Nude

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary L. Quay

Here's my contribution, and my 2 cents:
First the contribution. I don't know if I'm breaking any rules here, but I took my CS4 edition of Photoshop out for a spin on this one, and created an image that is heavily edited. I liked the idea of nature and the nude, but just throwing a nude into nature seems highly contrived. I'm not saying that I won't do it, because I never rule anything out. I think that nudes should be in places where they would normally be nude in, and in poses that you would find them in, albeit altered to make the compression caused by the lens to convey the naturalness of the pose. These are personal ascetics, and not meant cast dispersions on anyone else.

Now, my 2 cents:
The discussion of whether photographing nude women is art or base instincts masquerading as art seems moot. Even it is a masquerade, what's wrong with it? People are sexual by their nature.
--Gary

---

Nice image, thanks for contributing.

A nude body in nature while in practice might be contrived, but perhaps less than other settings where the nude setting is surely contrived. You've avoided this skillfully by using a composite to subtract that context and replace it with other art.

A child doesn't feel contrived running around outdoors with no clothes, it's pure freedom. Somehow, we've departed from that as we age. If you have spent time outdoors in nature with no clothes (in comfortable nonsexual situations even briefly like changing or washing outdoors when camping not at a camp site) contrived doesn't describe things; you are quickly aware that there is nothing between you and nature. It's more real than words easily describe. That close connection to nature artfully portrayed elevates and separate nature nudes from simple exhibitionism. (Artist skills do this too, but I consider that a separate factor) That 100% connection to nature has vicarious benefit to viewers of the image who yearn to be someplace different perhaps for a simple beautiful place like in the photo.

No doubt, many nudes have a successful sexual component, and perhaps thats a major part of why we prefer female nudes. However, even in a non-sexual sense, I think womens bodies just plain look better. Sort of like how male birds look better, female humans look better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary L. Quay

I also think it would be unprofessional to allow that to happen.
--Gary

---

Of course. But much more honest. Much more "what I thought and felt at the moment of exposure."

--Darin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

Andy, I'm amazed that a headless image it still is a portrait, it's a really great image.

Here's a few odd old ones of Cat.

---

Ooh I didn't think of that :confused:, but glad you like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

Andy, I'm amazed that a headless image it still is a portrait, it's a really great image.

---

I thought of William Mortensen's "Fragment", except better looking and less classical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kev curry

Maybe its because his feet are fleshy shrines dedicated to Nazism....?

---

Very close to the truth. He's a real gent, a kind and soft-spoken guy. It's amazing what poor choices people make (in life, and in opinions or intolerances).

Here is one of my contributions, taken on Vancouver Island in 2007. Camera was a Tachihara 4 x 5 with a 120 mm lens.

http://www.garynylander.com/nude_driftwood.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1361/...0967e9d8_b.jpg
Contemplating Weston's Nudes

Gelatin-silver photograph on Agfa Classic MCC111 FB VC, image area 19.3cm X 24.4cm, from a Tmax100 4x5 negative exposed in a Tachihara 45GF camera fitted with a Schneider Super Angulon 121mm f8 lens. The book is open at a page with a reproduction of Edward Weston's photograph "Dancing Nude, 1927" featuring Bertha Wardell, a Los Angeles dancer.

Gary,
That is a great shot! Any more from that location?
-Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary Nylander

Here is one of my contributions, taken on Vancouver Island in 2007. Camera was a Tachihara 4 x 5 with a 120 mm lens.

---

very nice Gary

Well, since the request was made about male nudes...

Here are a few of mine - all done on a Century Master Studio Portrait camera, with a Seneca Portrait F5 whole plate lens, on whole plate film. All are gum bichromate, with some being gum-over-platinum.