ART NUDES - Denisa Strakova with scarf

[Manfred M]

This is the first nude shot I have done in months. The shoot itself was a combination of art nudes, implied nudes and non-nude shots.

Unfortunately for me, it was the first sunny day we had in about a week. I used a Godox AD360 flash in a 1.2m parabolic softbox to soften the shadows as much as I could.

In this series of shots I tried to concentrate on the timing of how the model worked the light scarf in the air as well as the position she took after she worked the scarf.


1.





2.





3.

[ScoutR]

In this series of shots I tried to concentrate on the timing of how the model worked the light scarf in the air as well as the position she took after she worked the scarf.

Seriously Manfred??????? This is Art??????? A woman with no clothes pivoting around in the middle of nowhere with a scarf. Really????

[Manfred M]

Seriously Manfred??????? This is Art??????? A woman with no clothes pivoting around in the middle of nowhere with a scarf. Really????

Seriously, yes it is.

Nudes have been the subjects of artists for thousands of years. There are nude paintings in Egyptian tombs from around 1500 BC. The Venus de Milo was carved around 100 BC, in ancient Greece. Botticelli, Michelangelo did nude paintings and sculptures in Italy in the 1400s and 1500s. Dürer and Cranach in Germany in the 1500s. Rembrandt and Rubens in the Netherlands and Belgium at around the same time, etc. etc. Lots more in modern times.

Photographic nudes are as old as photography itself.

[george013]

Seriously, yes it is.

Nudes have been the subjects of artists for thousands of years. There are nude paintings in Egyptian tombs from around 1500 BC. The Venus de Milo was carved around 100 BC, in ancient Greece. Botticelli, Michelangelo did nude paintings and sculptures in Italy in the 1400s and 1500s. Dürer and Cranach in Germany in the 1500s. Rembrandt and Rubens in the Netherlands and Belgium at around the same time, etc. etc. Lots more in modern times.

Photographic nudes are as old as photography itself.

I think he is referring to your photos. Not to nudes as an artistic subject.

George

[Manfred M]

I think he is referring to your photos. Not to nudes as an artistic subject.

George

The genre I was shooting is generally referred to as “art nude”.

In North America (and a few other places) some people have a negative reaction to this type of photography. It is more widely accepted in places like Continental Europe.

[ScoutR]

I think he is referring to your photos. Not to nudes as an artistic subject.

George

Yes, and as a continental European, you got that, so it must be valid

Manfred: If I had a negative reaction to nudes I would not click on the heading. I have been following your endeavours and when I saw the word ART in this title, I thought oh good, he's finally advanced to doing more than just objectifying women. Nope, not yet. Getting close though, but that is only due to the model. The poses are actually quite artistic, but the context is horrible. If you want to compare your art to Michelangelo, Botticelli, Rembrandt and Rubens, IMHO you are going to have to do a lot better. It is not ART just because it doesn't have clothes on.

Wendy

[Shadowman]

My thoughts are that in N.A. artistic nudes are acceptable, public nudity not so much. Nice series.

[Manfred M]

Yes, and as a continental European, you got that, so it must be valid

Manfred: If I had a negative reaction to nudes I would not click on the heading. I have been following your endeavours and when I saw the word ART in this title, I thought oh good, he's finally advanced to doing more than just objectifying women. Nope, not yet. Getting close though, but that is only due to the model. The poses are actually quite artistic, but the context is horrible. If you want to compare your art to Michelangelo, Botticelli, Rembrandt and Rubens, IMHO you are going to have to do a lot better. It is not ART just because it doesn't have clothes on.

Wendy

The genre is referred to as "art nude", so it's not my name but one that is associated with this form of photography in the photographic community, much in the same way as "nature", "landscape", "portrait", etc. are for those genres.

I find it interesting that you have no issues with the works of Michelangelo, Botticelli, Rembrandt and Rubens done in this genre, but if someone else works in it, we suddenly have objectification of women. Just as an aside, I certainly do not feel that my work is in any way comparable to those fine sculptures and painters.

The challenge in this particular set of poses is the timing, everything is fluid and anticipating the right moment to press the shutter release is critical to making the shot work.

The fact that you do not like the context is fine with me too. Your view of objectification of women is a cultural value and one I do not share. Having spent most of my life in Canada, I am quite familiar with this viewpoint, but is not one I fully understand. I put that down to my own Central European background and my life experiences. Just remember that many of our everyday practices are viewed as abhorrent in other parts of the world.

[FootLoose]

What this set, and the earlier one featuring the same model, demonstrates for me is how much the success of the shoot depends on the model's skill. Unlike some of Manfred's previous presentations, this model shows some emotion, giving the images a sense of "drama", if you will. As Manfred points out, one element of the photographer's skill is capturing the model at the right moment and if the timing is slightly off then the result can look a bit awkward (just as it does with other forms of photography such as wildlife and street where the subject is in motion).

I think these poses all have a reference to classical poses - in painting and sculpture - and wonder if the model has studied those forms.

[RBSinTo]

Manfred,
I appreciate the effort you put into these two sets of shots, but in my opinion they contain a number of flaws with keep them from being a success.
I find the models surroundings to be a major distraction as I feel that these photos would be better if they were kept very simple. Even if shot outside but against a simple blank wall would have been preferable. And having her wear a pony-tail, or bun would have kept her hair from blowing across her face.
Additionally, the model's feet are captured (especially in the second photo) in awkward positions which make her look less than graceful. I think that had her toes been pointed down, her poses would have been improved.
Robert

[george013]

The genre is referred to as "art nude", so it's not my name but one that is associated with this form of photography in the photographic community, much in the same way as "nature", "landscape", "portrait", etc. are for those genres.

I find it interesting that you have no issues with the works of Michelangelo, Botticelli, Rembrandt and Rubens done in this genre, but if someone else works in it, we suddenly have objectification of women. Just as an aside, I certainly do not feel that my work is in any way comparable to those fine sculptures and painters.

The challenge in this particular set of poses is the timing, everything is fluid and anticipating the right moment to press the shutter release is critical to making the shot work.

The fact that you do not like the context is fine with me too. Your view of objectification of women is a cultural value and one I do not share. Having spent most of my life in Canada, I am quite familiar with this viewpoint, but is not one I fully understand. I put that down to my own Central European background and my life experiences. Just remember that many of our everyday practices are viewed as abhorrent in other parts of the world.

Just as a landscape oriented photo doesn't make a photo a landscape photo a picture of a naked women doesn't make it "art nude". You need more for that and that's what is missing. We've "discussed" that before. Your photo's may be technical ok but they're missing content, emotion or whatever what that hits the observer when viewing a picture. You 'll have to work on that but I'm afraid you self will be an obstacle for that.

George

[Manfred M]

Just as a landscape oriented photo doesn't make a photo a landscape photo a picture of a naked women doesn't make it "art nude". You need more for that and that's what is missing. We've "discussed" that before. Your photo's may be technical ok but they're missing content, emotion or whatever what that hits the observer when viewing a picture. You 'll have to work on that but I'm afraid you self will be an obstacle for that.

George

George - I have tried to explain this to you before, but you seem to be unable or unwilling to understand that your view of portraiture is only one tiny part of that genre. These models have been trained to not show emotion, especially in much of the type of work that I do. Yes, there is room for a bit of a smile in some circumstances, so long as it helps to tell the visual story. This series is all about the form that the model and the scarf create in this environment.

Rather than believing what I write, I would suggest that you look at the work of some of the great portrait photographers, both past and present. Yousef Karsh, Richard Avedon, Irving Penn, Diane Arbus, Richard Winogrand, Horst P Horst, Vivian Mayer, Dorothea Lange, etc. have all had a very significant influence on the genre. For current photographers, look at the work of Andreas Bitesnich, Joey L, Joel Grimes, Benjamin Von Wong, Frank Doorhof and of course Annie Leibovitz.

At a high level, if the subject is a person or group of people, the shot is most likely a portrait. Once you understand that portraiture is a much wider genre than you seem to understand it is, perhaps then we can have a meaningful discussion.

[Manfred M]

What this set, and the earlier one featuring the same model, demonstrates for me is how much the success of the shoot depends on the model's skill. Unlike some of Manfred's previous presentations, this model shows some emotion, giving the images a sense of "drama", if you will. As Manfred points out, one element of the photographer's skill is capturing the model at the right moment and if the timing is slightly off then the result can look a bit awkward (just as it does with other forms of photography such as wildlife and street where the subject is in motion).

I think these poses all have a reference to classical poses - in painting and sculpture - and wonder if the model has studied those forms.

Thanks for your thoughts Greg. You seem to have good insight as to what this series is all about.

I can say, without hesitation, that Denisa is definitely the most experienced model I have shot to date. Unfortunately, her English is not great, so I was not able to have much of a conversation with her. She is a classically trained photographic model; I expect you are correct about the classical poses. I strongly suspect that she was coached by someone who studied and understands the classical poses. I also suspect that she has spent many, many hours in front of a mirror fine tuning her poses with various props, like the scarf.

These shots are all "action" shots. Denisa would simultaneously strike a pose and move the scarf. The photographer (there were four of us shooting, each taking a turn) would have to not only line up the shot with regard to how the foreground and background looked, but would also have to anticipate her movements and the movement of the scarf to get the shot. One literally had a fraction of a second to get the shot because that is how long she held the pose before gravity tool over and either the model or the scarf were no longer in an optimal position. I have enough shots to prove my camera craft was not always right on.

[ScoutR]

The genre is referred to as "art nude", so it's not my name but one that is associated with this form of photography in the photographic community, much in the same way as "nature", "landscape", "portrait", etc. are for those genres.

I find it interesting that you have no issues with the works of Michelangelo, Botticelli, Rembrandt and Rubens done in this genre, but if someone else works in it, we suddenly have objectification of women. Just as an aside, I certainly do not feel that my work is in any way comparable to those fine sculptures and painters.

To tell you the truth Manfred, I don't know too much about these old guys, but based on their reputations I figure if they did nudes they probably did a good job of them. Rubens is the only guy I'm vaguely familiar with and he would probably have taken your model home and fed her.

The challenge in this particular set of poses is the timing, everything is fluid and anticipating the right moment to press the shutter release is critical to making the shot work.

Not such a hard thing with continuous burst, but whatever the technology, you did a good job. The poses are great

The fact that you do not like the context is fine with me too.

Are you happy with the context or setting for these shots? Can you imagine any better settings? I realize you do not have total control over where you shoot, but is this what you would have chosen?

Your view of objectification of women is a cultural value and one I do not share. Having spent most of my life in Canada, I am quite familiar with this viewpoint, but is not one I fully understand.

Yes, I can see that.

I put that down to my own Central European background and my life experiences. Just remember that many of our everyday practices are viewed as abhorrent in other parts of the world.

Now you are just being a snob.

[ScoutR]

George - I have tried to explain this to you before, but you seem to be unable or unwilling to understand that your view of portraiture is only one tiny part of that genre. These models have been trained to not show emotion, especially in much of the type of work that I do. Yes, there is room for a bit of a smile in some circumstances, so long as it helps to tell the visual story. This series is all about the form that the model and the scarf create in this environment.

Rather than believing what I write, I would suggest that you look at the work of some of the great portrait photographers, both past and present. Yousef Karsh, Richard Avedon, Irving Penn, Diane Arbus, Richard Winogrand, Horst P Horst, Vivian Mayer, Dorothea Lange, etc. have all had a very significant influence on the genre. For current photographers, look at the work of Andreas Bitesnich, Joey L, Joel Grimes, Benjamin Von Wong, Frank Doorhof and of course Annie Leibovitz.

At a high level, if the subject is a person or group of people, the shot is most likely a portrait. Once you understand that portraiture is a much wider genre than you seem to understand it is, perhaps then we can have a meaningful discussion.

Manfred, please read Georges post again, and then he might be able to have a meaningful discussion with you. He did not say anything about portraiture. Read the first sentence carefully.

Your model in these shots is showing a lot of emotion in both face and body, but what have you done with her? You've plopped her on a flat rock in a field of weeds??????? It does not fit.

Perhaps you could study some of the names you dropped, and try to figure out what they might have done with this talented model.

The lack of care in choosing a setting or creating a story for these shots, is what makes me see them as objectifying women, it's disrespectful to her. It is nudity for nudity's sake. They are missing that elusive something that George described in his post. That something that hits a nerve or emotion in the viewer. That something that makes it more than a nude women posing. That something that makes the viewer feel he or she is looking at more than just a technically good posed picture.

Just my 2 cents, but a majestic tree in this setting would have made more sense.
Wendy

[Manfred M]

Manfred,
I appreciate the effort you put into these two sets of shots, but in my opinion they contain a number of flaws with keep them from being a success.
I find the models surroundings to be a major distraction as I feel that these photos would be better if they were kept very simple. Even if shot outside but against a simple blank wall would have been preferable. And having her wear a pony-tail, or bun would have kept her hair from blowing across her face.
Additionally, the model's feet are captured (especially in the second photo) in awkward positions which make her look less than graceful. I think that had her toes been pointed down, her poses would have been improved.
Robert

Thanks for your insight Robert. I agree with some of what you have written, but not with other parts.

I did not arrange for this shoot and shared shooting this model over a couple of hours with three other photographers. I had not shot with her before and have not shot at this location either. I have done a lot of studio shooting over the past year or so, but felt I needed to work on my on-location elements, which is why I went. The location was a field; no buildings, walls, etc. so those suggestions would have worked here. On the other hand; rocks, plants and the sky are a relatively simple background. I will also have to say, I was definitely outside of my comfort zone for this shoot.

Shooting in a studio is easy. The photographer (assuming he or she know what they are doing) is in control of both the background and the lighting. I can't think of anything simpler than seamless paper as a background, but that is limiting as the shots tend to look the same. People have been asking me if I shot elsewhere because of this sameness. The other issue in shooting on seamless is that the maximum width is 140" / 3.55 m. Even in a high studio (20ft / 6m ceiling) if is challenging to shoot jump shots with silks as there simply isn't enough space to execute, so shooting outdoors with a natural background offers the model and photographer a lot more working space.

In terms of the hair, I wanted the hair moving and flowing and shooting this helps show motion. Tying up hair works in many circumstances and I will often request a model to do so. These shots are all about the model and the scarf moving together. The hair and positioning of her body and limbs are all part of that.

Am I reasonably happy with the shots; yes. Would I shoot this model again; yes. Would I shoot at this location again, probably not, unless it were inside the owner's home, a converted church, which would make an amazing area to photograph in.

[Manfred M]

To tell you the truth Manfred, I don't know too much about these old guys, but based on their reputations I figure if they did nudes they probably did a good job of them. Rubens is the only guy I'm vaguely familiar with and he would probably have taken your model home and fed her.

My point was simply that this form of art has been around for a long time and was often done by artists that were closely associated with the church.

Not such a hard thing with continuous burst, but whatever the technology, you did a good job. The poses are great

The burst rate on my camera is 6 frames / second. Burst mode is not an option for this type of photography as one usually misses on the timing. The camera has to be pre-focused because the slight delay autofocus adds to the shooting sequence is enough to miss the shot.

Are you happy with the context or setting for these shots? Can you imagine any better settings? I realize you do not have total control over where you shoot, but is this what you would have chosen?

No, I was not happy with the setting and the choice of some of the locations. I had not shot at this location before, but in general the group I shoot with does shoot in more suitable locations. As I did not set up the shoot and was shooting with a group of three other photographers, I only had limited input on where we shot. I did discuss this with the shoot organizer during and after the shoot. I am unlikely to shoot at this location again, unless it is inside the site owner's house which would be a wonderful place for a model shoot.

Yes, I can see that.

Now you are just being a snob.

I have no issue agreeing to disagree with anyone who presents a reasoned argument for his or her position on a subject. Are these reasoned arguments?

[rpcrowe]

When I viewed this set, I was struck with the energy and grace of this woman... I also think that she has had some dance training.

I really think that dance training or experience is a great asset to any model, allowing her to pose naturally without any unnatural affect.

IMO, there is a difference between a nude photo and just a photo of a female without any clothing. A nude incorporates grace and can also show energy. I would have enjoyed shooting this lovely lady.

I would also like to see her in a studio environment with a black background. Along those lines, I will soon be doing some night shooting of the San Diego skyline from across San Diego Bay during a fireworks display. It would be impossible to arrange but, I would love to see a graceful lady like this in the foreground (with her motion stopped by strobes) with the City Skyline and fireworks in the background. Wouldn't that be a dazzling effect?

The more I think about this the more I like that idea. The model would not need to be nude (which would entail some major problems in a public environment)...

[Manfred M]

Manfred, please read Georges post again, and then he might be able to have a meaningful discussion with you. He did not say anything about portraiture. Read the first sentence carefully.

i have read George's comment carefully and he and I have had this discussion before. George has a very narrow view of portraiture and does not seem to want to move beyond that.

Your model in these shots is showing a lot of emotion in both face and body, but what have you done with her? You've plopped her on a flat rock in a field of weeds??????? It does not fit.

As I have said elsewhere, that was not my choice, but I have worked to make the location work as best I can. I would likely not shoot in this particular setting again, but am quite pleased with the results given the challenges of shooting at that site.

Perhaps you could study some of the names you dropped, and try to figure out what they might have done with this talented model.

I have studied them (formally and informally) and others quite extensively. All of these photographers have made some images that have influenced my style. In some cases, I am influenced in the way that they work and with others, I avoid their approaches. The reason for my listing these photographers is that they represent a wide range of approaches with regard to who and how they photograph people. George is fixated on having the model smile; something that happens when necessary in portraiture. Usually it is not necessary or even desireable.

The lack of care in choosing a setting or creating a story for these shots, is what makes me see them as objectifying women, it's disrespectful to her. It is nudity for nudity's sake. They are missing that elusive something that George described in his post. That something that hits a nerve or emotion in the viewer. That something that makes it more than a nude women posing. That something that makes the viewer feel he or she is looking at more than just a technically good posed picture.

Actually your post and George's post suggest the opposite. I have gotten a reaction from both of you. That is what serious photographers aim for.

Just my 2 cents, but a majestic tree in this setting would have made more sense.
Wendy

Maybe, but unfortunately, there were no isolated lone trees at this location. I have some shots, which I have not posted (yet?) that were taken with a lone tree. These are good shots, but the emotional component is not what I wanted to achieve.

When I photograph I try to make technically good, well composed images that have an emotional impact on the viewer. The last part is the most challenging to achieve and is what experienced photographers strive for in their work.

[FootLoose]

The lack of care in choosing a setting or creating a story for these shots, is what makes me see them as objectifying women, it's disrespectful to her. It is nudity for nudity's sake. They are missing that elusive something that George described in his post. That something that hits a nerve or emotion in the viewer. That something that makes it more than a nude women posing. That something that makes the viewer feel he or she is looking at more than just a technically good posed picture.

Wendy

While there is some validity to your observations about objectifying the female body, the same could be said of all images of the naked body so I don't think this is a particularly fair comment. And Manfred has made it perfectly clear that he had no choice in the selection of the location but seized the opportunity to further his experience in this genre.

In the months since he began posting nude work Manfred has made it quite clear that this is a skill that he is learning - in studio and on location - and he has made no claim to be an expert at it, indeed he posts here for comment and criticism to help him improve his skills, just like everyone else who posts their work here, so I think you could afford to be more generous in your criticism.