The New Photographers - Showing off my camera...

semi-ambivalent said:

Stone,I certainly wasn't being cruel or disrespectful, and I bet if you filtered Mustafa's comments through your history of his comments you'd see he wasn't being cruel or disrespectful either. In vastly different times and places (like, e.g., Berlin in the 1920s) people did some crazy things (by our time's metric) to survive. This is the risk one takes when one puts an image out there for others to see. If your model (and you still, I think, haven't mentioned if she was just the model or the photographer, or give her credit if she was) is worried about that then she shouldn't put the image out there.The "problem" with nudes is that their history goes back so far that the bar has been raised extraordinarily high for this kind of imagery. That's why I commented only on its technical merit as I saw it. As artistic image, or statement, or exploration, I find it empty. Sorry. (I'm also really bugged by the visible label on the panties. But that's just my being fed up with product placement saturation.)s-a

Click to expand...

No I didn't think you were being disrespectful, and also I agree that label bugs me, but what bugs more is Photoshop so I refuse to take it out.I thought I was clear, but I guess I wasn't, she "the model" is a normally a photographer, however in this case she was modeling for me, this is my photograph that I took of her. She does not want to be named or recognized in the photo, hence why it is not her whole body and just the lovely behind. As with anything like you said, sometimes the problem with nudes is that they are taken out of context, and order associated with you as a person when you as a person are not necessarily representative of that particular image, or how different people might perceive that image. Anyway for her own protection, her name is not going to be mentioned nor will I ever tell anyone whom it is because she doesn't want others to know. But she has given me permission to post it here. Mostly because it's supposed to be a professional kind of area with professional people who have respect for film and four imagery, and also because not many if anybody that she would ever know would be on here, she is a digital shooter and most of the people she knows are ton a sidenote, this was not supposed to be some kind of fancy artistic image nor was it supposed to be something that made a point or had some kind of artistic vision, it was just supposed to be a fun picture of my camera and a beautiful behind, so I don't know if "empty" is the right word because it's not supposed to have any meaning, it's just supposed to be a fun image. I'm not offended by the word empty, it in itself could be perceived as an empty image with no depth etc., but again it's just meant to be in fun, if you can appreciate that this image is fun, you're either not interested in women's behind, or have a very very tiny libido

A very nice back but she must have cold it looks like;--))Cheers Armin

StoneNYC said:

On a sidenote, this was not supposed to be some kind of fancy artistic image nor was it supposed to be something that made a point or had some kind of artistic vision, it was just supposed to be a fun picture of my camera and a beautiful behind, so I don't know if "empty" is the right word because it's not supposed to have any meaning, it's just supposed to be a fun image.

Click to expand...

Tag... you're it...

Ken Nadvornick said:

StoneNYC said:

On a sidenote, this was not supposed to be some kind of fancy artistic image nor was it supposed to be something that made a point or had some kind of artistic vision, it was just supposed to be a fun picture of my camera and a beautiful behind, so I don't know if "empty" is the right word because it's not supposed to have any meaning, it's just supposed to be a fun image.

Click to expand...

Tag... you're it...

Click to expand...

Haha! Ken are you referring to the gun photo? Haha guns are (usually) more dangerous than butts LOL and I don't have kids holding the butt in the photo LOL still funny

Stone- It is a beautiful behind... I also understand the decision to protect her anonymity. I often do nudes without showing the model's face. Sometimes, when people see a face, they subconsciously infer personality traits, based on facial characteristics. Without showing a face, the figure becomes more universal (if that makes any sense). As for the photo, aside from the tag (a detail everyone misses, once), I wish the glove-like thing, on her left arm, had the same density as the one on her right arm. For some reason, her pose reminds me of a bird getting ready to fly off a perch. I think that birdlike imagery would have been better without your camera in it. Still, I looked at it a few times, so...

eddie said:

Stone- It is a beautiful behind... I also understand the decision to protect her anonymity. I often do nudes without showing the model's face. Sometimes, when people see a face, they subconsciously infer personality traits, based on facial characteristics. Without showing a face, the figure becomes more universal (if that makes any sense). As for the photo, aside from the tag (a detail everyone misses, once), I wish the glove-like thing, on her left arm, had the same density as the one on her right arm. For some reason, her pose reminds me of a bird getting ready to fly off a perch. I think that birdlike imagery would have been better without your camera in it. Still, I looked at it a few times, so...

Click to expand...

Yeah that's a product the glove thing I mean, of the fact that my strobe and lightbox had some flair on the lens, it's an accident that I make only with this particular lens, it's a macro lens and I hadn't switch from that lens to my standard 50 mm lens and so I ended up having a little fogging from the side, it certainly would be much much less in the blacks or rather the blacks it be much blacker if I hadn't had the lens flare, Oh well, anyway I kind of like the lens flare, but agree it would be nice if the glove were less grey.

khendrick, why on earth did you do that? That was a beautiful picture. The APUG gallery is not a competition. This chick may have a nice ass (despite the sloppy misplaced label and the mesh-stocking leftover imprint - Stone, if you really want to make a living in this space you have to look out for shit like this) but I don't see how that has anything with your fine portrait, photoshopped as it may have been.

pbromaghin said:

khendrick, why on earth did you do that? That was a beautiful picture. The APUG gallery is not a competition. This chick may have a nice ass (despite the sloppy misplaced label and the mesh-stocking leftover imprint - Stone, if you really want to make a living in this space you have to look out for shit like this) but I don't see how that has anything with your fine portrait.

Click to expand...

What I'm sad about is I never saw this other image so I don't know what I missed!

Stone, it was very natural, an attractive young lady, just sitting on a stool being herself. Beautifully simple. He did a bit of photoshopping to attract attention to her eyes, simulating tilt of the easel that would throw other parts of the photo out of focus.

pbromaghin said:

Stone, it was very natural, an attractive young lady, just sitting on a stool being herself. Beautifully simple. He did a bit of photoshopping to attract attention to her eyes, simulating tilt of the easel that would throw other parts of the photo out of focus.

Click to expand...

Hey prbomaghin; know your basics ! the shot was taken with a Rolleiflex sl66se, those baby's have TILT aboard no PS But thanks for the compliment. Most of my models are around 15; I have to convince them "this" is a safe site to show their faces. Oh and btw this discussion has nothing to do with cultural background or age, just bad taste. thanks