Nude Yoga

[Manfred M]

I spent a few hours in the studio last night with one of the better known local studio shooters working with a yoga instructor as our model. This was a workshop / training session to look at lighting to show off muscle tone and body contours. Planned output was B&W image that break some of the usual rules on exposure.

Single medium softbox on a boom provided the light. Height of the light and position of the model, in front of or behind the light were the main parameters that we played with on this shot. Getting the light to wrap the way we wanted took a fair bit of work on the model's part (it was easier to have the model move than to move the light). The position under the softbox (left and right) are important too. In this shot the model was slightly to the camera right of the light.






Version 2 - evened out shadows on the hand and toned down camera left leg.

[Donald]

That is a brilliant image. Wonderfully lit.

I confess to struggling to understand why photographing models, clothed or otherwise, gives any satisfaction. This image completely changes that perception.

[DanK]

Superb. Reminds me a bit of a few of Edward Weston's nudes, although your lighting is very different from his. In some of his nudes, he used the human body to create shapes and lines that were interesting in their own right. This image does that as well.

[John 2]

That is very nice Manfred. I like the angular form of the pose and mono has always suited this sort of photography. My only thought is that the highlights on her right hand finger tips and the top of her right thigh are (perhaps) a tad bright. The fingers in particular pull a bit.

[Dave A]

Outstanding image. I agree with John's comment.

Dave

[Manfred M]

That is a brilliant image. Wonderfully lit.

I confess to struggling to understand why photographing models, clothed or otherwise, gives any satisfaction. This image completely changes that perception.

Funny Donald, I've heard people make the same comment about landscapes.

I remember one person walking up to me and asking why I bothered to shoot a scene that had been taken many times before and suggested I follow her lead and buy post cards of the site as they were done by outstanding photographers. Needless to say my response was somewhat diplomatic and I did not say what I really wanted to...

That being said, what I have been trying to work on in my photography is to work on the emotional impact that my work has on the viewers (essentially the mood that is created by the image, the impact it has on the viewer, the subject matter (nudes often seem to work better than non-nudes) and using an imaginative approach). I have found that viewers tend to have a stronger emotional reaction to images that feature people or animals than with landscapes.

I really started to shoot people again about 18 months ago to strengthen my street photography and to give something to work on during the winter. In some ways, I am now at a point where I do an equal amount of people shots and other forms of photography.

[Manfred M]

Thanks Dan. Unfortunately, I'm not quite as happy with most of the other images I took last night, but there are a few that show promise.

[Manfred M]

Thanks for the comment John and Dave.

I did play around with dodging and burning some of the areas, especially the hand and leg and that is seen in the posted image.

At this point I like the light hand and fingers because it catches the viewer's eye and leads the view down the arm, but I am still thinking about the best way to finish this shot. The hand was closest to the light source, so I do find having it be brightest there makes sense, but I am still debating the degree of brightness. In fact it was very bright and noticeable during the shoot.

I'm planning to run it past a few other experienced photographers this evening during my printing course to get some more input.

Stay tuned; there may be a revision coming...

[Shadowman]

Nicely done.

[FootLoose]

Good composition, Manfred. This is the kind of image I think of when I think of nude photography.

[mugge]

That is a brilliant image. Wonderfully lit.

I confess to struggling to understand why photographing models, clothed or otherwise, gives any satisfaction. This image completely changes that perception.

Donald, have a look at Bill Henson, a somewhat controversal photographer for sure but a good one too.

[mugge]

Manfred, I think this is your best effort (so far) at nude photography.
Cheers Ole

[billtils]

Add me to the wow! group, with a big +1 to all the above.

[James G]

Manfred, as you know I'm rather in the same camp as Donald when it comes to this genre, but, this latest image is amazing....the contouring you have achieved, is for me at least, a masterpiece of lighting and form.

[Manfred M]

I've added a new version working on the "issues" identified by John and Dave...

It's posted just below the first version. Opening it up in Lightbox and toggling the view is a good way to see what the changes have done for the image.

[Donald]

Ole, above, suggested I look at the work of Bill Henson. I just have. What is the same between his work and Manfred's above, is that the model is photographed against a plain dark background. That seems to be a key point that when matched with lighting that emphasises the form and shape of the body, that makes the image so beguiling to me.

[Donald]

I though the second version, above, was an earlier 'working' version. But are you saying this is what you've done after the first image?i

The reason I ask is because I don't see the second version holding a candle to the first one. The camera left leg is a case in point. The shadows are much softer and it loses the form and shape present in the first image. A comment was made about highlights being too bright. They're not blown and whilst the shadow is deeper, so the highlights are brighter. That is what is making the first version so successful in my view.

[John 2]

Second version for me. The main factor was that the highlights on the hand drew my eye there initially before the rest of the image, not that the highlights were blown. That is not the case any more - for me.

[billtils]

The original posted image for me. The hand highlights are not blown and it comes down to whether or not the individual feels the lighter area at the top draws the eye away from the main content. For me, even if the eye goes there first, it does not stop but travels down the arm and into the body. The first version also has a more appealing tonal range.

If there is any "opportunity for improvement" it could be the other hand, where the hand and fingers look a bit on the soft side.

[Manfred M]

Thanks for the feedback. I like the hand in the first one and need to go in the direction of the leg in the second one, but to a lesser extent. The 2nd edit evens out the tonality and that is not necessarily a good thing.

I used a technique called "chiaroscuro" where I deliberately created areas of darkness and areas of light. This technique was developed in painting during the Italian Renaissance and has made its way into photography as well.

Ole, I looked up Bill Henson and controversy aside, his images also exhibit his use of chiaroscuro as well. Other things I noted is the dark background and the flatness of his subjects (I assume long focal lengths in his portraiture).

I'm likely to tweak the image one more time and it will likely be a lot more along the lines of the original. In my mind, I liked the bright hand as the whole shot reminded me a bit of a lighthouse, with the bright light at the top and a more triangular structure toward the ground.