on nude photography.
- Started
- Last post
- 44 Responses
- kult0
...What?
- dbloc0
...huh?
- pumpaction0
Perhaps posting pics would help
- bigtrick0
ok, in simpler terms: is it true that guys taking pictures of naked people for "art" purposes are just hiding their boner behind their camera? all evidence points to yes.
- moniker0
I think you have to understand what makes a subject desirable in order to cast it in a good light. So yes i think you (the photographer) should be attracted to the model in one way or another in order to make the viewer believe your concept.
- And whatever the particular attraction is to a given model will project itself to the photo.Continuity
- Excellent points /threadLillebo
- lukus_W0
If you only take photos of unattractive naked people, the problem would be solved maybe?
- locustsloth0
It's probably due more to stigmas attached to the actual activity of photographing someone who is nude. The assumption that you will be perceived as gay if you're a guy photographing another guy.
Plus, i don't hear about a lot of women photographers shooting guys. The male genitalia are just not photogenic- speak for yourself. I'm an Adonismoniker
- Adrian Adonis, maybelocustsloth
- http://1.bp.blogspot…locustsloth
- < had a beautiful wangmoniker
- *fires up BBQ*juhls
- SrSamaurai0
you should start off with self portraits and then figure it out from there
- moniker0
I find myself appreciating male imagery more and more these days. I think it's because of the saturation of female photos that are bombarded at me on a minute to minute basis through both the internet and in other media. it's almost become cliche, like how people don't appreciate a shot of a famous landmark anymore, because they've been shot to death.
Now whether or not that's the case with most non-photographer consumers I doubt it, but in my case, certainly.- this is where you call me gay >moniker
- It's true.juhls
- you single?locustsloth
- err... i mean... GAY!! GAYLORD!!! HOMOMOMOMO!!!!
(call me)locustsloth
- juhls0
I would think yes, unless you're specifically doing a project about different body types or ages, etc. You want that "interest" factor in your models, hoping that it will make the outcome better. Some photo sets are blatantly more sexual though, and I imagine the answer would be a resounding "yes" in those cases.
Statistically-speaking, there is a higher number of females who are comfortable with and attracted to the female body compared to men and their level of comfort with the male body (especially if it's not their own).
- scarabin0
if it's good enough for the camera, it's good enough for me™
- rotten.com ?locustsloth
- I suppose the difference between artistic photography and porn is a lighting class away.moniker
- bigtrick0
i tried to cast male models for a nude male photo series a year or so ago. i had no idea what sort of pictures would result, but i wanted to try it. i'm not gay - and thusly somewhat revolted by seeing naked frank'n'beans - so it would have been interesting to see what sort of pictures i could take.
it never worked out. maybe i'll try again.
- moniker0
It is possible to find someone of the same sex attractive without wanting to drill his anus out. i mean if you hired some bum off the street and tried to do a nude shoot, you aren't going to succeed in making a pretty image. At least not easily. I would think having an attractive male model certainly helps things along.
- iCanHasQBN0
this thread disappoints.
- No. QBN disappoints. Normally within 3 posts there are "chick of the day" links.Gucci
- Douglas0
Dunno... I think it might be worth digging deeper into art photography beyond Mapplethorpe. I'm not very good in photo history, but even popular photographers like Sally Mann, Ryan McGinley, and Larry Clark just photograph Young Sexuality in general... no preference male or female. Of course those dudes from the late 70's&80's like Arthur Tress who lean gay, and today's Terry Richardson's who are all about the girls, but I think there are probably plenty who go both ways... photographically speaking.
- BusterBoy0
-----> NSFW
- Frosty_spl0
The difference between porn and art?
The lighting.
- lukus_W0
Even if a large part of what the work is communicating is sexual, there's no given that you need to find the subject sexually attractive.
If you are photographing your subject in order to titillate the viewer, you are probably aiming to create either erotica or pornography.
It's possible to photograph a nude / and or sexual acts, without aiming to titillate the viewer.
In all cases, the relationship between the photographer and the subject is probably important - because the photographer is showing the viewer a specific point of view, which originated from his/her mind.
It's possible to completely objectify / abstract the form of the human body without sexualising it.