JPPhoto1664880217

<p>Thank You!!!!!</p>

<p>Cara,<br>

I just realized how much faster the site is running. I am sure everyone appreciates the speedup.</p>

<p>Cara,<br>

We appreciate your team's work. It appears the PN modifications are going at least as well as other software upgrade projects this size.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fred,<br>

If form produces the emotional response in imagery, doesn’t this imply one should get a strong emotional response from pure abstracts (which are by definition all form and no narrative)? Jackson Pollack’s work would be a good example of this. Realize that no nude can be considered a pure abstract because it is possible to discern what was photographed. In fact, few if( any) photographs are pure abstracts.</p>

<p>Lannie,<br>

Regarding your "conceptual lens", more figures into this than "horniness". Academic research at the University of North Carolina in the late 1960's showed that young men tire of looking at pornography when they are exposed to it often enough. This implies that "novelty" is also a major factor.</p>

<p>Jim Phelps</p>

<p>Lannie,<br />Regarding your original question of “naked vs nude” /emotional impact and how different people perceive the nude. It is useful to break the image down into narrative (the story or message) and form (compositional elements). On the basis of many of the posts here (in part), it seems that the narrative determines the primary viewer reaction to a nude and the form either enhances or detracts from the narrative.<br />Since the narrative (or the message) of most of these images is conveyed primarily through the facial expression, it seems that the nudity per se does not contribute nearly as much to the impact as does the face. This is not to say that the nudity is unnecessary for impact, merely that it is not the primary cause of a specific emotional response.</p>

<p><br />Jim Phelps</p>

<p>Phylo,<br>

I had not seen Kertesz's distorted nudes before, I really like them.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Jim</p>

<p>Lannie and Luca,<br />Since there is not enough time or money to catagorize individual reactions, I suggest breaking the collective categorization into subgroups. The ones you have listed are a good start. The effectiveness of these groupings can be determined by the (probably metaphorical) standard deviation.</p>

<p>Lannie and Luca,<br />This certainly includes comedy. However, the reaction to a comic nude could be significantly different for some or all of these subgroups. It might be interesting to look at classic American Burlesque from this perspective.</p>

<p>Luca,<br />Universal to all art. I concur on the bi-dimensional aspect. I originally thought in terms of an average response, but adding the number of viewers makes sense, and allows better quantification. <br>

On a point of clarification, "artistic" should be changed to "aesthic" in the earlier post since a sexual response is an emotional response. </p>

<p>Luca,<br>

The definition I use for art is "it provokes an emotional response from the viewer, the stronger the response, the 'better' the art".</p>

<p>Lannie,<br>

Touching on your statement regarding the “shock value” of nudes, this varies significantly from culture to culture and geographical region to region. As you suggested earlier, it is highly unlikely that you would “happen upon” someone nude in the southeastern US. However, in Europe (and some beaches in other parts of the US), this is not uncommon. For instance, in Munich, Germany, public nudity is very accepted in certain public places such as the English Gardens. Nudity is common on many of the French Beaches. It has been my experience that the more this is accepted, the more artistic and less sexual the nude is viewed. This would seem to imply that, although nudity is a necessary condition for sexual stimulation (at least in the male), it is not a sufficient condition and that as exposure to nudity becomes more common, it becomes less sexual. It would also seem to imply that the more the viewer sees the nude as sexual the less he sees/appreciates it artistically. This would seem cause even a wider apparent variation in the perception of the nude. If the viewer’s emotional response is primarily sexual, all other emotional responses could be significantly surpressed.</p>

<p>Lannie,<br />The image obviously has some very significant post processing problems. It is not a good example.</p>

<p>Lannie,<br />By impact, do you mean the immediate emotional response of the viewer to the image? Is this how you define immediate impact and is the definition complete? If not, please elaborate.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

<p>The impact of the nude varies greatly from person to person, as well as from image to image. I do not think it is possible to discuss impact difference from image to image without first discussing the impact difference from person to person. It is very clear that the original image referenced by Lannie had significantly different impacts on Lannie, Zoe, and Steve. It is probably instructive to look at why these differences occured.<br />A good starting place for this would be to look at images from different photographers that have been judged to be “good”. I suggest Edward Weston, Bill Brandt , and Helmut Newton.<br />I find many of Weston’s nudes to be completely devoid of any emotional impact. This is because he cuts of the heads on many/lost of his nudes. From my perspective, the face, and the eyes in particular, create the strongest/ most of the emotional impact in images of people. This is particularly true of nudes. Weston’s work attempts to evoke emotional content from the viewer with little or no contribution from the face. Classically, Weston’s work is considered a premier example of fine art nude photography.<br />Bill Brandt’s nudes are in some ways similar to Weston’s, his work is also predominantly “fine art” and, from me at least, the emotional response comes from the lens distortion present in his nudes.<br />Helmut Newton’s nudes are different from either of the other two photographers. Newton, at least in his “Big Nudes” series, usually evokes an emotional response via the facial expression/eyes. All of the models in this series have very “strong”/”powerful” facial expressions, which (from my perspective) dominate the image and create the emotional response.<br />What sort of impact do these photographer’s work have on the rest of you? Do you differentiate "naked" from "nude"?</p>

<p>Lannie,</p>

<p > I take issue with the statement that fine art nudes are typically done in black and white. </p>

<p > This was true of all fine art photography up until the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, when color film was finally developed to the point it could accurately reproduce color. After this, it started to develop (and is still developing) as a fine art medium (as exemplified by the Eagleston color Exhibit at the MOMA in the mid 1970’s). Color has been used by several fine art nude photographers in the last 20 years, and it’s use is growing. One should recall that the color fine art nude has been around since the renaissance (see for example "La maja desnuda" by Goya in the Prado , “Venus and Adonis” by Vecellio, and “Venus and the Lute Player” by Titian). </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I would also suggest that you should define what you mean by more “naked”. Do you mean that the image/model is more sexual/erotic?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Jim Phelps<br>

 

 

</p>

<p>Tony,<br>

Your contract says what they can do with the images, it does not say what you can do with the images. I suggest you get something similar to a model release in advance for the images. An example might be: <br>

 

<p>In consideration for his services as a photographer, upon the terms herewith stated, I hereby give to <strong>XXXXXXXX: <br /><br />a) the unrestricted right and permission to copyright and use, re-use, publish, and republish photographic portraits or pictures of me or in which I may be included intact or in part, composite or distorted in character or form, without restriction as to changes or transformations in conjunction with my own or a fictitious name, or reproduction hereof in color or otherwise, made through any and all media now or hereafter known for illustration, art, promotion, advertising, trade, or any other purpose whatsoever.<br /><br />b) I also permit the use of any printed material in connection therewith.<br /><br />c) I hereby relinquish any right that I may have to examine or approve the completed product or products or the advertising copy or printed matter that may be used in conjunction therewith or the use to which it may be applied.<br /><br />d) I hereby release, discharge and agree to save harmless [photographer], his/her heirs, legal representatives or assigns, and all persons functioning under his/her permission or authority, or those for whom he/she is functioning, from any liability by virtue of any blurring, distortion, alteration, optical illusion, or use in composite form whether intentional or otherwise, that may occur or be produced in the taking of said picture or in any subsequent processing thereof, as well as any publication thereof, including without limitation any claims for libel or invasion of privacy.<br /><br />e) I hereby affirm that I am over the age of majority and have the right to contract in my own name. I have read the above authorization, release and agreement, prior to its execution; I fully understand the contents thereof. This agreement shall be binding upon me and my heirs, legal representatives and assigns all rights to the photographer.</strong></p>

</p>

 

<p>I use Manual exclusively in the studio. Anything else causes me to lose control of the light.</p>

<p>When I use the word "object" I mean an "art object", like a painting or a sculpture, an object of beauty that brings the viewer pleasure. In these circumstances, both the model and the photographer are attempting to create something of beauty. <br />This has been going on in the art world for hundreds of years, see for example, Goya's "La Maja Desnuda". The "public nude" concept is also very present in the art world, see for example, works by Botticelli (any one of the versions of Venus), or Raphael ("Three Graces" for instance).<br />The major difference today is that a camera (digital or film) can be used to record the image. This allows much less post idealization of the model than does painting or sculpture. Therefore, it is much more important how the model actually looks and how she poses. The model's feeling about herself is ALWAYS reflected in the pose. That is why it is so important for her to know she IS the most beautiful object of art in the "room".</p>

<p>

<p>The question posed, "why are these images so powerful", seems to be a strong function of location. In places where nudity is more accepted, like Europe, the images are not nearly as powerful as they are in the Southeastern United States.<br />In places like Europe, the images have very little "shock appeal" and therefore must be evaluated on either their erotic or artistic merits. In the southeastern United States, particularly in the rural areas, the "public nude" has a great deal of "shock appeal". This causes both the erotic and artistic merits to be "glossed over". It is safe to say that the higher the "shock appeal", the more the image challenges the local social norms. This is probably strongly correlated with the overall attitude to both nudity and sex.<br />On a different level, it is interesting to look at the "public nude" from the model’s perspective. Most, if not all, of the nude models I have worked with have posed nude in "public". This ranges from highly organized group figure shoots held at national forests in California to walking nude through a local supermarket. Both are obvious displays of exhibitionism. From both the photographer’s and the model’s perspective, in these situations, she is the center of attention, where she and she alone, is the most beautiful object in the "room".<br />Regarding the comment on vulnerability, the models I have worked with never seem vulnerable to me. I do make every effort not to put them in a position of vulnerability, because I want more of a strong athletic, aesthetic look (i.e. like an Amazon)<br />On a more artistic note, while the "public nude" is an extremely narrative topic, it normally has a significant amount of visual tension because the surroundings are so important to the narrative. This is particularly true when other people are shown in the image. The facial expressions of these other people almost always draw the viewer’s eye. This tends to make for an interesting image.<br />In summary, the underlying reaction to the "public nude" is probably the result of women being fundamentally exhibitionist and men being fundamentally voyeurs. The reaction is amplified by the local social norms, which range from mild (in Europe and parts of Asia) to very strong (in the Southeastern United States).</p>

<p>my 2 cents worth</p>

</p>

<p> Color was not used in serious art photography until the mid 1970’s (beginning with "William Eggleston’s Guide" and the resulting exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in New York). Presumeably this was because color print film did not produce "true" results until sometime in the 1960's. The guides for use of color are primarily those of art, which have been around for hundreds of years, and were quantified by Johannes Itten in "The Art of Color".</p>

Shaun and Craig,

It is that simple

I have had enough formal training in art and photography to know that a really good image will be appreciated and well received by a large percentage of viewers regardless of the sophistication of the viewers (Ansel Adams and Helmut Newton are both good examples of this). This is because the image can tell a good, interesting story (the narrative) without using any of the techniques (form) that are taught in either beginning or advanced composition classes. When we see an image we think is “good” and try to explain why, both form and narrative are usually considered. The narrative is almost completely subjective, and we usually describe how the form reinforces the narrative. But there are some cases when the narrative prevents the use of good “form”. An example of this is http://www.photo.net/photo/5340539 “A Marine Saluting His Fallen Comrades”. In this image, if the viewer is unfamiliar with military protocol, the marine appears to be saluting the Washington monument. However, the presence of the Washington Monument immediately allows the viewer to identify the Vietnam memorial. Which has a great deal of meaning and emotional impact to everyone from that era. Another example, which has better form, is http://www.photo.net/photo/6790827 “A Marine Saluting His Fallen Comrades, ver 2”. The latter image does not have the Washington Monument in it at all and is considered much better compositionally, but the area is much harder to identify as the Vietnam memorial, which (at least for me) reduces the emotional impact of the image.

 

The bottom line-when you see an image that you really like, the “rules”, whether beginning composition rules or advanced composition concepts, may or may not apply in the context of a given narrative. So we are all qualified to rate each other, maybe not on a 1 to 7 scale for aesthetics and originality, but we all know what we like and do not like, which is the essence of photonet critiques.

The problem appears to have disappeared.

Is there some problem with the system? I am unable to submit anything for critique.

I strongly agree with Landrum on this. In another thread, Juha has called both John Peri's work and my work "porn" and several other photographers work (Raymond Elstad, Michale Ezra, etc.) art. I would like to know how Juha comes to the conclusion that one is art and the other "porn". I have followed Raymond Elstad work and I do not see what differentiates his art from my "porn". We both have color nudes, we both have B&W nudes, we both have foto sets that feature two female models.

Please, Juha, enlighten me on what constitutes porn and what constitutes art.

 

Jim Phelps, accused pornographer