NSFW - nudes & glamour - the new thread

simplybam

Started by request - and to keep everybody safe (I hope).

This is the new - NSFW! - nudes & glamour thread. Please don't post any images in the thread itself, but post links only - again, just to be on the safe side, unless the lovely moderator lets us know that it'd be ok to post images.

Thanx all and looking forward to see your work - will post some of mine too, of course!

sNarah

Links only for now please - we mods will have a chat about this, as I do realize that have to click through is a royal pain sometimes, especially I've one is blessed with uberslow interwebs like myself.

A few general guidelines:
- No porn or related
- Only own work
- Keep it nice
- Feel free to discuss techniques and studio set up too, consider this thread to be a general place to discuss nude photography.

Any issues, you know where to find us!

Sleepy

Any classes/workshops being run on this in Ireland? Or is it something you'd have to go to the UK for?

simplybam

Sleepy wrote: »

Any classes/workshops being run on this in Ireland? Or is it something you'd have to go to the UK for?

I was looking for some workshops here myself for a while but with no success. I ended up going to the UK and did a couple of 1to1's there with studio owners who shoot in the field. Found it very informative and quite reasonable (the last one I did was with Paul McLaughlin in Reading - here's a link to his site) I'm not affiliated with him in any way, just found his advice invaluable and he's a very down-to-earth guy. I think I paid something around £300 which included a 4-hour workshop with use of all his equipment and a model from his model list for 2 hours.

I've actually booked other models for a shoot straight after the workshop in his studio and re-booked his studio since as well for another shoot.

Here's an example from each shoot:

From the workshop:

Chloe_03.jpg

From the shoot after the workshop:

09.jpg

From a shoot in his studio some months after the workshop

Natalia&Comfort_08.jpg

If you ever hear about any workshops done here in Ireland, please let me know, though I doubt that there'll be any any time soon

simplybam

simplybam wrote: »

From the workshop:

Chloe_03.jpg

Can I ask ya how that's lit? I'd guess a single flash with a blue diffuser or gel on it, in a completely blacked out area?!

It's very good lighting.

magicbastarder

i bet this thread will break the record for the ratio of views to posts on the photography forum.

SugarHigh

What counts as porn? Or is it a case of I can't describe it but I know it when I see it?

ttcomet

Frank Doorhof is doing a training course in Dublin on the 12-13 November. I think that would be a good one to attend. There is little information on the site however.

magicbastarder

SugarHigh wrote: »

What counts as porn? Or is it a case of I can't describe it but I know it when I see it?

erotica is using a feather, porn is using the whole chicken.

sNarah

SugarHigh wrote: »

What counts as porn? Or is it a case of I can't describe it but I know it when I see it?

Tricky question... Cabansail I think has a good reasoning:
The 15A Film Classification is about the level which would be acceptable. Unfortunately the IFCO are also a bit vague with their guidelines.

Quote:
15A SEXUAL CONTENT/NUDITY: Mild/moderate sexual activity/nudity is acceptable, particularly when portrayed positively.

Basically, when your guts tell you it's OTT, it is.

kfish2oo2

Usually portraying penetration or overtly sexual activity is considered pornography. Some films in the UK and Ireland have been refused certification for portraying graphic penetration.

Put it this way - if someone in the image is very obviously in a state of sexual arousal and "doing something about it", thats porn.

bullpost

Unless it's someone like Robert Mapplethorpe. Then its Art

kfish2oo2 wrote: »

Usually portraying penetration or overtly sexual activity is considered pornography. Some films in the UK and Ireland have been refused certification for portraying graphic penetration.

Put it this way - if someone in the image is very obviously in a state of sexual arousal and "doing something about it", thats porn.

Burnt

I thought that if it's B&W, it just has to be art; right?

sineadw

bullpost wrote: »

Unless it's someone like Robert Mapplethorpe. Then its Art

Or terry richardson love them both..

BlastedGlute

ttcomet wrote: »

Frank Doorhof is doing a training course in Dublin on the 12-13 November. I think that would be a good one to attend. There is little information on the site however.

Would people actually pay that guy to "teach" them things?

I'm not sure I've seen one inspiring photo in his whole (exxxttteeeennnsive portfolio) except maybe in the concepts gallery.
Crazy what guys are actually out there working and earning money with so many others not making a penny but are skilled to the hilt!

simplybam

Deleted User wrote: »

Can I ask ya how that's lit? I'd guess a single flash with a blue diffuser or gel on it, in a completely blacked out area?!

It's very good lighting.

Thank you. The blue tint was actually done in post processing in photoshop. The shot itself was taken using a bowens studio light.

Here's the exif data for the camera settings:

Filename - DSC02299.JPG
ImageDescription - SONY DSC
Make - SONY
Model - DSLR-A200
Orientation - Right top
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - DSLR-A200 v1.00
DateTime - 2010:02:24 13:50:32
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited
ExifOffset - 390
ExposureTime - 1/125 seconds
FNumber - 10.00
ExposureProgram - Manual control
ISOSpeedRatings - 100
ExifVersion - 0221
DateTimeOriginal - 2010:02:24 13:50:32
DateTimeDigitized - 2010:02:24 13:50:32
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel - 8 (bits/pixel)
BrightnessValue - -3.38
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 5.60
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Flash not fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 35.00 mm
UserComment -
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 3872
ExifImageHeight - 2592
InteroperabilityOffset - 30564
FileSource - DSC - Digital still camera
SceneType - A directly photographed image
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Manual
White Balance - Auto
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 52 mm
SceneCaptureType - Standard
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Normal

Maker Note (Vendor): -
Lens Type - 40
Color Mode - Standard

Thumbnail: -
Compression - 6 (JPG)
Orientation - Right top
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
JpegIFOffset - 40294
JpegIFByteCount - 1385
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited

DaireQuinlan

eh ... are we C&Cing here ? Or is this just a soft porn version of the random photos thread ?

bullpost

Was in at the Peoples Photography exhibition at the weekend.

There was one guy who was exhibiting some stunning fine art nudes.

Managed to find him online - He also seems to give courses for anyone interested:

http://solus-photography.deviantart.com/

sineadw wrote: »

Or terry richardson love them both..

stcstc

thats michael Cullhane, i printed and framed that exhibition

there was some stunning work in there

simplybam

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

eh ... are we C&Cing here ? Or is this just a soft porn version of the random photos thread ?

A bit of c&c sure won't hurt - it'd be kinda of a workshop than too - nothing wrong with that.

simplybam

For an interesting take on art nude (in this case bodyscapes), check out Allan Teger's website

This is one of the things I want to try out in the future.

BlastedGlute

The bodyscape ideas are cute, but their not art. Maybe deviant art, suits the style for some of the more popular images over there. Certainly not large format gallery stuff or at least anything that would leave one inspired or pondering.

As for the glamour stuff here. I think a few basic things need to be ironed out first. The models need to look as least tacky as possible. A hair stylist for the blonde in the first shoots wouldn't have hurt, she looks tired and a bit awkward besides that. This style of photography has everything to do with how the model looks, so yes I will critique their appearance. Secondly none of this stuff looks like art nude in any way shape or form. It's poorly lit, completely lacking in concept and reeks of a tired old adult entertainment industry. Even glamour has got to be quite classy in the way it's photographed, and playboy/penthouse appear to have somewhat talented photographers even if the subject matter is tasteless.

It's actually a bit creepy. Seems like guys just want to be around naked women for lack of that happening elsewhere. Might I suggest becoming accustomed to shooting women with their clothes ON first.

This guy seems to have a pretty cool sense of what makes an interesting photo.http://500px.com/photo/1778364?from=popular

I think the principle should remain that the photograph is a winner if it would have been a great photo with a fully clothed model. Otherwise all your doing is selling a shot of a pair of tits or someones gash.

simplybam

Ok, I'll have a few points to make here - basically I agree with some of your comments and disagree with others, so here goes:

BlastedGlute wrote: »

As for the glamour stuff here. I think a few basic things need to be ironed out first. The models need to look as least tacky as possible. A hair stylist for the blonde in the first shoots wouldn't have hurt, she looks tired and a bit awkward besides that. This style of photography has everything to do with how the model looks, so yes I will critique their appearance.

I was wondering if and when anyone would pick up on this, but in this shoot the blond girl was a complete amateur on her first shoot, whereas the black girl was an experienced model. I was hoping that the experienced model could teach the newbie some things and make the whole shoot look more professional (also since it was my first shoot straight after a workshop, I was at the very bottom of the learning curve myself). By posting a photo from this particular shoot I also tried to demonstrate what a huge difference it makes to hire professional models - I'm sure I said that in an earlier post or in a post in the related non-NSFW marked thread.

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Secondly none of this stuff looks like art nude in any way shape or form. It's poorly lit, completely lacking in concept and reeks of a tired old adult entertainment industry. Even glamour has got to be quite classy in the way it's photographed, and playboy/penthouse appear to have somewhat talented photographers even if the subject matter is tasteless.

As in any other field - practice makes perfect. And the only way for an aspiring photographer to improve and become a good, or even outstanding (be that in nude photography or landscape, for that matter) photographer is by doing lots of shoots and improving by learning from mistakes and constructive critique. Also, the subject matter of playboy/penthouse is far from tasteless (though it may be in your opinion, you shouldn't state that as a fact - but as your opinion). If playboy (or playgirl, for that matter) was indeed as tasteless as you say, they surely wouldn't get to shoot the kind of people they do shoot.

BlastedGlute wrote: »

It's actually a bit creepy. Seems like guys just want to be around naked women for lack of that happening elsewhere. Might I suggest becoming accustomed to shooting women with their clothes ON first.

Just a quick reply here - there's nothing creepy about nudity (be that male of female) and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the photographer can get laid or not - that statement is simply stupid.

BlastedGlute wrote: »

This guy seems to have a pretty cool sense of what makes an interesting photo.http://500px.com/photo/1778364?from=popular

While I agree with that being an interesting photo, I don't think it's that great. I'll leave it at that.

BlastedGlute wrote: »

I think the principle should remain that the photograph is a winner if it would have been a great photo with a fully clothed model. Otherwise all your doing is selling a shot of a pair of tits or someones gash.

While that - again - may be your opinion, it has never been a general consensus - therefore it can't remain. There's a great big difference in shooting people (you'll still have to consider both sexes here) clothed or naked. The main idea behind nude photography is to 'celebrate the human form'

There's a whole lot of different ways to do that:
* The human body as the pinnacle of evolution or creation (both for it's lack off, or despite of it's imperfections)
* To show the differences - or again lack there off - in the human body of different people (which is a thing I'm trying to do in a series I'm still working on, called 'opposites distract')
* To show the plain beauty of the human body
* To show the human body in relation to other bodies (be they biological, geological, astronomical or whatever else you can think of
* And lots of other ways (think that post is long enough now)

Here are some examples you may want to check out - don't be afraid - none of them will bite!

http://www.inspiremonkey.com/2011/03/35-stunning-examples-of-artistic-nude-photography/

BlastedGlute

As a broad response to the few times you've mentioned it, and just for your future reference....

Any post that is posted by this account, is in fact, the opinion of, this account. It doesn't take a genius to realize that and anyone who would read anything posted by an individual user (most certainly in this case including yourself) has to take it as the individuals opinion and not the rules of the game.

Moving on, that list you posted is laughable. It's boring, weird and 90% of it is just a naked person in a weird completely un-natural pose as though it reflects something deep and artistic about...being...naked. It looks more like the result of a quick google search than of a reference you yourself work off of.

Perhaps one or 2 pictures in there are nice, the rest just make naked people look silly and awkward.You could have just linked me to this: http://500px.com/popular?only=Nude

On that note, I'm a 24 year old bodybuilder who photographs professional competing bodybuilders. To be clear, if there's one thing I'm not afraid of, it's naked people female OR male. But the examples posted here are straight up sleezy and far from erotic of tantalizing. There's nothing sexy or seductive about any of it. The extensive meta data posted to show how that blue one was shot was unnecessary and over complicates what was a simple shot to begin with.

Practice does make perfect so I suggest you practice a bit more with the models clothes on, that way when you take them off it's just a welcome bonus and not the "risky" focus of the whole photograph.

Also playboy and penthouse photograph women who get their gash out for money and star in horrific MTV reality tv shows. If that is the type of person you want to photograph than I think you may be over-rating their industry standards.

ThOnda

Bummer...
And keeping in tune, here is one naughty bodyscape.

BlastedGlute

ThOnda wrote: »

Bummer...
And keeping in tune, here is one naughty bodyscape.

cheeky! lol

The_Snapper

Nude photography is something I wouldn't dismiss. I have only ever done semi nude pregnancy photography in the studio using a black back drop and soft lighting creating a shadow effect. They are tasteful images.

Best results I find are B&W. I have images stored but unfortunately unable to show due to client confidentiality.

Good thread btw.

simplybam

BlastedGlute wrote: »

As a broad response to the few times you've mentioned it, and just for your future reference....

Any post that is posted by this account, is in fact, the opinion of, this account. It doesn't take a genius to realize that and anyone who would read anything posted by an individual user (most certainly in this case including yourself) has to take it as the individuals opinion and not the rules of the game.

Moving on, that list you posted is laughable. It's boring, weird and 90% of it is just a naked person in a weird completely un-natural pose as though it reflects something deep and artistic about...being...naked. It looks more like the result of a quick google search than of a reference you yourself work off of.

Perhaps one or 2 pictures in there are nice, the rest just make naked people look silly and awkward.You could have just linked me to this: http://500px.com/popular?only=Nude

On that note, I'm a 24 year old bodybuilder who photographs professional competing bodybuilders. To be clear, if there's one thing I'm not afraid of, it's naked people female OR male. But the examples posted here are straight up sleezy and far from erotic of tantalizing. There's nothing sexy or seductive about any of it. The extensive meta data posted to show how that blue one was shot was unnecessary and over complicates what was a simple shot to begin with.

Practice does make perfect so I suggest you practice a bit more with the models clothes on, that way when you take them off it's just a welcome bonus and not the "risky" focus of the whole photograph.

Also playboy and penthouse photograph women who get their gash out for money and star in horrific MTV reality tv shows. If that is the type of person you want to photograph than I think you may be over-rating their industry standards.

Well, there's obviously no point in trying to have a constructive argument with you. YOU decide what's art - and THAT'S THAT!

That's fine with me, I'll end our little back and fourth here, since I can obviously say whatever I want - as long as I have a different opinion to yours I'm wrong (or so you say).

I'm glad there are lots of other people out there, who keep an open mind and do appreciate and contemplate different opinions to their own and I will continue to converse with them.

You - dear BlastedGlute - stick to your bodybuilding and photography of such and I sure won't bother you any more from now on.

Have a lovely day

simplybam

The_Snapper wrote: »

Nude photography is something I wouldn't dismiss. I have only ever done semi nude pregnancy photography in the studio using a black back drop and soft lighting creating a shadow effect. They are tasteful images.

Best results I find are B&W. I have images stored but unfortunately unable to show due to client confidentiality.

Good thread btw.

I do agree with you that a lot of nude photography (or semi-nude even) does look best in B&W. I think the main reason is that this puts the emphasis much more on the shape, rather than the person. And as far as I'm concerned that's the main point of this type of photography.

magicbastarder

simplybam wrote: »

Well, there's obviously no point in trying to have a constructive argument with you. YOU decide what's art - and THAT'S THAT!

it's just an opinion. quite a negative one, but them's the breaks.

BlastedGlute

I never said I had a problem with nude photography. I posted enough examples to make that clear.

My problem is that the work posted(I assume posted for C+C) is just plain awkward and weird. My point is only to spend less time at "nude workshops" etc and more time just taking photos of people, women, whatever. Your photos should merit more than the presence of a nipple and the title of art.

http://500px.com/photo/336756?from=editors

Awesome yet simple and seductive photograph, not a nipple in sight.

I've painted the human form since I was a kid and never once called it art. I don't know where the line is for photographic art but this is not it.

simplybam

As always, thanx very much for your opinion. And also - just for clarification - this thread is called 'nude & glamour' and I never called my images 'nude art' but 'art nude' and 'glamour'

Your latest example, by the way would be classified as 'implied nude' so not really in either of the 2 categories above, but that just on the side.

In my opinion, there's a difference between 'nude art' and 'art nude'. Representatives of nude art to me are the likes of Rembrandt or Cezanne, or to stick to photography, Helmut Newton. I'd never compare myself to anyone like that.

I personally classify some of my work as art nude in order to differentiate it from from pervs who secretly take photos of people on a nudist beach and similar. I do work creatively for the images I take - compose lighting, poses, etc. As I mentioned before, I'm still very much at the bottom of a learning curve and I will keep learning and improving. I'm not apologizing for that since I don't see any reason to do so.

In the end, to me it's not about showing nipples, it's about showing beautiful things, including the human body and in the long term telling a story with my work.

humberklog

Havin a quick look through the links, and this is only to my eye and taste, non of it's very sexy.

I'm not wading in semi-trolling and I'm not going to display examples of my own work in this area on here (but many on here would have seen examples in the past), it's just that on looking through the pics seem the opposite to sexy. Not that nude pics have to be about sensualness or sexyness. Perhaps it's in no way intended by the posters to be. But I'm genuinely struggling to figure out what the pics are supposed to be/convey.

Misstaken

http://www.flickr.com/photos/misstaken/5804905115/in/set-72157626774100145
Fredau H.
You need an account to see my nude work though.
www.flickr.com/misstaken