Nude

[Jim Jones]

Dizzyg14 -- You've reminded us that there's much in favor of simple, warm nudes over the glitzy glamorized Barbie dolls that look so much alike.

[stradibarrius]

I have to agree with Jim...for ME, the pure simplicity of the natural look is preferable over the "perfect" airbrushed nude model that we see so often. I like this photo for it's simplicity.

[gth]

You mean like this.........

My first post in this thread

Jana

Chamonix 5×8", Schneider Symmar 300mm, 5×8", Adox CHS 25, Rodinal. Shot in studio, 3 lights used.

This is a crop (~25%?) from a full body shot of my wife. She is not completely nude, has a long skirt, but anyway she said (and agreed that) I can publish only this much of her. The rest or the whole image is too private for us...

Jiri

[life_in_sepia]

Keira Grant. 5x7.

[Tony Karnezis]

That IS wonderful! filling out the image no nicely.

I'd hang this on my walls any day!

+1

[Jiri Vasina]

You mean like this.........

Wow, thanks...



J

[Joe Smigiel]

I have not posted here for a while.

My last work was made with my horseman / Fujinon 135/ HP5+

Wow. I liked this one immediately and a lot. So many visual echoes going deeper and deeper...

[Noeyedear]

Slow down for God sake, you shoot so many great images people are going to think it's easy!!

Kevin.

Thanks! And, yes, I think she really is what she seems to be -- a beautiful young lady. Here's a couple more of her...

Attachment 81526 Attachment 81527

[Ash]

cosmicexplosion I'd written a thorough critique of your work but I cannot post it. It's gone and I can't be bothered to re-type it.


In short:

You sound much like I did 5-10 years ago, and that's not a good thing. I'd recommend a challenging course in either Art or Photography where you will be given proper tuition and critique of your work on a technical and theoretical basis. You need it. Really.

The Arse-Vase picture is weak both in technical skill and concept. It is neither abstract nor figurative. The FB print lacks contrast (no deep blacks, no detail in highlights) and it is not correctly centered. You daren't say this was deliberate - it wasn't, and if it was it shouldn't have been. It is a bad print. Your negative and print shows poor control of artificial light losing detail on the flowers and poor shadows on the body. It is boring, it lacks dynamic.


The concept was not correctly or coherently explained when first posting the picture, nor was a 'final' version of the print. I'd consider the neg shot and the FB print as working proofs. Neither are worthy of posting unless they really are the best you could have done. If that's the case go back you need to do it again. Go work on the concept or think of a new way to produce the effect you desired.


"Practicing Artist" may be too strong a phrase, the key for me is the "practicing" part, though I think I read that in a different way to you. Go back and do it again. It's an effort, but not the best you could produce.


One needn't write in verse
Nor offer response so terse
If the work is weak
And the the response so bleak
You ought to return to the source



If you wish to shock and awe, check out the work of the YBA or any of the many waves of art through the 20th Century. READ all about surrealism and the erotic aspect, rather than attempt a pseudo-erotic photograph without the know-how.



As an exhibiting and qualified Photographer, take mine with a pinch of salt but taste it. You could do worse than pay attention, you could be ignoring all of this.



I rarely post here now, and photographs go up even less. Post here as much as you need to, but don't think you're better than anyone else; a lot of people on this forum are terrible photographers and even worse artists. Most lack any original or creative vision.

That being said most possess very clear goals and high standards of technical skill. That's more than some can say.

[cbk]

sinar, tmax100, orwo paper BN 118, diy thiourea sepia toner