Self portrait Feb 2001

I found a lot to like about this photo. The window you used to frame the photo kind of gives the viewer a sense of voyerism (spelling?) and adds interest. I also like the similar color photo you've shared with us. I commend you on your choice of models, lovely.

i don't like how nothing is in focus. i believe that something should be in focus whether the window frame or the model.

Very interesting...really captures the viewer attention. The framing came up perfectly. Your work is admirable considering you do it with a timer. Is really hard to be photographer and model at the same time. I take off my hat before you...

To echo: nothing is in focus. But the woman is beautiful, and the voyeuristic content is very high. Photography is a voyeuristic vehicle, so to have it so explicit is just challenging us for what we often aren't willing to see in ourselves.

Amy, I love your work....this one is really intriguing because at first, it has the impression of the "male gaze" (which seems to be the case with most female nude work) but then the various elements, such as the exposure and direct eye contact from your face...really brings it into a more delicate realm, in my opinion.

 

I have to say that I really do admire your ability to work in front and behind your camera...something I am not completely comfortable with yet.

 

Great job.

I agree both with Ken Kramer and Tristan Tom. It gives a "voyeur" view that is interesting, but on the other side, something should be in focus. Personally, I think the framing should have been better if done from a completely frontal position (it seems the camera is not parallel to the window). However I find it so great the fact that the result is still great considering you used a self timer!

I have 2 objections to this shot:

 

First, I don't appreciate the fact that nudes pop up immediatley when I type www.photo.net, especially since there were 3-little kids in this same room looking at my web-site 5 minutes ago. Amy's work is generally pretty classy and usually emphasizes artistic taste, but it should be at least few clicks away from the main menu. Yes, I know this isn't under her control.

 

Next, while voyeuristic photography is quite popular, I find it extremely degrading (and boring) from a male point of view since it's highly reverse chauvenistic and based on dysfunctional behavior. It's presumption and popularity is based on the abusurd notion that most males will stare in windows while masturbating to see a good looking chick while she both is both offended, pretending not to notice and actually enjoying the attention. So what's more important in this shot - the sexual value or artistic one? Artists have a rep for being socially dysfunctional as it is, so let's not abuse the priveledge, eh?

 

Amy has much better work that this and I know can do better.

 

 

Hmmnn...interesting set of comments, Scott...What is true is that this shot, and the other one like it, are two of my least favorites. I think they are technically not-great, and while I like the concept in general, it isn't well developed in this photo.

I leave them up because the comments remind me that my perspective is only one point of view, that other people see different things.

If you look through my "Filtered Nudes" presentation you'll see that I am trying a lot of different approaches to nudes "one step removed" as it were. This window, which is a frame propped up in the middle of my studio, is simply another way of framing and yet distancing the subject. Yes, the "peeping" element is there, but this was not intended to be a social commentary on male masturbatory patterns.

As always, I appreciate people taking time to comment thoughtfully.

I think the fact that nothing is in focus is okay for this picture *because* it is voyeuristic (let's leave the masturbation out of the discussion, okay?). The blur and also the tilted window frame (tilted against the image borders) gives the image the feeling of a quick glance - something I associate with voyeurism (so draw your conclusions ;-). I like it. It communicates an idea, and it does that very well. And that is not despite, but because of its technical flaws.

I think the technical "weakness" of this photo is its artistic strength. If this were sharply focused, perfectly exposed for detail then it would be the voyeur shot alluded to earlier, however the overall soft appearance gives it a tasteful class. It must be a challenge being both photgrapher and model, but you are quite accomplished as both.

Wow, Scott - it's rare that someone's comments irk me so. Nudes and photography have coexisted for many moons and a casual thumb through books on photography will often bring that "kid jarring" exposure to human form - don't blame photo.net . I'm slightly confused by why a naked person is an atrocity to innocent eyes...

 

More disturbing is the dualistic obsession with finding the sexual opposed to the artistic. The artistic, at least to me, investigates some semblance of truth as it relates to beauty. Part of being human is aknowledging the shadowy realm we occupy between animal and angel. I assume you've masturbated in your life and I fail to see why that complexity - the urge of the voyeur - to absorb while being absorbed - is to be left unexplored in a rather voyeuristic medium. Longing is hardly dysfunction and like flowers and street people and gorgeous, texured sunsets - it exists and begs to be explored. As a subject matter, there is much that is compelling in it.

 

I agree with the nebulous focus critique - If the woman( er, Amy) is in focus, the blur of the window speaks - if the window is sharp, the subject becomes the viewer. Leaving both out of focus is a failing of intent. (IMHO)

 

We all come here because there's magic and weight when we view the world through a lens. Sometimes we see an image clearly and scoop up the contacts sheets only to suffer dissapointment. Part of the beauty of this site is getting similarly obsessed individuals perspective on our failings and sucesesses (sic) If your morally opposed to a subject, this really isn't the forum to affect change. Obviously, the artist found something intriguing in the subject and presumably is more concerned with the efficacy in capturing it.

 

I am an adult. Children or work enviroment do not dictate what fascinate or intigue me and as an adult, I choose the appropriate moment to enter an enviroment I deem not suitable for co-workers or those who don't need exposure to life before their time.

 

Much of Amy's work seems to be about the very complexity you object to - the photographer as model. It's kind of a unique experience - one I won't have. I like seeing it unfold. My experience is different, and when I look through a lens, I will hope to capture the complexity vital to me.

 

Honestly, her effort both informs my own, and does more to dispell the "male gaze" than your trite moral huffing. Yes, women, like men - like people - are both coy and receeding while consumed with hunger. That is not myth or cliche, but a vast mist ripe for exploring.

 

 

 

Amy, I'm impressed with your work. When I grow up I want to be like you! (grin). You capture mood and feeling as well as mastering the basics of photography. How to you take the self portraits? Your work is great!

It's a good start toward what could be very effective. I would like it better if either the model or the window were in focus...which one changes the mood quite a lot, but either would be good. I also would like the camera parallel to the window, rather than at that angle. Amy is a great model...but I think she could experiment with variations on this position and find some that are more sensuous...trying in front of the mirror to look a little more languid...And another interesting variation would be to go back to the angled view, perhaps, and show part of a "viewer's" head, obviously looking through the window. Lots of variations possible...and a good start.

I have comments on both this photo, and the comments a few posts up that a user placed. I'll first comment on the photo. I do very much like this...but not as much as her other work IMHO. The composition is there, and it has the "feel" of her work, even if it wasn't Ms. Powers modeling I suspect that I can now tell her work, it is often that unique. But at the same time, although some seem to think that it works with the lack of focus, I disagree, for me it needs more, and perhaps just a tad more contrast. Not sure yet how I'll rate it if/when I do, probably 6 or 7 aesthetics, 8 or maybe even 9 originality.

 

Now, I'll quote part of the post from another user who commented on this work:

 

"First, I don't appreciate the fact that nudes pop up immediatley when I type www.photo.net, especially since there were 3-little kids in this same room looking at my web-site 5 minutes ago. Amy's work is generally pretty classy and usually emphasizes artistic taste, but it should be at least few clicks away from the main menu. Yes, I know this isn't under her control.

 

Next, while voyeuristic photography is quite popular, I find it extremely degrading (and boring) from a male point of view since it's highly reverse chauvenistic and based on dysfunctional behavior. It's presumption and popularity is based on the abusurd notion that most males will stare in windows while masturbating to see a good looking chick while she both is both offended, pretending not to notice and actually enjoying the attention. So what's more important in this shot - the sexual value or artistic one? Artists have a rep for being socially dysfunctional as it is, so let's not abuse the priveledge, eh? "

 

I'll address each one of this person's points:

 

1) Okay, yes...the image popped up on the home page of photo.net when you had small children in the room. You do point out that it's not Ms. Powers' fault that this happened, but seem to imply that photo.net should somehow regulate this. Why? You know that photo.net has nudity of potential artistic merit placed there by either one of the editors like Mr. Greenspun, or for the most part by one of the users logging on, like Ms. Powers, among many others, and apparently know that such an image might make either photo of the week or the other critique window opposite of it on the opening home page, and thus know that there is at least a slim chance of nudity showing up on your screen each and everytime you go to photo.net. So thus, you apparently knew all of this, yet logged on anyway to photo.net with small children in the same room. It's not photo.net nor Ms. Powers' job to make sure that children are not in the room WHEN you know this, it's YOURS. If you don't wish your children to see some of the images on photo.net, don't go onto the site when you're using the internet and they are in the room. Photo.net isn't raising the children, you are.

 

2) This may shock you, but I am an adult male who had no need or desire to masturbate while looking at this photo. Both the pose and the compisition for me are of artistic merit, not a shot I'd choose to look at to satisfy some voyeuristic urge. As you can see from my critique earlier in my post, my complaints have to do with technical issues of not being in focus nor for my tastes having enough contrast. Change those, I'd rate it at least a point higher if not two aesthetically. I am not saying that you have to enjoy this work, if you don't find it of artistic merit, fine. If all you can see is the sexual merit, or see that somehow as larger then the artistic one, fine. I guess I can actually look at a female nude done in a unique way, and not automatically think "sex" or have an urge to masturbate.

 

Okay...I'm done...I have a slightly used soapbox for sale, any takers?

 

Evan

Nice woman body. Would have been nicer to see her beautiful face.

I think a lot of comments expose the fact that many photographers haven't dealt with the Nikon Coolpix 9xx series of cameras.

 

First, the fact that she's managed these self-portraits at all is somewhat of a feat. The camera doesn't lend itself well to remote control. These photos require a lot of planning and staging, then frantic running to get framed right, then probably quite a few deletions after the fact as things went quite wrong.

 

I imagine this particular photo is out-of-focus not because Amy staged it that way, but because the camera got confused in its so-called 'intelligent' autofocusing and got all whacked. In low-light situations I can almost never get the Nikon CP9xx to focus on a subject unless it's high-contrast and has many sharp-edged details.

 

That said, sometimes the Nikon's failings combined with the attempt at the time yeilds a winner. As many have noted, the out-of-focus nature of the photo gives it a nice touch. I'm rather pleased with it.

 

Here, check out some of my own out-of-focus Nikon CP990 photos!

 

http://nz.faemalia.org/fwe/ (the bottom of the page has the out-of-focus ones!)

I guess what I'm hoping to add is that if you haven't worked with the Nikon CP950, you're probably not quite as appreciative as I am that the skill being demonstrated is probably even slightly more than you'd expect.

I like this photo. Has kind of a Twilight Zone feeling to it. The out-of-focus aspect adds to its mystery.

Voyeuristic? I don't think so: Voyeurs look into houses, not out of them; Amy appears to be outside, not indoors. More exhibitionistic than voyeuristic.

Regarding children: Just how is this photo in any way harmful to small children? It's only harmful to them if you poison their minds with puritanical nonsense. Children must to be taught to view the human body as shameful as they are blissfully ignorant of this at birth: They naturally suckle at their mother's bare breasts, and gleefully shed their clothes on a warm summer's day (until some adult goes ballistic on them). Do your children a favor... don't teach them to feel shame for their bodies. They'll grow up healthier and better adjusted if you don't.

The softened effect makes the image very tastefull. Perhasp increasing the amount of softening would add a sense of mystery.

This whole folder is very original. The composition of all photos is just incredible. It's hard for many of us to achieve that while we behind camera, you managed to do that while being in front! If you could share your technic of self portraite with us-that would be great! Of course, very few of us would look as stunning in front of camera as you.

Alf singed: Stop in the name of love. Seen before: You like sex, bad boy. Only weapon left.