1/2 a pat pat

In Hong Kong, the bottom is referred to as the pat pat. Here the model is giving her bottom a pat. I hope you agree it is a rather lovely 'pat pat' even though I have only included half (or a little more than half) of it.

Feedback appreciated.

This photograph is a beautiful study of light and form. I love the position of her hand and the triangle her arm creates with the top frame.

Let us call this photo "pat pa" or "pat p" to be more accurate (i haven't measured the exact proportions), ok with that David? :-)

Keep on shooting!

Great and clever detail, when a nude is provocative and elegant!

LOL!  That is one beautiful pat pat David, and I would help her pat pat it all day long!  Nice shot my friend!

Mark, Strangely, I didn't like the position of the hand but I do like it for all the other reasons you mention.

Michail, I am just happy you looked at it. 

Maurizio, It is only certain models that can be provocative and elegant. This young lady was a dream to shoot.

Michael, Beautiful it is. (Quite sure the rest of your comment was not appropriate.)

Excellent!!

She is. Thanks!

Well David, as they say, half is better than none at all. I like this bit of patting the pat pat I do.

-r-

I often think half is better than the whole. I am not so sure in this case but certainly 1/2 is better than none. Thanks!

Hello

Probably wont be the popular critique. As far as subject matter its a bit to intimate for me. I assume this photo was posed and as being so I think her pinky finger could have been spaced more evenly with the rest. I am not trying to be rude in any way here. Who would display this photograph other than the model or her partner? I can maybe see a full body nude from  a distance that isn't quite so intimate. Again I am not trying to offend in any way. The photography skill was spot on.

Just my 2 cents

I am a little confused by your comment. I submitted this for critique. You say, "The photography skill was spot on." Thanks.

"... its a bit to intimate for me." I think it is a bit intimate for anyone. That's what I tried to capture.

"Who would display this photograph other than the model or her partner?" Me!

I appreciate you are not trying to be rude but I am not sure what you are trying to be.

FWIW, it wasn't posed as such. I don't like the position of the pinky either. Thanks for taking the time.

David

Sorry you took me as being rude.(WAS NOT MY INTENTION OR IS THIS) Me personally I would never put a photo on my wall of a random models rear end showing her intimate place and calling it art. There is another word for it. Yes I did compliment on your technical skill lighting exposure black and white conversion. What was your desired emotion or reaction you were looking for with this photograph?  You scolded one person for his remarks  on his photograph calling it inappropriate . Was his emotions not what you wanted to hear?  This type of photograph reminds me of the 13 year old stealing looks at his dads adult magazines. Has an effect yes.  Meant for private viewing not public display.  Have a great day. AGAIN

JUST MY 2 CENTS 

I don't want to get into a debate on this image. I took the photograph because I wanted to take it. I submitted it for critique hoping people would comment on the photography skill or lack of it. I did not post it here to have people say what they would like to do to the model. What you choose to photograph and submit to this site is up to you. Likewise, what I choose to photograph and submit to this site is up to me. 

The lighting is nice and the contours against the black work well. I agree about the fingers. 

I have the same negative reaction as David to a couple of the comments. They do seem inappropriate and yet the tie-in culturally between nudity and sexuality is tight enough that sexual reactions even to art nude photography are fairly common, especially here on PN where much of this forum, deserved or not, seems more in the line of somewhat immature titillation games than either photography or art. I disagree with David, however, to the extent that I think much more than photography skill can legitimately be discussed in a critique. Subject and content matter and no critic can be made to limit his or her comments to photography skill alone. Choice of subject and handling of it seem perfectly reasonable places to take a critique, though one would expect a modicum of respect from the adults making the comments. This being said, David, I wonder if you'd want to rethink your intro to this photo, a key sentence of which I quote below:

Though you clearly say you would like the comments to be limited to the photography skill involved, introducing the photo by discussing the loveliness of the rear end of the model seems a little unintentionally ironic as it invites us to consider more than the photography skill and instead focuses on the model's body part as asset. You may be reaping a kind of juvenile response which you yourself have sown in your intro, though that's still no excuse for the disrespectful and demeaning comment leveled by one of your peers here.

Her bottom is nice. If someone wants to agree with me or disagree with me on that point, that's fine. Your point that I may have invited it is noted but wrong. You wouldn't (I assume) go up to a stranger on the street and say, 'You have a nice bottom, I would happily pat it all day.'

Thanks for taking the time.

David, as long as you bring up what I would do, I'll tell you. No, I wouldn't go up to someone on the street and say that. Nor would I introduce a photo in the objectifying way you did.

But how we introduce photos, though relevant, is not as important as what our photos show. And I think, as well done as it is, this photo visually is a bit in line with your intro, and that for me is a problem. Not quite the same problem as it seems to be for Michael Davis, though I think some of his points are worth considering especially from a photographic standpoint. While it's quite nicely photographed for the most part, it doesn't get me beyond the world of soft core porn. It's more nekkid woman than female nude and there's something, as I said, immature and objectifying about the combination of title and image.

Now, unlike Michael Davis, I don't mind the "private" area being shown at all, when it suits the photo. I've shown many myself. I do find it unnecessary and even a bit out of place, visually, here. Overall in the photo, the curves and lines are elegantly handled (even if only to show superficially what you consider to be a nice derrier) and the private area's shadows are somewhat less elegantly apparent, IMO. So that area sort of breaks the rhythm of the rest of the shot, which is soft and more interestingly and compellingly photographed.

What I note here is a continuum that we will all be on at one time or another. Michael Davis thinks you've gone a little too far, was honest with you about that, and you've claimed he has overstepped the bounds of critique. In a not dissimilar way, as Michael Davis thinks you've stepped over a taste line in your photo, you think Michael C. has stepped over a taste line in his critique. Me, I agree with you on Michael C. and don't agree with you on Michael Davis and I think you stepped over a taste line in your intro. This can all be a relevant and informative part of photographic/aesthetic judgment, matters of taste.

It's a photograph. It is what it is. I am bewildered (and yet, somewhat humbled) that you think it is worthy of so much of your time. Thanks again. The same applied to Michael Davis. I did not object to his comments. I just had no idea why he made them. The same applies to you.

If you like it, tell me. If you don't like it, tell me. (Preferably in a respectful way.) As for the subject matter and how I present the subject matter, that is my choice and I care not if you like that or not. 

I will tell you what I want about whatever photo you choose to post, and about whatever aspect of that photo inspires me to comment, unless of course you care to block me, which would be your right. IMO, your claim not to care comes across as a defense mechanism and reveals a thin skin. My affording your photo this many words is meant as a sign of interest in and respect for your work, even if I don't have an appreciation for everything about this particular photo. My interest in photography and in critique goes well beyond "likes" and "dislikes" though I understand we're living in a facebook world of superficiality which is so often limited to "like" and not like" and is what many people, perhaps a majority, prefer to limit their comments to.