"Personally, I believe there is sufficient ugliness in the world without me adding to it.."
can't an image of a Challenger be beautiful? does it have to be ugly?
I have moved from being a Celebrationist (I still celebrate the female form) into being more of a challenger.
However, I doesn't seem to be able to make "ugly" images.. (or so I am told).
where does that leave me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gandolfi
How should photographers work with models in the studio? Many, if not most, people have an opinion on this. I don’t know whether there’s a “correct” way of working.....
you continue: "as both of them are comfortable with it and they trust each other."
that's true of course. I think the "correct" way of working with a model is simply (not easily done) to be honest.
If you're honest, you can do about anything with the model, because there is no hidden agenda.
which makes it easier for the model to be comfortable.....
Hi Emil,
I wasn’t trying to imply that “Celebrationist” and “Challenger” are mutually exclusive, just that the more someone celebrates the less they tend to challenge and vice versa (the more they challenge the less they celebrate). I must say that your work is very, very beautiful, and photos like Sad Angel raise lots of questions. But I don’t find the same level of challenge as I do with Mapplethorpe’s X portfolio which, in my opinion, is very far over on the Challenger side of the scale. That leads me to the thought that one person’s Celebrationist may be another’s Challenger… Does that make sense?
On your other thought about working with models... You’ve hit the nail on the head – the correct way to work with a model is to be honest, totally honest. Now I come to think of it, probably all the horror stories that models have told me are about dishonesty, hidden agendas, or breach of trust. Thank you. And now I need to work out how to re-write / update that section
Curtis, you have an unusual and very challenging life story which has given you a unique perspective on life. If you want to discuss this, have your photographs critiqued, and contribute to APUG then there’s a right way to do it and a wrong way. The right way is to start your own threads in the forums and subscribe to APUG so you can use the galleries. The wrong way is to hijack article discussions. Please use the right way.
my view is very simple, I feel a nude is a study of the form weather it be light over the form, the texture of the form the shape of the form etc. however one must read carefully into the realm of nudes and always make sure the image appears as though the nude is a consenting study, for too easily can an image be misconstrued.
I feel photographs of the nude can become photographs of the naked and that the key difference between a photograph of the nude and a photograph of the naked is when a sense of subject vulnerability, photographer / viewer voyeuristic intrusiveness and subject dis consent is introduced into the image.
Both images have their merits in appropriate grounds and may warrant praise. However I feel too often both realms
can slip into the Why factor? cliché images often draw me to this thinking, and all i am able to settle upon is reasons of a less tasteful nature.
my point is I think the defining of an image is essential before its construction and its exhibition must be carefully chosen when it is of The Nude and The naked or it may find itself in the pits of porn.
Last edited by Stephen Frizza; 02-04-2008 at 01:54 AM.
I feel photographs of the nude can become photographs of the naked… (snip) Both images have their merits in appropriate grounds and may warrant praise. However I feel too often both realms can slip into the Why factor? cliché images often draw me to this thinking, and all i am able to settle upon is reasons of a less tasteful nature.
Cliché, the bane of all art… The world is awash with “me too” imagery and with photos where the photographer believes they’ve created art just because they’ve made a picture of a beautiful subject (though mostly they’ve just managed to make a beautiful subject look mundane).
Eddie Ephraums has said that every photographer should be able to sum up their guiding principles in three words (see Ag #50 for a very interesting and though provoking article). My three words are Explore, Reveal and Celebrate. Knowing my purpose helps me avoid cliché (or at least, I hope it does ).
But I’m inclined to be more generous about why people make clichéd images: all violin makers can make violins, but only Stradivarius could make a Stradivarius.
this thread has unfortunately been hijacked into something other than the content of your article.
that's a pity, as there are many things to discuss.
I have two small "issues" (I am not so fluent in english, so bear with my simple wordings..)
"Personally, I believe there is sufficient ugliness in the world without me adding to it.."
can't an image of a Challenger be beautiful? does it have to be ugly?
I have moved from being a Celebrationist (I still celebrate the female form) into being more of a challenger.
However, I doesn't seem to be able to make "ugly" images.. (or so I am told).
where does that leave me?
I don't like the horndog/robot labels... mostly because I have no idea what a horndog is.....
"Nudes and the Model
How should photographers work with models in the studio? Many, if not most, people have an opinion on this. I don’t know whether there’s a “correct” way of working.....
First: having had numerous discussions about this with models, I "always" miss the point of view of the model!
as a photographer, we assume, we do it right. which doesn't mean we do it right.
you continue: "as both of them are comfortable with it and they trust each other."
that's true of course. I think the "correct" way of working with a model is simply (not easily done) to be honest.
If you're honest, you can do about anything with the model, because there is no hidden agenda.
which makes it easier for the model to be comfortable.....
when I finally make my book on nude photography (if ever), then I have promised my self a whole chapter in that book on how it looks from the models perspective..
does this make sense?
regards
emil
Emil- the "horndog" label was an attempt at putting a bit of a humorous spin on the label. A "horndog" is a (usually) man who allows his sexual response to a subject to overpower all other responses. Perhaps then the better label pairing is "sexual/clinical". Does that make the continuum I spoke of make more sense?
To me "horndog" implies a lack of control or a conscious attempt to manipulate. What your describing Emil is honesty, openness and self awareness - not characteristics that I'd apply to "horndog".
I've done few "personal" nude studies, but quite a few commissions for individuals who, for various reasons want nude B&W photographs of themselves. I frankly find these very difficult sessions because there is a very fine line between "evocative" and "provocative." Clients
I think it's essential that there be an honesty between the photographer and model - nude or not - otherwise any uncomfortableness, (different to discomfort!) is clearly evident in the eyes.
I usually give the negs to the model as a form of adding comfort. None of them figure in my portfolio as, for commissions at least, I believe that while I may well have the legal rights to the images I should not ethically show these photographs to others. In fact I think a photographer should never display or show images that may embarrass a subject. This does not apply to photojournalism, of course; although even here I believe that the photographer should exercise some integrity.
FWIW
Bob
__________________ "Silver is a precious metal; silicon is just sand!"
I've done few "personal" nude studies, but quite a few commissions for individuals who, for various reasons want nude B&W photographs of themselves. I frankly find these very difficult sessions because there is a very fine line between "evocative" and "provocative." Clients
I think it's essential that there be an honesty between the photographer and model - nude or not - otherwise any uncomfortableness, (different to discomfort!) is clearly evident in the eyes.
I usually give the negs to the model as a form of adding comfort. None of them figure in my portfolio as, for commissions at least, I believe that while I may well have the legal rights to the images I should not ethically show these photographs to others. In fact I think a photographer should never display or show images that may embarrass a subject. This does not apply to photojournalism, of course; although even here I believe that the photographer should exercise some integrity.
FWIW
Bob
Bob -
I agree and disagree with what you're saying. As far as my nude work in general (and I think I can speak for Ian on this count as well), my models are fully cognizant of the fact that this work is being done to show in a public forum. I do give them my assurances that I will not place it in a forum that they might find distasteful or inappropriate.
As far as commissioned work goes, I don't give away the negatives because I would not want my work being reproduced during my lifetime in a way that might discredit me, either through mis-placement or through poor reproduction. I also would not want clients who ask for me to shoot them, and ask for the negatives begging privacy, to turn around and sell those images without proper credit and compensation (this has happened before!). As to boudoir or other kinds of "edgy" work that someone might commission, of course I would ask permission from the subject to include said work in a portfolio, but if it was a service I wanted to sell, I'd not give away any and all rights to the work in such a way that I could not use it to promote (discreetly) the service. Maybe in a book form only that is shown to clients in face-to-face meetings. Maybe on a password-protected website (most likely not though). Regardless, it would have to be model-released to show it to anyone, but I'd always ask for the release. Your work does you no good if you can't use it to get more work.
I agree and disagree with what you're saying. As far as my nude work in general (and I think I can speak for Ian on this count as well), my models are fully cognizant of the fact that this work is being done to show in a public forum. I do give them my assurances that I will not place it in a forum that they might find distasteful or inappropriate.
Yes, all my published models are paid and have signed releases. Useage on the Internet is explicitly stated in my release and I've never had a model query this.
I have done a small number of "commissioned" nudes (some with and some without releases). But these, by their very nature, shall remain private. I still keep the negs though.
Linear Mode
