Untitled

For your comments...

Both....

LOL. Well I can't say anything since I just shot a naked, fat, bald, wax man.... now can I? I like the pose, the look and the tones. The focus is nice and appropriate, and the background works well.

Well now... (act like a grown man now Thomas)... ahem... whew - it's getting hot in here! Now what was I thinking about.. ;-)

I love the tones. But I think the pose is a bit "gratuitous" and a bit unnatural. In other words it looks a bit forced, for the purpose of showing the genitals. She doesn't look comfortable sitting on the one buttock.

 

Beautiful model. Keep shooting her!

Though I am a photographer in the rough and in my early study stages, I have to agree with Rob Tomlin in that the pose seemed a little forced. On the other hand, the tones and textures of this photo are awesome. I suppose if it were necessary to expose the genital area to make this image work, you definitely found an almost perfect specimen.

 

 

Gratuitous and embarrassing for women.I don't understand who can find the anal orifice of artistic interest. Morover, the pose is forced and the background is too sharp. PS I didn't know Alaska was in France!

I echo the "both" comments, as well as the comment on the complementary background. The only thing that throws me off a little bit is the tattoo (ok, maybe not the only thing). :-) Creative and well executed.

Who cares if it's gratutitous and embarassing to women? It's not in any way. It has attitude, is shot extremly well, is brave and i love it. Are we judging women now or photography? Keep it up

At first I thought wow great picture, and the way she is looking into the camera really forced me to look into her eyes. A little later I was distracted by the tatoo, but that is just my personal taste I guess. Only after a while I noticed the genitial area and I thought wow the photographer must have guts (and the model as well) to do this.

 

For me it adds some erotic to the picture, but it also distracts form the expression on her face, which originally lurred me into watching this photo.

 

I still think it is a great picture, but my eyes are traveling between to different focus points which makes it more difficult for me to enjoy this photo.

The model doesn't look embarrassed in the least. I'm one that thinks the female body it the most beautiful thing ever created. I still find it hard to believe that in this day and age people can be prudes. The greatest artists/photographers in the world have pursued the female form because of it's beauty, which is difficult to express in art, and because the greatest art is made about those things we feel passionate about.

 

This is a wonderful picture. The tones and lighting are great, the model is gorgeous and it shows a passionate eye.

 

p.s. I'd like to see all of the tattoo or none of it. (I like tattoos.)

I love the left big toe. I think it really add's to this image, or is it just me... ;) I think the pose compliments the look in her face, or visa-versa...

just plain sassy!! well done.

Agreed, issues exist with this view. On balance, this is a particularly beautiful model whose deeply penetrating stare is perhaps more fixed and captivating than the intense peering of her opened-mouthed viewers! Consequently, I think the principle artistic value in this work is found above the waist. Yes, most humans do have external genitalia however the lower anatomy in this case (try viewing it cropped just above the genitalia) doesnt really add to or delete from those haunting eyes. Nice job. Overall, 6/7 artistic and 3/7 erotic.

Old Amerrica.

A Great comp.

The background is wonderfull.

Yes Michael, most humans defecate too, but we don't show it on a public site. Sure there are women that can do this without embarrassement. There are an equal number of women that will have sex with you for 10 dollars or less. Would your wife, sister, girlfriend pose like this .... and then let you put it on the net .. presuming that she knows, that is? Shame, she looks like a nice person that is simply being exploited.

By Daniella's "Shame, she looks like a nice person otherwise". Made me laugh, anyway...

 

I like this photo, more or less. I mean, I'm not too keen on the model's hair style, tattoo, shaved pubes or makeup, but she looks like a nice person otherwise...

Artistic, IMHO.

Well, Carl Williams is one of these smart alecs. There are lots of them on the net and it impresses no one. By nice person, everyone but him understood that I meant that the model was in no way vulgar. I maintain that she is being exploited here and I would appreciate the author letting us know if she is aware of having been posted on the net for tens of thousands of persons to see, in which case I will withdraw my remark and apologise for having doubted it in the first place.

Daniela's other comment makes more sense to me now she's edited it in line with the later explanation, so apologies, Daniella, for being "gobsmacked", now I'm merely puzzled about how one can tell a "nice person" by looking at a picture of them. I guess you mean you assume the model is a nice person perhaps because you assume the model is being exploited and that only nice people are exploited? Or something?

I'd still love to understand how one may know what everyone thinks, knows, believes etc. without asking them, but I guess that's too advanced for a dullard like me. :-)

I do take the point that in the somewhat misogynist cultures which prevail in Alaska and/or France (or Alaska, France, even - for all I know there might be such a place, after all there's a Paris in Texas...) the chances are that women being depicted without clothes are often being exploited, so I can see it's not an unreasonable assumption, but on the other hand this isn't any more or less exploitative than many nude shots, it's slightly different insofar as it has a kind of directness, the model isn't to my mind being depicted as a simpering and soul-less sex object (or "aesthetic form", which is arguably at least as bad) but has a direct and focused gaze which harks back to certain quite revolutionary-in-their-time paintings which "shocked" polite society by presenting naked women not as lumps of pleasantly shaped meat but as real people. I think I'm prepared therefore to give the photographer the benefit of some doubt as regards motive and possible exploitation, except insofar as any picture of anyone could be said to exploit that person, more or less (especially all those "cute" pictures of unpaid and un-naturally dressed-up kiddies which some jobbing pro photographers like to put in their shop windows). My own assumption is that the model here has been paid and is comfortable with the payment and the use the photographer has made of the picture, though I'm happy to defer to your (Daniella's) interpretation if the photographer admits otherwise - e.g. if it's a photo of a friend who had no idea it would be displayed on a web site and who would be dismayed if she found out.)

I still like the picture, more or less (I was joking about the makeup, tattoo, hairstyle etc.)

Carl, have you tried reading your own prose?! It's just typical of someone that is only interested in looking at himself in the mirror. My meaning was crystal clear and I maintain what I said. As for being able to recognize an absence of vulgarity in someone's 'look', obviously, it surpases you! Oh, by the way, how come you make so many 'assumptions', since these are fobidden to others?! I don't think you are a little bit too big for your boots young man .... and I am born in Montreal and live in Toronto.

I don't think one can always recognize even gross character traits in photos. There are countless examples of photos of known villains looking angelic and alarming-looking people of an angelic disposition. (Although I confess I've always thought the British prime minister Tony Blair looked a bit insincere in pictures, and thus it has proven.)

To Daniella: I do read my own prose. It's terrible, I agree. The bulk of it on this occasion, however, was about the photo rather than ad-hominem nonsense.

I don't recall suggesting that assumptions are or should be "forbidden" (by who?). I noted that folk make them, and that I made some myself. Clearly you're welcome to your assumptions, including the daft one about my age. (Not sure why you've mentioned where you live - Toronto Canada, presumably, rather than Toronto France? :-) )

Your "most humans defacate" comment seemed to me somewhat prejudiced, presumptious and judgemental. I've not chosen those words out of spite. This isn't the place to attempt to explain why, for example, I think it unpleasant essentially to describe the woman in this photo as a ten-dollar whore, someone implicitly unworthy of being any decent man's wife, sister or girlfriend (as if that were what dignified women). I would, however, defend your right to make whatever comments you like, and your right to be comically pompous, just as eagerly as I defend my own right to disagree with you and to write bad prose. "We" don't necessarily agree.

She's strong, thats good. People just seeing her pussy, have a pussy problem. Guess it is the most original one in this portfolio.

Great model, great attitude. Well composed, lit, and colored. And of course - sexy. I enjoy fearless shots like this. This beautiful woman has NOTHING to be embarrased about, and neither does the photographer.

"male gaze" simple as that, look it up.