3. Would you yourself pose nude?

[Scott Davis]

I've done some pretty crazy things but have never posed in the nude for ANYONE!

Answer: However, if the photographer is ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS... and FEMALE... AND I've had waaaay too much red wine... maybe, or, maybe not!

It would definitely be one of those "in the heat of the moment decisions! "

Cheers

I guess you haven't shot many nudes then. Photographing a nude is one of the least sexual things you can do, if you're doing it right. Yes the other person is naked, and there is at least a halfway decent chance that you'd find them attractive or else you wouldn't be shooting them (unless it is on someone else's nickel, then your personal taste in models is meaningless). However, I find that no matter how attractive the model, after the first five minutes with them, I'm not thinking about sex anymore. I'm more worried about directing a pose, adjusting my lighting, and calculating bellows extension factor (no jokes here boys...I'm talking about light falloff, not hardons). This is one reason why I do remain clothed when photographing - to reinforce the sense of professional arrangement. I don't want anyone who poses for me to feel like they're going to turn their back and the next second, I'll be on top of them, camera and lighting forgotten to the heat of the moment. I have photographed models in the nude myself once - and that was at the specific request of the model, who stated that they would feel far more comfortable if I were also nude. I said yes only because this model in question was also a good personal friend and I felt comfortable being nude in front of them.

[Eric Rose]

Why, do you want to take my photo?

[Capocheny]

I guess you haven't shot many nudes then. ... I have photographed models in the nude myself once - and that was at the specific request of the model, who stated that they would feel far more comfortable if I were also nude. I said yes only because this model in question was also a good personal friend and I felt comfortable being nude in front of them.

Hi Scott,

As eloquent as your posting is... I think you might have misread the initial question and, consequently, my response.

The question was "Would you YOURSELF pose nude?"

However, if the question had been, "Would YOU photograph nudes?" then your answer would have been appropriate. But, then, my answer wouldn't have made any sense whatsoever!

And, FWIW, I agree with your statements about professionalism, concentrating on the pose, lighting, exposure (pun intended) etc. That said, personally, I don't think "I" would photograph anyone while "I" was in the nude though... male OR female. But, that's just me!

Cheers

[Darin Boville]

I guess you haven't shot many nudes then. Photographing a nude is one of the least sexual things you can do, if you're doing it right. Yes the other person is naked, and there is at least a halfway decent chance that you'd find them attractive or else you wouldn't be shooting them (unless it is on someone else's nickel, then your personal taste in models is meaningless). However, I find that no matter how attractive the model, after the first five minutes with them, I'm not thinking about sex anymore. I'm more worried about directing a pose, adjusting my lighting, and calculating bellows extension factor (no jokes here boys...I'm talking about light falloff, not hardons).

This is an important issue that I struggled with for a time and came to an opposite conclusion. In the end it is all about being true to the image, creating something honest.

If I'm photographing a flower because of its beauty and I find myself thinking little to nothing about its beauty during the making of the photograph--if I'm not moved by the subject during the act of creation then it seems to reduce to more of a technical excercise.

With most nudes you are almost always talking about sexuality no matter how many layers of sophistication you pile upon it. So then, for example, to take a model (female, say) at the peak of her sexual attractiveness, and photograph her, all the while thinking of f/stops and bellows calculations--it strikes me that maybe the moment is lost.

If you are making a photograph that at the primal level is about lust, what is wrong with feeling that lust? What is wrong with feeling it strongly? In what other way could it be and still be an honest photograph?

--Darin

PS, yes, I've shot nudes, posed nude, including close-ups of John Thomas hard at work and otherwise...

[George Kara]

Well Said and right on point Darin. Obviously if you are feeling lust, disgust, shyness etc. this should come through in the work. This is perhaps why so many photos have no heart of soul.

I would pose if given the opportunity to be shot how I wanted.

[Scott Davis]

I didn't mean that you shouldn't have a reaction to the model - what I was responding to was the joking around about needing to be turned on by the photographer in order to pose nude for them. I guess it just hit a nerve for me. I get tired of people assuming that I do it to get people into bed. I also get tired of hearing people respond with a "wink wink nudge nudge" when you tell them you photograph nudes (assuming that I DO get people into bed). I don't seduce my models, and I would not predicate any decision to pose nude for someone else on how attractive they were to me - I'd have to have tremendous respect for their artwork and for their professionalism to pose for them. That's all I'm saying.

When I'm photographing a nude, I don't have time to be horny. I've got a vision of what I want to get on film, and how the model in front of me can help me do that. I'm looking at their body, and how it moves, how it is put together, interesting shapes and textures of skin and hair. I'm too busy trying to demonstrate a pose, or direct one from behind the camera, or getting the model to STOP moving without breaking a pose when I tell them to stop instead of breaking the pose and looking at me as a reflex. Sometimes I'm doing it from behind the groundglass, sometimes without looking through the camera. With LF, once you've got a pose, especially when you're composing on the GG, I don't have time to be getting horny because of some particular anatomical bit I may see when I know I have about thirty seconds to get the film holder in the camera, right side facing in, cock the shutter, close the shutter, pull the darkslide, check the strobe is connected, and take the shot. Doing all that, who has the time to focus their energy on sex?

Sexual energy should INFORM the image, but it should not substitute for the creative process. On the flipside of those photos that lack energy because the photographer is a mere technician, I've seen too many photos that degenerate to porn because the photographer is too focused on the sexual arousal and not on the image.

[Donald Qualls]

I'd have no problem posing nude, if someone were willing to pay me to do so. And I have a pretty high tolerance for low temperatures...

However, the likelihood of anyone asking a balding, ponytailed fellow with a long, gray beard and 50 pounds of potgut to post nude is pretty, er, slim...

[Capocheny]

... - what I was responding to was the joking around about needing to be turned on by the photographer in order to pose nude for them. I guess it just hit a nerve for me. I get tired of people assuming that I do it to get people into bed. I also get tired of hearing people respond with a "wink wink nudge nudge" when you tell them you photograph nudes (assuming that I DO get people into bed). I don't seduce my models, and I would not predicate any decision to pose nude for someone else on how attractive they were to me - I'd have to have tremendous respect for their artwork and for their professionalism to pose for them. That's all I'm saying.

Scott,

Again, my comment have absolutely NOTHING to do with being turned on by a photographer in order to pose nude for them. It has EVERYTHING to do with whether one would pose nude in the first place. It's a question of "inhibition" or "no inhibition" to pose nude in front of a camera. Hence, my comment with respects to the wine (as it applied to one person... in this case, me. )

Since I don't know you at all, I'd advise that you don't personalize the comments...

Cheers

[Scott Davis]

Scott,

Again, my comment have absolutely NOTHING to do with being turned on by a photographer in order to pose nude for them. It has EVERYTHING to do with whether one would pose nude in the first place. It's a question of "inhibition" or "no inhibition" to pose nude in front of a camera. Hence, my comment with respects to the wine (as it applied to one person... in this case, me. )

Since I don't know you at all, I'd advise that you don't personalize the comments...

Cheers

I didn't mean to "personalize" it. I certainly didn't think it was directed at me, and I got it that it was a joke. You did say that it would require the photographer to be female, and "absolutely GORGEOUS", and that you would require other inhibition-lowering influences to get you to do it. That makes it sound like there is an automatic association between posing nude and sex. However, someone coming along who doesn't know you, like me, for instance, could mis-interpret your comment and get the wrong impression (which a large part of the public already has) that photographers see posing nude as a sexual situation. They could see this posting and say, "gee, if it would take being in a sexually stimulating situation for the photographer to pose nude himself, nude photoshoots must be sexual come-ons". That is of course false logic, but the hoi polloi are pretty good at false logic. It was not meant as a criticism of your personal set of inhibitions.

[Capocheny]

I didn't mean to "personalize" it. I certainly didn't think it was directed at me, and I got it that it was a joke. You did say that it would require the photographer to be female, and "absolutely GORGEOUS", and that you would require other inhibition-lowering influences to get you to do it. That makes it sound like there is an automatic association between posing nude and sex. However, someone coming along who doesn't know you, like me, for instance, could mis-interpret your comment and get the wrong impression (which a large part of the public already has) that photographers see posing nude as a sexual situation. They could see this posting and say, "gee, if it would take being in a sexually stimulating situation for the photographer to pose nude himself, nude photoshoots must be sexual come-ons". That is of course false logic, but the hoi polloi are pretty good at false logic. It was not meant as a criticism of your personal set of inhibitions.

Scott,

I did get comprehend your postings and how you feel about the "joking around!"

Now, let me summarize my thoughts on this posting:

Yup, for ME, I'd maybe, or maybe not, pose if the photographer were female and absolutely gorgeous. Do I need to justify my requirements in order to pose nude for a photographer?

NOPE!

Does this statement necessarily imply that there would be sex involved? Or, a definitive connection between posing nude and sex?

Again, a resounding, "NOPE," "NOPE!" But, it DOES imply that there would have to be a connection of some kind between the photographer and subject.


Your reading of this posting seems to insinuate that, "if a person were walking down the street and noticed an absolutely gorgeous person of the opposite sex walking by... that one would necessarily think ONLY of having sex with that person."

YUP, some people would! NOPE, some people can simply admire the beauty of that person and let it go at that.

Does that mean that they can't make a comment to a friend that, "Wow, I just saw the most gorgeous gal/guy walking by?"

NOPE, sure doesn't!

Does that imply anything else other than the person just saw a gorgeous person of the opposite sex (or same sex for some folks) walk by?

"NOPE, sure doesn't!"

Does it imply that ALL proper behavior goes out the window just because one of the individuals involved is nude and the photographer is "female and absolutely gorgeous?"

Again, another resounding, "NOPE!"


What I'm sensing here is the fact that you shoot nudes and people have obviously given you a hard time regarding shooting nudes and the false idea that you are having sex with your subjects. You're peeved because this isn't necessarily the situation as it applies to YOU! In other words, you're really sensitive to this "wink, wink, nod, nod" joking around about the subject matter.

Well, my friend, guess what? Unfortunately, society isn't going to change their notions because you would like them to. From my point of view, I have no false sense of grandeur that I would expect them to change either. So, I'll not be wasting my time trying to achieve that end. [I'd imagine that most of the photographers at Playboy, Vogue, etc, etc isn't going to either!)

However, if you wish to make the grand gesture in doing so... please be my guest! I surely wish you the best of luck and hope you'll succeed. But, in your quest to accomplishing this end... recognize that NOT all of us believe or even think that YOU hop into bed with any/all of your subjects even though an innocent enough joke is made!

And, FWIW, I don't necessarily disagree with your comment about being professional and having sexuality be an INFORMED part of the image. And, yes, I fully agree that photographers shouldn't let horniness/sexual arousal dictate the direction of their shoots.

Enough time wasted on this posting!

Cheers