kludge

<p>I'd agree that I have no hard evidence to suggest a universal aesthetic over a cultural one. And like I said, I think the data is too polluted to draw good inferences (ie the male domination of fine art photography, especially at the amateur level).<br>

But going to your comments about Greek art... one of the problems with the data is that very few cultures have left substantial bodies of fine art work throughout history. The Greeks did in part because of their choice of media - marble sculptures are very durable. And 20th century printing/broadcast and 21st century Internet have created more ability to generate and reproduce images than ever before. So our sample sets are largely confined to one culture that died out 2000 years ago, and the present day.<br>

Ancient China left a lot of art, but there was very little depiction of nudity, and much of that was secretive and censored (basically ancient Chinese porn). The Islamic world shuns representational art in general. Indian art? I honestly don't know enough about it to make any sort of informed judgment.<br>

At any rate, I don't think the evidence, in the form of the history of artistic depiction, is a useful guide to the question, because it's too biased to present day Western society. And I doubt most of us are really academically qualified for the level of philosophy of aesthetics required to seriously discuss this situation without beer involved. :) So I guess it's just a matter of opinion! Which means, like most matters of opinion, that it isn't actually important.<br>

Shoot what you want to shoot, view what you want to view. I was going to say within the realm of informed consent here, but that starts wandering into philosophical questions about street photography...</p>

<p>Thanks, Fred. I think we have an understanding here. :)<br>

That said, I'm not convinced either way whether contemporary society's preference for female nudity over male nudity is a cultural aesthetic, or a universal one. I think it'd be interesting to study, say, the relative sexualization of female breasts in tropical cultures where women routinely walk around topless. And I'm not sure just how far our society will go in the direction of male nudity becoming as socially acceptable as female nudity.<br>

One thing to think about, that I alluded to earlier, is that there are three distinct realms of nude images in our society off the top of my head... fine art, marketing, and pornography. There may be others you can think of, but these are the ones that seem interesting and obvious to me.<br>

With (heterosexual) pornography, I think my observations about visualization and roles are on target. Men are just genitalia, while women have a more complete image. And girl-on-girl action is accepted and encouraged, but two guys kissing automatically shunts it into the realm of "gay porn". At any rate, female nudity is used in het porn as pure sexuality with little aesthetic value.<br>

Marketing is all about setting up positive associations, so female nudity is used in a subtly (or not) titillating manner... but it's considered tacky to be too obvious about it. What I find interesting is how much female nudity is used in marketing to women as well as men. That's one of the things that has me thinking universal aesthetic over cultural values. Do most people, even women, find women's bodies more pleasing? A lot of advertising uses beautiful women in manners that are barely sexual, arguably not sexual at all.<br>

Fine art is full of pretentious BS, so it's hard to read a deeper meaning. The fine art world (like, say, this website) would for the most part like to pretend that the aesthetics of nudity are nonsexual, or at least not predominantly about sex. When we look at nudes, whether male or female, we're judging things other than (or at least much more than) our chances of nailing the model. I think it's situational myself. Fine art nudes can be titillating or not, and actually can get substantial artistic worth out of playing around the edges of sexual stimulation, deliberately invoking feelings of awkwardness and shame as well as lust in the viewer. For me, art is about expressing feelings, so I'm all for using whatever it takes, including overt sexuality, to make the viewer feel what the artist wants the viewer to feel.<br>

But why the predominance of female nudes in fine art photography? I think it's at least in part because photography is such a male-dominated field, and that gets back to the sexual titillation thing... photographers as a whole are more likely to find women sexually attractive than men. How much does that skew things? How much does sexual stimulation influence our choice of subjects? There are a lot of people who would be embarrassed to admit truth in this, but hey, I'm pretty sure Mapplethorpe felt many of his highly sexual photos of men were really hot.<br>

Then there are people, both right and left, who think that ANY depiction of female nudity is pornography and exploitation, that there's no functional difference between nudity in fine art, marketing, and pornography. But I say those people are narrowminded cretins, so I don't care what they think.<br>

At any rate, I suspect the data is too polluted to draw really sound inferences about cultural versus universal aesthetics just from seeing what people shoot and what sells. I think advertising is probably more telling than fine art, if only because it has no morality of its own, and measures itself purely in what sells. So what does the dominance of female nudity in advertising tell us, and of that, what can we actually believe?</p>

<p>Don: Female nudes were rare because you could be burned at the stake for making them, because women's bodies were filthy pits of sin and corruption. Also, look up what "IMHO" means.<br>

Fred: I was speaking of porn where both genders appear, not gay porn. Gay MALE porn, since you also forgot to be specific about gender. And by "erogenous zones", I meant areas that are considered visually taboo, not physically stimulatable (in my experience, the arrangement of physical erogenous zones is highly variable and individual for both genders). Don't be daft, and don't assume I'm being homophobic. Visual depictions of women's nipples are "nudity", but men's nipples are not. Also, look up the word "generally".<br>

Luca: You hit on something far more interesting... is there a universally valid aesthetic of nudity? (this is a subset of the question of whether there are ANY universally valid aesthetics, which is of interest mostly to drunk college students). I asserted that female bodies are generally more visually pleasing than male bodies, and offered some (not terribly firm) support for my assertion that even those not sexually attracted to women often find them more visually appealing in a non-sexual context.<br>

So the first question for my assertion is, is it actually true? Given the sex-tinged nature of Fred's response, I expect at least some of the objections will be grounded in backhanded suggestions of homophobia. Don's critique was much more cogent.<br>

The second question for my assertion is - assuming that women's bodies are actually considered more visually appealing in the general case in our culture with sexual desire removed from the equation - is that a CULTURAL value, or a universal one? Would the same be true of a non-Western culture, or a culture from a different time? In other words, is it a universally valid aesthetic? Don's critique adresses this question, and pretty well. My response to it is that the aesthetic of female nudity in the 15th century was dominated by religious/sexual taboos, much more so than today. But that's just saying that the 15th century response was cultural and today's is not, so my position isn't terribly strong.<br>

On the other hand, the Dave Barry observation that got me going raises an important point. Magazines and marketing aimed at men (with no targeting for sexual preference) are full of nude and semi-nude women, although I'd say that's primarily sexual. But women's magazines and marketing (often with targeting at straight women - see Cosmo) are full of nude and semi-nude women as well, easily outnumbering the nude and semi-nude men who are there presumably for sexual titillation. Since this is fairly obvious, how do we explain it?<br>

I think it's an excellent argument for a cultural aesthetic, but not a very good one for a universal aesthetic.<br>

Here's something interesting about my own experience as a photographer. My preferred subject is dancers, specifically bellydancers. Scantily clad women are my favorite subject and I make no apologies for it. But I very rarely shoot nudes and don't have a lot of interest in it. It's a different matter. And many of these photos that I like the best are not particularly sexual or revealing. They're about form and motion. A couple of other interesting things. First, it's traditional for bellydancers to wear some sort of a loose, form-hiding coverup when not onstage. When I see a dancer offstage in costume, without a coverup, I'm actually slightly offended rather than titillated. She's breaking the cultural rules that I'm accepting as part of the bellydance community. Second, I find I am no longer entranced simply by the beauty and semi-nudity of dancers. No, I CRITIQUE them. It's actually kind of annoying for me, to want to just ogle the hot chick onstage and instead thinking she really needs to work on getting those chicken-arms up and isolating her shimmies better.<br>

One other assertion I'll make... I think that what is artistically attractive and what is sexually attractive in a nude figure are two different things. I find large, hairy, beer-bellied older men far more sexually attractive than thin, lithe, hairless younger men. But visually, it's the other way around. For depiction of a nude male form, it's kind of hard to top Michaelangelo's David. On the other hand, my sexual and aesthetic tastes in women are far more similar, although not terribly in line with mainstream aesthetics - "models" are generally far too skinny and hard-looking.<br>

Just some data points, anyway.</p>

<p>There's a philosophical edge to mine. My favorite subject is dancers. Dance, by its nature, exists in four dimensions. It requires both space and time. Photography, by its nature, exists in two dimensions. I love the challenge of expressing the four-dimensional dynamic nature of dance in the two-dimensional limits of photography.</p>

<p>I'm just thinking of something Dave Barry once observed... "The difference between mens' magazines and women's magazines is that men's magazines are filled with pictures of naked women, and women's magazines are filled with pictures of naked women". He has a point.<br>

IMHO, when it comes to the physical body (especially the parts below the neck), women's bodies are generally more elegant and interesting and aesthetically pleasing than men's bodies. This isn't just about sex. It's about shapes and textures - the same sorts of things that make some abstract art more visually appealing than others.<br>

And beyond that, the role of our socially-programmed sexual responses change when viewing men's bodies versus women's bodies. Women have more erogenous zones than men, and men are more averse to/homophobic of male genitals than women are of female genitals in the general case.<br>

So generally, most people prefer pictures of naked women to pictures of naked men from a purely aesthetic standpoint, even straight women and gay men. Nude male photos are far more likely to be overtly tittilating/pornographic than nude female photos. Even in the world of X-rated pornography, men tend to be faceless, anonymous, disembodied penises, while women are seen full frame and full face.</p>

<p>The 24-70 is the only modern AF-S pro lens that really interests me. I use an older 35-70 AF which is very nice, but I got to fool around with a 24-70 recently and was really impressed. But ultimately, I'm just not a fan of anything that feels more like a cannon than a handgun...</p>

<p>Thanks, Jeff. Looks like I've hit the end of the practical line. :( I figured out that much, but was hoping for an automated solution. Sigh.</p>

<p>Although the photographer, not the camera, is ultimately responsible for the photograph, you can't take a photo without a camera. So the camera's interface, limitations, strengths and weaknesses all come into play and directly impact HOW we take photographs, and thus the photos we take. So cameras matter. Being a gearhead isn't just a fetish, it can be (and ought to be) about caring about your tools and how they affect your craft.<br>

Because of functionality issues, the digital/film divide is interesting mostly in the case of the SLR. It's not there for large format because no one really makes large format digital (at least, not that mere mortals can afford). It's not there for rangefinders, or cell phone cameras, or a number of other specialties. But SLRs compare well.<br>

What I've noticed is the sense of fine craftsmanship and mechanical robustness in a good 35mm SLR, something I haven't felt in any DSLR. My Olympus SLRs feel like they'll last forever. But even if a DSLR will last forever, it'll be technically obsolete in five years. Who really wants to shoot with a Nikon D1 today? This comes into play on things like the feel of the shutter button.<br>

More bothersome to me when it comes to DSLRs is their determination to do everything for you - autofocus and auto exposure. I know how to operate a camera manually (I once spent nearly a year shooting nothing but a Zorki with no meter - a great learning experience), and not much irks me more in photography than having MY judgment about what the subject is or what the lighting conditions are overruled by some soulless chip. Now in theory, I CAN manually operate the DSLR, but then the metering blows. What are the odds that someone is going to make us a simple match needle meter for our finders? And I can't fall back on the forgiving nature of film to miss the exposure a bit... digital exposure is unforgiving.<br>

So yes, those are solid, non-Luddite arguments in favor of film SLRs over DSLRs. We should be in full control of our tools, when the modern camera wants us to live in a Wall-E world where we're protected from the dangers of making our own decisions.<br>

But on the flip side, the DSLR makes many other things feasible. I get instant feedback on the exposure now. I can take hundreds or thousands of shots a session, at basically no cost. As a dance photographer, the ability to take hundreds of shots without cost, or stopping for film changes, is a HUGE win. So point in DSLR's favor.<br>

I still wish someone would make me a decent, affordable digital rangefinder, though...</p>

<p>I use Nikon AIS primes on a D40 body. Go figure.</p>

<p>I love my monopod! I do a lot of theatrical photography that involves shooting for an hour or more, while moving around some. A tripod would be impractical, but the monopod is easy. I can even shorten it to use for stability while sitting down. An extra stop of stability really helps in my world of low light and fast action, and it saves my arms when I'm holding the camera to my eye several minutes on end.</p>

<p>The import dialog I'm using already copies the files from the camera to the hard drive (where they then get backed up to another drive and backed up offsite overnight). I'm just trying to limit the types that it imports.</p>

<p>More dramatic? Reshoot it. Get the same model at the same location, but at dusk, and possibly in a different dress. Standing, not sitting. No smiling.</p>

<p>Is there a way to get the Lightroom "Import from Device" interface to import only RAW images on my camera, not JPGs? I've been shooting RAW and enjoying the benefits, but I don't enjoy having to guess at how the processed image will look. I can get the Nikon on-camera stuff to be pretty close to how I want things to look, so I'd like to shoot in RAW+JPG mode so my LCD gives me the JPG image, closer to what I want. Then I can redo/refine it from the RAW in Lightroom. This is particularly the case for shooting BW, because the Nikon BW mode actually looks very good - just not as good as what I can do in Lightroom. I'd love to have my LCD showing me the BW images while saving the RAWs! But I don't want to import duplicates, either.</p>

<p>Miles Davis already answered the mysteries of life raised in his early work. The answers are in his later work. Kind of Blue phrased the question; Bitches Brew gave form to the answer; Agharta and Phaedra were his best answers.</p>

<p>The OP has a D40. No autofocus with the Tamron 17-50, unless Tamron added an internal motor I don't know about. If you're talking <em>classic</em> street photography and <em>classic</em> portraits, you really need two different lenses. Traditional street photos use a normal to slightly wide lens - the Nikon 35/1.8 fits the bill beautifully, and will autofocus on the D40. Traditional portraits use a fast telephoto. Nikon AF-S lenses of the right length and speed are also quite expensive. But if you're doing subject-poses kind of portraits, you might try an old AI or AIS manual-focus lens. It'll mean shooting full manual, but then you can get some really great glass for much less money (and weight).</p>

<p> Actually, the aperture is at its most open when composing, not its most closed, specifically so more light gets through. The DOF preview button stops it down for you - try it at F/22 or something and you'll see how much dimmer the viewfinder becomes.<br>

So brighter viewfinders are a major benefit of fast lenses even if you're not shooting wide open. Anything that makes composition easier is a win.</p>

<p>There are a number of sectors to this question. First, there's amateur/artistic shooting versus professional (wedding) shots. Second, there's b/w versus color.<br>

Film has a wonderful place for amateur/art photography, but for pros it's purely a niche now. It's a lot of extra work and substantial expense over digital. And although I think b/w film will be around forever, being relatively simple to make and easy to process at home, color film may die off completely. Its manufacture is about economies of scale, and it's getting wiped out by digital there. Does it make sense for Fuji/Kodak to keep manufacturing color film for a market 10% the size of its past, or 1%? We've already lost Agfa.<br>

If you're going to try to sell film as part of a wedding shoot, first market it as an exclusive boutique service, for an upcharge. Second, market b/w rather than color. Why? Because b/w looks more "special". And it's very, very hard to get the richness and depth of traditional b/w printing from digital. A glorious, hand-printed b/w photo of the bride and groom, large size, off medium format, will look truly magical AND be a clear work of craftsmanship.</p>

<p>Do the world a favor... take nice portraits of your friends and make sure they get copies. I'm delighted at how many of my photos are now my friends' icons on Facebook and such. Besides being a point of pride for me, they look a lot better than "Self portrait with cell phone".</p>

<p>The manufacturing channel seems to have caught up with demand. I got one in early August from a local shop. They had a lot of a dozen come in and only a couple were pre-ordered. It was the first time they hadn't sold them out before they even made it to the store.<br>

And yes, it's a very nice lens if you like that classic 50mm perspective on a DX body. Fast, light, inexpensive, and pretty - all lenses should be like this.</p>

<p>The D90 is too new to have good deals on used. Pay reasonable retail and cope. Where I love scoring used is lenses. Then again, I love shooting manual with AI/AIS lenses, which are generally better build quality than what's made today and MUCH lighter, not to mention a gazillion times cheaper. But this requires a certain comfort level with manual focus and manual camera operation.</p>

<p>I really like the 50mm perspective on DX; it's just how I "see". I got a 35/1.8 mostly because I use a D40 and most people (esp my daughter) don't like using manual focus. But considering the 35/1.8 is $200 and the 50/1.8 is $120, I see no reason to not have both.</p>

<p>You aren't going to "solve" mysteries of life. Forget looking for answers and focus on understanding the questions (Douglas Adams wasn't really joking with "42". He posed a sincere philosophical point in his absurdist fiction).<br>

Start with this question... WHY do you take photographs? Are your photos primarily for yourself, or are they primarily to communicate with others? And if you're communicating with others, what are you trying to communicate - ideas, feelings, historical record?<br>

The "why" leads to the "what" and the "how", questions of subject and technique. But we usually start shooting before we start thinking about shooting, and select our subjects intuitively, so we can work backwards from "what" to "why".<br>

The big advantage to thinking about photography, imho, is that it helps us focus on what matters to us, and not get distracted by things that don't matter. It's very, very easy to get distracted by gear, or by "rules" regarding our favorite subjects, or shooting things that don't move us because we're supposed to shoot that stuff. But the less time and effort we waste on things that don't matter to us, the more we can advance on the things that DO matter.</p>

<p>Start with the 50/1.8. It's an absolute bargain and one of the nicest lenses ever made. Then if you decide you need something tighter, get the 85/1.8. No fast zoom is going to be "affordable", unless you go used and are a hardcore bargain hunter, and even then, the 50 and 85 are going to mop the floor with the expensive zoom due to their speed (and light weight).<br>

That said, my favorite portrait lens is a vintage Tamron 90/2.5, which is manual focus and manual exposure all the way. I wouldn't recommend that route unless you really like manual.</p>

<p>First, don't conflate "abstract" with "modern", or "modern" with "edgy". They're not the same things at all. Abstract art has actually become a pretty conservative form, because it can decorate without making strong emotional/social statements - see the lobby of any hotel for examples. Art can be realistic and still edgy, or abstract and conservative.<br>

Second, photography as a medium lends itself to realism, moreso than painting or mixed-media. Painters strive for the realism that comes naturally to photos, and photographers (sometimes) strive for the imagery of painting. Much "modernist" thought in visual arts comes from painting and mixed-media, which have fundamentally different strengths and limitations from photography. So a bent towards more realistic-representational and less modern-abstract makes total sense in the photography world. And since this site consists of photographers commenting on other photographer's work, their own tastes come into play. Imagine a paint.net, and you'd see abstracts doing well, and realism doing poorly in the eyes of peers.<br>

Here's where loaded language comes into the game... this thread conflates "realistic" with "conservative", and "abstract" with "edgy". That's simply not the case.<br>

And finally, consider that the response to art happens in (at least) two dimensions - emotional and intellectual. The "modern" folks make the elitist mistake that being hard to understand means it's better art. Nonsense. The traditionalists, on the other hand, are prone to indulging in emotional junk food. Kittens, smiling babies, barns by the pond in the sunset, topless anorexic chicks - these get an immediate reaction, but rarely more than sentimentalism or animal grunting. Art is not and should not be a choice between sneering and sappy.<br>

When I see a photograph, I want to FEEL something, something more than base lust or comfort. And I want to THINK, something more than proving I read some movement's manifesto. Artists that can do that matter to me. The rest? Bleh.</p>

<p>If a tripod is out of place for your shooting style, perhaps a monopod? As several others have said, getting a stable platform is WAY better than getting a better lens. You can keep a monopod attached to the camera, collapsed, and it's almost as portable as no support. Just extend when you see the opportunity knock, and you get most of the benefit of a tripod without most of the disadvantages.</p>