bluphoto

Wow, those photosig images are certainly err... interesting. Don't quite think I should be looking at that on my work computer! Time to delete those temporary internet files before the next IT audit!

That said, I'm getting the idea that the subject will, more often than not, see undertaking such work purely as a job, and will have little involvement on an emotional level - likely less even than the photographer - do we find that to be the case? And if someone can spread their legs and attach clothes pegs to their labia for "work" then I see no reason why another (or the same) professional model would worry too much about "merely" disrobing in front of the camera.

I think I have therefore got it straight in my mind that it is indeed about two parties working together to produce the image that the photographer has in mind, rather than having a naked girl squirming around on set while a guy behind a camera takes photographs.

It's almost as if we maybe even need to ADD a little "artificial" sexual tension to the situation to come out with the goods, as I would imagine that often it can be TOO MUCH like a "business" - both treating it solely as a job. I was at a friends stag night a few weeks ago when we ended up in a table dancing club. The girls were gorgeous for sure, and you pays your money and gets your dance, but the complete disinterest in their face speaks volumes.

Now I have the exact opposite problem than when I started this thread! Instead of being worried that I might have "inappropriate thoughts" for want of a better phrase, I'm now worried that my shoot might be more "hello, kit off, pose please, three rolls of film, kit back on, shake hands, thank you, door closed".

I need to just get a grip and get on with it. You guys have taught me two very important lessons...

1. Don't worry about your emotions too much in Photography, whether shooting portraits - an apparent subset of which is shooting nudes - or landscapes, or macro, or product or whatever. My emotions are what they are and it is these very emotions that I am trying to capture on film, so that my audience can feel them too when viewing the images.

2. Don't ever post anything on Photo.Net again with the word "nude" in the subject line. The damn thing will go on for weeks!

all the best.

Guy

Okay, suffice to say that I'm going to take Dons advice and try out a couple of sessions at least. I've never had to hire a model before for this (or any) studio shoot, so of course it's going to be a bit strange for me. You guys are right in that the challenge for me is not going to be technical (although that of course will come into it), but emotional.

A few days ago I was very hesitant and thought that I'd be better out starting by photographing guys, but now I realise that intimacy and a prescribed amount of sexual tension is what makes a good photograph into a great one. It's this "prescription" that makes all the difference - do not exceed the staed dose!

As it turns out, the very reason I was considering taking shots of guys for a start(ie to make me feel more comfortable) would be the exact thing which would work most against me! Who would have thought it!

Although it was recommended to me that I take a few life drawing classes to give me experience in dealing with the intimacy of working with an unclothed model, I am now of the opinion that there is far more distance between the subject and artist when doing life drawing than there is when photographing. I think life drawing is more about recording anatomy, whereas fine art photography is far more about capturing the passion / serenity / sensuality / aggression / innocence etc of the scene. The wierd thing is that this would imply that the Photography is more "art" than the charcoal and chalk - completely the opposite of what I would have imagined!

The other point is that there is often appears far more to a fine art image than the nude. Although very often the nude is the only subject of the scene (such as in the work of Andreas Bitesnich) I am seeing more and more "environmental" nudes, where the model may only occupy a tiny corner of the image, overshadowed by a huge tree, or waterfall, or wheatfield etc. Perhaps this isn't the same genre - can someone enlighten me? I would imagine that intimacy is far less of a concern during these environmental shoots. More of a concern would be keeping the situation private! I would guess that both model and photographer would undertake these more through a "work" ethos, where any sexual tension would be pretty minimal - if it existed at all.

I guess that these environmental nudes would be exceptionally difficult to stay clear from the calendar glamour field, which is exactly the thing I most want to avoid.

Would I be right in saying that for every fine art image which makes it into the pages of this gallery, there are a dozen (or more) others which didn't quite make the grade, but might be considered as glamour - or even stronger? You know the sort of thing, those shots which mistakenly show a little too much or are a little too provocative. What I'm trying to ask is this. While I'm striving to reach the fine art "grade" will I inevitably produce a lot of "trashy glamour" results along the way? Personally I can't stand the vast majority of glamour work and I'd like to avoid it if at all possible. Maybe it's just not possible.

I remember seeing an image somewhere on PN of a girl apparently climbing into a washing machine. This shot left nothing to the imagination but was very artistically done and I can see how different views of this one image could be considered fine art, glamour, or stronger. I always thought that fine art should try to keep certain things under wraps, but this image couldn't be more revealing - although the model face was obscured with hear head being in the drum! I wish I could link it for you but I can't find it right now. That said, many fine art images consist almost of macro work on the models most private parts (male or female), yet they wouldn't look out of place hanging in a gallery.

Don't worry, my first few sessions will definately not go down this road - I'd have to save up for a macro lens first - and a ring flash, if you'll pardon the pun;)

I just want to thank all involved for giving me the confidence to try out this genre. I'll be sure to post some of the results in the gallery - if any of them "make the grade".

best regards

Guy

Well for sure this has generated a lot more response than I had expected. Many thanks to you all for your help.

I especially appreciate Zoe's opinions from a female photographers point of view. I do realise that of all the differences between figure photographers around the world the last thing that makes any difference to their photo's is their sex. Interestingly, though, I'd like to ask if she finds it easier to photograph female models being of the same sex. Does she believe that her models are more accepting and less sceptical of the photgrapher having a "hidden agenda" which I would believe some models may suffer from - in one or two cases quite justifiably I would think.

Personally, I also feel that clothes just make a shot look more complicated than it needs to be. One of my favourite images is the male and female torso shot by Andreas Bitesnich for his "nudes" publication. I love his "glossy" style and even being a hetero guy I feel his male nudes are exceptional.

When I look at a nude - male or female - I find myself looking through the picture and trying to work out what the subject is thinking and feeling - or at least what the photographer is trying to pretend that they're thinking or feeling! I feel that it's aleays far easier to "connect" in this way with a nude (of whichever sex) and that clothes make this practically impossible, distracting the eye from the interface between the viewer and the subject.

This is the challenge that I think I want to take on - building an image that the viewer can "connect" to. I think that this is what some of the replies above were suggesting, and as these suggestions confirm what has been going on in my head already I think I'm making the move for the right reasons.

I'm just a guy who worries too much about what other people think and don't want to be looked upon as a guy with questionable morals who likes taking "girly" pics. I'm sure that once I've been doing it for a while I'll get better at it and as you guys say, develop my own "style" by which time I'm sure those around me will accept that I am indeed doing this for the right reasons - until then I'll probably shoot a load of trash if I even get one good image from a whole shoot. I just hope that during my "trash" period, I don't develop the reputation for being a trash photographer who just does it to get girls out of their clothes - I have a young family so that would be the last thing on my mind. I wonder if it wold make sense to start out by shooting only male nudes for a year or so to "ease" myself into the genre.

I guess that no matter what the pictures turn out like, as long as I'm professional, respectful, sensitive - perhaps a little humorous and have some of my other portrait, clothed and male nude figure work to show the models, I should come out the other end "smelling" okay.

Thanks again guys (and girls)

Guy

I apologise if my post was considered a cliche at all. I guess this is just the subject which, for me at least, I am most hesitant with.

Of course I understand if some people find talking about this subject mildly titillating but that isn't going to stop me from asking questions when I have a genuine concern.

rgds,

Guy

Thanks for the tips, but when I look at fine art nude work, porn is the last thing on my mind - and I'm sure the difference has been discussed to death in other posts etc so I won't even go there. That said, I agree that Hustler probably sells far more copies than err... okay I can't think of a fine art nude periodical but I'm sure you get my drift. So it can't all be about commercial saleability.

I like the idea of photographing the egg and can see how it would relate to the subject matter - I'll give that a go for sure, eggs don't tend to charge ?40ph plus release so that's an added bonus! I guess you can tell that I've had no formal photo training.

Guy

I would like to take on some work in the realm of the fine art nude, but am

asking myself why I want to do this.

Is it to progress tchnically on my photographic skills? I don't think so as

surely lighting the clothed and the nude are very similar in that respect.

Is it to create more commercially saleable work (which I'm sure nudes would

be)? I don't think so as I am an enthusiast with a day job (albeit an active

club member) and have never sold an image in my life - and am not particularly

worried about doing so in the future, although I would like to take up the work

full time sometime in later life.

Is it simply about surrounding myself with beautiful unclothed women? Who

knows - I don't for sure. How do pro photographers feel about this part? Are

there any personal feelings which you have to push aside during a pro nude

shoot? Never having tried it I would imagine that there might be, although

obviously we would remain professional to the end, but I wonder what thoughts

are in the back of a photographers mind during shoots.

For me all of the above might apply to some degree or other, but I wonder which

of these - or others - drives the pro photographer, and what drove them to

undertake their first nude shoot when starting out. What were the photographers

thoughts AFTER their first nude shoot - was it releif, terror, fulfilment,

commercial acheivement, etc? Did this change with subsequent shoots.

What were friends and families opinions of photographers starting out in the

field of fine art nude - were any concerns overcome after a while?

many thanks for your thoughts.

Guy

Good to hear that my course is following the preferred route of teaching me to appreciate vistas in B&W then.

I'm still interested to find a decent book (or couple of books) on figure / portrait / fashion lighting & posing, if anyone has any experience of any.

rgds

Guy

Can anyone direct me towards a good reference book on portrait & figure posing

& lighting techniques? I've just started an evening class at a loca college,

but there's no reference texts listed, and the curriculum seems to be quite

basic. Amazon appears to have a multitude of books on offer, but not much info

on which would be best for my needs.

That said, I'm quite basic myself, just starting out in the field of

portraiture, but would like to experiment with some of the more contemporary

styles of portrait, figure & fashion photography.

In particular the course I'm doing is uses only mono prints and seems overly

concerned with darkroom work (how many pro "portraitists" process & print their

own work nowadays anyway?), rather than spending lots of time experimenting and

learning new techniques for portraiture. So much so that apparently the

materials I require for this 16wk course, amount to a total of the following...

1x 35mm FP4 3200iso x 36exp

3x 120 FP4 125iso

1x 35mm FP4 100iso x 36exp

1x box 50sht Ilford Multigrade 10x8 RC paper.

Just how much am I going to learn by shooting just 2 x 35mm films and a few

120s?

I'm all for reducing student outlay, but surely this is cutting off my nose to

spite my face!

Lastly, although I love many mono images, are there many photographers out

there who shoot MONO images in any style which could be classed

as "contemporary" or are these mostly colour?

best regards,

Guy

Okay, Thanks for the advice, guys. I'm going to hold off until I've been taking the class for a while.

I guess it's the smart thing to do. I've never been very good at doing that.

thanks,

Guy

Thanks for the input guys. I guess I'm a bit backwards as I had the 20D first, and only bought the eos33 the other week so try working with Film for a change.

I understand that as each of the bodies all have similar lenses, that I should consolidate my lenses and probably get rid of the two 28-90's.

When you mention that I'm stread a bit thin, do you mean that I have a lot of variety of equipment without specialising in anything - or that I just don't have very much at all?) I agree that I could use a longer lens, but I think decent ones are a bit beyond my budget, and I learned my lesson from buying the sigma that I shouldn't buy something just because it's cheap. The Canon 100mm is quite an expensive lens (costing around ?380 here in the UK - around 750US) and I've heard it called an "L" lens in all but name. Of course I don't quite expect that, but a decent versatile lens would be very nice. I do worry that it's too long for portraits though, but hoped my 50 would be adequate for that.

I understand that I'll be cursing the range of the 200 end of the Sigma when trying to get any good shots of monkeys etc, but I guess there's plenty of tree frogs etc I could use the macro for!

My other option is to rent a good long lens for the trip - although I don't know anywhere around here which might oblige, I guess I could ckeck around.

I have got around GBP?350 (USD$700) to spend and I was hoping to invest in

some photo gear. I'm just a keen amateur and I'm unsure what I should buy.

My core gear is a 20D, BG-E3,Canon 18-55Kit,Canon 50 f1.8, Sigma 70-200 (cheap)

My slide film gear is a Eos 33, BP-300,2 x Canon 28-90 USM Kit- with a cheap

Eos500n for backup (or curently with B&W film in it)

I also have a Sigma Flash DG-500-ST standard which hopefully I can use for

both bodies.

I am starting a portrait course in a couple of weeks at college, and was

wondering if I should buy the Canon 100mm f2.8 USM Macro (as I'd like to be

able to take some marcro shots) - I'm also going to the AAmazon basin in a

weeks time so I though it might be nice for that.

I'm in two minds though, as an A3 printer would also just about fit into thart

budget, as would some cheap studio lighting.

I guess the other option is to sell a body and upgrade using the proceeds.

I'm looking for a little input into where and how you guys would spend the

money - any other tips welcome too!

all the best,

Guy

All,

I've recently moved house and am now lucky enough to have the chance to put

together a custom building whose primary use will be my own photographic studio.

I've looked on the net and am very keen to purchase one of those "log cabin"

style outbuildings of which there are a number of varieties available.

Although I couldn't find anywhere to post this particular request, I figured

studio equipment probably includes the actual studio itself, so I was hoping

for a few tips and pointers from those of you who have access to great studios,

or those of you who have access to more modest facilities but have a desire for

a particular feature which your studio doesn't have.

I'm just looking for tips on size, window lighting, height, other rooms

required apart from the main studio, roof style, internal lighting etc, in fact

anything which might be beneficial to me in these early planning stages.

My overall size restriction would be around 12m x 5m.

best regards

Guy Carnegie

Not sure why this post got reclassified, its all about a "wedding" type shot, albeit a corporate mob, and certainly isn't fashion or what I would call a portrait - we're talking around 100 people in the shot.

thanks

Guy

Yes it's always been farmed out to a pro, but this year they spotted me with a DSLR at some event and they want mt to do the picture instead - cheapskates!

Looking at the "pro" enlargement from last year, though, I'm really not very impressed. It's quite pixellated and you can see definite "steps" when you see any almost vertical lines.

Many thanks for the input.

cheers,

Guy

This is easy - I'm an engineer and I can see this - I don't need to be an artist, or a photographer, or have any other qualification other than a reasonable grasp of the English language.

The naked person is the subject of the nude - the naked person is not the nude - the nude is the picture / image.

Is a photograph of a car art? Is a photograph of the sky art? Is a photograph of a coal mine at night with the lights out art?

I believe art is subjective - I truly appreciate many images for their form, lighting, and emotive qualities. Personally I don't appreciate modern art - squiggles and paint splashes - so to me that's not art, although I fully appreciate that to many, it is.

Your question should read - Is a specific photograph of a particular naked person LIKELY TO BE CONSIDERED art? I have seen many so called nudes which I believe to be voyeuristic snapshots. Alternatively, I have seen several mens magazine photographs - complete with staples - which I would consider artistic - although usually not to the same degree as many of the emotive images on this site for example.

To me, if a picture lures my mind beyond the material subject - in this case beyond the naked human being - then it has that certain quality which I perceive as art. The degree to which it does this tells me whether it?s good art, reasonably artistic, just another picture or tasteless rubbish.

As has been discussed earlier THE NUDE has gone through so many evolutions from ancient Greek statues, through the Rennaissance movement to the modern settings of Western society today and it is many of these recent takes on the concept of THE NUDE which cause these kinds of questions to be asked. That said, I?m sure the same question was asked 2000 years ago.

Does the medium qualify or disqualify an image from being art? - Take any image, say a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge printed in some local San Fransisco newspaper - is that art? Majority would probably say no. Then take precisely the same image painted oil on canvas - is that art? Suddenly the yes votes start to catch up. Take a photograph of the oil painting - is that art? who knows... The fact that the subject is a bridge, as opposed to a naked person is irrelevant although in my experience I can be more drawn into a picture further if it has a sentient subject.

I see what the submitter is getting at here. He's trying to justify his appreciation for the nude to someone who can't see past the naked person. In all likelihood the image of the nude to him stirs up something inside which he can't quite describe or define - and I'm not talking sexual urges here, although some of the sensation may be quite erotic. On the other hand the person to whom he's trying to justify this may be a woman who has grown up with seeing the unclothed bodies of her female friends and family and sees them as everyday objects which the stereotypical male treats as objects of titillation. This may be quite harmless in this person sees no art in a picture, but allows others to have their own opinions. Alternatively, and unfortunately more commonly, the person sees these images of a naked person as a threat to their relationship with the submitter and questions the submitters motives for appreciating the image - a form of jealousy.

I, myself, am titillated by some pictures of women, as I imagine are a majority of men. Personally I find overt nudity in a picture less titillating than suggestive images. I manage to draw a line between this and the appreciation of the images discussed above. An onlooker will not generally be able to make this distinction on my, or the submitters behalf.

I don?t question what is art and what is not, neither do people I know. All I know is that I trust them that their interpretation is true, and hope that they trust me that mine is the same. It is all based on trust.

Of course that's just me, and I'm just an engineer - I fix stuff.

Rgds,

Guy

I have just been volunteered to take our annual Staff Photo for my

place of work. We have around 100 people working for us, and although I know

how to set them up (from previous years photos) I?m not sure if my camera is up

to the job.<br>

We normally print up Christmas cards and I?m sure the images will

be fine for that, but what worries me is the 18x24in enlargement we make for

the reception area.<br>

I have a Canon 20D and a selection of lenses, although my only

wideangle is the 18-55 kit lens. I do have a decent tripod, fortunately, and

hope to be able to run into the frame as the timer counts down!<br>

Is the 8.2MP resolution of the 20D able to produce a semi decent

enlargement of this kind of size without looking a mess? Of course, the picture

will never see real scrutiny, but this is my first foray into the world of

commercial photography, and albeit unofficial, I?d still like to do a good job.

<br> I?d also appreciate a spot of advice on taking the critical

shot? Should I aim to take a few shots under, on and over exposed, just in

case? Should I aim to take a dozen or so shots at each exposure ? to make sure

I don?t end up with people looking the other way, sneezing etc? Should I hire a

different camera ? I?d love to have a shot of a big Canon for a day ? but of

course I wouldn?t be familiar with it at all? Lastly, should I politely decline

and suggest that they hire a professional ? although I?d like to prove to

myself that I can do it!