Nina

Model Nina.

Your ratings and critiques are requested. If you rate harshly or very

critically, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please

share your photographic knowledge.

(Model is not actually 'nude' or semi-nude, but posted in that category

because it is most similar to offerings in that category/it actually does

not technically belong in that category). (Please refrain from comments

about the model, other than as relates to how she is photographed or

captured, per photo.net policy.) Thanks! Enjoy! John

(This was explicitly agreed it would never be posted, but model Nina

decided she liked this, decided she would allow me to share and seek

opinions -- then requested a full-size file for herself.) jc

(This may end up in my 'fine art' folder) jc

It may be nice and flattering to the model from time to time to 'clean up' her skin, remove certain marks, moles, etc., but anyone who has opened an American magazine and viewed the cover models' heavily Photoshopped presence, can only come to the conclusion that such women are not 'real people' -- they are figments of the photoshopper's imagination based on some idealistic presence provided by a photographer's initial capture.  The photo started out as a photo, the model with makeup, and along the way, everything got transformed into someone's idea of 'perfection'. 

No supermarket shopper ever could achieve such perfection, as they buy their six pack, their hamburger and their 'Hamburger Helper'.

Such models' teeth never have any hint of yellowing, they never were at a party the night before, their skin is flawless and even pore less, they don't have fine hairs on their skin and in general are just avatars for humans.

But such heavily retouched photos of impossibly beautiful women sell magazines, and for so long as they do, there will be such 'perfect' models on the covers of magazines.

Nina, here, may in her own way be far more perfect than any 'cover girl', and is sometimes a professional model, but is shown here in 'reality' without a touch of Photoshop other than contrast and brightness adjustments and even those are minimal at best.  This is an image almost completely as it came to Photoshop from the NEF image from a minimally processed 'raw' capture.  (It has been cropped and rotated, as it was not 'seen' like this originally, which is not usual for my work).

It may be that if this photo is to have a future life, in galleries or museums, it must be Photoshopped, and to that end, your comments on what minimal retouching you envision would be welcome.

But if it had already been image edited, all I could ask would be 'how good a job do you think has been done?' not 'what would you do?' which seems to me to be the more sensible route for me to pursue.

Of course, another route might be to throw the image in the ash can.

I hope not . . . not in my ash can anyway, as this already is destined for my wall, which heretofore has been without a photo on it for well over four years.

john

John (Crosley)

John, 

When I go into my local all-inclusive grocery-drug-you-name-it store, I find that the "beauty enhancement" products for women take 8 full aisles of space (both sides) and those products of "looks enhancements" for men take barely one aisle (only one side ) and even that ends with such non-essentials as foot fungus powder and cures for jock itch.  I take that ratio of 16:1 as indicating something about our culture (maybe species) in terms of how people look and look at each other.  In short, glamorize women under the age of 55 in your photographs and they will be accepted as good.  Show what my dermatologist calls "barnacles" on the skin of a woman and you may earn her eternal enmity, to say nothing of the criticism of others. My advice is to retouch all those little spots.  Leave a skin texture, but the texture you love to touch. Or find a model in her sixties and emphasize what the troubles of life have done to her - a character study.

  Your image elements have me a little confused.  I can understand the face and the shoulder and arm, but is that her other arm coming across under the first one?  I just looked in the mirror and tried to assume that pose and cannot, but then I am not a beautiful supple young maiden.  I suppose she twisted that arm in order not to reveal her breast, a touch of modesty that most models get over.  In any event I think the second arm so juxtaposed makes the picture look awkwardly composed.

Regards,

Jerry Matchett

Your thoughtful critique is just what the doctor ordered.

In fact, Nina is lying down, in some pain, her arms wrapped around her body in a protective posture, but I was drawn to the lines.

She was opposed to my photographing at first, but when she saw this, she liked it; which is unusual; she likes very little of mine and for those of her (some of which are stunning) she likes even less.

For this, it's the lines and not the skin tones which drew me in, but I did seek advice, and yours is sound.

I had not sought advice from a man who spent a career shooting nudes (this is not, but it's 'of the genre' anyway), and unsolicited he said mine were 'entirely original' and he liked them very much, so I vowed when shooting nudes to keep them original, or to trash those that are clichéd. 

This is not, I think.

Awkward I had not counted on, but if it appears so to you, perhaps to others also.  It does not appear so to me, but then I'm the guy closest to things, and hence the most blind to defects.

I am ambivalent about retouching skin where the tones are in great shadow like this and removal of moles, vaccination mark etc., will be a hard job without plastering over the entire skin, which I am opposed to for this shot.

In another nude set, my first, model Rita, had skin that was flawless and breasts that looked like they can out of God's catalog for first class youthful breasts they were soooo perfect.

Otherwise, for nude shooting, I'm pretty new to the genre, though far from removed from seeing or shooting women with no clothes.  For 'art' it's another matter entirely, and for that I'm searching.  As with all things in such a quest, I can use all the help I can get . . . . and yours appears first class.

Pardon me if I don't take it all at once, as I continue my search . . . for exactly what's right for me.

And my images and style.

In the end,  I'd love to see how you'd work have worked this one up,  and if it could retain the tones (see the head rotation lines from movement?) while removing things people see as objectionable,

I once had a girlfriend, a ballerina, who was not prima but not corps either, who was covered with moles, but it never dawned on me.  I think her photo, even decades later may still be part of the company photo that adorns the S.F. Ballet brochure . . . .and the Joffrey before that.

No one in ballet ever suggested she cover up her moles . . . . . but then she was pretty far removed from the audiences.

And up close, I just never was attuned to them; her 'body' was fabulously sleek and muscled - that of a finely tuned athlete, though possibly at 28 too muscular for ballet any longer, as she neared the end of a career.  (Nina is 29, less muscular AND prettier - fabulously beautiful when she'll be still enough to pose).

Now for sure, pimples and blackheads - they go in an instant!  As well as bothersome scars and other marks that are mostly unnatural or unexpected.

In the nude genre, however, it seems people do expect some sort of perfection, and I did not post to participate in that . . . but if this requires 'grounds keeping' to be presentable, then I guess that's necessary.'

Thanks for the meaty consideration.

john

John (Crosley)

I can just imagine the youths who troll Photo.net's nude postings looking for titillation, coming upon a post such as this under 'nudes' saying 'this guy Crosley -- I'll never click on his postings again, he doesn't even know where to show us some tit!'.

Fact is, I know exactly where everything belongs, and how to present it for titillation, but I happened to like this composition; even rotated the capture to 'create' the composition.

In fact, I'd place this more in the 'fine art' category than in 'nudes' if I had my 'druthers' I think.  At the end of his career, fewer faulted Picasso for having hands, arms and other appendages coming out of all sorts of oddball places, and thus looking 'awkward'.

It was, after all, 'art'.  And by that time he was a French National Treasure.  It just took me almost a lifetime to understand it.  I finally have arrived at that place after most of my lifetime spent thinking I'd never get there.

I won't throw this one away just yet.

john

John (Crosley)

With ratings in the high 3's you are not impressed.

I still am.

People generally don't look at my photos, nude or otherwise (this is not nude so it is non nude or 'otherwise' but not 'street') to revel in how awful a photographer I am.

I think it has 'something'.

It has nearly 700 views after 3 days or less on the queue, and is a top-viewed photo, but is a non nude.  It is not even supposed to be pretty or show a model at her prettiest, even to be revealing; it is a study in form and shape.

I like it immensely.

Perhaps others do too, but aren't rating it, or perhaps they're just curious about how awful John is in  genre similar to nudes?

Frankly I don't think they're clicking because it's awful, but they can't put their finger on why it's good.

I can 'feel' that it's good.

So I think can Nina.

Which is why she asked for a full-size file to print.

Even though she initially didn't even want to pose, or allow anything from this session to be shown, and she is PICKY about what she will allow shown.

It's something to think about - it's not nude but views are very high -- it's on page three of the three-day most-viewed photos.

Why?  Especfially since rates are in the basement.

john

John (Crosley)

The one person in the world whose opinion might matter to me at this stage, beside my mentor, is Sally Mann, his friend.

She of the elusive styles, who slips from photographing beautiful children (her own) to ethereal landscapes, to colloidal prints of kids, and selling them as 'fine art' for stupendous sums in 'art' galleries [Gagosian].

Her opinion I would gladly read and take to heart.

john

John (Crosley)

John,

I think this one is good, very good. The blurred face adds to it. It's an important element of this picture.

The fact that it gets such a lot of threes and threes and fours combined is just a sign that people on average don't understand photography.

But I think we did not need further confirmation of this, didn't we?

L.

It's a standout in my book, and I'm happy to have one esteemed critic who agrees, though I often find great collective wisdom in ratings.

Sometimes, the system just falls apart, or maybe I should just look again.

Here, I think I will trust my judgment.

john

John (Crosley)

Addendum 6-26-2010, Luca:  I don't think that getting 3's and 4's is any sign of lack of wisdom by raters.  Generally raters are 'right on' with their ratings when I view them in retrospect.  However with the more esoteric photos, especially those that push boundaries, raters tend to hew to the more traditional.  This photo is influenced by work of Sally Mann I saw at the Gagosian the night she opened, which my mentor printed for her/giant collodian prints of her children full of 'imperfections' but extremely ethereal, due both to long exposures and the vagaries of the collodian process itself.

Just having gone to that exhibit and seen her work (and seen her too, an ordinary woman without pretense) caused me to have appreciation for this image, and continues to cause me to have it.

Whether or not she would like it interests me greatly.  I suppose I may never know, but it does interest me. 

I seldom underestimate the collective wisdom of raters.  Like jurors, any one of whom may sleep or 'rest eyes' during crucial testimony, the collective recall of a jury is outstanding, the the collective wisdom or raters regarding most photos is pretty darn good . . . . with the occasional lacunae.

I hope that sets the record straight.

john

John (Crosley)

I do not quite agree with your statement about the judgement of the masses. Even less since I know how the rating is done here: simply rushing through the rating machine.

No value to me.

Some work, be it photographs, paintings, music, need time to be understood. Some photos you do understand only after having seen and viewed a great deal of other - really artistic - pieces of photographic work.

Does Michael Karmann give marks to rate?

All the best,

Luca

You have some raison, or course and we are not entirely at odds.

Some things are instantly recognizable as beautiful or 'great' while other things are more an acquired taste.

I think the above, if someone likes it, is an 'acquired taste', like much of 'fine art'.

I'd like to produce a whole series of such work, but alas, this may be the final of the series -- the first and last I fear.

Such a shame, too, as it has represented a departure for me with model Nina, whose works populate a representative part of my gallery, though not heralded.  She is fabulously beautiful and her 'look' seems to change from photo to photo.  She never has been described, nor will she be here, beyond her first name.

She is at once a horrible model, refusing to sit still or stand still, being a terrible critique of what she 'likes', and at the same time being at once a horrible and wonderful critic of what's my best.  In short a skillful resource.

I'll miss her good advice since it no longer seems available.

It took me most of my aged lifetime to 'understand' Picasso and his fellow artists, but now I do, I think, and wonder why it took me so long, as I am a dunderhead - a pictorialist -- who is not moved much by 'fine art' in its most trendy sense.

I am however moved by a photo such as this, which I find full of interest and mystery.

With a face full of darkness and obvious just-completed motion.

I'm entranced by this photo, more than almost all others, as being an harbinger of things I may produce in the future, if I have another such model, however unlikely.

Because here it is the union of photographer and model.

I thank you as always for your valuable contribution.

john

John (Crosley)

That she had briefly attended art/design school, but had to give it up because of life's necessities; she had been young and her future ran smack into her artistic aspirations.

She is a fearsome critic, not liking much of what I produce, even though she has helped me find some of my best photos, and does truly like, even possibly love some of my work.

But she is almost impossibly picky about what she likes and what she dismisses.  The word 'trite is not in her Russian/Ukrainian vocabulary, but if it were, I think she would use that to disregard much of my work as 'mediocre' for me.

So, when I showed her this with pride, I expected her to reject it, as it does not portray her to her full model-pretty beauty, and she is extremely picky in those photos which do portray her true beauty even which she considers worthwhile.

But she looked at this, and in a slight nod, allowed as this was OK, and later, asked that I send her not just a thumbnail for her computer but a full-size NEF file.  Since this is cropped and somewhat manipulated in ways she cannot do, I instead sent her a .tiff file, which she will know how to print.  I hope she does not 'heal' the moles and the vaccination mark.

Those 'imperfections' I think help lend reality to this photo; and help it rise above the rest of what I and others produce.  While raters may subtract substantially for such 'marks', I tend to disregard such ratings; it is 'The Photo' which Michel Karman (Lucie Award Winner and mentor) taught me to value, and for me this is truly 'The Photo', marks and all.

Whether it will stand the test of time is another matter; I hope so.  It is a lasting tribute to Nina, a woman of steadfastness but conflicting and complex moods and appearances, taken one day when she decidedly did not feel 'well' - a 'mood' I think I captured well and presciently.

john

John (Crosley)