amypowers

I think this looks interestingly post-apocalyptic...I am wondering if I should print it lighter, or with more pronounced contrast, though.
This is a negative scan that has not been PSed, except to remove a dust spot or two. Note: I think one gets a better sense of it in the "large" image size.

Wow - thats really, really cool. I love it. Great job!

I think Phil and Co. should sell T-shirts - to support the site, of course - that say "I Survived Being Chosen Photo of the Week".

I'd buy one...

Wow...everything works about this picture, except the really scary breast implants. Sorry...

My favorite in this folder...love the blue tone.

I like it so far, but it is a bit small to judge...

Very lovely, I like the subtle use of color.

Beautiful, I love good IR work....

I think this is a very lovely picture...

Mike Sullivan, you rated this photo a 1/1. Care to comment on why?

Wendy,

I didn't look over your site photo by photo, so I cannot comment on your work per se. My point isn't about you personally. It is that fashion photography is a male-dominated industry that is all about traditional beauty (and youth!) and its about getting people to buy things. To that end, it plays on people's insecurities and tells them that they'll feel good, or be loved and accepted - or both - if they buy this product. I strongly resent being manipulated in this way, although (or because!) I am aware that I am not always able to resist it.

This being the case, your remarks were surprising. Perhaps its that since you do work in such an industry, having to deal with that kind of thing has made you more "sensitive", as you put it, to images of women in non-commercial art.
Like you, I think my work has value. Both nudes and fashion photos have the potential to be positive or negative. Like you, its my feeling that I am creating something positive within a genre.

Wendy,
Some interesting comments...and given your stated bias, understandable. My position on the matter is different, but...Thanks for your input.
Addendum, later: I glanced over your site, Wendy, and I am a bit surprised. You do a lot of fashion photography, apparently, and very nicely, but given your remarks about being "very particular about imagery of women in general" and "...typical "beauty" I would not have thought that would be your field. I myself am frequently annoyed by fashion photos, finding the messages they send condescending at best...Do you not find yourself frustrated by doing the kind of shots that fashion work (unfortunately) requires?


A note about self-modeling vs. having other people model. I am bemused by how many people assume that I prefer to model for myself, to satisfy some need for attention/ego stroking. Let me instead offer the following...I began with self portraits because I was the person available and I worked for free! And since I have been a model, I know how to do it reasonably well. I think it also helped me to be freed from having to communicate to a model what exactly my idea for the photo was - I could focus more on metering, exposure, etc...

In the past few months I have succeded in finding a few models who will do nudes, who are reasonably available vis-a-vis my schedule, and who are reliable (show up on time, et cetera) and who are good models - this is no small feat. Of course, I have to pay them, which I don't begrudge, but, frankly, it is sometimes beyond my budget.

I have tried shooting some non-professional models, who don't need to be paid, and thats been a disaster - don't get me started, but I won't do it again.

So that leaves me. There is no good reason why I should not use myself as a model if the alternative is that I don't get to shoot at all!

If I wanted ego strokes I could go over to AmIHotOrAmINot.com - thats easy. This is a pretty tough room, and I don't think that people have taken it easy on me because I shoot nudes, some of which are of me. If anyones senses a difference in the tone of my critiques, I would reference the comments above by Steve Wilkensen... I was getting a little nauseated skimming the comments, assuming everybody was fawning because Amy is a visual treat. But Nick made me think and yes, she not only has a face, she provides comments and openly engages in discussions of her work with an intelligent sense of humor instead of the arrogant defensiveness we often see from others. So Amy is not only more real than virtual, but likeably so. That has to influence the feedback she receives about her work. I now attribute the overwhelmingly favorable comments to a higher motivation than originally assumed. And to the very nice and deserving work on Amy's part.

Roger- You mention one element of my photos that has been pointed out to me before - that the model (me) doesn't look at the camera, and thus is felt to be less connected with the viewer. Its not only my self portraits in which this is true. If you look at my pictures of other models, you'll see that I rarely compose this way for what I call "art photos."

That may seem a redundant term - let me explain. To me, some shots are portraits and some are art photos. (I don't mean that portraits can't be art, its just a figure of speech.) They differ in the sense that portraits are about the individual in the shot. They are intended to portray "Here is X-person, unique individual. They have thoughts and feelings. Perhaps you'd like them. Perhaps not. But they are human, like you. See them..."Sometimes one is more successful with this than others. But allowing for variations according to the subject, thats what I am trying to do with portraits.
I think the trouble with the term "self-portrait" is that it implies I am trying to do the same thing with myself as a model. Thats not the case. What I am trying to do is make art, as pretentious as that may sound, and I am using myself as material for that. The pictures that I model for are not intended to give people a sense of who I am in any purposeful way. (I am sure one can infer certain things from them...) I feel it would detract from my objective to have people relate to the model as individual - so you could say she (me) is objectified in the sense that she is an icon rather than a person.
So they are not intended to convey any sense of me as an individual, rather, I think of them as a physical expression of concepts or feelings.

What concepts? What feelings?- you may ask. Well, thats the question, isn't it? I can tell you what my thoughts were, but I think the reward for the insightful viewer is that they can come to their own conclusions. I've some very interesting conversations at places where my art was hung with people who were looking at it. Its valuable for me to hear what a photo suggests to someone who isn't privy to my process.
Maybe I should rename the folder. I think knowing that I am the model as well as the photographer in these shots is important, as certain issues of composition make no sense without that information, and to give helpful advice people need to know the circumstances of the shot. But aside from practical considerations, the word "self-portrait" may only serve to be misleading people, like Roger, about my intentions.


Addendum to Joel: You say "You've put yourself out there by admitting that you are the model and photographer. By doing so, you are saying that not only are you the artist, but your form and body is the art, which is quite high self-praise in anyone's book. How that can be construed in any kind of modest context is beyond me. "

I am perplexed by your issue with this. Are dancers and singers also immodest too? Is it ok only if they sing songs other people have written, or perform steps others have choreographed? Would I be immodest if someone else had taken these photos?
Yes, I am the artist. And yes, my body is the part of the art. If that seems like hubris to you, then your artistic vison is too restrictive for me. I don't say that all my work is perfect- far from it! I've only just begun. But I do know that good art doesn't get that way by being "modest".

Gorgeous, I love it...

Well...an interesting collection of comments. Thanks very much to the people who congratulated me and offered meaningful input. I am pleased to hear that (at least some) people feel that I "openly engage in discussions...with an intelligent sense of humor". I have always felt that taking oneself too seriously is the surest way to look foolish.

I do see that the "porn" issue, and just now, the "exhibitionist" issue have reared their heads. Its quite simple - if you think my pictures are porn, don't look at them. As for exhibitionism:

ex·hi·bi·tion·ism n.
The act or practice of deliberately behaving so as to attract attention.
Psychiatry. A psychosexual disorder marked by the compulsive exposure of the genitals in public.

By the first definition, everyone who posts photos for critique is an exhibitionist. I mean, the root word is "exhibit". Artists generally do exhibit their work.
I trust that no one is seriously suggesting I have a psychiatric disorder because I do self portraits. (If so, at least I will be in good company with many other artists!)
And in fact, I do have trepidations about posting sometimes. There is a feeling of vulnerability. People do have a tendency to comment about me as a model rather than as a photographer. It doesn't offend me but its not what I am looking for - I think the fact that I am the model is incidental. Some days I wish I had not disclosed the fact that these are self-portraits, it seems that some people just can't get past that and focus one whether its a decent shot or not. I wonder what the feedback would have been if I had posted them under a male name, perhaps?

But I have gotten some really excellent advice and made some good connections with people through this site, and so thats why I do this. I can't say I understand why someone would wish to label that as something somehow suspect or even pathological.
Again, thanks very much to the people who commented thoughtfully, I appreciate it...

Thanks to everyone for your comments...although its only Monday, I am not taking off the kevlar suit just yet...
I've been asked about posing - well, it helps that I have modeled a lot for other photographers, mostly catalog stuff and some glamour. I still do some, even though I'm now the wrong side of thirty for that industry. But it taught me about poses and angles and such - so, practice helps. I do it alone, because I think an assistant would inhibit me. I wouldn't try weird things that sometimes work in front of another person. I like working alone.

My suggestions for self portraits...well, its sometimes helpful to mark out the area of lens coverage with little bits of tape or something, so you don't cut off your own head.

Try placing a mirror as close the camera as possible so you can see how the pose looks to the camera. I have also done shots where I put a mirror right behind the camera, and I could see the LED screen of the camera in it. Too small for fine tuning, but helpful for general composition.

Practice the pose before you shoot. When you get one you like, then get up and set the timer. To remember exactly what you did, say it out loud to yourself - "Left leg down and folded, right leg up leaning to the left, right elbow on knee, left hand on left knee..." When you only have a few seconds this helps!

And hey, go for some drama, do something different. You don't to show them to anyone else if they don't work. Thats the beauty of working alone - do whatever comes into your head. No one will see them, unless you want them to. Take risks. Be silly. Experiment. Like any shoot, many of the won't be what you want. But I have found it to be a very interesting exercise, stimulating my creativity for my other shoots with other models.
Again, thanks for comments and input...

Great shot! I love IR - this is very different and interesting!

Very cute, and as Scott said, great calender material...

A bit of background...this picture was taken with me sitting on the island in the middle of my partner's kitchen. The lighting is a single household tungsten bulb in a recessed overhead fixture - the ceiling is about ten feet, and the island about three and a half feet high. I threw some black satin-y type material over the island.

Of course, my tripod isn't tall enough to get the angle I wanted, so I wound up putting it on a small stepladder and then tying the legs of the tripod to it! Pretty rickety and it definitely made me nervous, but...I could then prefocus, set the timer, and sort of hop from the ladder onto the island, try not to slide off, as the fabric on the marble counter was very slippery, and pose.

Altogether a somewhat Rube Goldberg experience in self-portraits. But I had done some stuff with a very narrow single down spotlight, and I wanted to try a single overhead light that was farther away and broader to see what I got.

I also wanted to try deliberately overexposing, since I usually tend to go with darker, more underexposed images.

If I could change anything, I would use a matte fabric - the shine of the satin is distracting and the wrinkles don't work.

Oh my god...I've been chosen for POW? Ok, on one hand, I am very, very pleased - thank you, Photo.net.
Now let me go get my kevlar suit on. Then cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war...

This is very lovely and the sky is quite dramatic...If it was film, I'd ask you what type of filter you were using in the lens. As its digital, did you use the Curves command in PS, or some image editing filter?
Very pretty....

I must admit, I am perplexed by the "toes" comment... I mean, I am standing up, so I suppose there is some tension there, but...?
But, anyway, thanks for the comments and input, everyone, I appreciate it...

Does this need more lighting fill?

Very lovely and a bit haunting...

"Aren't we all reacting to the presumed daring of the photograper, rather than to what can be seen in the photograph itself?"

I think many of us are reacting to how the photo makes us feel rather than the technical aspects of the picture, or and whether it does or does not conform to the rules of photography.