I apologize for posting this before finishing, and when I have time I will complete it, but today's model Sasha had some interesting poses.
This is one example.
View attachment 18948
-bob
This is one example.
View attachment 18948
-bob
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
NSFW: How is this for a pose
- Thread starter Bob
- Start date
R
Ranger 9
Guest
Re: How is this for a pose
Sheesh, half the girls I photograph want to do that pose (we've named it "the spider.") Apparently some big-name ballerina was photographed that way for a magazine or a calendar -- I haven't been able to track down the source image, but seems as if all the dancerettes have seen it. I'm attaching a shot of my friend Katrinka doing it as a gag.
Given that the basic concept of the pose is kind of well-known, I like what you've done with the heavy, moody lighting -- it makes it seem stronger and more serious. That, plus the fact that your model has more cleavage than the average ballet dancer, keeps it out of the realm of cliché -- it has an almost ominous look.
Sheesh, half the girls I photograph want to do that pose (we've named it "the spider.") Apparently some big-name ballerina was photographed that way for a magazine or a calendar -- I haven't been able to track down the source image, but seems as if all the dancerettes have seen it. I'm attaching a shot of my friend Katrinka doing it as a gag.
Given that the basic concept of the pose is kind of well-known, I like what you've done with the heavy, moody lighting -- it makes it seem stronger and more serious. That, plus the fact that your model has more cleavage than the average ballet dancer, keeps it out of the realm of cliché -- it has an almost ominous look.
D
ddk
Guest
Re: How is this for a pose
What's up with the clothing Bob? I thought that you preferred au natural like me!:thumbup:
I like the pose but the lighting isn't working for me on this one.
What's up with the clothing Bob? I thought that you preferred au natural like me!:thumbup:
I like the pose but the lighting isn't working for me on this one.
Re: How is this for a pose
I post nudes and nobody peeps,
So I post one with clothing and now you complain? sheesh!
Well, I thought I would try something different.
I have been playing lately with side and rim lighting, so that is how I was set up.
What lighting would you have preferred?
-bob
I post nudes and nobody peeps,
So I post one with clothing and now you complain? sheesh!
Well, I thought I would try something different.
I have been playing lately with side and rim lighting, so that is how I was set up.
What lighting would you have preferred?
-bob
Last edited:
D
ddk
Guest
Re: How is this for a pose
doesn't mean that we didn't look.
As the caveman said: different, gooood, clothes no good
Depending on the angle I was shooting her, I would go loop or have a fill if I was side lighting (edit) I'd lower the main and bring it down closer to her, maybe get some interesting shadows, she's a very unique model who can control her body too, would have been nice to see more of her...
just my 2 cents.
doesn't mean that we didn't look.
As the caveman said: different, gooood, clothes no good
Depending on the angle I was shooting her, I would go loop or have a fill if I was side lighting (edit) I'd lower the main and bring it down closer to her, maybe get some interesting shadows, she's a very unique model who can control her body too, would have been nice to see more of her...
just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
R
Ranger 9
Guest
Re: How is this for a pose
I think the lighting you used is a great start -- it gives a terrific sense of sculptural mass and volume. (Mass and volume aren't always what young women want in their photos, but it looks as if this model is comfortable with displaying her own form of beauty.)
Since you mentioned rim lighting, I'd have wanted to try adding a hard rim light from the back diagonal on the side away from the main light. Just a skim of hard light would help separate the dark side of her figure from the background, and add some glints that would emphasize her musculature.
Of course that would mean you'd wind up with crazy shadows coming toward the camera, as in the example picture I've attached, but hey, if you're experimenting...
The way I see it, the picture you've made is all about contrasting ideas of strength. (Which sounds better than saying it's all about cleavage!) Classical dancing is supposed to look effortless, but making it look effortless requires a tremendous amount of hidden strength. By making that strength visible, you're unifying two contrasting concepts visually, which is almost always a cool idea for making photographs!
Incidentally, I'm glad you did NOT shoot this picture as a nude... that would have made the picture all about the nudity, and any other ideas would have gotten submerged in that...
I think the lighting you used is a great start -- it gives a terrific sense of sculptural mass and volume. (Mass and volume aren't always what young women want in their photos, but it looks as if this model is comfortable with displaying her own form of beauty.)
Since you mentioned rim lighting, I'd have wanted to try adding a hard rim light from the back diagonal on the side away from the main light. Just a skim of hard light would help separate the dark side of her figure from the background, and add some glints that would emphasize her musculature.
Of course that would mean you'd wind up with crazy shadows coming toward the camera, as in the example picture I've attached, but hey, if you're experimenting...
[The attachment is a poor scan of an old print, but I'm showing it as an example of me struggling with the same concept. Nancy was a sweet girl with a beautifully soft quality to her dancing -- but she also had broad shoulders, a strong back, and a tremendous level of determination, and I wanted to light her in a way that would respect all those qualities. So, the old soft-light-opposite-hard-light trick...]
The way I see it, the picture you've made is all about contrasting ideas of strength. (Which sounds better than saying it's all about cleavage!) Classical dancing is supposed to look effortless, but making it look effortless requires a tremendous amount of hidden strength. By making that strength visible, you're unifying two contrasting concepts visually, which is almost always a cool idea for making photographs!
Incidentally, I'm glad you did NOT shoot this picture as a nude... that would have made the picture all about the nudity, and any other ideas would have gotten submerged in that...
D
ddk
Guest
Re: How is this for a pose
It is interesting that lately more young women seem to be comfortable with displaying their musculature. Form and Mass may be getting more fashionable at least for the trim.
Here are two examples the models liked:
-bob
It is interesting that lately more young women seem to be comfortable with displaying their musculature. Form and Mass may be getting more fashionable at least for the trim.
Here are two examples the models liked:
-bob
R
Ranger 9
Guest
Re: How is this for a pose
Happy to. One view of information theory says that information consists essentially of surprises; if it only tells you what expected to hear, it isn't really information. (This is why image compression works, for example: you can drop out the pixels whose values can be predicted, and store just the ones whose values can't be predicted.)
Like every other kind of "data processor," the human perceptual apparatus has a limited bandwidth (supposedly about 40 bits per second, although what defines the brain's "bit" is debatable.)
We all know from experience, and lots of experiments, that when the mind's bandwidth is exceeded by too much information -- too much unexpected stuff, in other words -- it can't process all of it, and resorts to strategies for discarding some of it. In other words, it "drops packets," just like your computer network does when the lines are noisy.
Now, when it comes to looking at people, the fact is that the vast majority of the people we see the vast majority of the time are wearing clothes. (And for the vast majority of people, that's a darned good thing!)
So when you see a representation of someone who is not wearing clothes, it represents an unexpected event -- a piece of information.
Moreover, this particular piece of information has a lot of collateral implications: artistic, cultural, erotic, and even economic (remember how in old cartoons, somebody who had lost everything was represented as wearing a barrel instead of clothes?)
Parsing all these potential implications consumes a lot of mind bandwidth, so during this process a lot of other "packets" -- other aesthetic or cultural associations that might also be present -- are more likely to be dropped, or at least deferred.
That's why nudity works fine in certain photographic contexts for which our minds are already pre-calibrated for it: a Weston fine-art print, a Helmut Newton fashion shot, or a foldout in Playboy magazine, for example. Our response to the nudity aspect of these contexts is already, you might say, pre-compiled, so we can use our mind-bandwidth to enjoy the other aesthetic and intellectual aspects of the presentation.
When we get outside those well-defined contexts -- as I would argue Bob has done in his photo -- we're entering a realm of ambiguity.
That's good, because you're much more likely to find interesting stuff in the Realm of Ambiguity than in the Kingdom of the Frickin' Obvious, which (unfortunately) is where most photographs get made.
Still, there's no denying that ambiguity requires more of the mind's processing horsepower. Dump too much workload on it, and it's going to have to skip over some of the nuances. That's why nudity can submerge other aesthetic elements in an artwork, and why it can be a good choice to leave that element out of the equation. QED.
If that's not convincing enough for you, try this simple thought experiment: Imagine that President Obama has decided to have his official executive photo done as a full frontal nude. How much public-discussion bandwidth do you think would be consumed before people in general got around to such observations as, "Good Lord, his teeth look really yellow"...?
Happy to. One view of information theory says that information consists essentially of surprises; if it only tells you what expected to hear, it isn't really information. (This is why image compression works, for example: you can drop out the pixels whose values can be predicted, and store just the ones whose values can't be predicted.)
Like every other kind of "data processor," the human perceptual apparatus has a limited bandwidth (supposedly about 40 bits per second, although what defines the brain's "bit" is debatable.)
We all know from experience, and lots of experiments, that when the mind's bandwidth is exceeded by too much information -- too much unexpected stuff, in other words -- it can't process all of it, and resorts to strategies for discarding some of it. In other words, it "drops packets," just like your computer network does when the lines are noisy.
Now, when it comes to looking at people, the fact is that the vast majority of the people we see the vast majority of the time are wearing clothes. (And for the vast majority of people, that's a darned good thing!)
So when you see a representation of someone who is not wearing clothes, it represents an unexpected event -- a piece of information.
Moreover, this particular piece of information has a lot of collateral implications: artistic, cultural, erotic, and even economic (remember how in old cartoons, somebody who had lost everything was represented as wearing a barrel instead of clothes?)
Parsing all these potential implications consumes a lot of mind bandwidth, so during this process a lot of other "packets" -- other aesthetic or cultural associations that might also be present -- are more likely to be dropped, or at least deferred.
That's why nudity works fine in certain photographic contexts for which our minds are already pre-calibrated for it: a Weston fine-art print, a Helmut Newton fashion shot, or a foldout in Playboy magazine, for example. Our response to the nudity aspect of these contexts is already, you might say, pre-compiled, so we can use our mind-bandwidth to enjoy the other aesthetic and intellectual aspects of the presentation.
When we get outside those well-defined contexts -- as I would argue Bob has done in his photo -- we're entering a realm of ambiguity.
That's good, because you're much more likely to find interesting stuff in the Realm of Ambiguity than in the Kingdom of the Frickin' Obvious, which (unfortunately) is where most photographs get made.
Still, there's no denying that ambiguity requires more of the mind's processing horsepower. Dump too much workload on it, and it's going to have to skip over some of the nuances. That's why nudity can submerge other aesthetic elements in an artwork, and why it can be a good choice to leave that element out of the equation. QED.
If that's not convincing enough for you, try this simple thought experiment: Imagine that President Obama has decided to have his official executive photo done as a full frontal nude. How much public-discussion bandwidth do you think would be consumed before people in general got around to such observations as, "Good Lord, his teeth look really yellow"...?
Re: How is this for a pose
I agree with Ranger 9's points. Thank you, by the way.
The somewhat obscure or visual surprise, the unexpected if you will, makes a better picture than the frank and obvious.
OTOH, if you look at a lot of street photography, there is often an element of the literal to the extreme. Most of those are not as interesting to me as the shots that excerpt or abstract the literal in some manner or introduce interesting juxtiposition of elements.
If our minds are forced to engage to process an image, it naturally draws our attention perhaps out of necessity.
-bob
I agree with Ranger 9's points. Thank you, by the way.
The somewhat obscure or visual surprise, the unexpected if you will, makes a better picture than the frank and obvious.
OTOH, if you look at a lot of street photography, there is often an element of the literal to the extreme. Most of those are not as interesting to me as the shots that excerpt or abstract the literal in some manner or introduce interesting juxtiposition of elements.
If our minds are forced to engage to process an image, it naturally draws our attention perhaps out of necessity.
-bob
D
ddk
Guest
Re: How is this for a pose
Fortunately Eikoh Hosoe, Connie Imboden and many others never heard of your theories otherwise they would have never produced any work.
You forgot about Jesus, people don't dwell on his nudity, and isn't Obama the new Messiah? :toocool:
:sleep006: :sleep006: :sleep006:
Fortunately Eikoh Hosoe, Connie Imboden and many others never heard of your theories otherwise they would have never produced any work.
You forgot about Jesus, people don't dwell on his nudity, and isn't Obama the new Messiah? :toocool:
R
Ranger 9
Guest
Re: How is this for a pose
That's why I was careful to say "can be" and "choice." And you'll notice that while the two photographers you mention certainly employ ambiguity in their work, they carefully control how much and what kind. That's what separates art from noise.
Repeat after me: "Read, then type. Read, then type. Read, then type..."
That's why I was careful to say "can be" and "choice." And you'll notice that while the two photographers you mention certainly employ ambiguity in their work, they carefully control how much and what kind. That's what separates art from noise.
Repeat after me: "Read, then type. Read, then type. Read, then type..."
D
ddk
Guest
Re: How is this for a pose
LOL Ranger 9, its July 4th, too much typing and reading already. :salute:
LOL Ranger 9, its July 4th, too much typing and reading already. :salute: