At the Confluence of the Y and the Double S

A really nice shot Raymond, but it does bring up one of my pet peeves - none of which is your fault.  When models who insist on shaving their pubic region show up with stubble there, I just about go ballistic!  My feeling is, if you're going to shave it bare, then make sure it is shaved clean before you come to the shoot!  I even tell models this before the shoot.  But, I still get some show up just like this - with unsightly stubble - and I will have them shave on the spot before we shoot.  It they can't maintain their bare look, then just let it grow back out!

Okay, now I'm going to retreat and squat down with my shield over myself in anticipation of all the poison darts that are sure to come my way!   :o)

I think of it as a three day stubble and I've grown to like it :=}

It's an interesting visual from the very essence of perception. Western civilization dictates hairlessness as feminine, so the armpits and often crotch are frequently shaved bare, the latter, especially for photography. But when we think of "stubble" or an overnight shadow we think of men, and the unkemptness of such a man. So this image strikes me as both very masculine and yet feminine too. Vulgar even, combining beauty and the beast. I like it. :)

I think I cast my vote with Michael,

About 20 years ago I attended a workshop for photographers of the nude figure and one speaker (a dealer in art and photographic prints) showed us color slides of nude statues from classical Greek times (maybe from a sub-period) that showed no pubic hair what-so-ever.  The dealer believed it represented a time when the women were shaving.  He said that both paintings and photographs that showed full or partial pubic hair did not sell very well.  He advised us all to ask our model to depilate.  Well, we went through a period of time when most models automatically did that, so things were fine.  We are not getting so much cooperation today. Maybe they want fur to go with their tattoos.

The ringer for me was when an Italian model contacted me and said she was in Seattle and could she get me to take some pictures of her because she had gotten separated from her portfolio.  (In the days when the model had a set of prints she lugged along)  Of course I said "yes" and she showed up at my studio.

To my surprise she did not shave under her arms, her pubic area, nor her arms and legs.  She had black hair and looked a little like a gorilla.  She showed up wearing sheer nylons and had about an inch of hair on her legs that was poking through the stockings where it was also curled up underneath. Even the workers at the photo lab where I had her prints made commented on it. They accused me of getting my models at the zoo.

From that time on, I decided only to photograph models with hair on their head.  I have found an interesting way to get cooperation.  I mention that I might like to do a latex painted on bikinis for some of the pictures.  If they agree I say that they must be fully shaved because the latex sticks so well to hair.

Jerry

Although I photograph women both shaven and not, I prefer a more natural look. I once asked a model why the stubble and she told me that in order to wax, her method of hair removal, it had to grow back a little.

I do like the way your model looks in this image, Raymond. The lighting is very nice and shows the form of the creases well. The viewpoint shows he labia well without it being vulgar.

To Jerry M, and I apologize Raymond, for using your posting as a forum, but Jerry, you have peaked my curiosity!  You said that the fella told your class that bare vaginas in nude art sold better than those with hair.

Did he offer any kind of percentages or statistics on this?  Have you, and all you other photogs and models found this to be the case?

I always reflect on Helmut Newton's images, with the model's proudly strutting their pubic patches, which to me, seemed to aid in pulling the images together to add balance and structure to the composition.

Therefore, I find this to be a compelling topic to discuss and learn more about!

Me? I love me a natural woman I do... well up to a point :=} I like women who shave their legs but I really do wish that more American women of the U.S.A. variety would let their pubic hair thrive over their lady bits and arm pit hair... I surely do swoon over arm pit hair I do... :=}

On the subject of sales... How many nudes have you really sold? Me? Very few. People like to look and the view numbers tell me that they view a lot but buy... hardley ever.

If YOU are selling a ton of pics, no b.s. now, I wish that it may continue for you. Somehow I don't really believe that pubes or no pubes will affect sales one wit regardless of what you've been told by some supposed 'expert'. If your name is not Weston, or Alverez Bravo or Garduno (put a tilde on that n mister!) or their peers, it just isn't a gonna happen.

Gotta agree with you Raymond... on all points!

It depends on what you like to see in the picture - since it's neither (naturally grown) nor (perfectly smooth) it shows the natural regrowth. Kind of message like "THIS IS LIFE"!

If ones want to enjoy the shape itself, there's nothing in between - either smooth, or a landing strip / some other haircut variety (but the visible rest is perfectly smooth) or just natural...

Even if I like this picture, I vote for smooth :)

A better way to look at the pubic hair issue is from a contrast perspective.  If the model is very blond (natural or dye) and her pubic hair is much darker, the viewer’s eye will go to the pubic area AND STAY THERE (no visual tension) unless something draws it away. 

The opposite usually occurs when the model is shaved, there is very little contrast and the eye is drawn to another part of the image (usually the face) AND STAYS THERE (no visual tension) unless something draws it away.  The latter seems to be somewhat worse than the former because the pubic area is very near one’s “sexual center” and the viewer’s eye “desires” to go there. The lack of contrast deters this from happening. 

 It all depends on what type of emotional impact  the photographer and model want the image to have on the viewer. 

I do concur that stubble tends to be the worst of both, it does not create enough contrast to be useful, and tends to makes the area look dirty/unclean, which is USUALLY not desired.

My 2 cents worth.

Jim Phelps

To address this image in particular.  The image shows only a woman’s pubic area and nothing else-no arms, no legs, and (most important) no face (i.e. there is no narrative).  This image can not be considered erotic because the viewer has no context.  Therefore it should be viewed/analyzed as  “form only”.  From this vantage point, the “stubble” does create contrasting points of dark and light, and therefore creates visual tension.

Also, this “stubble”, is the shortest I have ever seen.

Jim Phelps