ART NUDES - Denisa Strakova with scarf

[James G]

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.

I was going to sit on the sidelines but I think I've just been 'nudged' to be intellectually 'honest' with myself, and to make a generalised observation about this genre that does make me more than a little uncomforable, and which relates directly to Wendy's view about objectification.

Quite simply, where is the 'equivalent' treatment of males?

I have seen a number of 'themed' exhibitions and articles over the last couple of years that looked to male rather than female forms, (Silvershots springs to mind), but in general?

I am also minded to think back over the various photographic exhibitions (amateur and not amateur ) that I have attended of the last few years and although I have clear memories of submissions involving nudity, I cannot remember any of male subjects.

[Stagecoach]

I have clear memories of submissions involving nudity, I cannot remember any of male subjects.

I wonder if the reason for this James is partly influenced by the ratio between male and female photographers? I'm not suggesting this would be the main reason.

[rpcrowe]

James G. wrote: "Quite simply, where is the 'equivalent' treatment of males?"

I am making a very quick assumption based on absolutely no research except my general viewing of paintings and sculpture that has been created throughout history but, generally, IMO, the nude female form has been painted and sculpted in a far greater frequency than the nude male form (with the possible exception of Greek sculpture).

Perhaps, men enjoy the female form better than they enjoy the male form, while females are not, generally, enthralled with the nude male form... As a result just of the numbers involved, more humans like the female form than the male form. I could be wrong about this but, I don't think so.

[Manfred M]

If I look at the number of models I have met over the past year or so that work in the area, I've run into a total of 2 and I do not know if they do nude shoots. I have met well over 100 (probably closer to 200) women that model. The market here for male models is minuscule. When I go through my photo shoots, I've easily shot 70 or 80, most of them were not nudes.

Would I shoot male nudes? Yes, given the opportunity, but that has not happened yet.

[Manfred M]

I wonder if the reason for this James is partly influenced by the ratio between male and female photographers? I'm not suggesting this would be the main reason.

I have definitely been at photo shoots with both male and female photographers where nudes were shot. Generally there is no more than one, but I do remember one shoot where there were two women at a shoot with a nude female model.

[george013]

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.

Manfred is shooting with a photoclub. He's coming at a location where the models are. With no or nearly no influence in that. The models are "well trained", his argument, doing their own acts. Don't sell that as "Art Nude". And don't compare that with the artists he mentions. The main difference is that those artist he mentioned have an idea that must be fulfilled with a location of their choice and acts of their choice. The finger on the camera is of less importance.
The pictures are what they are: finger practice. Nothing wrong with that and he succeeded well.

Manfred,
There's no objection using burst mode and manual focus or pre-focus as you mention it.

George

[James G]

I wonder if the reason for this James is partly influenced by the ratio between male and female photographers? I'm not suggesting this would be the main reason.

To a degree I am, But that is not really why I chose to post. I've already commented in earlier post on this subject that it is not a genre I have tried. In general though, I have absolutely no issues with nudity, or the portrayal of body form.


I was, many years ago, (wet chemistry days of photography), very interested in trying to photograph the body, both still and in motion, but I was quite frankly incompetant at it and have never really gone back to it.

I had a friend who has since died, but she had been a ballerina with the Royal Ballet, and later taught dance. I had many conversations with her and her friends male about dance, and I suppose the visualisation/presentation/concept of beauty through motion and through stillnes. And it was these conversations that prompted me to try capturing dance.
One strand of those conversations definitely related to the tension/differences between males and females, in dance/motion, and how that can be best portrayed.

I observed as a complete side issue that both sexes had no hangups about either nudity, partial nudity, it was all simply about the dance, and whether nudity 'informed' it or not.

As regards still life , for me it is has always been about about form and the way the body is lit.
I guess that photography in one sense does not require life classes to learn how to depict the body, though if I were to take up this genre seriously, I think I would want to try a few sessions.

So back to Wendy's comment. Whether the specific word 'objectivise' or another is used I stll think that there is an 'imbalance' given that there is such a preponderance of female nude photography, and I personally see a dissonance with that when compared to other areas of the arts where nudity 'occurs'.

I do take Manfred's point about the availability of male as opposed to female models and the fact that men seem to significantly outnumber women in our hobby, but for me, I cannot help 'suspecting' there is an issue.

Given the nature of this forum, and what I consider to be the open and generous approach of the members to each other and those who are 'new' to photography I do believe that this is a place where this kind of topic can be explored honestly and respectfully.
Something I hope will continue.

[pschlute]

I would be the first to say I like a lot of Manfred's work better than these (not because they are nude), but what strikes me about 2 and 3 is the prominent ribs and outstretched arms reminds me of a crucifixion artwork. I like them.

[Manfred M]

Manfred is shooting with a photoclub. He's coming at a location where the models are. With no or nearly no influence in that. The models are "well trained", his argument, doing their own acts. Don't sell that as "Art Nude". And don't compare that with the artists he mentions. The main difference is that those artist he mentioned have an idea that must be fulfilled with a location of their choice and acts of their choice. The finger on the camera is of less importance.
The pictures are what they are: finger practice. Nothing wrong with that and he succeeded well.

Manfred,
There's no objection using burst mode and manual focus or pre-focus as you mention it.

George

Yes and no George.

Some of my nudes were shot at the photo club studio, which is an excellent venue for that type of work. Some of my favourite shots were taken there. The models we shoot there are often locals, they are not necessarily doing this type of work more than occasionally. Much of the shooting there is not nudes. In most of these shoots, we usually get a number of photographers together to share costs of renting the studio and hiring the model(s). Shooting for three or four hours straight is not easy, but breaking the shoot up among three or four photographer works well.

I also shoot with a number of groups that set up model shoots. One of the groups does do shoots in interesting locations that are not in a studio setting. Two of the others do nudes in a studio setting, but often with more of a specialized approaches, including light painting, projection, etc. using both nude and non-nude models.

The group is shoot most with is one run through a MeetUp site. Here there is a great variety of settings which are not necessarily model shoots. We will get together to shoot car races, nature and other events and also model shoots that include nude and non-nude models. This is the group where I met and shot a number of male models. This group also has contacts with travelling models that are from out of town and out of the country. This shoot with Denisa was organized by that group.

The issue with group shoots is that the skill level of the model can range from very experienced, like Denisa to beginners. The settings vary from studio to on location. Sometimes the locations can be really interesting, especially if they are in old abandoned buildings or in purpose built spaces like a gym, other times they are less interesting and more challenging to work with, like the field in this shoot.

The problem with burst mode is my camera runs at 5 frames / second, so in my experience I have had better success anticipating the action and taking a single shot works better than burst. The pre-focus is also important as the additional fraction of a second to get focus lock usually means having missed the shot.

[mugge]

Just my two cent worth. Under clothing we are all naked. Oh my! How terrible!
Cheers Ole

[ucci]

You know Manfred, having read the replies above, don't you sometimes wonder why you ever bothered to out of bed some mornings? To paraphase the old saying Manfred, it would seem that " No nudes is good news."

I must admit to losing a bit of interest in the volumes of esoterica posted as I tried to wade through it. At times I almost felt I had fallen off a photographic review site and some how ended up in the middle of an anti misogynist discussion. Seemed to me that feedback critiques on Manfred's posts were a trifle biased by personal social attitudes rather than being objective comments on the technical merits of his post.
And Wendy, women are to be totally respected. No argument from me on that. But I wonder maybe if they had not been objectified a smidgen over the years the human race may well have died out many eons ago through a lack of interest.

Okay, in all honesty, Manfred's 'dancing diva' was not my cup of tea. And so I have little interest in it. Personal taste. And I am sure that my posts equally do not always engage Manfred's enthusiasm.

Have to be less than objective and be a bit subjective in that I fully agree with a comment expressed above, almost as an aside. Manfred, I just hope you treated Denisa to damned good feed after the shoot. She looks a bit undernourished. But given her profession maybe this is another wretched example of women with self imposed objectifying with 'model's syndrome' in order to have a successful career in a rather tough business?

So I reckon by now I will have offended just about everyone in CIC, possibly even Manfred and Denisa, with few if any friends left. But seeing as in 4 months I will be 80 years of age and well past my use by date my response to any ruffled feathers arising from my comments above is, "Tough bananas."

[Donald]

So I reckon by now I will have offended just about everyone in CIC, possibly even Manfred and Denisa, with few if any friends left.

There will always be a soft spot for you in Scotland!

Hope you and yours are all well

[pnodrog]

As presented it makes little difference to me if the subject is nude or clothed. I find the competing background (mix of sky and bush/trees) far too distracting. Only when the setting (and to a limited extent lighting) is less intrusive would I start seriously analyzing the merits or otherwise of the actual subject.

[Manfred M]

Ken - my route into shooting nudes is a bit strange and not all together straight forward.

It started when I started working on my national judging certification. As a photographic judge, one is required to judge all different photographic genres and one should have at least a working knowledge of them in order to be a competent judge. Many people suggest that nudes are the most challenging form of portraiture, so I thought I should familiarize myself with that aspect of photography. Doing a nude well is indeed not easy, in my experience. I do find that shooting nudes has made me a much stronger portait photographer.

The other reason is that a well done image needs three key “ingredients”; solid technical work, strong use of space and an emotional impact on the viewer. Of the three ingredients, emotional impact is the most challenging one and the one missing in most people’s images. As one can see from some of the postings, nudes do create a very strong emotional impact from many people. That is one of the reasons why this photographic genre is so popular. Negative emotions tend to be stronger than positive ones.

Part of the reason that I have posted nudes on occasion is to try to get people to take this aspect of photography more seriously and to get them to understand their own biases. People at a photography site should be able to put their personal prejudices aside and look at any image and judge it purely as an image. That is something that’s not easy to do. Based on the comments here, I still have some way to go in creating strong on outdoor location nudes. With fall just around the corner, I’m going to have to leave this to next year.

[billtils]

Ken - my route into shooting nudes is a bit strange and not all together straight forward.

Manfred

Thank you for posting this. In addition to giving us a glimpse of the person behind "Manfred the Moderator", it is (to me) an excellent account of your nude journey, and makes excellent points about the genre.

If I may make a couple of personal asides:

The genre: I do have an interest in portraiture because of how it can capture what's behind the person, and find that although one can appreciate the flow and beauty of nude art (male as well as female) I have never felt it tells a story in the same way.

The male/female discussion: This comment also links to your "because I am a judge" element. Probably the most impressive judge I have encountered in my local camera club is a woman whose portfolio includes nude and semi-nude female models. So yes, it is a genre with a preponderance of male photographers and female models, but that doesn't mean that all those who participate in it skilfully and decently should be classified as "creeps with cameras".

[rpcrowe]

Here is a personal taste and just my pinion.

In nudes or partial nudes, I kind of prefer a figure that is less angular and more rounded. Not quite Ruebenesque but, not quite as thin as many clothes horse models are.

The general advertising industry seems to go along with my general tastes in that matter. For fashion models, it seems that the thinner is the better as long as the posture is good and the lady is tall. However that type of figure is not what the Lingerie Industry looks for in a model to wear their frilly products.

This may be objectifying women but that's both my opinion and the opinion of an industry that spends millions each year in photos advertising their products.

[george013]

An election poster from 1971. Nearly half a century ago. I just picked them from somewhere.
It says "disarming"


An answer of a feminist group. Saying "unveiling"


It's not the presence of nude that bothers me. It's more the way it's brought here. The pictures are finger experiences, how to get experience with some setup, camera etc. Playing with the camera.

George

[Hanginon]

As presented it makes little difference to me if the subject is nude or clothed. I find the competing background (mix of sky and bush/trees) far too distracting. Only when the setting (and to a limited extent lighting) is less intrusive would I start seriously analyzing the merits or otherwise of the actual subject.

I agree with this 100%. If she was clothed, this would almost be just another snap shot - harsh (mid day ?) lighting with a distracting background. I would like to have seen these with the sun behind her, reflector or flash fill, and a blurred/washed out background.

Re-reading this, I'm sure this comes across as extremely critical, but IMHO I'm doing you a disservice otherwise.

[Manfred M]

I agree with this 100%. If she was clothed, this would almost be just another snap shot - harsh (mid day ?) lighting with a distracting background. I would like to have seen these with the sun behind her, reflector or flash fill, and a blurred/washed out background.

Re-reading this, I'm sure this comes across as extremely critical, but IMHO I'm doing you a disservice otherwise.

Thanks for the comments. The shots were taken in the late afternoon (4:00 PM - 6:00 PM) using a Godox AD360 studio flash using 1.2m diameter parabolic softbox positioned about 2m away from the model, just outside the edge of the frame.

You are not doing me a dis-service at all, but your analysis of the equipment I used and shooting parameters are definitely off. I’m not 100% happy with the location and final results, but was satisfied enough to post them.

[Hanginon]

The shots were taken in the late afternoon (4:00 PM - 6:00 PM) using a Godox AD360 studio flash using 1.2m diameter parabolic softbox positioned about 2m away from the model, just outside the edge of the frame.

You are right - I'm off. Given the time of day and equipment, I'm surprised you couldn't totally over power the ambient light.