Nude Photography How To Thread (WARNING NUDITY)

09/28/2006 07:32:54 AM · #51

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Domai, as well as Met-art border on erotica. Even with those that enjoy nude art, you start getting close to hitting nerves.

In an attempt to be succinct I'll leave it at:
Yeah, what Leroy said.

09/28/2006 07:40:24 AM · #52

Originally posted by Judi:

...well here is a start to outdoor nudes with no added lighting. These can be flattering and certainly a whole new ball game.

Judi,
Wow! I love the effect in the waterline; you got enough motion in it to blur it as it connects to the shore. I love the effect on the skintones of your midsection without the strobe lighting effects. It lets your skin appear more natural and as I would expect to see it.

Jumping off point: What is everyone's taste when it comes to skintones and processing in nudes? One thing I've noticed is that when I photograph someone nude with strobes all the little "imperfections" in the skin seem readily evident (which goes to the nature of a frozen moment in time that you can review ad naseum). Its not that the person doesn't have imperfections all the other time but with nudes they have an opportunity to see any blemishes or honestly anything that they might not like about themselves. I try to soften the skin to where pores are barely visible; anything more seems too edited for my tastes. In the image you've posted, Judi, I like that the rocks have a solid texture but your midsection's tones seem smooth and more like my mind perceives someone to be than how my lens tends to capture them.

09/28/2006 07:47:24 AM · #53

Kevin....I personally like to see textures in close up nudes,....but not in distant nudes. For example -

and

Now as you said, everyone has blemishes...but when a person is nude, they are more on display than ever and are ever so conscious of any form of blemishes...even if they are not seen as blemishes to others. So you really need to take into account the model before you decide which way to go.

09/28/2006 07:59:59 AM · #54

Originally posted by Judi:

That is a gorgeous softened effect you've applied to this image. Softening can easily be used too much for my taste especially by people who are trying to "salvage" a photo but here it seems to help direct the viewer and works in conjunction with the lighting.

franksimms

09/28/2006 08:01:46 AM · #55

I prefer natural lighting.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

09/28/2006 08:07:09 AM · #56

Originally posted by franksimms:

I prefer natural lighting.

Welcome to the site Frank. I see you have a few great images in your portfolio. But what is your main camera?

xXxscarletxXx

Nikon D80

09/28/2006 08:21:37 AM · #57

Here are my 2 nudes >.>

09/28/2006 04:26:45 PM · #58

Bump. Just to reiterate what this thread is about...we are discussing the art of nude photography. So if you see any images or techniques you want to know about further or show an image you are proud of...then post away.

09/28/2006 05:28:03 PM · #59

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

Thanks Leo. I'm just trying here to see what I can achieve and learn. I hope to return to this series someday soon. Loved the candor from the subject in your high-key shot and left you a comment.

Thanks for the comment - I appreciate it. Yes the lighting is a touch hot, but I'm not sure what to do about that. Main light is a small softbox - about 500x700mm (20"x28") is this a bigger is better situation? Any other suggestions? It may well be fixable in photoshop with an aggresive curves coversion from RAW but I'm trying to learn to get the lighting right... with help from the many helpful people on this site (esp Idnic) I am getting there I think...

As far as her pose is concerned I quite liked the "symmetric yet not" feel that having only one arm visible gives it... anyone else have an opinion? Then again most of my other shots from that series have both in the frame...

The model Jennie is one of those people who is very comfortable with her body and projects that very well - makes for some striking shots!

09/28/2006 09:30:54 PM · #60

** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.

09/29/2006 07:05:37 AM · #61

Originally posted by Leok:

Leo, the size of the light diffuser affects the quality of light more than it affects the volume of light. The intensity with which you see the light on the side of the model can be handled by how much light is hitting the subject and how the camera is set to capture that. Some options for changing that (and I'm sure you know but I'm grouping these in contrast to the idea of getting a larger softbox) are turning down the strobe head, moving the strobe farther away from the subject or changing the parameters of the shot in the camera like aperture (f-stop) or shutter speed. Any of those changes will affect the light but it'll have repercussions across the whole subject. In contrast, a larger softbox with a similar amount of light hitting the subject (which might mean you have to turn the output of the strobe UP a hair to compensate for the modifier and how it diffuses the light) will mainly change how the light falls on your subject and not how much light falls on your subject.

As part of my trying to understand this and as part of my nude photos (which are part of my lighting learning process) I tend to setup a light or lights where I think they should be to achieve the effect I want (lately I'm trying to creat shadows like

Rex has alluded to so I'm working with one light and modify not only the light from that strobe head but the spillover as well. Once I have shot enough test shots to determine that I like where the shadows fall (positioning of the light in relationship to the camera and the subject) I then start working with the physics of the shot (intensity of the strobe head, f-stop, aperture) and I'll shoot the same exact composition with a single turn of the aperture dial (which yields a 1/3 stop difference) going from about f/8 up to f/11 (sometimes more, sometimes less). I'll then turn the aperture back to around f/8 and change the shutter especially if we're on white paper and I want to pull some color off a gel'd light onto the background. If the interplay of the light on the subject just isn't what I thought I'd get (good opportunity to learn as I figure out why) then I may go change the intensity of the light to try and achieve the effect for which I'm looking.

This can generate a lot of flashes which is usage on the flash and it can wear a model or chaperone out with the flashes but it also produces a lot of images where the difference is the lighting intensity.

I don't suggest doing this all the time but if you're wanting to experiment then its one way to gather some info for yourself about how the intensity of the light will look coming off your subject's skin and its something you can go back to and re-edit to learn more about what you can push out of the image.

I'll also suggest that lately when I'm shooting nudes I like using the beauty dish over the softboxes; that has a lot more to do with how the light falls on the scene. I'll see if I have any examples of exactly the same setup with a softbox and then with the beauty dish.

09/29/2006 07:50:10 AM · #62

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

Originally posted by Leok:
Thanks for the comment - I appreciate it. Yes the lighting is a touch hot, but I'm not sure what to do about that. Main light is a small softbox - about 500x700mm (20"x28") is this a bigger is better situation?

Leo, the size of the light diffuser affects the quality of light more than it affects the volume of light. The intensity with which you see the light on the side of the model can be handled by how much light is hitting the subject and how the camera is set to capture that. Some options for changing that (and I'm sure you know but I'm grouping these in contrast to the idea of getting a larger softbox) are turning down the strobe head, moving the strobe farther away from the subject or changing the parameters of the shot in the camera like aperture (f-stop) or shutter speed. Any of those changes will affect the light but it'll have repercussions across the whole subject. In contrast, a larger softbox with a similar amount of light hitting the subject (which might mean you have to turn the output of the strobe UP a hair to compensate for the modifier and how it diffuses the light) will mainly change how the light falls on your subject and not how much light falls on your subject.

As part of my trying to understand this and as part of my nude photos (which are part of my lighting learning process) I tend to setup a light or lights where I think they should be to achieve the effect I want (lately I'm trying to creat shadows like Rex has alluded to so I'm working with one light and modify not only the light from that strobe head but the spillover as well. Once I have shot enough test shots to determine that I like where the shadows fall (positioning of the light in relationship to the camera and the subject) I then start working with the physics of the shot (intensity of the strobe head, f-stop, aperture) and I'll shoot the same exact composition with a single turn of the aperture dial (which yields a 1/3 stop difference) going from about f/8 up to f/11 (sometimes more, sometimes less). I'll then turn the aperture back to around f/8 and change the shutter especially if we're on white paper and I want to pull some color off a gel'd light onto the background. If the interplay of the light on the subject just isn't what I thought I'd get (good opportunity to learn as I figure out why) then I may go change the intensity of the light to try and achieve the effect for which I'm looking.

This can generate a lot of flashes which is usage on the flash and it can wear a model or chaperone out with the flashes but it also produces a lot of images where the difference is the lighting intensity.

I don't suggest doing this all the time but if you're wanting to experiment then its one way to gather some info for yourself about how the intensity of the light will look coming off your subject's skin and its something you can go back to and re-edit to learn more about what you can push out of the image.

I'll also suggest that lately when I'm shooting nudes I like using the beauty dish over the softboxes; that has a lot more to do with how the light falls on the scene. I'll see if I have any examples of exactly the same setup with a softbox and then with the beauty dish.

Oops I have a confession - I forgot how much I changed the shot in the RAW conversion process - I increased the shadows, brigtness and contrast until I got this effect. The exposure in the original is pretty good (on the model anyway)

As shot........ minus one stop shows highlights are bright but not blown

I have had other shots where I get unwanted hot spots even after stopping down the aperture, turning the strobes down etc. I understand that side of things fairly well, although I was interested to see you play with shutter speed even when using strobes - I thought this was not effective - I leave my camera on 1/100? Always lots to learn. Were you saying you use a faster shutter speed to make the background colour darker? Is this in a mixed lighting setup or all strobes? So far for colored backgrounds I have used the gels in combination with a black backdrop, sounds like you are doing it on white...

I only have one size of softbox... I was trying to figure out if a bigger one would mean a more even light and therefore less hot spots... the softbox seems more even than reflecting from a brolly for example.

I thought a beauty dish was something you used intead of a softbox - as well as sounds interesting... and very big!

09/29/2006 08:47:48 AM · #63

Originally posted by Leok:

I have had other shots where I get unwanted hot spots even after stopping down the aperture, turning the strobes down etc. I understand that side of things fairly well, although I was interested to see you play with shutter speed even when using strobes - I thought this was not effective - I leave my camera on 1/100? Always lots to learn. Were you saying you use a faster shutter speed to make the background colour darker? Is this in a mixed lighting setup or all strobes? So far for colored backgrounds I have used the gels in combination with a black backdrop, sounds like you are doing it on white...

I only have one size of softbox... I was trying to figure out if a bigger one would mean a more even light and therefore less hot spots... the softbox seems more even than reflecting from a brolly for example.

I thought a beauty dish was something you used intead of a softbox - as well as sounds interesting... and very big!

My x-sync on the on my cameras is 1/200th or 1/250th depending on the camera body. I may slow down the shutter (dragging) to get allow the shot to have some ambient light if I don't feel that the color gels are showing up on the background. I'll see if I can find a shot like this over the weekend and post. Its not a huge difference but I have gotten some cool effects in background colors with this. I normally shoot at the full x-sync speed on the camera and just adjust the aperture but like I said, I'm trying to learn what happens when I do one thing or another in the studio and sometimes that has to do with light modifiers and sometimes it has had to do with slower shutter speeds.

The beauty dish is simply a large, circular reflector that is white and it reflects an even light across the scene but I don't seem to have the same falloff that I experience with the softboxes. Next shoot I do I'll try to shoot the same thing with both the softbox and the beauty dish and then I'll post the info on the shot along with the results so you can get an idea how the lighting looks different (again, you can probably find examples of this very thing elsewhere online but I'll do it at least for my own experience).

In response to your comment about a larger softbox making less hotspots I think you may be better off turning your lighting down and then moving the small softbox closer to the subject. That will effectively cause the light source to not be as small and you should get a much more even gradient of lighting. The caveat to that is that at some point the softbox may be so close to the subject that it won't be able to throw light onto all of her and that will result in underexposure for whatever doesn't get the light from the softbox. For the parts that are lit, however, you should get a more even lighting and less hotspots. Even a gimungous softbox can produce hotspots if you move it far enough away from the subject ('cause then the dispersion of it falls of so much that it has no effect so you turn it back up and it starts to create hotspots in the places that actually receive the light). Try moving the softbox closer to the subject and see if you can't alleviate some of those hotspots.

09/29/2006 08:49:58 AM · #64

PS - I think you got a nice even lighting on the subject in the original file, too, but it appears that it was slightly underexposed for the effect you wanted. I like it in the original but I can see the appeal of the effect you achieved with your edited version, too.

Originally posted by Leok:

09/29/2006 05:28:50 PM · #65

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

This is becoming the Leo & Kevin thread :P

That thumb is not quite the original exposure - when I converted from RAW I shifted the slider so it was effectively one stop underexposed. I was happy to have the model well exposed - this way if I later want less high key shots I have the option...

I feel I should have had more light on the bakcground though. Actually as I had the backdrop lights on full brightness I needed less light on the model and a bigger aperture to get that effect :-)

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

09/29/2006 06:33:48 PM · #66

Originally posted by Leok:

This is becoming the Leo & Kevin thread :P

Do not worry about that at all. This thread is for anyone who wants to discuss this topic...and to see you guys doing that makes me happy. So please continue.

LeeD

Canon EOS-30D

09/29/2006 07:45:38 PM · #67

Probably not what you guys were looking for, but here are a few less than conventional lit nudes.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

09/29/2006 08:18:36 PM · #68

Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:

Probably not what you guys were looking for, but here are a few less than conventional lit nudes.

All shots are welcome as long as they are nudes...

I really love this one, such an unusual take and beautifully done. The coloured lighting really ads to it!

LeeD

Canon EOS-30D

09/29/2006 08:31:14 PM · #69

Originally posted by Leok:

The coloured lighting really ads to it!

Thank you. All were shot under black light (fluorescent). The yellow in this particular image was a yellow sheer that was twisted and bound. It was a neon shade of yellow and really glowed in the black light.

Rgarcia

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II M.Zuiko ED

09/30/2006 10:57:13 AM · #70

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

Originally posted by Rgarcia:
I love doing nude photography, mostly indoors, but my best results have been outdoors.

Roberto,

Wow. Nice comp for outdoor work but your post processing really impresses me on this one. I've not tried a grunge edit on any nudes but I have a few subjects that I think would lend themselves well to this style of editing. Very nice job.

Outdoor nudes for me can enhance the sense of intimacy and freedom. For someone to trust me and remove their clothing to express themselves in my studio seems a liberating thing for them and I try to stay far away from any discussion of their motivation; that's what they're getting out of choosing to do this. I steer over to the "here's what I'm seeing and how I'd like to try capturing this shot" section and allow them to enjoy whatever it is about expressing themselves that matters to them. Outdoor nudes, however, seem like a whole other layer beyond trusting the photographer. It seems to be a freedom of expression and enjoying the atmosphere of the world around that we're all constantly being shielded away from by our clothes and our buildings and sometimes metaphorically by society. I've only photographed nudes outdoors a few times and I can say that I'm just not at the point yet of capturing adequately anything other than a "nekkid" person. I just don't yet have the vision and control to understand what it is that I'm "seeing" and create an image that conveys that sense of expression and freedom that I feel when I view outdoor nudes such as your shot, Roberto.

Thank you for sharing this.

Thanks for your comments,I totally agree with you. Outdoors is when truly a person can fell completeley natural and free with his/her nude body. Nevertheless... it is hard to find places where to be naked with the required privacy for an hour long photoshoot, and there's also this silly law in Costa Rica that states that being naked outdoors in public places is an "indecent exposure"!!!

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/01/2006 02:46:16 AM · #71

Originally posted by Rgarcia:

Here in Oz we have the same silly rule. In fact the state with the best weather and beaches (Qld) is the only one without any legal nude beaches at all thanks to a conservative government! Despite this it is still quite popular... just not legal. Australia has plenty of sapce and beaches so its not like making a few beaches legally nude would deprive anyone of anything they are likely to miss...

Loki

Nikon D70s

10/01/2006 03:18:52 AM · #72

Here are my nude portraits:

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/01/2006 08:55:13 AM · #73

Originally posted by Loki:

Here are my nude portraits:

Hey you forogt this one - lovely lighting ;-)

Message edited by author 2006-10-03 07:24:22.

Loki

Nikon D70s

10/01/2006 01:50:13 PM · #74

Originally posted by Leok:

Hey you forogt this one - lovely lighting ;-)

Oh yeah, thanks. It's a really old picture though. I took it 3 years ago when I first joined DPC.