Nude photography and arousal.

[john_a5]

<p>There are a lot of factors here and they can manifest in many ways. When I am shooting, it becomes about shooting. For instance, I have a bit of a fear of heights. The first time I took off in the open door of a helicopter (1990), my stomach was in my throat and had a panic attack--what the heck was I doing! I put the camera to my eye and it all went away, I was hanging out the open door for the entire 3 hour shoot. I do it a lot now, still get twinges when I am not shooting but no different that standing on flat ground while I am.</p>

<p>I say this because I think a lot of the contradictions here are probably normal when shooting the nude--particularly the sex you are more sexually interested in. There is always going to be some level of sexual energy and even though I have done this for years even professionally, a bit of nervous anticipation. That can be part of the creative force of the moment but it can also make you forget your name--I always have a script and sketches just in case my mind goes numb!</p>

<p>Anyway, once I start shooting I am working and it becomes about the work. Certainly, there can remain an edge with some models and that will generally show in the work and usually in a positive way--this is true whether it is a nude or clothed model, so really not a difference IMO.</p>

<p>One fashion model that I had shot on many occasions, nude and clothed, came to the studio about 3 years later to do a shoot with my assistant. I was sitting in the client lobby when the shoot was over. The dressing room was right there, but she stripped nude out of her wardrobe right there in the lobby--saying "oh, you've seen it all" and we sat there and talked about her kids and her career, her standing there naked. In that case, although I found it a bit odd that she actually did that, there wasn't actually any tension in it. However had my now ex-wife stopped by then, she might have had a different sense of the situation and I know my tension level would have risen! (my current wife would have no issue with it)</p>

<p>I will also add that I always work with the studio in a closed set mode. I do not watch the models undress(many do it on set or change into other wardrobe on set) and I do not let the art directors bring their friends--or even allow creative directors into the shoot if they aren't connected with the project. In one case, the model did not want the male AD in the room, so we took Polaroids out to the AD who waited in another room.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Katie, there's no denying that cases of aroused photographers have occurred, but I think there are unique conditions that have to be met in order for photographers to feel aroused.</p>

<p>Put another way, arousal may be part of a photographer's response to a shoot but it's not necessarily universal, or even remotely close. Keep in mind that there are photographers of all types: amateurs, serious professionals, artists, hobbyists; not all pursue nude photography with the same intent. </p>

[Mike D]

<p>I've been attending photo shoots of nudes at the Weston ranch in Monterey since 2005. There is usually one other photographer and a model at each shooting location. The photographer solely directs the model. This is a "fine arts" shoot. While I was originally worried about my personal reaction, once meeting, talking to, directing, shooting, and then post discussion, there is absolutely no issue. I'm a scenic and sports photographer and directing and shooting models, even for two, 2-hour sessions per day is exhausting. The models are interactive with the photographer and are also interested in your getting the best images possible. Photographers will have different ideas of the image they are trying to achieve. In answer to the OP, you can successfully capture an image of an attractive model without concern. However, I would stay away from photographing a model in your bedroom when you and the models are the only persons present.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>There is two type of photography in this realm for me. Photography of the nude and photography of the naked. Photography of the nude is a studied, timeless art form. Photography of the naked can be anything from tasteful boudoir portraiture to, at the far extreme, pornography. In doing the former, I tend to feel gratitude to be able to work with a willing model and have a deep appreciation of the human form. Arousal is out of place in the pursuit of the intended artistic goal. In the second case, regardless of the degree, arousal is the underlying purpose of the image and my arousal and perhaps, more importantly, my recognition and understanding of what that arousal is all about is what helps the image achieve it's goals.</p>

<p> </p>

[indraneel]

<p>A tiny dim viewfinder doesn't exactly compete with a playboy spread. But while culling a glamour shoot, I'll probably not rate a shot that fails to arouse me even slightly (unless it has "fine art" potential).</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I know there's certain ways of framing and composing shots of the nude figure that diminish the eroticism of the scene. Shots of nudes made to appear like landscapes come to mind which there are many.</p>

<p>So I would think if the photographer kept this POV shooting the nude figure, it would keep his/her mind on what they wanted to communicate without the distraction of arousal. Of course if eroticism was the subject matter communicated, then that photographer would have to go there and probably explore different lighting, focal lengths and camera angles, positioning the model, etc. in an attempt to accentuate what aroused the photographer which wouldn't necessarily arouse someone else viewing the captured results, but that's the nature of image making in general.</p>

<p>I think back many years ago gazing at my former wife's nude figure in close ups of her breasts which resembled sand dunes in a desert. I'ld toy around in my head coming up with differently composed dioramas positioning my Hot Wheel cars and army men I played with as a kid around her breasts. I thought that would make an unusual picture and certainly take away or provide a different POV concerning eroticism and arousal which I certainly felt back then while exploring its causes from an image standpoint. Don't know if someone has already tried that though.</p>

<p>Then of course you could always have the nude figure hunched over trying to open a jar of pickles.</p>

<p>Does anyone watch Seinfeld here?</p>

[dan_south]

You know you're a photographer if - you see a nude photo shoot and spend the whole time trying to determine what

camera and lighting gear is being used. :-D

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>Katie, do you think Artist who paint the nude model get aroused? from what i have seen they are to focused on the painting and the techique to think of it sexually, i am sure there are exceptiones to the rules though. I also think it would depend on the motive of the photographer / artist in doing the work, if they are focused on the art, i would not think it would arouse them,, if they are doing it for alterior motives it might.</p>

[art_thomas1]

<p>Hello K,</p>

<p>I just got back from staying three months in a Nudist Park. I had never been to one, nor had any interest in one, until after I retired in 1988. My first one was in 1991 and I was still young enough to be very easily aroused. It did not happen. In the interim period I’ve probably seen 250,000 to 500,000 naked people as I lived for a year in a very large and prominent one, had a second home in another for six years and have spent time in over 30 clubs.</p>

<p>I have seen very few turgid penises, nipples or vulvas in Nudist Parks. This does not come from the fact that we all use aloof professionalism. It just does not matter to us. The thrill quickly wears off, in about fifteen minutes. Yes, there are always people who are interested in using nudism as a gateway to sex. They are quickly weeded out. Some are just sent packing; others leave in a Paddy Wagon. I’ve photographed a LOT of naked people. No reaction except to make sure the PHOTOGRAPHIC exposure was right.</p>

<p>I’ve also pitched in at several friends’ studios usually helping with the lighting and props. There was always the occasional nude shoot. Some customers want quite provocative photos to give to their boyfriend, husband or other lover. Big deal…. I did my best to help my buddies’ customers get the desired effect by suggesting poses, arches looks and even some hands-on body posturing. It has never affected me. It is simply doing what I can to help someone get the customers’ desired outcomes.</p>

<p>I’m not dead either. At other time, places and spaces, in other situations where it is appropriate arousal happens. One is a job, the other is, well…… it is THAT. It is just the way it is.</p>

<p>May I suggest that you do your first nude shoot either in a group setting (camera club type stuff) or as an in-studio assistant? Let the “new” wear off before you have the responsibility to a paid customer. You’d be surprised what happens at some shoots. Several times the customers have, at the last minute, expressed concerned about being “the only one naked.” One time I said that I was a nudist and did not care. Would she be more comfortable if I took off my clothes? Challengingly, the female client said “Yes.” whereupon I just shucked my duds and continued doing the set up. She would break out laughing at the silliness of it all, allowing us to capture a special light of delight in her eyes and expression on her face. A few of the photos were fantastic and too real to be posed. Her husband liked those better than the “provocative” pictures she came in for (and we did those too.) Those photos were a very real glimpse into the fun loving part of her soul. It was an opportunity.</p>

<p>So, give it a go. Adapt, improvise, overcome and you might capture a special moment or two.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>It's funny to listen to some of this. When we're shooting landscapes and street and still lifes, our technique and gear is second nature. We hear over and over again in these forums how, with experience, we get to a point where we do all that stuff so readily that it doesn't distract us from the emotional and creative side of the shooting equation. Suddenly, when we're shooting nudes, we're so focused on cameras, lighting, and everything else we can come up with as an excuse, that we can barely even notice the nakedness in front of us, let alone allow ourselves to feel something real about it. Something is amiss with some of you Misters. </p>

<p>I shoot mostly men, nude and dressed. Even when they're dressed, there's often an element of sexuality at play. It can vary from a little sexual tension to out and out arousal. We will talk about it at times, play with it at times, work with it at times, show it on occasion but rarely. I can use sexual dynamics toward lots of creative ends, even ones that won't appear overtly sexual. So, yes, it's not ALWAYS there, but it often is.</p>

[stp]

<p>Fred: Touché.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>It seems to me one can photograph on a continuum of detachment to arousal with many subjects. I was a pastoral counselor for many years, often with females who came alone and were somewhat vulnerable because of circumstances that brought them to the office. Engaging personally with them was necessary in order to be an compassionate counselor. Sometimes I felt a twinge of sexual tension and was thankful that I recognized it enough to not be subliminally controlled by it. I could then decide out of respect for us both to set it aside. This might parallel what would happen in a nude shoot, though because of my role in communities I didn't venture into that area.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I think Fred is right, human sexuality and response is not something to shy away from or be afraid to admit. Like I said above, even shooting clothed models, there is often a certain amount of electricity between us--sometimes it remains during the entire shoot. That doesn't make it dirty or salacious or mean one is being unfaithful to their significant other--I do recognize that the significant others may not feel that way in many cases.</p>

<p>Listening to so many who state that there is no response in that sense makes me wonder a bit. I had a good friend who was a doctor and told me an interesting story. He was working the emergency room rotation. He had already done his gynecological service which he never talked about, even with his friends, it was just work. But one night, a gorgeous woman came into the emergency room with a small cut on her forearm, she was put into an exam room and told the doctor would be in soon. When the doctor did come in, she was standing there totally naked. When he went out of the room and told the others what he had seen, the others decided they needed to consult on the case--and did. Our responses are situational regardless of our profession.</p>

<p>My point is that we are photographers and unless we shoot nudes all the time--and the same ones, probably do have some sort of titillation at least in the thinking about it--how many of you ask women you don't think are attractive to pose for you? (rhetorical question, no answers please!) Even if it is just anticipation, there is still sexual energy being generated and it can be embraced for what it is. As I said above, I often find that when I get to working, that part of the response takes a back seat, but not in every case. But I believe that most everyone is still going to have at least an undercurrent of sexual energy doing such a shoot. My own experience is that some models feel safe enough with the photographer to play with that tension while the shoot is progressing and as I said above, I think it can positively affect the work--and I have only ever shot more "fine art" type of work--that doesn't preclude titillation or sexual tension.</p>

<p>Maybe the fact that Katie used the word "arousal" made this topic more threatening or gave it a different twist. Arousal doesn't always mean you have to admit to getting a stiffy, it can be a lot of other things--and very positive things-- but the word is certainly a loaded one!</p>

<p>note: what Howard said is really pretty normal as was his suggestion of how one responds--we are human.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Katie,</p>

<p>I can answer your question from the viewpoint of a model, and artist (drawing classes, college level). While not exactly photography, it may be helpful for you.</p>

<p>When drawing nudes in school, there isn't time to become aroused. As students we're really under the gun on time. It may be different for a photographer, because the actual tripping of the shutter is so quick. But I've got a hunch that the artist within the photographer will be so busy trying to create art, getting the lighting and composition just right, that arousal isn't certain.</p>

<p>As one of the long-term unemployed / underemployed, I'm also in college myself finishing a degree, and modeling for Life Drawing classes in between my Engineering classes. It's not a career path I ever envisioned, and it's so sporadic it's not a carreer path but a way to pick up a few extra dollars now and then. I'm in very good shape, low body fat, good muscle definition - so I'm a good sample. I've been a live model for about a year.</p>

<p>I worried about arousal too, as a model. Very much so for the first month on the job. The clasess are mostly female, young and pretty. That was just as scary as being nude, at first. I didn't want my body to react in any way, to the situation. It would embarass me and the students. Over time, I found that arousal wasn't an issue. Being scared is not exciting. But as insurance, I make a point to have sex before going to work (well, and before showering). Being .... exhausted, sexally relieved, expressed .... puts that fear to rest, at least for me.</p>

<p>One other viewpoint - years ago, I took erotic photos of my wife. We were both young and enthused, and it was very exciting for both of us. But that was different. There was a personal connection far beyond the artist-model relationship.</p>

<p>I hope this helps. It's an awkward subject. Good luck. Go with the flow as an artist.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>how many of you ask women you don't think are attractive to pose for you? (rhetorical question, no answers please!)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know you said it's rhetorical, but I ask women (and men) who look like they would photograph well to pose. "Photograph well" in the sense of my own style and body of work, which is far more about culture than lack of clothing.</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

Very well said Jeff, i have noticed a photographer on PN who reflects what Jeff has said, its not about the looks a person has but how they fit into the desired outcome of the image they are trying to make.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=4508487

Besides attractive is subjective.

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Greek Composites: 4 Responses<br>

Tired of lugging those camera's [sic] around?: 9 Responses<br>

Dotty bokeh revisited: 7 Responses<br>

Organizing and archiving thousands of photos: 2 Responses<br>

Help Rushed Exhibition!: 1 Responses<br>

Television to show clients [sic] photos: 2 Responses<br>

<strong>Nude photography and arousal: 40 Responses</strong></p>

<p>:-)</p>

[rashedahmed]

<p> Better someone try for a nude shoot and find out what result it may bring for him or her ;-)</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Karim, odds are we would have hundreds of responses had this been posted in the Philosophy forum. :-)</p>

[oliveranderson]

<p>I think nude photography is about forms, shapes and shadows. The model is the least important. If something happens in the studio rather than photography, it depends on what the model allows. Hardly a woman will be photographed nude by someone considered a fool. She does not allow</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I think nude photography is about forms, shapes and shadows. --Oliver</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If nude photography were only about forms, shapes, and shadow, you guys would be photographing a few more naked men . . . and vases.</p>

<p>If nude photography were only about forms, shapes, and shadows it would be as boring as landscapes or street scenes that were only about form, shape, and shadow.</p>

<p>__________________________</p>

<p>To Doug Grosjean, thanks for your thoughtful response. Something to consider is that artists use all kinds of energy to create. They are usually not too busy for emotions that will add to the honesty and feeling of the work they're creating. Photographers often explore emotions AND THEIR SUBJECTS in addition to light, form, and shadow. That's why landscape photographers will talk about the smell of grass and flowers when they're photographing a grand landscape. They will talk about the touch of the breeze influencing their creative feelings, wanting to visually capture the sound of birds and river water rushing by. Landscape photographers have room to be in touch with so much of their surroundings, even while concentrating on making art. Part of the concentration of making art IS all this stuff. So photographers of the nude have plenty of room for plenty of mixed feelings. That doesn't mean every photographer who photographs nude women has to feel aroused. But the reaction on this particular thread just seems out of whack to me, and much of what's been expressed sounds more repressed than artistic.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Fred G., you're welcome.</p>

<p>One other thing I'd add is that the working environment for me is very... pleasant. I have a heater. Nobody touches me (though the prof may come close, as he points out shape or shadow to students). Music plays from a CD. Students are busy. I can call a break if tired or cramped. I'm clothed if not modeling, ie, the model never wanders around nude.</p>

<p>Actually, I don't like the robe. I wear baggy swim trunks, T-shirt, and sandals. Reason: if I just take a bathrobe to work, I'm somewhat confined to the drawing room on break. But with trunks, T-shirt, sandals; I can walk around a bit, grab a candy bar from vending machine, etc.</p>

<p>It's also a very strenuous job. A body gets tired just holding a pose. Breaks are mostly used up just stretching and flexing and getting things back to normal.</p>

[warren_wilson]

<p>Gotta ask:</p>

<p>Is anyone getting aroused from <strong>discussing</strong> nude photography?</p>

<p>: > )</p>

<p>(It seemed inevitable)</p>

[warren_wilson]

<p>And to be clear: that which was inevitable was the question, not the arousal!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>how many of you ask women you don't think are attractive to pose for you?</blockquote>

 

<p>If that premise is true, that's an unfortunate mentality. I don't shoot portraits (except candids), never mind nudes; it's not my area of expertise, and I don't know anyone who is obviously outgoing enough to want such a shoot. My fiancée has a poor body image, and much as I'd like to photograph her, she's not entirely keen. But, in the interests of furthering my photographic education and artistic expression, I'm vaguely keen to try - whether portraits in general or nudes in particular. I've stayed well clear of the latter (and, to some extent, the former) partly out of embarrassment; I'm interested to read the responses in this thread.<br />

<br />

Still, I suspect I'm <i>less</i> likely to pick someone I consider to be attractive to do a shoot, partly for the embarrassment factor. Other than for a glamour shoot (and even then, tastes vary) I can't imagine why the attractiveness of the model should make any difference. The human - or animal - form can produce interesting and artistic shapes, and the expression of personality doesn't depend on the stereotypical beauty of the subject. There may be a duty, under some circumstances, to show the model looking the "best" you can - for the sake of his/her ego - but I can't imagine picking people out for this purpose; picking someone (a stranger) whose looks suit your artistic vision is another matter, but pulchritude would never be the primary deciding factor for me.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, I don't consider most female fashion models to be all that attractive - instead they tend to have the physique to make </i>clothes</i> look attractive. (I can't vouch for the attractiveness of male models - I realise this isn't universally true of heterosexual men, but I'm a terrible judge.) I also tend to think there's a benefit in modelling to looking <i>distinctive</i>, much as it is better in the music industry to have a distinctive voice than a good one. The same may well be true of glamour - beauty and overt sexuality aren't the same thing.<br />

<br />

Perhaps I'm a hypocrite. I <i>do</i> stop and take a photograph of a landscape view if I think it's beautiful; I'll take an ugly image too if it's interesting or says something, but beauty alone is enough in a landscape to be a starting point. Perhaps that's the distinction - with a landscape, I have to find the beautiful view and turn it into an image. With a beautiful portrait subject, I'm not sure I'm happy with the appearance of the subject being the primary draw of the image - and, possibly from my lack of experience, I also think I'd make less of a contribution to the impression made by the final image than with someone of average appearance. That's not to say I'd be unhappy to try to make an artistic image of someone who was attractive, just that I wouldn't seek it out attractiveness itself as a contribution of an image I'd want to create.<br />

<br />

But, as I said, I don't actually take enough posed portraits to know whether my viewpoint is entirely imagined, and would change if I had more exprience with subjects who moved.</p>