'Yevgenia' No. 2

This is Yevgania (No. 2), not to be confused with a prior Yevgenia I have

photographed. Your ratings, critiques and good faith remarks are invited

and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically or wish to make

an observation, please submit a helpful and constructive comment;

thank you in advance for sharing your photographic knowledge to help

improve my photography. Enjoy! John

the photo is beautiful, maybe a bit "strong" like pose, I also like this black and white. I do not like the crop of the feet

I post very few nudes.

When viewing this in my portfolio of unposted photos, I was moved by the composition and the tones.  I did not regard how 'strong' it was, as I am not interested so much in that . . . . I'm interested primarily in composition and other photographic values.  I don't regard this as 'arousing' in any particular way at all.

Thanks for letting me know of your approval.

john

John (Crosley)

Somehow 'cute' was not the word I would ever have used for this photo.  However, well-composed is . . . . and perhaps I could translate that into 'cute', or as the Russians say (in loose transliteration) sympatichne which is similar to the Spanish simpatico at least in regard to the composition, which in its own way, for being nearly spontaneous, comforms to all the values which I hold strongly.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

john

John (Crosley)

It is easy to understand why your eyes were not on the places where her feet should have been.

Sorry John, not so long ago this would have been deleted as simple pornography and compared to your other work, for me it fails to rise above that level. Technically very competent - apart from the missing feet,  but artistically could be anybodies home shot taken before jumping into bed with her. Even her expression is dead. I have to confess I am not a nude photographer, but I think I can appreciate a good shot. This one does you no credit and neither does it do credit to a potentially great model. For me it lacks respect for her and your undoubted talent - try again.

Actually, you hit on something I don't think you know.

I did capture the 'essence' of this situation.

Yes, this is a model, but NO, I did not sleep with her, nor did I ever have any aspirations of doing so.

The 'deadness' of her, which you remark on, is part of why this photo I think is so successful.

It is not exactly 'deadness' but simple 'interest' and 'distance' from the photographic process.

Rather than being 'engaged with the process' and 'enamored', she was quite distant in her own way, yet still a very nice and intelligent person.

She also was quite at ease with her body, so any sort of bodily display was not a problem with her.

As to 'pornography', there is simply NOTHING SEXUAL about this other than that this is a female nude.  Now as Helmut Newton has aptly said, anyone who thinks there is nothing 'sexual' about depicting the female nude is possibly crazy (very loose paraphrase, and only then capturing the 'essence of what he said, and not the exact words), but in this case, there really is hardly anything 'sexual' about this model.

She is not depicted in any coy, inviting or 'sexual' way . . . .   She is captured in a straightforward, almost documentary manner, and that is the manner in which this capture was made -- as nearly a documentary capture, almost disguised as a glamor capture, but not a porno capture.

There is none of the blatancy or falseness of porno here; and that is an industry which thrives on fantasy; there is none here.  All is true to life, and frankly except for the composition, it is not all the appealing, truly, although the woman has a very attractive and womanly body.

Truth is, she is not an 18-year-old high fashion model, stick thin, maybe  dancer, or whatever, bikini ready, but more 'full' and also somewhat 'older' and would not be prized as a 'porno model' at all. 

The woman depicted is exactly who the woman is without even a touch of fantasy, even when she reposes so.

At least that is what I saw, and I most accurately depicted her.

In fact, what you saw as failure on my part is in fact complete success; if you see some 'deadness' in her eyes, it simply is not sexual invitation as one might expect her to pose if this were to 'entice and arouse', and really only shows her engagement and intellectual interest at the process of being photographed.

I met and talked with the woman and found her both intelligent and interesting . . . but that was it.  She is experienced at being nude and has no qualms about it . . . . .   This is not my boudoir or hers, and I had no intention of ever trying to bed her, not then nor ever in the future. 

In fact, I think we lay on the bed after filming and just talked about life in Ukraine and the plight of woman who are denied equal treatment and otherwise the plight of women in Ukraine -- hardly the thing of which sexuality and/or pornography are made of.

All without regard to anything 'sexual' at all but just as though we were in a parlor or living room and completely disregarding any state of dress and/or undress.

Her observations were both 'right on' and confirmed what I already had known.

What you have seen as 'failure' may be because you projected a goal onto me of an expectation I think you may have thought I should have had, rather than my real goal, which was to make a documentary capture of a situation, depicting a person, somewhat disengaged and at the same time 'interested intellectually' almost as though she were a bystander.

This was never taken to titillate or to be 'sexual' or to provoke a sexual response -- witness your own response . . . . which was anything but, I think, but you have made a wrong projection onto me.

Perhaps your libido was writing instead of your intellectual self, and you had not discerned enough facts from which to write by carefully examining this photo and considering ALL the possibilities, including the possibility this was NOT my girlfriend and NOT some model I hoped to bed but just the opposite.

I captured a real person for whom I had no real sexual feelings of desire at all, and in a somewhat clinical and disinterested way that also captured her own familiarity with being naked in front of other(s), and also her intellectual awareness of what was going on around her, but her disassociation from that process.

I could write much more, but it's just not necessary; there are enough signposts there for you to come to conclusions far different than your original post, which made accusation(s) and conclusions which (if you had discerned the true facts) would have been shown to be unfounded.

However, when one hears hoof beats one seldom thinks of zebras, and imagines of course, horses.

So if one sees a nude woman lying with her sexual parts exposed, one can be forgiven if she is mistaken as being depicted in a sexually enticing way. 

But one must look more carefully, and if one sees 'deadness' or some disinterest' in a photo of mine, then one probably had think twice about it.

You see this woman is a photographic zebra . . . . . one heard hoof beats, as you did, and you concluded automatically 'horses' but in fact, it was a zebra, and if you had looked at the stripes, (and my record for posting documentary type photos, and the depth of my captures, you might have been able to tell that.

Sometimes aphorisms can be wrong, and the easily-reached conclusion also can be completely wrong.

You may be forgiven if you mistake this for 'pornography' but you're just wrong . . . .and the Supreme Court would side against you, too . . . . as it meets none of the tests of pornography set forth by them with the sole exception that it's a depiction of female nudity. 

The rest is your projection.

You do not note the skillful composition -- the semi-high key treatment, and not the symmetry of her pose on the bed, the tones of the sheets and her body and so forth, and you seem to overlook those although they are an integral part of the photo, and I think one principal reason it has shot to prominence in 'views' so far, for the composition is more skillful than you have given credit, and that is principally why it is posted.

If I were to take 'pornography' it would not look like this . . . . rest assured, but then that's not an interest of mine.

Thanks for putting your conclusions and thoughts on the table.

john

John (Crosley)

You somewhat snidely (I think) or just sardonically remark that somehow I didn't seem to be looking at her feet because of possible distraction.

In fact her feet were cropped out partly in the original capture by the frame and the aspect ratio, and the composition of the photo presented them from being included.

Whether or not they might have been important, this photo was not taken from a stepladder or a boom, so I was standing on the springy mattress, and looking and shooting downward, which is most difficult. I did manage to include feet, but frame lines also included the feet plus extraneous room and furniture parts that spoiled the composition.

So in keeping with preserving the best lines and the best composition, the feet had to go, regrettably, and I think the choice was apt - the lines without feet work very well.

I think the composition worked out, and the composition is the main reason this was posted.

Others may think differently, but frankly I've seen too many of that particular part to be particularly distracted.  Sorry to disappoint you, but you also were a nude photographer, and I suspect that the nude female pudenda also held not so much interest to you, also, except as an essential (or not) part of a female nude photo.

Am I right?

john

John (Crosley)

 and a couple of positive comments to which I remarked in response to one about the composition being compelling, before any late commenters made reference to 'ill motives' in posting.

Art comes in many forms and not all 'nude art' is meant to be beautiful.

In her own way Yevgenia (No. 2) is pretty, but she is certainly not depicted in the most beautiful way for her.  I could have posed her easily in 100 other different ways that would have done her more justice to reveal the beauty in her female form.

That is not what I wanted, and some guidelines to what I wanted are found in my answers to a post above, where I mention both composition, and tonality, as well as the documentary aspect.

They do not go well with also depicting this woman as an alluring, attractive female, at her most glamorous, and in fact those goals are 'at odds' with that I think.

I also think I have achieved success at what I set out to do, even though others may project that is not what they expect a nude to portray . . . . but this is my photo and my portrayal, whether or not it meets their expectations.  Perhaps their expectations will haver to be amended somewhat.

Not all pretty woman in bed nude are posed there to invite you to be aroused or to invite you in their imagination to join them, as one commenter appears to have suggested.

I have a much more complex thought process than that, for some of my work, and this is just one part of that work.

john

John (Crosley)

"When viewing this in my portfolio of unposted photos, I was moved by the composition and the tones.  I did not regard how 'strong' it was, as I am not interested so much in that . . . . I'm interested primarily in composition and other photographic values."

Strange statement. Composition is one among many photographic values. There is a subject here. This is not just composition and tones. To ignore the strength of the pose and, therefore, the subject is simply to ignore significant photographic values. This absolutely cannot and should not be reduced to composition and tones. Only an abstract can fully accomplish that.

I think cutting off the feet goes quite well with the in-your-faceness of the pose and the directness of her look into the camera. The sheets are a bit weird. The perspective also harmonizes with the pose, her look, and the feet being cropped off. It certainly does convey a direct and distinct composition . . . and much, much more. The vagina here is not non-chalant. It's also not all there is.

By the way, your having certain intentions doesn't mean viewers will see it that way. Your intentions may very well not have been accomplished in the eyes of others. Sharing a photo with others means risking you will learn that what you put into the photo doesn't necessarily read for others. In this case, it seems to mean that what you think you didn't put into the photo does seem to many to be there, and significantly so. I think some of what you intended does come through . . . and also a lot more that's very different from your take on it.

Hi again John, I suggest you read my comment again slowly. I never suggested or implied anything sexual to you or her. I said that in my opinion this shot lacked respect for her as a model and for your undoubted talents as a photographer, which the rest of your excellent portfolio displays. As to composition and high key, skill etc. - they are in my opinion technical exercises that are lost when a good subject is treated like a lump of meat.  I can see no merit in this shot, in spite of technical excellence which I mentioned in my first post. As to a definition of pornography, perhaps I am a little out of date - I've only been taking pictures for 55 years - but as a retired UK police officer I do know that in my days in Vice (1970's) selling or publishing this kind of shot could have got you 3-6 months inside. So perhaps I'm a little old fashioned - but I would be very interested on a female critique of this shot. Sorry if I upset you, but you did ask for honest critique which for me, this is. 

Honest discourse is the spice of life.

And it's part of what makes these commentaries so interesting.

Perhaps what made me treat this woman more objectively than many subjects is precisely that - she has allowed herself to become objectified at least in some aspects of her life.

I won't explain further.

It showed when being photographed. She was distant and noncommunicative with the camera in a way, but at the same took direction very well, was quite observant, and also when I spoke with her in communication, she was interesting and extremely intelligent. 

I liked her, and I think she liked me, and I think if our paths crossed ever again, we would be friendly.

She had chosen her place and life and was comfortble with it; hence this is a completely honest depiction of her persona, as she was that particular day -- devoid of modesty, interested but not interactive, and letting me take the initiative with her total compliance (e-mail me if you want me to be more explicit -- I now understand circumstances I did not know when I photographed her, and they explain more.)

In large part because of my former profession (or why I was pretty good at it, and my previous profession as a journalist/photographer/editor/interviewer, etc.) I have developed pretty good people skills.

Since joining Photo.net those people skills have developed tremendously, as I have photographed intensively, and my relations with people when photographing are generally from good, to excellent and sometimes superb (not always, but generally somewhere on this continuum.)

The same applied with this woman.  Note above, that I mentioned after photographing her we lay on this bed discussing things (e.g. world events, status of women in Ukraine, etc., ) without regard to her nudity (she had not put on her clothes), and it was just like sitting in a living room having  a discussion with a neighbor. 

And although intimate because we were close and personal, no more so than the intimacy I sometimes get when talking with strangers in long discussions in fast food restaurants, which can go on for a hour or more.

I guess it was the suggestion I had somehow depicted her badly, when in fact I depicted her precisely as she was; I got to her inner esssence with this photo; reserved and inside herself, but observing.

Truly an apt title for this would be 'Still Life With Nude Woman'.  

But she's not really a 'piece of meat' in that she's not being offered up here for sexual services (with Helmut Newton's caveat) and instead as a part of a composition, which features a nude woman. 

There isn't a hint of seduction, coyness, sensualty or sexuality to her in my depiction, as I see it.

It was meant that way; it is a documentary of her and what I experienced of her, set in a composition, and she was a willing partipant without pandering.

I think she would agree that I made a decent photograph of her, to the extent she is a photographic subject.  She was not here an 'actress' but being herself, and if you don't like my depiction of herself, which is accurate and honest, then I think you may have formed an opinion of her,  perhaps more than you know it -- than about my depiction of her.

I know that may seem surprising, but I think it's true.  You may be hoping or projecting that I will show or 'find' something you wish to see in her depiction that you find lacking, and it is that lacunae that is the essence of this photo, and may explain your dissatisfaction.

One thing which did 'set me off' was that somehow I had created pornography.

Well, then you offer up over half a decade's experience in judging others, based on standards from half a century ago, that's a tip-off that we'll have some dispute about the subject of pornography.

Half a century ago, showing a nipple was obscene, and showing pubic hair could get you five years in the slammer for pornography, or some such, depending on the jurisction.  Air brushing was common; yet in the US, nudist publications were allowed showing all, so long as devoid of sexuality.  It was an amazing contradiciton.

I encountered a Saudi man buying pornography (true pornography with sexual acts depicted) at Holland's Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam, and the clerk was not following his instructions to the letter on how to wrap it tightly, doubly and triply.

He implored her that he could literally get killed for being in possession of it, if caught with it in Saudi  (before the days of the Internet when anyone can download anything, then clear one's cache, and only your ISP knows for sure, and not even for sure know if you watched it, or if it was downloaded by neighbors from your wi-fi base station.)

Yesterday's test of what was pornography and your expertise then, unfortunately possibly even disqualifies you to judge what qualfies as pornography today. 

I am up on the law and the theory of pornography and its relationship to art, and this is nowhere near pornography by current Western standards . . . . there is just a nude female, and no intimation of a sexual act, or an invitation to one.  No touching, no fondling, etc., and no obsessing over 'sexual parts'. 

Just a nude female.

The possibility of 'pornography' I feel is in the libido of those who look at this and see pornography -- kind of like a Rohrschach test for libidos.

I see none, so I guess that makes me scale on one end of the continuum, and in fact when posting it, it never occurred to me, based on the great number of nudes posted on this forum that it would be termed pornographic, in view of its not coming near the legal definition.

It's graphic if one gets out a microscope, but I didn't do that, so there's nothing obsessive about that, and I'm not sure one can even see much given the relative smallness of the object and the tangle in which it's buried . . . and frankly didn't even look (I didn't blow affected parts up in Photoshop or other image editor to have a 'look see' as I saw no need and frankly was NOT curious).

Why waste time or effott? -- shock is not the purpose of this photo - there are plenty of other nudes on this forum already -- pages and pages and pages of them, and new ones every day.

I think the reason it has so many views (it's at the top of 'views') is that it has good composition, it has good tonality, and it has a message.

You may not like the message, and confuse it with depicting this woman as a 'piece of meat', and in part that may be a proper description of certain parts of her lifetstyle, because it is her that I have depicted.

Again, 'still life with woman' -- I think the term 'piece of meat' however is demeaning and derogatory - even defamatory - for depicting what this woman has chosen to do with me here. 

She has chosen to depict nudity honestly and forthrightly without false modesty or shame, which is her fundemental nature.

Nothing could be less pornographic than that.

If using her as part of a 'composition' is to 'objectivfy' her, it is not to 'objectify her sexuality' because I think very little of that comes through, but her personality does, and that is what is presented.

So, the 'piece of meat' term is very loaded, and somehow demeaning.

We can have further discussion about this if you wish; my e-mail is on my biography page, and I invite it;  then I can state there more cleary what I would just bore audiences here with more.

I don't like to deal with loaded words such as 'piece of meat'.  I went to lengths to point out her good nature, her intelligence and her cooperativeness, but in this photo, she is depicrted as HER.

This is no projection of mine, because my business in photographing generally is to bring few preconceptions to my photos and to photogaph what I see and feel; and here I have done an admirable job of that.

If that seems not to hold water, I'll explain it to you privately, and not take up all of PN's space.

And, out of presently between 8,000 and 9,000 views, I only got one view expressed out of that many that those felt it was that insufficient.

I got one view expressed that it was 'cute' and also 'strong'  for the bold presentation, (which I rejected in part, for the use of the word 'cute' which I felt inappropraite and finally, after 8,000 views, the suggestion, sardonically, or sarcastically, I had my attention diverted so that I cut off the feet (nothing of the sort as I pointed out above.)

Nude women don't 'put me off' much, as I'm quite comfortable around female nudy, even that of extremely beautifl women and find that doesn't score high on my arousal meter, unless the beautiful woman WANTS me to be aroused in and of itself (not the case here, by a country mile). 

In fact, I find myself around fabulously beautiful women often now at my advanced age far, far more often than when I was in my teens, twenties and thirties, and many seem drawn to me, for what reason I cannot fathom.

(I'm not providing a 'green card' to anyone, and that's widely known.)

Andrew, a provocative discussion is the stuff life is made of; and I value good discussion. 

Thank you for the exrtremely nice things you said about the rest of my work.   Our main difference seems that I feel this is consistent with that other work's standards (and can explain why), and you don't (and feel you can explain why), and that is the whole focus of this discussion.

Happy New Year!

john

John (Crosley)

You make some important observations, and rather than hash them out, I probably would rather have readers just read and understand them.

I happen to endorse them for the most part.

I especially endorse the part where you note that viewers may have quite different experience with a photo than the intent of the poster -- that in essence is precisely why there is posting.

One gets to test one's own percepion against that of others who represent 'popular taste', sometimes 'critical taste' and occasionally 'highly intelligent critical taste' -- the latter seems tp pop up sometimes with great frequency in comments on my photos, for which I am extremely pleased, since I certainly do not have the last word, and that's precisly why I post.

I often learn a great deal about my photography from number of raters,  number of views, and from specific comments, as well as who is the commenter and how well though out it appears.

One reason I seek extensive colloquy with those who comment is that I truly do take the comments to heart; so even if I happen to appear to reject a specific comment; it still may very well color my thoughts when I next go out with a camerak/

The totality of comments here, are from some of the most intelligent people I can imagine, to be found on a largely amateur environment, and they have often been outstanding (with exceptions, of course).  

Those who tend to respond here, and engage in colloquy, tend to 'have something to say' and those who return with frequency often provide me with most valuable information, which they also use in bettering not only their critiquing skills, but in honing their ability to 'see' which is basically the most important thing thatt photographers do.

Thank you for a thoughtul, illuminating, and philosophical look at this photo and its reaction.

john

John (Crosley)

Honestly, I fail to see any art here. You have a woman lying on a bed with her legs spread. Her feet are cut off, her arms are in a very awkward position, the highlights in the sheet and pillow are overexposed and the tilted camera angle distracting. This image is exploitive, not artistic.

You are entitled to your view; my view has been well explained.  Oh, another word for overexposed is 'high key'.  'What is 'art' is always subject to debate.  Go to any gallery, and you'll see more explicit, and in fact just go back a few images in Photo.net, and you'll find at least one complete gyneconological imge.  This is completely tame compared to some of the postings here.

john

John (Crosley)

John, without commenting on this photo, I don't agree that hi key is another term for overexposed. For me, hi key is maintaining most of the levels within a certain register. Overexposure usually connotes blown-out highlights. Also, and again not with respect to this specific photo, explicitness is not the arbiter of art. A lot has to do with attitude, both of the photographer and the subject (as seen in the photo, not as verbalized), and a lot has to do with context.

I agree about overexposure vs. 'high key' though it sometimes can be hard to tell which his which, e.g., whether a photo is unintentionally overexposed or intentionally rendered 'high key'. 

I've mistakenly overexposed, developed for 'high key' and ended up with wonderful, well commented on results and high rates.  It's not so clearcut as you make it sound.

Your other point is more philosophical and subject to endless comment and debate which I won't engage in.

It is more on the order of 'what is art' and what is not.  For instance, is the work of Nann Goldin 'art' or not?  And so on.  Audiences booed a few of Mozart's greatest works -- they weren't 'artistic' enough or just not to current taste.

john

John (Crosley)

John, interesting and thanks for the discussion. One point: that you end up with good comments and high rates is meaningless to me. I'm sure you use other criteria than that in evaluating your work.

John you wrote: "Sorry to disappoint you, but you also were a nude photographer, and I suspect that the nude female pudenda also held not so much interest to you, also, except as an essential (or not) part of a female ?".... "Am I right?" You are fucking DEAD WRONG.  When the vagina no longer interests me will be the day my ashes are in a vase on the mantle piece.

I love the beauty of the body. I like to sing a song of sensuality. I understand also difficult images. not only beauty is interesting.

But: photography as I love them, is respectful and respects the soul of the photographed person. I miss that in this picture

tamarah

You gave me a big smile and a belly laugh.

Thank you.

John (Crosley)

This photograph does indeed capture the 'soul' of the person being photographed, as I often do, but it's just not the soul you were hoping for, possibly you were looking for some idealized soul, and I failed to match your expectation. 

Her more vacant, but interested look, piercing in fact, but nonchalant, is in fact, her.  She is not Mona Lisa.

 I  think that is your issue; one of your expectations being failed.

I am fully capable of creating an image that meets those expectations; this is just not that image.

I was not trying to 'sing the song' of sensuality; that is what you may look for; not me this time -- elsewhere, but not this time.

Thanks for expressing your opinion so well and gracefully.

john

John (Crosley)

It seems any comment, no matter how constructive, is seen as a personal attack, to which you reply with defensive rationalizations and comments. If you can't take criticism, then don't request a critique. It is as simple as that.

In my request for critique, I ask for 'constructive critiques'. 

There are now over 11,000 viewers and a very few comments, with just a very, very small handful of those showing any gripe, no matter how slight.

The first poster called this photo 'beautiful', and nearly 8,000 clicks went by before there was a dissenting view expressed.

There have been a very, very slight handful of naysayers out of over 11,000 clickers.

I have explained myself and dont' need to again. 

Once is enough.

If one's photo is wrongly accused of something, and one speaks against that, then one is accused of being 'defensive' .

That is a huge semantic trap, for one can only admit the criticism or forgo an answer lest one be called 'defensive'.

Such criticism does not allow for a good faith response to wrong criticism and hence is a semantic trap. 

It's a semantic trap I just won't fall for.

To accept the original accusation, moreover, would be false, and to do that would be a sign of insincerity and cowardice.

It's a semantic 'sleight of hand' game which you have dealt in your comment above, and at the same time, you have yourself offered NO constructive criticism, and instead proffered an ad hominem attack, which is outside the bounds of fair criticism.

This photo speaks for itself, as do the ten or more thousand or more commentaries under the vast majority of the 1,500 photos posted here by me. 

I suggest you read some of those first before critiquing further, as it appears you have not.

john

John (Crosley)