# Experimenting a bit. "wife on a pipe"



## chiefpackman (Dec 26, 2015)

Work in progress. I usually don't like stuff like this but its growing on me. What should I do with it? 

[URL=http://s472.photobucket.com/user/brutalon/media/FINAL1.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## gsgary (Dec 27, 2015)

Nude would work much better


----------



## Woodsman (Dec 27, 2015)

Interesting idea.  Just my opinion but for me it would work a little better if her head was elevated just a tad or her chin was down a bit, it seems to be just too far back on the pipe.  Just my preference though.   Overall I like it. the raised right arm and the pipe support plate are nice touches.


----------



## jaomul (Dec 27, 2015)

I think crop it tighter so you dont have the front rusty plate there. an yo shoot it again, if so if you light th e woman with flash and underexpose the background maybe 2 stops, with her popping from the photo, I think it could be really nice


----------



## spiralout462 (Dec 27, 2015)

One thing is for sure, you really know how to get someone to open a thread!!

Cool shot!


----------



## FITBMX (Dec 27, 2015)

Her leg disappears into the pipe a little to much for me, it may help to bring up the exposure on the pipe a little bit. 
I also maybe wrong.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 27, 2015)

I dunno...the tress and that blue sky are large, compelling picture elements, ones that draw a lot away from her and the rest of the landscape. If she were nude, it would help keep the focus more on her I think, away from the trees and sky so much. I looked at this a couple of ways...all I could come up with was this square-ish crop.




 

I'm not sure if this is the right approach.


----------



## chiefpackman (Dec 27, 2015)

Thanks for the input guys. Good points. I was out shooting portraits in midday with harsh sun for a challenge. We just found this pipe down where we were shooting and played around with it a bit. I'll mess with the photo. I did have one speed light on her but with the midday sun I don't think it was enough. Nude would have been a nice interesting shot. Don't think my wife would be too keen on me putting it online though  haha.


----------



## FITBMX (Dec 27, 2015)

chiefpackman said:


> Thanks for the input guys. Good points. I was out shooting portraits in midday with harsh sun for a challenge. We just found this pipe down where we were shooting and played around with it a bit. I'll mess with the photo. I did have one speed light on her but with the midday sun I don't think it was enough. Nude would have been a nice interesting shot. *Don't think my wife would be too keen on me putting it online though*  haha.



True. But a I bet she would like it even less if you hired a nude model!


----------



## gsgary (Dec 29, 2015)

FITBMX said:


> chiefpackman said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the input guys. Good points. I was out shooting portraits in midday with harsh sun for a challenge. We just found this pipe down where we were shooting and played around with it a bit. I'll mess with the photo. I did have one speed light on her but with the midday sun I don't think it was enough. Nude would have been a nice interesting shot. *Don't think my wife would be too keen on me putting it online though*  haha.
> ...


why should it bother her ? It has never bothered my wife when I have done nude shoots to me it's no different to shooting a landscape,  it's only a problem if you can't separate sex and photography


----------



## FITBMX (Dec 29, 2015)

gsgary said:


> why should it bother her ? It has never bothered my wife when I have done *nude shoots to me it's no different to shooting a landscape*, it's only a problem if you can't separate sex and photography



I agree, but not all wives (or husbands in the in a reversed situation) would agree. Especially here in the US.
It sounds (and looks) like you have a  great wife that understands photography and art.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 29, 2015)

FITBMX said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > why should it bother her ? It has never bothered my wife when I have done *nude shoots to me it's no different to shooting a landscape*, it's only a problem if you can't separate sex and photography
> ...


It's also because she trusts me 100%


----------



## Granddad (Dec 29, 2015)

gsgary said:


> why should it bother her ? It has never bothered my wife when I have done nude shoots to me it's no different to shooting a landscape,  it's only a problem if you can't separate sex and photography



My wife would never go for me posting nude photos of her online, either... and I'm not sure I'd want to myself. It's not a matter of the individual's involved in the shoot not being able to separate sex and photography (or porn and art) but the potential viewers, and we all know there are some real crackpots out there. It's very much a matter for the individuals concerned and their own outlooks on life. 
... Besides which, at 64 I may have a bit more photoshop work to do than I'd care to handle. 

P.S. Good work. Experimenting often brings out potential shots that just need a few tweeks to become winners. 
P.P.S.  O.P., It looks a bit dry there, shall we send a few rain clouds your way?


----------



## katsrevenge (Dec 29, 2015)

gsgary said:


> FITBMX said:
> 
> 
> > chiefpackman said:
> ...




Well, I'd be OK with him shooting male models. He'd be more than OK with my shooting females, LOL... but men? Not so much. 
For us, it's not so much a matter of trust as it is a matter of the bounds of the relationship.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 29, 2015)

katsrevenge said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > FITBMX said:
> ...


What has it got to do with your relationship,  it's photography


----------



## katsrevenge (Dec 29, 2015)

gsgary said:


> katsrevenge said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



It's a nude body of the opposite gender. If it works for you and your wife, that's great... but it won't work for everyone. That's all.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 29, 2015)

better than a wife on the pipe, I suppose.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 29, 2015)

Too many prudes on here


----------



## unpopular (Dec 29, 2015)

Didn't mean to offend those hipper than I, but crack really isn't my cup of tea.


----------



## Granddad (Dec 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Too many prudes on here


Do I take that to mean that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint on the subject is a prude?

Same question to those who "Agreed".


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2015)

Granddad said:


> It's not a matter of the individual's involved in the shoot not being able to separate sex and photography (or porn and art)



99.97% of "art nudes" is essentially soft porn; tasteful, perhaps, but erotica nonetheless. It is very seldom novel, and is almost always unnecessary. I think the number of genuine "art nudes" i've seen can be counted on one hand.

OTOH this does bring up an interesting question: why can't human sexuality be art?


----------



## katsrevenge (Dec 30, 2015)

Granddad said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Too many prudes on here
> ...



The really funny part of this is that both myself and my guy have solid backgrounds in college level art. That includes a lot of nude figure drawing. I've seen more nude butts than most people have. He used to go to 'open draw' after graduation so he may have seen a few more than I. The interesting bit about drawing the nudes was the differences in body types. Our art proff went out of his way to get as many different types of people in, from all walks of life and all ages. We drew nudes in order to learn how to 'see' and recreate the human form..not to just look at a nekid person! 

Being prudish has nothing to do with it. LOL, not after that nude bum. It's just boundaries. I think most relationships would have them. 

The Op's idea is neat (I think anyway) but a nude wife would not have added anything to it. What would being nude add?


----------



## pjaye (Dec 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> why should it bother her ? It has never bothered my wife when I have done nude shoots to me it's no different to shooting a landscape,  it's only a problem if you can't separate sex and photography



This is the stupidest rationalization I have ever heard. It has nothing to do with separating sex and photography. Nudity does not equate to sex. For some it's about modesty.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2015)

katsrevenge said:


> We drew nudes in order to learn how to 'see' and recreate the human form..not to just look at a nekid person!



I remember being pretty excited because the one woman I thought I'd NEVER get to see naked volunteered for figure drawing class.

I think a lot of us guys were pretty enthusiastic about the idea, and at the time I am not sure if I'd ever seen a naked woman in person before, let alone *this* particular naked woman.

Yeah. It was pretty disappointing ... context.

But in this particular image, if the model were nude it would have just been silly IMO, and yes, it would have been sexual. Whether or not that is offensive to you, well, that's kind of your call to make.

But honestly, I don't think it'd necessarily be any *more* sexual and silly than it already is - and it is already a kind of silly photo. Perhaps it'd be a little less silly if she were nude, as it is now a woman posing in a mildly sexy way (*not pornographic*, but yes, this is a somewhat provocative pose) on an irrigation pipe wearing a sweater is kind of silly - at least if she were naked then it'd be more sexy. Though, once I got over the naked boobies (and I do like naked boobies), I'd probably be wondering what the heck is she doing on an irrigation pipe, naked? But so what! Naked Boobies!

Ok. I'm not trying to be offensive here to the OP's lovely wife (though i probably am), but rather, I'm making a point. If this image can only work if she were nude, then it's relying on the provocative nature of an attractive person in a mildly sexual pose *being* naked. It's relying on the viewers sexuality, rather than the photographer's artistic insight. There no dialogue, aside from what you'd expect from a group of thirteen year old boys looking at a playboy!

In my opinion, that is sort of what defines pornography, it is solely about the sexual/sensual/erotic/whatever nature of the model and nothing else. I've seen many of images that is shot and lit well, but the only reason I'm looking at them for more than a few seconds is because the model is naked - and yeah, I like looking at naked women.

If she were dressed, it may as well have been any other well-executed portrait. If the only thing that separates an image from any other is the nakedness, then it's not an "art nude" - it's just porn/erotica. I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with that, but it is what it is and you have to be aware of this when you're working with these subjects. To create a genuine "art nude" is probably the most challenging assignment you could give yourself. Simply adding a fig leaf here or a whip of hair there in strategic places won't suffice.

Otherwise, just admit it's porn/erotica and get over yourself. And for god's sake, don't call people prudes because you're too shy, pompous or self-righteous to admit it!


----------



## Donde (Dec 30, 2015)

I don't know about being nude. I think that steel pipe would be awfully cold!


----------



## Derrel (Dec 30, 2015)

Some of the stupidest chit being shovelled here in this thread. Absolutely shovelled. Bring in the John Deere manure spreader, the hay fields desperately need some more fertilizer.


----------



## chiefpackman (Dec 30, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Some of the stupidest chit being shovelled here in this thread. Absolutely shovelled. Bring in the John Deere manure spreader, the hay fields desperately need some more fertilizer.


Haha, I do find it slightly entertaining.


----------



## FITBMX (Dec 30, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Some of the stupidest chit being shovelled here in this thread. Absolutely shovelled. Bring in the John Deere manure spreader, the hay fields desperately need some more fertilizer.



John Deere isn't the answer to everything! J.I. Case, Allis Chalmers, I.H. , Ford, and Oliver all made really nice ones! I don't know why everyone has to go straight for dumb old John Deere!!!


----------



## Granddad (Dec 31, 2015)

Some people engage in witty repartee to wrap up a conversation; others agree to disagree... 

It's all about respect for differing viewpoints.


----------



## katsrevenge (Dec 31, 2015)

unpopular said:


> katsrevenge said:
> 
> 
> > We drew nudes in order to learn how to 'see' and recreate the human form..not to just look at a nekid person!
> ...



LOL, oh yeah, there was some of that, in the first few classes, (freshman being freshman, heh) but it stopped really quickly. There is just not much sexual about a bright room and 20-30 people with big drawing boards. Most of our models were not students either, some were older (one was a Vietnam vet with serious scaring from napalm) and only a few were what you'd call 'conventionally attractive'. The prof was of the mind that anyone can draw a pretty girl and make her look good but only a good artist can find the beauty within someone where it is hidden by age, hard living or whatever. 

To me, this wife on a pipe was already interestingly sexual but yet not. It was somewhat coy, and that made it charming in a silly way. It would have been nicer if she'd looked directly into the camera. It would have played more with the idea of body as something gazed at, the sexual undertones of the pipe, and her autonomy while still being somewhat silly. 

I've only ever seen one bunch of "art nudes" that I thought were more art and less 'looky pretty nekid lady with boobs!'. It was a series of women who were not conventionally pretty. Some were very heavy, others scarred or missing bits (breast cancer, I think) but in those pictures they were gorgeous. 

Perhaps it is just easier to deal artistically with a nude body in other media without it ending up feeling like porn? Not that there is anything wrong with porn.... but most of it isn't art.


----------

