| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/03/2007 04:23:44 PM · #1 |
It's become quite apparent to me that DPC as a whole has a philosophy about nude photography that I don't subscribe to. Not from the admins or SC, but from the viewers.
To be worthy to be called anything more than porn (here at DPC), a nude photo must be:
Low-key or single light source
Low saturation or B&W
and contain no eye contact with the model.
Bonus points for hiding "no-no" parts.
In that I think this:
Can be as appealing and takes just as much skill As this:
Just because I chose to go bare-bulb with the first pic for a flat lighting rather than a direct sidelighting or that I chose a colorful fun background IMO does not make the photo "pornish". But, I do see it as being against the DPC "norm".
Message edited by author 2007-03-03 16:24:14.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2007 05:01:32 PM · #2 |
I wouldn't necessarily call the first shot "porn," but it certainly is a much different shot, with a much different feel than the second. The second shot is much more sculptural, and the combination of the lack of a distinctive background and the lighting makes it more about form, line, lighting, and expression--which is what I think about when I think "nude." By taking away background, color, etc. the viewer can focus more on the abstractions rather than on the fact that they are looking at someone standing outside of their skivies. ;)
The second shot is very fun and flirty, but there are several elements that take it at least to the edge of the "artistic nude" realm for me: including the model's flirtatious expression to the viewer; the use of the colored/patterened background which distracts from the lines of the model's body; and the presence of the underwear and cigarette, which works to ground the model in "real" space rather than in photographic abstraction.
The first shot is titillating, the second is sensual. Both are erotic, but in different ways.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2007 06:53:35 PM · #3 |
ONE person said that the background kinda gave it a porn feeling ... sheesh man ... I think you are over reacting ...
I don't think it looks pornographic ... it looks retro 70's calendar stuff but not porn ... my goodness ...
|
|
|
|
03/03/2007 07:02:15 PM · #4 |
| I agree with the first comment on the 'porn' image. Whilst i don't compare it to porn in the slightest, he's right in saying that "the background kinda gives it an 'amateur porn' feel". |
|
|
|
03/03/2007 07:05:36 PM · #5 |
I'm just going to touch on some points that could possibly show why viewers see these shots differently:
A) In the first one, elements *look* like they were very hastily thrown together without much care. A mark of someone more amateur and just looking to 'get pictures of someone naked'.
In the second, it *looks* like much more time and thought has been put into the entire shot. It gives a feeling that the photographer, and the model, care about what it is they are presenting, and that isn't just "a naked person", but a study of body and light and the interaction thereof.. which is generally the cornerstone of this art form.
B) In the first picture, your lighting, as you say, is bare. You claim to find it just as appealing, but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that with the majority of viewers. The harsh light doesn't really serve to flatter or enhance your model in any way. Again, this just tells the viewer, generally, that it was a hasty set-up, with no real thought. This is going to give you those comparisons to "porn".. because I think for a good majority of casual viewers.. "amateur" is equated with "porn"... especially with the huge infusion of amateur porn websites, newsgroups, and other such things on the internet.
In the second shot, your lighting, again, shows time, patience, mood, and .. well.. ability. Like it or not, that's going to separate a shot from being labeled.
C) The model looking into the camera isn't necessarily going to label a shot as "pornish".. a few nudes by Heida and others will show that.. but it's when combined with every other aspect you have here, that it becomes a little too personalized. People will begin to feel either uncomfortable, or will associate the look with want/lust/whatever.. especially depending on what the look *is*.. or is interpreted by the viewer.
D) Finally, there are just time-honored traditions involved in various styles of photography that have become "norm", simply because they work.
The styles of nude photography follow these. There are, and can be, exceptions.. but to be an exception, they also .. generally.. are exceptional. Fighting against an established style or art form.. especially one that is there because of certain 'rules' or reasons that are proven again and again to draw the most interest and praise.. is a very hard thing, and most of the time, you're probably not going to win that battle outside of specific small circles.
When it comes down to basics, you're left with two photos:
One that tells the viewer that it was hurried, not thought out, thrown together, and not-well-executed... thus leaving them with associations to pornography.. and another that tells the viewer the opposite.
Whether or not *you* feel that they are both equally worthy or take as much skill isn't the issue here. That simply is not being conveyed through the choices made in the respected shoots.
Message edited by author 2007-03-03 19:07:50. |
|
|
|
03/03/2007 07:18:09 PM · #6 |
I still say that it looks maybe retro and maybe naive but not pornographic ... candid and without studio lighting is not any where near pornographic IMO.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2007 07:18:51 PM · #7 |
I think having even the bulbs bare is taking it a bit too far to prove a point. How old is that bulb anyway?
;D
Both are nice shots. Great looking red head, but the 2nd has more appeal.
Mike
|
|
|
|
03/03/2007 07:23:23 PM · #8 |
I think it comes down to one simple fact.
If it looks too 'real', it unfortunately runs the risk of getting hit with the dreaded porn label.
Both are excellent but one is much more stylized and because it is, it makes some viewers less uncomfortable.
Reality bites... :) |
|
|
|
03/03/2007 08:59:21 PM · #9 |
I am not put off by the first one. The more I look at it the more I like it, however I prefer artistic nudes such as the second photo.
I think what the viewers are saying Leroy, is more emphasis on the art of nudity (light and shadow) & less emphasis on the nudity itself. |
|
|
|
03/03/2007 09:05:32 PM · #10 |
i'd add to the discussion, but i'd only be echoing  Artyste and he said it well enough.
guess i could add that just knowing leroy took these shots makes these shots "porn" by association...
;)
|
|
|
|
03/03/2007 09:20:33 PM · #11 |
I've had a couple of glasses of wine, so this may not come out the way I mean it. Apologies in advance.
To me the difference between porn and art is the message the image sends to the viewer. Granted this is very subjective; but each of these images seems to say something completely different.
The first image says to me "I'm a naked woman in sexy black panties with piercings, tatoos, long fingernails and lots of eye makeup on an exotic background, arching my back and making provacative eye contact with you."
The second says "I'm caught unaware in a contemplative pose, against a subdued background with subtle lighting; as though you snuck up on me when I was unaware."
Honestly, would you expect a woman in a mini-skirt and fishnet stockings to walk past a construction site and then get upset because the workers whistled? I think this has nothing to do with DPC and everything to do with human nature.
Salud.
Message edited by author 2007-03-03 21:37:00. |
|
|
|
03/03/2007 09:58:31 PM · #12 |
| I don't think the light is flattering for the first model... heavy makeup, bad taste piercing, tatoos, cheap looking bed cover, they all indicate lack of class, vulgarity. I've seen the other pictures... I can only conclude the she lives in a trailer park. From this to "amateur porn" is not a long way. |
|
|
|
03/03/2007 10:01:11 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by AGrigorof:
I don't think the light is flattering for the first model... heavy makeup, bad taste piercing, tatoos, cheap looking bed cover, they all indicate lack of class, vulgarity. I've seen the other pictures... I can only conclude the she lives in a trailer park. From this to "amateur porn" is not a long way. |
Hey there! I live in a trailer park!;) |
|
|
|
03/03/2007 10:58:29 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by AGrigorof:
heavy makeup, bad taste piercing, tatoos, cheap looking bed cover, they all indicate lack of class, vulgarity. I've seen the other pictures... I can only conclude the she lives in a trailer park. |
that's awfully judgmental to say that of the model ... and it's certainly a problem in DPC ... people enjoy being judgmental.
i think the first photo is good ... but i know that it's not going to be a popular shot in DPchallenges. successful photos are moodily lit and often faux-artistic ...
they all look like fotomann's 2nd shot ... which isn't original at all ... it's following a stock DPC convention.
i saw some interesting shots in the latest nude challenge, but they were mostly the same dark, moodily lit black and white photos.
photography is more about breaking conventions, than following them.
ribbons are more about following conventions, than breaking them.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2007 11:05:04 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
Originally posted by AGrigorof:
heavy makeup, bad taste piercing, tatoos, cheap looking bed cover, they all indicate lack of class, vulgarity. I've seen the other pictures... I can only conclude the she lives in a trailer park. |
that's awfully judgmental to say that of the model ... and it's certainly a problem in DPC ... people enjoy being judgmental.
i think the first photo is good ... but i know that it's not going to be a popular shot in DPchallenges. successful photos are moodily lit and often faux-artistic ...
they all look like fotomann's 2nd shot ... which isn't original at all ... it's following a stock DPC convention.
i saw some interesting shots in the latest nude challenge, but they were mostly the same dark, moodily lit black and white photos.
photography is more about breaking conventions, than following them.
ribbons are more about following conventions, than breaking them. |
Well said, I couldn't agree with you more.
-dave
|
|
|
|
03/03/2007 11:42:39 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by dknourek:
Originally posted by super-dave:
Originally posted by AGrigorof:
heavy makeup, bad taste piercing, tatoos, cheap looking bed cover, they all indicate lack of class, vulgarity. I've seen the other pictures... I can only conclude the she lives in a trailer park. |
that's awfully judgmental to say that of the model ... and it's certainly a problem in DPC ... people enjoy being judgmental.
i think the first photo is good ... but i know that it's not going to be a popular shot in DPchallenges. successful photos are moodily lit and often faux-artistic ...
they all look like fotomann's 2nd shot ... which isn't original at all ... it's following a stock DPC convention.
i saw some interesting shots in the latest nude challenge, but they were mostly the same dark, moodily lit black and white photos.
photography is more about breaking conventions, than following them.
ribbons are more about following conventions, than breaking them. |
Well said, I couldn't agree with you more.
-dave |
I agree with everything Dave said too.
As to what Artyste said: yes, I know the appearance is that I took more time with the second, but in actuality and what many DPCers can't understand is that the first shot was actually more difficult than the second.
Message edited by author 2007-03-03 23:43:22.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2007 11:48:16 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Originally posted by AGrigorof:
I don't think the light is flattering for the first model... heavy makeup, bad taste piercing, tatoos, cheap looking bed cover, they all indicate lack of class, vulgarity. I've seen the other pictures... I can only conclude the she lives in a trailer park. From this to "amateur porn" is not a long way. |
Hey there! I live in a trailer park!;) |
Ooops! I guess I should visit trailer parks more often.
I could change the "trailer park" reference to something else but then I'll be labeled again as "awfully judgmental". My remarks were not about the model but about how she is portrayed. I don't know the girl; I just looked at the pictures. It can all be an elaborate setup as far as I know; maybe that's what the photographer had in mind. |
|
|
|
03/03/2007 11:48:57 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Just because I chose to go bare-bulb with the first pic for a flat lighting rather than a direct sidelighting or that I chose a colorful fun background IMO does not make the photo "pornish". But, I do see it as being against the DPC "norm". |
I see a rather big difference between the first and second images, not withstanding the lighting differences.
The first image is what I consider to be 'gratuitous nudity.' It doesn't seem to have any purpose other than show a nude form. The lighting and idea behind the second image shows an attempt at a shape and form study to some degree.
Personally, I don't care much for nudity for the sake of nudity. The anonymity DOES make a difference in a lot of photos. Taking the 'person' out of the photo makes it something completely different...
|
|
|
|
03/03/2007 11:49:56 PM · #19 |
LOL, she actually lives in a high-end apartment :-) But, it's sort of irrelevant.
I've certainly proven in Nude IV that I can successfully pull off "traditional" nudes at least to DPC's standards. But, I do find it frustrating that non-conventional aren't accepted as well.
Message edited by author 2007-03-03 23:52:22.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2007 11:54:14 PM · #20 |
| When -and if- the name Leroy Dickson is half as big as Bob Carlos Clarke, Helmut Newton, Robert Mapplethorpe etc., you can shoot whatever you damn well please, including explicit oral sex and orgy scenes, which -if I remember correctly- Carlos Clarke did, and a lot of people will not only applaud you for your unmatched artistic vision but also consider those who dare call your work porn about as capable of appreciating ground-breaking fine art as is an ox. Until then, you'll have to put up with not getting respect for your work. |
|
|
|
03/04/2007 12:00:26 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by AGrigorof:
heavy makeup, bad taste piercing, tatoos, ... they all indicate lack of class, vulgarity ... I can only conclude the she lives in a trailer park. |
dude, you deserve to be labeled as judgmental. you've said her piercings are in bad taste and that she looks vulgar. you assume she lives in a trailer park.
that's judgmental ...
Originally posted by AGrigorof:
My remarks were not about the model but about how she is portrayed. I don't know the girl; I just looked at the pictures. |
your remarks WERE about the model. you don't know the girl and you assumed she was trailer trash.
i'm not picking a fight with you mate ... but you need to be careful. you're defending your point of view based on statements you made and the two have become a contradiction.
if the first image is not to your taste, then that's fine. nobody has any qualms with your taste in photography.
but you can't say that the girl is trailer trash and then claim that your remarks aren't about the model.
do i think the first image looks amateur? no ...
do i think the first image looks porn-ish? yes ... a little, but i don't think that's a bad thing.
as i said before, fotomann is pointing out that there's a convention in DPC that nudes must conform to the dark, faceless, black and white shape nudes.
ribbons first, originality second.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2007 12:47:32 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Personally, I don't care much for nudity for the sake of nudity. The anonymity DOES make a difference in a lot of photos. Taking the 'person' out of the photo makes it something completely different... |
I'm probably jumping to conclusions but would this be accurate?
Nude = 'Anonymity' in place of 'person', light and shape explored.
Clothed = 'Person' in place of 'anonymity', character explored.
If so why can't the 'person' be explored in a nude shot?
|
|
|
|
03/04/2007 12:50:02 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Personally, I don't care much for nudity for the sake of nudity. The anonymity DOES make a difference in a lot of photos. Taking the 'person' out of the photo makes it something completely different... |
I'm probably jumping to conclusions but would this be accurate?
Nude = 'Anonymity' in place of 'person', light and shape explored.
Clothed = 'Person' in place of 'anonymity', character explored.
If so why can't the 'person' be explored in a nude shot? |
i think that's a good point ... the need for some kind of anonymity or indirectness in nudes is a bunch of bollocks.
again, it's faux-artistic!
|
|
|
|
03/04/2007 01:00:59 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Personally, I don't care much for nudity for the sake of nudity. The anonymity DOES make a difference in a lot of photos. Taking the 'person' out of the photo makes it something completely different... |
I'm probably jumping to conclusions but would this be accurate?
Nude = 'Anonymity' in place of 'person', light and shape explored.
Clothed = 'Person' in place of 'anonymity', character explored.
If so why can't the 'person' be explored in a nude shot? |
No.. It's not accurate.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2007 10:07:18 AM · #25 |
Another angle here. Anyone can put a naked person on a bed/table and snap off a few pics. This is what the 1st picture insinuates. Yes, some thought was given to the backdrop/pose, but generally speaking its only mildly artistic.
Just because you have access to naked girls and you can snap pics of them doesnt really launch the photos into the respected art realm. Leroy, its possible some creative editing might change the overall message of that 1st pic. Not sure.
Does all nude photography need to be artistic? NO, but it really won't get good reception here. The world is full enough of horney voyeurs and thankfully we have some very decerning eyes here at DPC and they know the difference between gratuitious nudity and artistic nudes. Heck, even my GOLD entry did poorly, and I thought it was artistic.
Face it, unless it is in a nude challenge, or is a very unique and artistic nude, your not gonna get the Kudos you want. :)
Message edited by author 2007-03-04 10:09:04. |
|
