# 3 for C&C, Bikini & Nudes, (NSFW)



## TheUndisputed (Mar 27, 2009)

1.





2.




3.






Taken with the D60, at 1/8 shutter and 800ISO.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 27, 2009)

I think the first could be greatly improved by cropping off the empty space at the top.   

The 2nd one has some great light but the motion blur isn't helping.

The 3rd one doesn't stand out much at all.


----------



## Contegni (Mar 27, 2009)

I agree with above but I didn't really expect these pictures because of all of the fake thread titles around here recently...


----------



## puyjapin (Mar 27, 2009)

2 is good, nice butt too!


----------



## TheUndisputed (Mar 27, 2009)

Oh yes, forgot to add. #1 is the only image that has PP done to it. 2 and 3 are directly from the camera. I still have some cloning to do on number 2 to get some of the items out of the background.


----------



## Mesoam (Mar 27, 2009)

sorry this just looks like porn


----------



## SrBiscuit (Mar 27, 2009)

Mesoam said:


> sorry this just looks like porn


 

don't good porn photos also have to be done technically well?

these certainly aren't hardcore porn...nor are they distasteful.
i would put these in the erotic category...and well shot erotic pics.

the stars on the first one are taking away from the image to me...and no im not just saying that to see her nipples...i know what nipples look like. i have 2 of them myself. wait...3...no wait...2


----------



## TheUndisputed (Mar 27, 2009)

Mesoam said:


> sorry this just looks like porn



Not starting a pissing match, but you obviously haven't ever watched porn, if you think those images define it.

*por·nog·ra·phy*  - _n._ - Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material _*whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.*_


----------



## Mesoam (Mar 27, 2009)

not to start a pissing match either but there isn't much artistic value...

don't ask for criticism if you don't want positive and negative feedback


----------



## TheUndisputed (Mar 27, 2009)

Mesoam said:


> not to start a pissing match either but there isn't much artistic value...
> 
> don't ask for criticism if you don't want positive and negative feedback



I don't mind critique at all, but to make a flawed observation is a bit different. If you took a picture of an apple I wouldn't call it an orange. You get my drift?

So, if you want to critique my photographs, critique them. However, do not draw an image for them that they do not draw for themselves.


----------



## genie (Mar 27, 2009)

I agree with Mesoam. i would put them in the "erotic" category before I put them in the "artistic nudes" category. The quality isn't outstanding, and the b&w one just looks a little trashy. 

Better lighting would have helped tremendously, as would a higher shutter speed so you wouldn't have that motion blur.

Lastly, she looks like a pretty girl, but her eye makeup in the first one does not do her justice.


----------



## puyjapin (Mar 27, 2009)

definately not porn, well softish porn maybe lol, do you know her?! other than for taking photos of !


----------



## TheUndisputed (Mar 27, 2009)

puyjapin said:


> definately not porn, well softish porn maybe lol, do you know her?! other than for taking photos of !




Yes, She is a very close friend of mine. I met her though the night club I work for, and we have been really tight ever since.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 27, 2009)

The B&W one seems kind of dark to me... don't think that's just a lighting issue so much as an expsure and/or adjustment choice.

I think everyone else has commented sufficiently on the other aspects.


----------



## foned (Mar 27, 2009)

I agree with genie, theres no real artistic value too these (imo of course, it is sorta subjective) the lighting could be vastly improved and the blur doesn't do much for me. also the eye make up again like genie said isn't workin for her. As far as positive feedback, i like her face in #3 a nice expression, but the legs spread makes it more pornography than artistic nude to me, and in #2 better lighting, more color, less blur.


----------



## nikonguy (Mar 27, 2009)

i have to agree with mesoam... when i first saw them, my thought was... "if this guy is going to porn shots, then he succeeded.."  however, if your trying to go for "classy nudes.. are art nudes" however you classify it.. i think you failed.

they are too soft looking IMO.. and the look on the girls face in #1 just screams "take me now" in a porn type manner... i really don't get #3.. what story are you trying to tell with this photo??


----------



## Montana (Mar 27, 2009)

I agree that #1 needs a little top cropping, but its good.  Not a new idea by any means.  THe motion blur in #2 ruins that shot. IMHO.  I think #3 is mid-tone rich.

Derrick


----------



## Sherman Banks (Mar 27, 2009)

TheUndisputed said:


> ...and we have been really tight ever since.



I'm guessing she's anything but tight   J/K.  Seriously, I only clicked on this thread because of all the stupid mistitled threads that were going on here.  If this is your kind of photography, then do your thang.  You do need a better lighting setup though.


----------



## yogibear (Mar 27, 2009)

In my amateur opinion, Artistic nudes focus less on nudity. Go figure.  Its more about subjects lines and textures while being nude than that being naked.  I think its the reason that nudes seem to be done in black and white more often.  Adding the element of color means you really have to go the extra mile for this same effect because its less forgiving then the gray scale.  Pay attention to the lines and position of her body and how they mesh with the background.  Also hand placement is big.  Also keep in mind your background colors.  A blond will stand out more with darker tones as a backdrop. Especially in B&W.

#1 Nice try at a creative angle, however the PP done to this is too rough and takes away from your goal.  You can see the portion of her hair in the reflection where you camera/hand/whatever was removed.  It seems like a puddle of a softness where the rest of her hair gives texture.   

#2  Not a bad image.  Would be better if she pulled her hair forwards and over one shoulder, removed the bikini strap (or all ) and maybe put her harms gently over her head.  With a better background and lighting you would have achieved something that showed her shape a little more.  Also, do your standing shots first and your laying down sitting shots second to remove the red elbows.

#3 This shot kinda goes bland because of the background.  Not enough contrast.  The phone and her position make it look like a phone sex ad (meant as a comparison not a judgment)

Anyway just my thoughts.  Lucky to have a good friend willing to model for you.  I would love to do nudes. My lady friends are shy and my guy friends need more muscle tone     Cant win them all i guess haha.


----------



## TheSon (Mar 27, 2009)

nikonguy said:


> i really don't get #3.. what story are you trying to tell with this photo??



It looks like an ad for a sex chat line.  Like, "call now...  I'm waiting to talk to you."  haha.

In #2 I really don't like the pink of her elbow.  It's very distracting.  Besides that... I agree with everyone else about being more porn than art.  There's no creative aspect, just erotic poses.'



TheUndisputed said:


> *por·nog·ra·phy*  - _n._ - Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material _*whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.*_



What other "purpose" do your pictures express?   These were obviously shot in a cheap hotel room which leads me to also assume the same.

But I do think your pictures are good angles and composition for soft porn.  You may have a talent there.  And we all know there's a lot of money in that...


----------



## ANDS! (Mar 27, 2009)

Prudes. 

Personally, I dig the "trashy" nature of the second shot.  It IS a hotel room, and she is basically doing the stripper pose taking the clothes off.  However, I need more character in that background or on the model.

What is the intent here?  Glamour shot?  Theres not enough lighting expertise here for that glamour glow.  And DEFINITELY that motion blur is NOT going to cut it.  If you want to use natural lighting then you need to kick in for some prime lenses (if you aren't already shooting with them, and bumb that ISO up).

The black and white does nothing for me, as the contrast is absolutely nonexistant.  Very muddled, and increasing the contrast in photoshop does bring out some of that wonderful noise.  So, figure call it a loss on that one.  Number one would be fine if it was straight, cropped from the left to get rid of the harsh color change of the white wall, and cropped from the top as Mike said.  We still get the unfocused blob in the foreground to suggest our model is looking in a mirror so we lose none of that.

As for the pornagraphic nature of the shot - again we go to INTENT.  Folks, do not project your OWN biases onto the OP in trying to determine intent; that is NOT the way it works.

Having said all that, TU (as much as you grate on my nerves), try again, get control of the lighting if glamour is what you're going for - and get control of the background, ambience if style/substance is what you are aiming for (and theres no reason for both to be exclusive of one another).



			
				TheSon said:
			
		

> What other "purpose" do your pictures express? These were obviously shot in a cheap hotel room which leads me to also assume the same.



That is YOUR belief.  Your response reminds me of the small minded folks who brought out the pitchforks when the gentleman took the pictures of his daughter who like to run around naked.  That small minded mentality that insists their world view is the norm.  Shameful that those of you with that attitude are involved in a creative medium.


----------



## Big Bully (Mar 27, 2009)

SrBiscuit said:


> don't good porn photos also have to be done technically well?
> 
> 
> 
> the stars on the first one are taking away from the image to me...and no im not just saying that to see her nipples...i know what nipples look like. i have 2 of them myself. wait...3...no wait...2



Exactly SrBiscuit!! Hey I want to see the pic of the 3rd nipple!



ANDS! said:


> Prudes.
> 
> Personally, I dig the "trashy" nature of the second shot.  It IS a hotel room, and she is basically doing the stripper pose taking the clothes off.  However, I need more character in that background or on the model.
> 
> ...



Wow! Bravo! You said a lot of what I was going to say! 

People... Art is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you have a picture of a naked woman or man doesn't make it pornographic. And even if it was, it takes skill to take good pornographic pictures. Who cares what his intent or the story behind the pictures were. TU was asking about his technique not for everyone to get on their high horses and berate him for taking pictures of this girl. These pictures are sexy yes, but by no means are they pornographic. If you don't like the subject matter, quit clicking on threads that start with NSFW or have the word nudes in it..


I agree with ANDS I can't believe that you people call yourselves photographers or artists and can't appreciate someones hard work no matter the subject. Yes he has an issue with lighting, contrast and the stars, (gotta do something with the stars, blur if necessary... ) but quit being self-righteous and jumping on him because of his subject matter. That is unprofessional and artistic of you people.

That said.. I agree with Mike TU. You need to do something with the contrast of number three. I actually like that picture and if the contrast was better I would love it. The coloring of #1 bothers me, it seems like it is a little greenish, but then again that could be because of the lighting. #2 is very seductive, but as said before the blur is a problem. I'm not sure how to fix that, but if you can, that would be great.

Nice try... But try again.. No harm in a re-shoot. :mrgreen:


----------



## TheSon (Mar 28, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> That is YOUR belief.  Your response reminds me of the small minded folks who brought out the pitchforks when the gentleman took the pictures of his daughter who like to run around naked.  That small minded mentality that insists their world view is the norm.  Shameful that those of you with that attitude are involved in a creative medium.



Wow... all I was doing was logically agreeing that the definition *he* provided for porn was exactly what his pictures were portraying and was asking why he thought they didn't fit in his definition of porn (can I not ask questions?).  They were arousing pictures in erotic positions.  That is not my belief, that is fact.   I think you took it way out of proportion and a little dramatic.

I didn't say the pictures were bad (although they are pretty amateur), or done poorly (I actually like them.  They're better than I could do.).  On the contrary (if you kept reading) I complimented his work (good composition, etc.) and said he may have a future career in it.  You probably skipped that part before writing your high horse monologue against me.

Oh and btw... there is a huge difference between a man and his daughter and a woman spread eagle and half naked in stripper poses.  I don't think there is too much hidden subtly there, but once again that's _my_ belief.

You basically agreed with me here strangely enough:


ANDS! said:


> It IS a hotel room, and she is basically doing the stripper pose taking the clothes off. *However, I need more character in that background or on the model.*



C&C=express your opinions/beliefs

(and PS...the foundation of art is people's beliefs and different views on life, whether "small minded" or "big minded".  So in essence you are contradicting yourself.)

/rant   (I'm drunk and going to bed)


----------



## Arch (Mar 28, 2009)

Hmmm there is alot of contradiction going on in this thread.

To make the statement that people are small minded, or don't appreciate art and then to say 'these are not porn' is a contradiction in terms. You cannot have it both ways, i.e. 'open your mind and agree with me that these are not porn'... see what im sayin?
To have an open mind or very open artistic opinion is to also allow people to keep their opinions... an opinion cannot be wrong.

I agree with some of the technical assessments, the motion blur doesn't help the image, and the b+w is underexposed.


----------



## Mesoam (Mar 28, 2009)

Contradiction is good...Nothing wrong with people expressing their own opinions


----------



## In2daBlue (Mar 28, 2009)

genie said:


> I agree with Mesoam. i would put them in the "erotic" category before I put them in the "artistic nudes" category. The quality isn't outstanding, and the b&w one just looks a little trashy.
> 
> Better lighting would have helped tremendously, as would a higher shutter speed so you wouldn't have that motion blur.



I have to agree 100% with this post. 

Get some strobist equipment and try this again and you will find better success. A backdrop that doesn't look like a cheesy hotel room would help. Get your WB just right, it looks orange-ish to me. And, as always with most photography, get rid of the motion blur. I think that, more than anything else, makes the photos look amateurish. Also, _almost_ any photo that has legs spread wide open is going to move you from fine art nude to erotic pretty fast. And stars over the nipple make me feel like I am looking at a hooker card some guy on the Las Vegas strip just handed me.

That's my two cents, as they say.

P.S. Thanks for not misleading people with your thread title. That is getting old on this site and should be grounds for banning a user who does it too often IMO.


----------



## ANDS! (Mar 28, 2009)

> To make the statement that people are small minded, or don't appreciate art and then to say 'these are not porn' is a contradiction in terms.



Not at all.  If someone wants to label this as porn, by all means do so.  However, if they are labeling it as porn because the OP is trying to scintilate and tease the audience - that isn't "fact", as we have no idea why the OP took the picture.  People are going towards classifying it as porn before even understanding the OP's intent, and then jumping on the photos as such.



> . . .



No but it certainly can be fallacious.



> Wow... all I was doing was logically agreeing that the definition he provided for porn was exactly what his pictures were portraying and was asking why he thought they didn't fit in his definition of porn (can I not ask questions?). They were arousing pictures in erotic positions.



You missed the qualifier that he highlighted in red. 



> You probably skipped that part before writing your high horse monologue against me.



Backhanded compliments rarely win any sympathy from me.


----------



## adolan20 (Mar 28, 2009)

I think the model is very good looking and with better lighting and a better location, you'll make much better pictures.  Whether I think these images are porn or art, that's not what you ask so I won't give you my opinion.


----------



## Arch (Mar 28, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Not at all.  If someone wants to label this as porn, by all means do so.  However, if they are labeling it as porn because the OP is trying to scintilate and tease the audience - that isn't "fact", as we have no idea why the OP took the picture.  People are going towards classifying it as porn before even understanding the OP's intent, and then jumping on the photos as such.



True, but it is the very same reason that we don't know the OP's intent, as to why people will inevitably have the opinion that these are nothing more than porn. Such is the often purely visual medium of photography.

The OP can either take or leave comments (maybe based on the credentials or knowledge of the person giving the opinion) but you cannot tell people their opinion is wrong by them just reacting to the visual information in front of them.

This is not necessarily a bad thing tho, many artists have their work branded with labels, especially if its controversial... so really the OP must expect it and realize the genre of photography he is in.


----------



## Mgw189 (Mar 28, 2009)

Who cares if it is porn or not its the images he wants feedback on.  Would the fact of it being porn or not impact your feedback?  To be honest they need a lot of help as far as I am concerned.  

1. You can see where stuff was cloned out in the green area.  The star is wayyyyyyyy to cartoonish.  If she didnt want here nipples exposed there are better ways to accomplish this that the cheap looking Vegas strip pamphlet look.  
The white balance appears to be off just a little and the top left corner looks almost blown out.  

2.  To much going on in the background.  White balance is off.  Motion blur in the arm and hand detract from the image overall. 

3. Way to dark.  I dont know if it was post processing or what but the shot just looks under exposed.  Her skin looks as though she was freezing cold or something.  The overall look of the image is again something that looks like an ad for a 1-900 number.


----------



## MarkCSmith (Mar 28, 2009)

#2 is the only one that stands out to me. The first one her skin tone blends into the background too much, she should stand out more. The black and white one is the same.

Keep shooting, she's a pretty girl and willing models can be hard to find especially nude.


----------



## TheUndisputed (Apr 13, 2009)

WOW, it has been a while since I have been to this thread. Thanks for those who have posted.

I don't see the pornographic nature you guys see, maybe you who are speaking of this are porn deprived and need to look at it a little more often? I don't know. I do know that this is not the same nature of any soft pornographic shoot I have ever seen.

Like I said, thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Invictus (Apr 14, 2009)

My opinion. Undisputed Took a beautiful picture, with a beautiful camera, of a beautiful lady. She is not bad looking at all. These Pictures are not pornographic. They are simply something beautiful that seems pornographic because it is taken in the stereotypical setting of a hotel/motel. If it was on a ribbon tapestry, it would be a little bit of a different thread.


----------



## McQueen278 (Apr 14, 2009)

In my opinion, they would be much more pleasing if they begged the question.  Your backdrop isn't spectacular so you can overcome that by obscuring it more.  Maybe move in closer.  In doing this you will also reveal less of your model.  This makes the viewer want to see more.  It's amazing when you think about it, but people will stare at something as thought they can will it to reveal it's secrets.  By reveal less, I don't necessarily mean less "erotic" material.  You could have highlighted her individual features.  Midsections are always a popular subject for artistic nudes.  Often the face or eyes are obscured in artistic nudes which tends to make it less about the individual and more about either female or male form.  If this stuff interests you, study famous works and decide what YOU like about them and try to apply it to your own work.


----------

