Jules #1 B&W

Just another dirty picture.

thanks for the kind word it is apreciated

Bill, is it the picture or the intent that is dirty?

I have hated this picture from the day it was posted. So, why am I commenting? Because it is up for critique, I have the time and I have lost my patience.


This IS NOT a figure study. It has nothing to do with the natural beauty or movements of the body. If you consider the nudes of Steiglitz, E. Weston, Callahan, or even Sturges, all the pictures come out of being connected with the PEOPLE photographed.


This here is an attempt at a "glamour shot". The MODEL is stiff looking and plastic feeling. You have done nothing to show this woman as an independent, feeling, thinking, breathing person. The fact that many call this an "image" (like it is the image of a woman) further depersonalizes the photograph (and the person in it). Where are the feminists screaming about this (sexual) objectification of women? Why does most everyone here see this as beautiful? Why does the model tolerate it?


Thomassauerwein, what are "all the right components of a great image"? And, where are they here?


"the Image is to be an Amazonic studie if you will not meant a glamour or such but rather a contrast in myscke tone and thr textures on the rock stair case" (this is so hard to read) . . .


How is it an "Amazonic study"? What does that really mean?(I see no spear, sword, or animal skins) How can it be a contrast of skin tone (or muscle tone) and rock when you keep our attention on her outstretched legs (what do high heels have to do with this so called contrast?) and her breasts that are thrown high (indicating that is what we are supposed to be looking at)?