NUDE - Randi Rouge

[Manfred M]

This is a nude I did of Randi Rouge in November. This was a short series involving some props that I had not worked on previously. I'm very happy the way this one came out.

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured.

[Tom Barry]

Excellent use of light. The black background is perfect for this shot.

[Hanginon]

Agree with all above, plus her hair is absolutely gorgeous! Who styled it?

[rpcrowe]

Very nice and tasteful nude. One picky comment...

I wonder if asking Randi to place most of her weight on her right buttocks cheek and elevate the left cheek just a tiny bit might not have ended up with a smoother transition between model and chair seat.

[Manfred M]

Very nice and tasteful nude. One picky comment...

I wonder if asking Randi to place most of her weight on her right buttocks cheek and elevate the left cheek just a tiny bit might not have ended up with a smoother transition between model and chair seat.

Photoshop's infamous liquify tool can do that as well. I'm glad you brought this up, as I had been thinking about that and also about adding a bit more curvature to her back. What does this version do for you; I've worked on both the leg transition and the shape of the back.

I generally do not use this tool for this type of work, largely for what I would generally term "ethical reasons" in shots like this. I tend to restrict using it on clothing that bulges or is puckered, but very rarely to change the body shape.






I find that the best way to view the impact of these edits is to open the image in Lightbox and use the forward and backward arrows to transition between the two images. I suspect I might have been a bit too aggressive in the edit.

[Manfred M]

Agree with all above, plus her hair is absolutely gorgeous! Who styled it?

I'll try to remember to ask her when I shoot her next week. I suspect she might do this in her own as I ran into her once at a shopping mall where she works and she had exactly the same hair style then.

[Donald]

What does this version do for you; I've worked on both the leg transition and the shape of the back.

A small, but significant change. The 'evil' liquify tool.

This shows how it can be used sensibly without any intention of fundamentally altering the shape of the model.

[FootLoose]

I think you need to tone down the two bright spots on her left heel.

[Manfred M]

A small, but significant change. The 'evil' liquify tool.

This shows how it can be used sensibly without any intention of fundamentally altering the shape of the model.

While I agree, Donald, there has been so much irrational noise out there regarding the liquefy tool that I usually hesitate to use it on my work. Unfortunately many of the commentators do not seem to have much of an understanding of the topic and make a lot of noise in a totally irresponsible manner.

That being said, I don't blame the advertising industry for how they portray people, even if the end product created through image manipulation is blatantly unrealistic. Their job is to sell the product that they have been hired to sell. I feel that the real failure, especially when it comes to informing impressionable people should be laid clearly on parents and educators who have neglected to teach critical thinking.

We (I?) consistently put Ansel Adams forward as a shining example of someone who made great photographs. His image "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" is one of his most highly regarded and most famous images.






A quick look at a contact print from his original negative shows us just how much Adams changed reality to create his vision.



Adams created scenes that did not exist and we respect him. If a lesser photographer does so, he or she gets condemned for over processing... Humans are pretty hypocritical....

[William W]

Photoshop's infamous [assortment of tools] liquify tool can do that [and do lots more] as well. . . . What does this version do for you; I've worked on both the leg transition and the shape of the back. I generally do not use this tool for this type of work, largely for what I would generally term "ethical reasons" in shots like this. I tend to restrict using it on clothing that bulges or is puckered, but very rarely to change the body shape. . .

The second version appears false.

I write that being reasonably confident that I’d see it, (upon a close inspection) not knowing beforehand that you had edited her L. Thigh. (I'd further guess that I subsequently interrogate the shadow of her L. Thigh on the edge of the chair, just to be more reasonably sure before I made a critique - but it is really all about the false contour of her thigh).

The top of the stocking (the ‘garter’ bit) grabs a woman’s thigh pulling it in to a slightly smaller diameter and toward a more perfect circular shape. In the edited version we lose the soft and elegant contour of the underneath part of the thigh being ‘pulled-in’ to the garter.

Although labelled “Nude”, IMO the genre is less about nude and more toward “Boudoir”: irrespective of any discussion which might ensue debating exactly, to what Genre the image belongs, I think mostly all would agree that the clothing (and hairstyle) have key roles in the Artistic Value of the Final Image. In this regard, and in this case, false is not only a poorer choice, but arguably also one less visually stimulating especially for those who appreciate the value of the elements of very fine detail of the Subject body's form, accented by the chosen clothing.

The added sway to the back is neither here nor there IMO: I think it adds little if anything, but it certainly does not subtract.

Both those comments are devoid of any argument and premise about ‘ethics’, etc.

WW

[rpcrowe]

Manfred...

IMO, you took care of that little thing quite well. I realized it when I didn't notice her buttock as I looked at the image again,

Nice job...

[Manfred M]

The second version appears false.

I write that being reasonably confident that I’d see it, (upon a close inspection) not knowing beforehand that you had edited her L. Thigh. (I'd further guess that I subsequently interrogate the shadow of her L. Thigh on the edge of the chair, just to be more reasonably sure before I made a critique - but it is really all about the false contour of her thigh).

The top of the stocking (the ‘garter’ bit) grabs a woman’s thigh pulling it in to a slightly smaller diameter and toward a more perfect circular shape. In the edited version we lose the soft and elegant contour of the underneath part of the thigh being ‘pulled-in’ to the garter.

Although labelled “Nude”, IMO the genre is less about nude and more toward “Boudoir”: irrespective of any discussion which might ensue debating exactly, to what Genre the image belongs, I think mostly all would agree that the clothing (and hairstyle) have key roles in the Artistic Value of the Final Image. In this regard, and in this case, false is not only a poorer choice, but arguably also one less visually stimulating especially for those who appreciate the value of the elements of very fine detail of the Subject body's form, accented by the chosen clothing.

The added sway to the back is neither here nor there IMO: I think it adds little if anything, but it certainly does not subtract.

Both those comments are devoid of any argument and premise about ‘ethics’, etc.

WW

And a very strange looking Boudoir it is. We covered a bit of the history of that genre during a portraiture masterclass I attended this summer. This form of photography has definitely evolved over the past century.

I suspected I had overdone things with the edit, as per my comments in #6. The effect of pressure on that part of the body will definitely cause some deformation and by removing it, the edit looks false. I had considered burning that part down a bit and might try that approach to see what comes up. The one thing that does catch my eye is a bit of a hot spot near the top of her head, so I'm going to see what that looks like if I burn it down too.

[Donald]

Humans are pretty hypocritical....

Indeed they are.

I always think of this image ("Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico") whenever someone starts up a discussion about the 'merits' of not processing an image and consider themselves proud to display a SOOC image.

[rpcrowe]

IMO... we never considered Ansel Adam's images nor Edmund Weston's images "over processed" until the digital age when "US MORTALS" were able to do this type of processing at the flick of a computer mouse...

However, I have never appreciated "Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico" as an example of a truly magnificent image or even as one of Adam's better images. It has always deemed to me to be an example of "The emperors new suit of clothes."

If this image had been posted by a CiC member, I doubt if it would have received the rave reviews that the Ansel Adams image got...

[Manfred M]

However, I have never appreciated "Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico" as an example of a truly magnificent image or even as one of Adam's better images. It has always deemed to me to be an example of "The emperors new suit of clothes."

Richard I agree 100%. The "experts" continue to tell me that I am wrong.

At one point one of them suggested that the reason I felt this way is that I had been looking at prints rather than an original. I saw an original and did not change my view if this work. Another self-proclaimed expert suggested that I saw a later version of this work and that the earlier versions were much better. I thought not...

[DanK]

I always think of this image ("Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico") whenever someone starts up a discussion about the 'merits' of not processing an image and consider themselves proud to display a SOOC image.

I have used it that way as well.

However, I have never appreciated "Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico" as an example of a truly magnificent image or even as one of Adam's better images. It has always deemed to me to be an example of "The emperors new suit of clothes

If I remember right, he didn't consider it one of his best, but he certainly considered it a good one. In any event, I do think it is a magnificent image. In the case of a photographer as accomplished as Adams, a photograph needn't be one of his best to be very, very good indeed. That opinion has nothing to do with what experts say; I think much of "expert" opinion in photography, as in any art, is tendentious, and some of it is fatuous. I used expert opinions mostly to help me think about aspects of images that I hadn't thought about on my own.

There is another Adams exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston now. I'll be going in two weeks. I don't know whether this will be one of the images displayed, however.