't arguing with you that those aren't beautiful images, or that they are unpopular. They are obviously beautiful and popular. I was just stating fact (and some opinion) about why the images on here photo.net get the views that they do. That was the original premise of this post and I was sticking to that topic for the most part.

 

The real point of my second post was to eliminate any confusion that I was equating "popularity" with "quality", as I was not.

[ellis_vener_photography]

shoot photos you can't help but make.

[antoniobassiphotography]

<B>Josh</B>

 

<P>You definitely answered part of the question on the post, why those sites get so much

hits. However, there is the second part where I ask "when is a nude photography great and

when is not". Everybody so far has been talking about beauty of the model, technical

tricks, lighting, pose and so on, all important factors obviously but nobody wants to talk

about <b>what makes a nude photo outstanding</b>. The syntax of my post is a bit

disorganized, I understand, but it's clear what I was aiming to: "<I>I would say that

sometimes the photographer can brake those barriers that are the human basic instincts

and go beyond.[...] So, my question is this: when is a nude photography GREAT and when

it's not? What's the secret?</I> Sorry for the popularity-quality thing, I didn't get your

point.</P>

[joshroot]

Antionio,

 

I leave that for others to answer. I was just adding in information that I am privy to as the administrator for the site.

 

To be honest, I'm not particularly interested in what makes a nude photo great or not, as nude images aren't the photography that I am interested in deconstructing. Nudes are nice, but my personal photographic mind runs elsewhere.

[lex_jenkins]

"Her vagina is covered by a soft and very dark bush that recalls what's inside without showing it out and her nipples show up just enough thanks to the soft light."

 

Antonio, have you ever been moved to describe, oh, say, the Grand Canyon in such poetic terms?