eva lux Pressed Tight...

Any thoughts welcomed

Neat picture. I like the way the sharp dark lines of the lingerie contrast with the softer lines of the model's hair and the the curve in the small of the back. The foreshortened hand weakens the composition slightly, I think. I'm not sure about the "matting" effect on screen, but I bet it looks really good in person.

Too much like a security cmaera, albeit of high quality

Wouldn't it be better if she was completely naked? -I mean when she's going to take a shower...

I like it all the same, but I'm missing her left arm and hand a little.

No. Never underestimate the power of dressing for sex. And while nudity may be more appropos for a shower, the presence of sopping lacy is part of the fetish. It extracts it from the ordinary and adds the spark.

 

I'm assuming you mean her other left. The focus of this shot is her ass and the diagonal of her back that leads the eye. There is also an element of of framing reflecting her press into the corner. I'm not sure pulling back and including the other arm would achieve the same effect. None of my photos are cropped, because I find it a good discipline to train the eye to see.

 

My only regret on this shot was cutting off her heels, but this was due to the physics of the shoot (cramped space, fixed lens) My goal was to reflect the intrusion and mimic the pose with framing.

 

Mark. thank you. The voyeuristic aspect was part of what I was going for.

Don't make me laugh! It was meant ironically, i don't think you share my sense of humor :-(

 

And yes, I meant the left handed shoulder, it was only out of the walls perspective (again ironical).

 

I really like the picture, and I totally agree with what you've said (except for the right shoulder). And it looks to me as if she wears some kind of socks. I didn't know that these can also be used as fetish.

Nice job. I love the composition, and pretty much every aspect of the photo. Your portfolio is strong, and this definetly adds to that strength.

Nah, Patrick... I was just dishing it back. I get what you mean now about the left arm. And socks are a definite fetish. Even when they are foreshortened hose. I'm greatly impressed that your able to concentrate on detail. You're a better man...

 

 

 

too tightly cropped, like subject is stuck up in a toilet. looks more feitish than aesthetic.

very good work congrats!! Good light and contrast , nice idea for the composition.

I think you have to make a choice -- either go with the Fredericks of Hollywood gear against a plain wall, or do the faucet and drain thing, but she has to be nude. I don't think you can do both. Just a suggestion.

I think he can do both. It's you that can't do both... t

I think the more sensual, sexy and sultry images are those that still have the clothes on and don't show any nudity at all. Here even though in the tub I thgink it works fine. The only thing I would maybe do differently is expose the bare foot rather than cover them. Composition with the faucet and drain works great.

wow, exquisite shot.

 

i love the tight crop. superb lighting and intriguing pose. wonderful work!

Robay- It is fetish. That's what I do. It's a shower, not a toilet and yes, it was cropped tight to give just the feeling you had. So thank you.

 

Steve - While it's not completely obvious in this shot from the series, the Idea was to combine the Fredricks look with the incongruity of the shower. I like wet woman. She was soaked . The point of the shower background wasn't a striving for a naturalistic frolic, but to overtly sexualize the moment.

 

The point of the picture isn't getting clean, but getting dirty in a very particular way. Thus beats the heart of fetish. Take it or leave it, but a white wall is a yawn to me. I heartily recommend it. Wet fishnets are fun.

 

The point is, people dress for sex. I see no problem with dressing for sex in a shower. It's quite fun.

 

Thanks to all who commented...

Good angle, Critter!

Thanks Peter... I assume your viewing via a PC. I've noticed that my shots are far darker on a PC than on my mac. I assume that's related to the different gammas. While the legs are somewhat indefinite due to the perspective, on my monitor they have a grey shading.

 

II, too, wished for a little something more from the face...I think if I had gotten her to tilt her head back a little, it would have been stronger. Chalk it up to the distraction of a remarkable ass:)

 

Thanks for the observation on composition. You nailed , at least, my attempts at it. Part of merging a voyeuristic view on life is trying to express not just the .."look, pretty girl", but somehow evoke the leer that is observing.

 

One of the main components of fetish is that the arousal is located in the the viewer. Rather than a passive witness to a beautiful moment, the stealer of souls becomes involved by focusing intent upon an aspect of it. Part of the struggle (which your comment is just now refining for me) is capturing not just the beautiful moment, but the interaction of the dialogue between the observed and the observer.

 

I think that's why I use the tight shots. To hint at that interaction. Thanks. That's given me much food for thought.

Critter - First off, it was nice to get an intelligent response to my original comment. It's also nice to see someone expressing themselves in both word and image exactly the way they want to. Anyway, no question about your intent here. Let's just say I like the other Eva pics better, especially the one where she's pressed against the window. Maybe that's because it's the least Weegee-esque of the group. Or maybe it's because the faucet and drain can't be seen. Regards.

Steve - to be precise, it was a glass shower door. I welcome comments because it eiher makes me see something so familiar in a different light, or helps me refine the instinctual impulse into a more wordy conceptual framework. I'm still figuring out the inent behind what appeals to me, and that only aids me in the moment before the shuter press.

It's interesing tha you mentioned Weegee. I suppose there is a stark documentarian nature to the rest of the shower series. I've always admired his harsh,, unflattering presentation, so perhaps some of that leaks out despite the softboxes. I like the shot you mentioned because it was emotive in an abstract way. I like the rest because they are an intrusive eye gazing. Interesting point... and thanks.

I like the monochrome mood and contrast

I'm sorry Critter, but I have to respond to an off line contact made from Steve. I like to keep it on line, and I think it's relevant to the image, or to your work in general:

Sorry Steve, I'm sure any "snide" tone you may detect in my comments says much more aboutmy state of mind than your comments. Critter is very qualified to verify this... In fact, that's true of 90% of anything anyone says to you anytime.

The comments you and I made are consistent with many conversations that are frequently inspired by Critter's photographs. His photos challenge conventional thinking as regards sexuality, the expression of sexuality and the public presentation of that expression through his work.

I (in my comment above) was merely pointing out that Critter had already done exactly what you said he couldn't do. He frequently does things I wouldn't do, but that doesn't mean he can't do them, it just means I may not "get it" and I may not choose to "do it" myself. So what. That doesn't seem to matter to him at all and should have no effect on how he arranges a photograph.

Thinking outside of your "normal" mode is what he hopes you will do. That's why I like his photographs.

You, evidently now find that maybe he can do it. Next maybe you'll discover that you can also imagine, and possibly appreciate that which you previously thought unimagine-able and unworthy. This makes perfect sense to me. It happens to me all the time. It's a good thing.

Critter and I frequently disagree (and agree) about many things, and seem to have reached a mutual understanding and respectfully irreverent attitude regarding each other's opinions and work. I enjoy our frequent conversations and disagreements and he seems to, as well. Or at least he says he does.

With that said, I think the Shower door image is a tired cliche' that is the weakest image in the portfolio. Ha!

In this picture, the graphic elements make it work. The black curvy elements contrasted with the angular shower shelf and the film's frameline. And of course the outrageously fine and imaginative model... t

Okay, this was my response to Tom - Thanks very much for writing back. And people say that I'm literal! Of course Critter is free to (i.e. he can) do anything he likes. I simply meant that I didn't think all of those elements together, in that particular photo, worked for me. After his response, I felt I needed to clarify my original comment. So I contrasted that bathtub shot with the window shot, which I think is much better because, among other reasons, it doesn't have those "extra" elements that I found distracting. An additional but minor point: I am happy to leave fetish photos to Critter. Okay, one more point: The farcical rating system on this site has really

got me cranky, as I've said in the feedback forum

several times recently. At the same time I've

been advocating meaningful critiques. Need I say

more? Anyway, thanks again for writing. See you

in October at ACP 2003? I'll have some technically imperfect but relatively interesting

and maybe even original stuff up at Radial.

Regards, Steve PS - feel free to paste anything

you'd like. I think we understand each other

now.

I havent read all the comments but I have to say wet socks and clothes while on and in the shower are a definite fetish. to those who havent thought it or tried it. you should.

 

Cheers,

Knicki

Great image as usual. You are one of the few that would take it.

 

-Owen

Thanks Owen and Knicki...that's high praise...