# The Body Project (:



## Sbuxo (Feb 27, 2010)

*Latest newsss: *Can't change the thread's title again, but it WOULD be: TeenEDGE Project. This is my fall '10 semester Advanced Photography project focusing on the theme of Teens/Young Adults habits, activities, insecurities and such. I specialize in B&W Film Photography, so eat your hearts out digifans! Haha, you can check my flickr for the 3 prints I have up so far. There are actually 4, but for one of them the model told me not to expose on the internet. Pshh, from now on I'm making them sign MR forms.  Stay tuned. 

*The final photos of the (Spring '10) project has been uploaded to Frolicker! Check them out  My grade: 38.2/40 (points) ->95% and a semester average of 95.6% A. I'm proud of myself, the final images I'm very happy of! Feedback please. <3

Feel free to C&C my previous project, titled: The Body Project. I'd guess you can say they're pretty much artistic nudes, so..warning I guess?  It is IMPERATIVE that you read the description of the set before viewing/critiquing the photos. Available here: The Body Project - a set on Flickr

:mrgreen: 
Thanksss.


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 27, 2010)

-_- 21 views..but nobody comments. Hmm.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Feb 27, 2010)

What were the reactions at your school?


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 27, 2010)

Lol, well I'm in an Intermediate Advanced Photography Class. I'm the youngest @ 20, the rest of my classmates are 22-26. Um, reactions, as in? Shock? None of that. If you mean what'd they say in critique, they said they wanted more contortion of the body.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Feb 27, 2010)

Intermediate Advanced? What the hell does that mean?

No lol here, it was a serious question because I find them utterly boring and not very well done anyway. If you are going to shoot nudes, shoot nudes.

There is a very good reason why photographers go through the "nude" phase. They are very hard to do. Yes, seriously. And, yes, it is a very good exercise and that is why I was interested in the reaction from your classmates.

However, it is very disappointing. And I can't help and wonder what intermediate advanced means...


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Feb 27, 2010)

Btw, the fact that you are in Florida and have spanish text in your sig makes me think you may be of latino origins. That is part of my disappointment. I think latinos are more comfortable with their bodies than anglo-saxons and that means you should be able to get better photos related to your theme


----------



## blakjak8 (Feb 27, 2010)

Please realize I am just a hobbyist with photography but I will try to critique a few as I see them...please take no offense. Just trying to help and photography is very subjective.  I actually like 4,5 and 6 (Iv,V and VI) the best. More contortion to me seems less natural as in #10 and #11. Body V has the knees cut off and the top right background is a bit distracting (to me    ), but I like the use of the curves of the torso into the lines of the raised legs. My eyes actually "flow" through the photo. VIII has a harsh shadow on the wall and an odd white spot in the lower left (armpit) but again...nice smooth curves. Just an sincere attempt at helping you...I hope it does. I've used Tri-X film years ago...400 speed is a bit "grainy" for my taste. Unless that is what YOU want and YOU are the photographer here. 100 speed may soften the photos considerably and the female body ( I think) is usually enhanced with a softer look.


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 27, 2010)

Cloudwalker, 
They are not SELF PORTRAITS. And, if you read the description of the set, you would see they didn't start out as nudes. Thanks. I appreciate your honesty, but really don't find any depth in your 'theory', because ONE, you're wrong. My text is not Spanish. Two, not all photographers go through a 'nude' phase for the same reasons, this is just to try it out for a semester. To explore new horizons. 
Intermediate Advanced meant either or, I should've just used one but oh well, your critique has no substance. It's boring to you, why? There's a subject and predicate to a sentence, and you just gave me a dead subject.

Your whole speculation about my signature has nothing to do with my photography, why? You have no idea what ethnicity the model is. It's one thing to give constructive criticism, and it's another to make false & highly generalized assumptions.

Anybody else?


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 27, 2010)

blakjak8 said:


> Please realize I am just a hobbyist with photography but I will try to critique a few as I see them...please take no offense. Just trying to help and photography is very subjective.  I actually like 4,5 and 6 (Iv,V and VI) the best. More contortion to me seems less natural as in #10 and #11. Body V has the knees cut off and the top right background is a bit distracting (to me    ), but I like the use of the curves of the torso into the lines of the raised legs. My eyes actually "flow" through the photo. VIII has a harsh shadow on the wall and an odd white spot in the lower left (armpit) but again...nice smooth curves. Just an sincere attempt at helping you...I hope it does. I've used Tri-X film years ago...400 speed is a bit "grainy" for my taste. Unless that is what YOU want and YOU are the photographer here. 100 speed may soften the photos considerably and the female body ( I think) is usually enhanced with a softer look.


Ahh, yay, a real critique. Thank you so much, about the film suggestion, I used tri-x but pulled to 200 because of how contrasty 400 can be. I don't really have an issue with the amount of grain, as it usually only really shows if I crop an image too closely. the only 100 speed film I would use is tmax 100 and that I usually use for outdoor photography. I definitely get the shadow on the wall, utterly distracting, is so true! In the end of the semester, I'll be creating a final portfolio (after 2 more regular critiques!) of the best of my prints, with means I'll be shooting another 2 rolls of film where I will definitely reshoot Body V with knees included!  so, thank you so much for your suggestions!

P.S.: The ones you like are the ones my professor detested! Lol.


----------



## blakjak8 (Feb 27, 2010)

Just a suggestion...don't limit yourself to 1 brand of film. I used Kodak 95% but Fuji gave the same shots a different look in color rendition and also the graininess.  ASA 400 from Kodak sometimes looked more grainy and flatter colors than Fuji 400. The fun part of photography is "thinking outside the box" and discovering ALL the options you have! Are you using On-camera flash? Think of your light source position to remove shadows or place subject closer (or farther ) from the background. Also...look online at similar type photos and see what appeals to you. A crumpled sheet draped behind may look better than a stark wall...


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 27, 2010)

blakjak8 said:


> Just a suggestion...don't limit yourself to 1 brand of film. I used Kodak 95% but Fuji gave the same shots a different look in color rendition and also the graininess.  ASA 400 from Kodak sometimes looked more grainy and flatter colors than Fuji 400. The fun part of photography is "thinking outside the box" and discovering ALL the options you have! Are you using On-camera flash? Think of your light source position to remove shadows or place subject closer (or farther ) from the background. Also...look online at similar type photos and see what appeals to you. A crumpled sheet draped behind may look better than a stark wall...


Well, my professor HATES crumpled sheet and prefers stark wall. And that would take away from the subject, in my opinion. She actually wanted me to get a white or black background, so, the wall served as such pretty easily. I couldn't afford to buy a yard of black velvet so I went w/ the white. I'm not using flash, and I have to pay more attention to shadows on the walls, definitely. About the film, I don't have the money to be testing out new types of film, I bought the kodak in bulk (14 rolls) for the whole semester. I quite like it, but when the semester is over, I will definitely experiment with other brands. I've actually heard a great deal about Fuji, so definitely will be trying it out!:thumbup:


----------



## terri (Feb 28, 2010)

Hi Sbuxo: I moved your thread from the Alt section to Discussion, since these images don't represent alternative techniques. 

RE: the comment above about trying other films - I think you are actually wise to stick with one film while learning. If you are shooting, developing, and making print enlargements all from the same film type, you will become expert at what you can expect from that film type. When you eventually try others, you then have something solid to compare it to.   You'll learn much faster with the next film you try, and you should use it for some time, as well.   Eventually you'll be able to decide in advance what film you want for which project you're shooting, because you will be able to predict the results better.    This is how we learn!

Good luck, and keep shooting!


----------



## CW Jones (Feb 28, 2010)

I once took a film photography class, and like all professors they had a very specific way they wanted the shots done, or styles they liked. I can honestly say I don't believe I took a single shot the way he liked, or how he wanted to see it done... I got an A+ in the class for being creative, thinking outside the box, and NOT following the "directions/guidelines" 

Just another thought. I don't really like the contorted body look personally. I much more prefer a closer crop. What I use to do for my projects, get the shot set up and framed the way I wanted and then take another 4-5 steps closer or zoom in even more. I like body shots when you can barely tell your looking at a  foot, arm of breast. But if you look long enough you will figure it out. 

Good luck with the project and keep us up to date on it please! 

-Collin


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Feb 28, 2010)

Agreed that I don't really care for the contorted body look.  I really like Ralph Gibson's work and the notion of isolating body parts and "deconstructing" the human form.  I'm working with a similar subject and finding just how hard the nude can be (no pun intended).

I also prefer the stark background to a crumpled appearance.  I think the crumpled or textured background has to be used very carefully or it detracts attention from the subject.

Just a few points.  In my last roll I wanted to use natural lights and hard shadows.  I found that to truly integrate the shadows you have to be extremely meticulous with composition or else the image looks sloppy or haphazard.  Ralph Gibson is a master.  Check out his work for effective use of shadows and the nude.  I also really like Marc Koegel's nude work.


I only have a few minutes, so I'll give my .02 on a couple of your shots.

#1 I don't really care for the centered vertical subject.  The sidelighting isn't very flattering for the subjects skin texture.  I think in this case the crumpled sheets detract from the subject and they appear OOF, particularly to the left side.  I like a soft look but the OOF sheets to left appear haphazard to me.


#2  Again I don't care for a centered vertical subject.  For me, the contorted nude should capture and exploit the sensuous lines of the human form and that's hard to do with a hard vertical.

#3  See above for my feelings about the hard vertical.  The near arm immediately draws my attention.  It is lighter and the soft focus doesn't add anything.  It isn't a very flattering view of her arm and because of it's prominence it keeps drawing my eye back.  The sheets in the background are distracting.

#5  I don't like the crop and the busy pattern of the sheets is distracting.

#9 is my favorite but I don't like the crop at the bottom.  I'd like to see a little more separation between her leg and the background toward the right side of the image.

I'm finding that particularly in the nude studies the photographer has to be extremely meticulous about every detail within the frame.  Backgrounds, sheets, shadows, wrinkles in the underwear, etc etc.  The devil is in the detail.  I was talking to my teacher about this very thing and he said that this attention to MINUTE detail is what separates the Gibsons and Westons from all the other hacks.

Hope all that helps.

Keep at it!


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 28, 2010)

I don't like the contorted body at all, but my professor loves it for some reason and suggested me to do so, and I think my classmates just agreed with her, to say something.


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 28, 2010)

terri said:


> Hi Sbuxo: I moved your thread from the Alt section to Discussion, since these images don't represent alternative techniques.
> 
> RE: the comment above about trying other films - I think you are actually wise to stick with one film while learning. If you are shooting, developing, and making print enlargements all from the same film type, you will become expert at what you can expect from that film type. When you eventually try others, you then have something solid to compare it to.   You'll learn much faster with the next film you try, and you should use it for some time, as well.   Eventually you'll be able to decide in advance what film you want for which project you're shooting, because you will be able to predict the results better.    This is how we learn!
> 
> Good luck, and keep shooting!



Thank you! :thumbup:


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 28, 2010)

CW Jones said:


> I once took a film photography class, and like all professors they had a very specific way they wanted the shots done, or styles they liked. I can honestly say I don't believe I took a single shot the way he liked, or how he wanted to see it done... I got an A+ in the class for being creative, thinking outside the box, and NOT following the "directions/guidelines"
> 
> Just another thought. I don't really like the contorted body look personally. I much more prefer a closer crop. What I use to do for my projects, get the shot set up and framed the way I wanted and then take another 4-5 steps closer or zoom in even more. I like body shots when you can barely tell your looking at a  foot, arm of breast. But if you look long enough you will figure it out.
> 
> ...



Ha, I know exactly what you mean! She (my professor) keeps giving me photographers to look at, and honestly, I don't see what's so great about them. Also, I get what you mean about not knowing what you're looking at immediately, but I haven't been able to do so yet. I thought I did on my last rolls but half of the shots came out too black because the bulb I was using for lighting broke...so I'll have to reshoot tomorrow. But I'm focusing on hands, fingers, toes, feet, ankle, calves, and wrists.


----------



## CW Jones (Feb 28, 2010)

ya I used drop lights with reflectors in all of the shots I did for my class. Worke dout just fine and you can always adjust with filters on the enlarger and such. Plus it being black and white also makes it easier.


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 28, 2010)

SoonerBJJ said:


> Agreed that I don't really care for the contorted body look.  I really like Ralph Gibson's work and the notion of isolating body parts and "deconstructing" the human form.  I'm working with a similar subject and finding just how hard the nude can be (no pun intended).
> 
> I also prefer the stark background to a crumpled appearance.  I think the crumpled or textured background has to be used very carefully or it detracts attention from the subject.
> 
> ...



Idk if you read the description of the set, but anyways, I actually don't like Body I, III, IV, and not much of VI. Also, these are not beauty shots, so if the skin's true nature is revealed, that's fine. Another thing, I don't know if you read wrong but it wasn't my idea to do 'contortion', it was, however, what my classmates "wanted to see". I like doing some minor twists to show muscles beneath the skin, but that's about it.
It didn't start out as a nude project but I guess has evolved into it, and for my final portfolio I shall reshoot the compositions I feel need work, whether to make them nudes or for compositional reasons. For example, bodies II & V, I will definitely do over.  My favorites are IX, X, & XI! Thank you for your insight and feedback! Everyone.  Tomorrow, like I said, I'll be shooting one more roll, I have two new prints that I will bring home as well, and scan and show you guys soon!:thumbup:

Also, SoonerBJJ, it's kind of embarassing but I blocked you on Flickr cuz I thought you were a creeper.:blushing::lmao: But I see you're not, so I'll unblock. Lol.:blushing::blushing::blushing:


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 28, 2010)

CW Jones said:


> ya I used drop lights with reflectors in all of the shots I did for my class. Worke dout just fine and you can always adjust with filters on the enlarger and such. Plus it being black and white also makes it easier.


Yeah, I definitely already use the filters.


----------



## CW Jones (Feb 28, 2010)

I added you so I could follow your project, I am not a creeper either haha


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 28, 2010)

CW Jones said:


> I added you so I could follow your project, I am not a creeper either haha


:lmao::thumbup:


----------



## Mike_E (Feb 28, 2010)

Hi Sbuxo, I don't shoot or judge nudes really so take this at face value.  What interests me in photographing any portion of the human body is the interplay between light and shadow filtered by the body itself.  It's this filtering that brings out 'persona' to my thinking.

All of your shots are technically acceptable but none really show a joy of the interplay of light and shadow hence your subjects seem more objects than people.

So, shoot two rolls instead of one and use one of them to play with the light.  

Good luck

mike


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 28, 2010)

Mike_E said:


> Hi Sbuxo, I don't shoot or judge nudes really so take this at face value.  What interests me in photographing any portion of the human body is the interplay between light and shadow filtered by the body itself.  It's this filtering that brings out 'persona' to my thinking.
> 
> All of your shots are technically acceptable but none really show a joy of the interplay of light and shadow hence your subjects seem more objects than people.
> 
> ...


Actually, I shoot 2 rolls of 36 exp. each. :mrgreen:


----------



## Sbuxo (Mar 3, 2010)

New photos in the set, check em? Feedback <3


----------



## Sbuxo (Mar 10, 2010)

:er:


----------



## keith foster (Mar 10, 2010)

I guess you can assume that even us non-creepers don't find hands and feet as interesting as some of the other body parts.:blushing:
Sorry.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 11, 2010)

I tend to agree with Mike E.  They are technically acceptable, but they also seem lacking or maybe unfinished.  The lighting is sometimes dramatic, but not in all of them.  
I think the parts that bothers me most are the bright wall behind the model and the wrinkly bed sheets etc.  They seem to be distracting elements, rather than simply unobtrusive background elements.  
Maybe getting closer, zooming, cropping etc. would help.


----------



## gian133 (Mar 11, 2010)

I agree with the mike's. The lighting is great.

I checked out your flickr and added you. Really like your people shots and i love the b&w of the bulldog . And you took them with the point and shoot. They look great.

I'll be taking b&w photography next semester. Hopefully my teacher wont be so picky lol.

Good Job
-Gian


----------



## Paul Ron (Mar 11, 2010)

Here is a very interesting site you may want to browse for lots of nudes as well as many other subjects done in B&W.... you may find some inspiration as well as great ideas for lighting your subjects....

B&W Forum


Nice work.


----------



## SilverUser (Mar 20, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Btw, the fact that you are in Florida and have spanish text in your sig makes me think you may be of latino origins. That is part of my disappointment. I think latinos are more comfortable with their bodies than anglo-saxons and that means you should be able to get better photos related to your theme



There is absolutely no truth to your assertion here.   None, whatsoever.


----------



## ksven (Mar 25, 2010)

I liked 14, but as for the rest, they were slightly boring to me.


----------



## Sbuxo (Mar 25, 2010)

ksven said:


> I liked 14, but as for the rest, they were slightly boring to me.


super critique, thanks:er:


----------



## ksven (Mar 25, 2010)

my bad. here i'll further explain then. 
#1 Does nothing for me. Nothing sticks out or captures my eye. Just my opinion though of course. 
#2 I liked the right side of the photo, showing texture and what not, but most of it is just like the first.
#3 I've seen it. It's boring. But I do like the focus and also I think that you doing film is a way better choice than digital. It gives it a different feel. 
#6-10 Did nothing for me. 
#15-14 are what I liked. They were more intresting and contorted then all the other photos you took. 

Sorry for the bland critique before


----------



## ksven (Mar 25, 2010)

**13-15


----------



## Sbuxo (Apr 22, 2010)

Big Mike said:


> I tend to agree with Mike E.  They are technically acceptable, but they also seem lacking or maybe unfinished.  The lighting is sometimes dramatic, but not in all of them.
> I think the parts that bothers me most are the bright wall behind the model and the wrinkly bed sheets etc.  They seem to be distracting elements, rather than simply unobtrusive background elements.
> Maybe getting closer, zooming, cropping etc. would help.


My professor said I crop too much :lmao:


----------



## Sbuxo (Apr 22, 2010)

Final photos are up on Flickr!
The end of the Body Project for this semester.
Feedback, feedback, feedbackkk!!
:thumbup:


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 22, 2010)

As a series/set, I think it works well.  Each shot has merit of it's own, although I think maybe you could drop a few of them without hurting the overall project.  
I'm not sure that the photos of the hands, fit into the group as well as the rest of them.  The hand shots show flexed/distorted positions...which isn't really apparent in the rest of the shots.  They are still good images, just that I think the project, as a whole, might be a little better if all/most of the shots showed the same level of tension.  For example, the 2nd shot has a bit of tension with the bend in the back, the hands shot more tension, but some of the other shots don't show/feel tension at all.  
Just a thought anyway.


----------



## Sbuxo (Apr 22, 2010)

Big Mike said:


> As a series/set, I think it works well.  Each shot has merit of it's own, although I think maybe you could drop a few of them without hurting the overall project.
> I'm not sure that the photos of the hands, fit into the group as well as the rest of them.  The hand shots show flexed/distorted positions...which isn't really apparent in the rest of the shots.  They are still good images, just that I think the project, as a whole, might be a little better if all/most of the shots showed the same level of tension.  For example, the 2nd shot has a bit of tension with the bend in the back, the hands shot more tension, but some of the other shots don't show/feel tension at all.
> Just a thought anyway.


A lot were dropped, my final portfolio had about 7 images in total. I agree about the tension. Thanks for replying


----------



## Vautrin (Apr 23, 2010)

Looks like your model may have had some skin blemishes which you might have tried to get rid of -- either through use of a filter, photoshop, make up, or something else...

I also think some of the images might have benefited from a shallower depth of field (e.g. maybe this one) although it could just be that I've viewing a small image on a monitor

I think the comments of boring are justified to a certain extent and may be related to the material.  For instance in this shot you have a picture of a foot.  And its a well done picture of a foot, there's a nice contrast between shadow and light, and the image is sharp.  But, well, it's a foot and I don't think I'd hang a picture of a foot on my wall, no matter how good.

The material your model was sitting on also isn't so nice.  For instance in this shot she's sunken into the bed so you see one butt cheek.  I would much rather have seen her on a hard material so you see her full body, and I agree with the comment about cropping too much -- I would rather have seen all of her since the face is important -- although I can understand how maybe your model wouldn't want to be identifiable.

All in all I think it's interesting work... Better then I could have done  Good job...


----------



## Sbuxo (Apr 24, 2010)

Vautrin said:


> Looks like your model may have had some skin blemishes which you might have tried to get rid of -- either through use of a filter, photoshop, make up, or something else...
> 
> I also think some of the images might have benefited from a shallower depth of field (e.g. maybe this one) although it could just be that I've viewing a small image on a monitor
> 
> ...


Thanks for your critique buttt..
a)These aren't beauty shots, it's an exploration of the body, so that includes skin blemishes.
b)I agree with the material: bed, but I took all of them in her very crowded dorm, and to make matters worse her bed was a bunk bed. If there was another clear wall in her room I would've done it on the floor, but even so, there are things EVERYWHERE and I just couldn't compromise time at the moment. :thumbup:
c)I think of the face as a whole other 'world' than the body, and it's not that I was hiding her identity, I did take some with her face included but I didn't like them on the contact sheet and they didn't fit in as cohesive prints, imo.


----------



## Sbuxo (Apr 24, 2010)

Vautrin said:


> For instance in this shot you have a picture of a foot.  And its a well done picture of a foot, there's a nice contrast between shadow and light, and the image is sharp.  But, well, it's a foot and I don't think I'd hang a picture of a foot on my wall, no matter how good.


That's your opinion, are you saying only the amazing pictures are hung up on walls (in people's houses, I assume)? I don't mean to come off as defensive, but wow. I don't think you read the description of the whole project, and that image was chosen for my final portfolio because it's not only a foot, it has leg too. Before I clicked the link, I was sure you were thinking of the leg section of the extension. I'm sorry my photos won't make it up on your wall, but they weren't taken for that intention, so it's fine. :thumbup::lmao:
I've seen some pretty boring sh!t up in people's houses, so even then, I still have a shot. [:


----------



## burnws6 (Apr 24, 2010)

Sbuxo said:


> Cloudwalker,
> They are not SELF PORTRAITS. And, if you read the description of the set, you would see they didn't start out as nudes. Thanks. I appreciate your honesty, but really don't find any depth in your 'theory', because ONE, you're wrong. My text is not Spanish. Two, not all photographers go through a 'nude' phase for the same reasons, this is just to try it out for a semester. To explore new horizons.
> Intermediate Advanced meant either or, I should've just used one but oh well, your critique has no substance. It's boring to you, why? There's a subject and predicate to a sentence, and you just gave me a dead subject.
> 
> ...



ohhhhhhh shiiiiiiiiiiiiit. ****ing cuban just finished off cloud with high generalized assumptions come back?????, and a backwards smiley face. K.O. Well, done.


----------



## burnws6 (Apr 24, 2010)

I really like the shadows on this one

The Body IX on Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## Sbuxo (Apr 24, 2010)

burnws6 said:


> Sbuxo said:
> 
> 
> > Cloudwalker,
> ...


He should have read my profile before posting that garbage. 
That's how I do smileys. :thumbup:
& thanks.


----------



## Vautrin (Apr 24, 2010)

Sbuxo said:


> Thanks for your critique buttt..
> a)These aren't beauty shots, it's an exploration of the body, so that includes skin blemishes.b)I agree with the material: bed, but I took all of them in her very crowded dorm, and to make matters worse her bed was a bunk bed. If there was another clear wall in her room I would've done it on the floor, but even so, there are things EVERYWHERE and I just couldn't compromise time at the moment. :thumbup:



IMHO little things create a distracting shot, and they keep good shots from being great shots.  Personally, I'd like to see a shoot of the body emphasizing the curves of the female form, and little things can take away from the effect of the overall image.

This one is a great example.  

The pose to me is interesting.  But the acne on her chest is distracting, and her bra doesn't fit right creating a shadow.  Personally I would have liked to have seen this shot without acne and either without the bra, or with a well fitting bra (maybe a bikini top?).  And maybe have her bend her head forward or backwards depending on effect -- I think it would make the shot a much better shot.

One of the things that always amazes me about professional shoots about how they control everything -- every minor detail.  Of course that's just my opinion and how I would have shot it -- love it or hate it...



Sbuxo said:


> c)I think of the face as a whole other 'world' than the body, and it's not that I was hiding her identity, I did take some with her face included but I didn't like them on the contact sheet and they didn't fit in as cohesive prints, imo.



Well, again IMHO, I would have liked shots that weren't cropped so closely.  I'm not necessarily saying you should have shot portraits, but for instance in this shot I think I either would have cropped right to her midriff so you get just the curves of her stomach and chest -- or included the rest of her legs and added it to the shot...

Also, you can shoot her with her head tilted back or forward so you don't see her face -- but I think it adds more humanity to the pose...  Does that make sense?


----------



## Vautrin (Apr 24, 2010)

Sbuxo said:


> Vautrin said:
> 
> 
> > For instance in this shot you have a picture of a foot.  And its a well done picture of a foot, there's a nice contrast between shadow and light, and the image is sharp.  But, well, it's a foot and I don't think I'd hang a picture of a foot on my wall, no matter how good.
> ...



I actually did read the description of your project.  And I understand that you were shooting body parts, and hands, feet, all of those are connected to the body.  However you asked for C&C, and what I was nicely trying to say is that even though you may have done a great job in terms of the assignment (capturing the human body), a lot of the criticism for your shots focuses on the fact that they're bland.

A picture of a foot in the air -- even attached to a leg -- isn't particularly interesting.  Yes, it fulfills the purpose of your assignment, and you got an A, but I would have been more interested to see, for instance, feet with the girl on tip toes, or a more striking pose.  And I think others would agree with that here.

Let me put it another way.  When I first got my camera, to try to understand depth of field, I put a bunch of beer bottles in a row, and took a series of shots starting at f 2.8 all the way through f 22.  Personally, I achieved my purposed of trying to understand DOF and how the different f stop values effect it.  However, I don't think many people here would find the subject matter interesting...

And I think it's a valid critique -- yes you took pictures of all the different body parts but none of these pictures screams to me "everyday object from a different really cool looking perspective"


----------



## Sbuxo (Apr 24, 2010)

@Vautrin: I do appreciate your critique, and you're right about the distracting items and such in Body I, which was the first print I made. The project started in the beginning of the semester on January 6, and ended April 15th. 
I'll probably do a more contemporary nude next semester if there's a better setting.
:thumbup:


----------



## Vautrin (Apr 24, 2010)

Sbuxo said:


> @Vautrin: I do appreciate your critique, and you're right about the distracting items and such in Body I, which was the first print I made. The project started in the beginning of the semester on January 6, and ended April 15th.
> I'll probably do a more contemporary nude next semester if there's a better setting.
> :thumbup:



Why wait?  If nudes or similar artsy poses interests you, then don't wait for a school project to shoot it, just shoot shoot shoot.

If they don't interest you, go grab your camera and shoot what does interest you...  Be creative, be daring, burn through some film to try new things...   Look at other people's photos and artwork and be inspired (but always be original)  

Don't shoot something because you have to for a school project, do so because it's interesting, because it's fun, and because you enjoy it.  And if you ever stop enjoying it, take a break go find something else for a little while...

By the way -- criticism aside I think you did a good job...:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Sbuxo (Apr 24, 2010)

Vautrin said:


> Sbuxo said:
> 
> 
> > @Vautrin: I do appreciate your critique, and you're right about the distracting items and such in Body I, which was the first print I made. The project started in the beginning of the semester on January 6, and ended April 15th.
> ...


:lmao: The reason I have to wait til next semester is because it's the only free access I'll have to a darkroom 24/7. I'm majoring in photography, soo..yeah.


----------



## molested_cow (Apr 24, 2010)

I've never shot nudes before, but I've done plenty of nude figure drawings.

Before I lay my pencil down on the paper, I look for the gesture in the figure. It's really abstract here. Basically, it's the most powerful lines or flow that summarizes what you feel. Then I start with gestural lines to capture it, and everything else starts to fell in place naturally.

In photography, this is how I compost my photos as well and I don't expect it to be any different when shooting nudes. Human bodies is tough. With figure drawing, I have the freedom to express what I see in my head. After all, you see with your mind, not your eyes.

One technical thing I can say about your photos is the lack of focus. I don't mean sharpness kind of focus, but where the eye goes to. I think it's because the environment is just as bright as the subject. With human bodies, I would have chosen dark environment with strong lighting to bring up the sense of form with high contrasting shades.

Another way to show the form is to cast interesting shadows onto them, such as window blinds that create stripped shadows... etc.

You are lucky to have access to models to shoot.


----------



## jbnhl (Apr 24, 2010)

Well, I haven't done much with the human body before, but I think that your photos look very good.  I enjoy B&W, and I really think that by going with the 200 like you said, the grain works very well.  Keep up the good work!


----------



## Sbuxo (Apr 24, 2010)

I agree w/ you cow, but I needed to have a white background because my model is African American.


----------



## molested_cow (Apr 24, 2010)

Sbuxo said:


> I agree w/ you cow, but I needed to have a white background because my model is African American.



The right lighting can save the day:
Here's a good example: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photojournalism-sports-gallery/201339-boxing.html


----------



## Sbuxo (Apr 25, 2010)

molested_cow said:


> Sbuxo said:
> 
> 
> > I agree w/ you cow, but I needed to have a white background because my model is African American.
> ...


Wouldn't it transfer differently on B&W film AND fiber paper


----------



## Vautrin (Apr 26, 2010)

"Black" skin is typically a much lighter shade then the true black you'd have as a background.  Your model appears to have a lighter skin tone and you might want to try a couple shots against a black background to see if it works...


----------



## knjrphoto (Jun 1, 2010)

I did a similar project when I was in college. Except I did self portraits.


----------



## Sbuxo (Jun 1, 2010)

Congrats.


----------



## Paul Ron (Jun 2, 2010)

Sbuxo said:


> I agree w/ you cow, but I needed to have a white background because my model is African American.



Now that's not rtue at all. Some of the most stunning balck n whites of dark skined people are against dark backgrounds. Use your lights n texture of the skin n depth of blacks to make your subject interesting, more abstract in a sence. Darks n lights will direct the eye around the photo till the brain catches up n realises what you did. That "Ah ha" moment is the prize.


----------



## Sbuxo (Jun 2, 2010)

@Paul Ron: Merhh, well with my limited lighting it wasn't. I'll be sure to try it though. 

p.s.: it's spelled sense.


----------



## burnws6 (Jun 2, 2010)

Sbuxo said:


> Congrats.



lololololol


----------



## PJL (Jun 3, 2010)

I took a look at your photostream yesterday; since I've never had any formal training or studio time, I don't really feel qualified to critique them, but I will say I think they're quite striking.  I really enjoy your use of shadows, especially on the nudes.  I can definitely see improvement in your work between the two models.


----------



## Paul Ron (Jun 3, 2010)

Sbuxo said:


> @Paul Ron: p.s.: it's spelled sense.



You college kids have no sence of yumor either. I'm typing too fast n always make two many misteaks. I think I have a good sense of it now.

BTW I just took a look at your final pics... nice work.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 3, 2010)

Looks like you're getting the hang of it.  

Beds are cool, wooden floors are too.  Leading lines and all of that-  maybe a dance hall or practice floor?  A balance beam might be the ticket and there should be one of those around somewhere.  Juxtaposing between the hard and straight and the soft and curved can be much like light and shadow. 

Keep it up!

mike


----------



## Sbuxo (Jun 6, 2010)

Mike_E said:


> Looks like you're getting the hang of it.
> 
> Beds are cool, wooden floors are too.  Leading lines and all of that-  maybe a dance hall or practice floor?  A balance beam might be the ticket and there should be one of those around somewhere.  Juxtaposing between the hard and straight and the soft and curved can be much like light and shadow.
> 
> ...


Yea, I'd agree but I don't have access to an empty dancehall to be shooting nude friends.


----------



## Sbuxo (Jun 6, 2010)

Paul Ron said:


> Sbuxo said:
> 
> 
> > @Paul Ron: p.s.: it's spelled sense.
> ...


Lmao, I don't have a sense of humor? Fanni. On to the next one...:er:


----------



## Vautrin (Jun 6, 2010)

Sbuxo said:


> Mike_E said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like you're getting the hang of it.
> ...



Just tell the owner you and your friends want to get naked and take some pictures inside.   You'll find someone to give you access quickly


----------



## Sbuxo (Jun 12, 2010)

:lmao:


----------



## Anim8me2 (Jul 29, 2010)

I like the shots.
I do agree with the idea of more tension/mystery to the shots.
Nudes can be interesting (at least to me) in a few ways:
1. Mystery. Show me enough to recognize the parts I am looking at... but not right away.
2. Form. Show me the human body in a way that makes me stop and really look at it. I have seen plenty of bodies but a really great nude will make you stare over and over again. And not to drool.

That being said.

I like The Body X. The curve of the back is nice, had you shot this with a little more contrast it would have accentuated the flesh a little more.
The Body IX, crop that a lot closer and kick up the contrast and you have a really great shot.

I do admit to liking contrasty nudes.
Here is an example of one of mine for you to rip in to. Tit for tat... uh, that was completely unintentional.


----------



## white (Jul 29, 2010)

Old thread, and it probably doesn't matter much anymore, but I think Body XXVII could have been improved by cropping the top just past the subject's right shoulder line (image: left). Then there is a nice line leading out of the upper right corner, and it helps emphasize the same line in the arm.


----------



## Sbuxo (Sep 5, 2010)

-Every good* post matters, don't be silly. Too bad I'm too lazy to see which photo you're talking about white. -_- I will check maybe tomorrow and edit this shxtty reply. ;P
-Thanks for your input Anim8me.

This semester my project is going to be on Young Adults/Teenagers (age 18+), I'm going along the same lines as Larry Clark with his Teenage Lust, but not as explicit. I would if I had the models for it. lol. But, yeaaah. There will be plenty of implied sex, nudity, drugs and liquor.  First critique is on 9/20 and I still haven't shot shxt. Yay meee. 

Roger out, people.


----------



## Sbuxo (Sep 22, 2010)

Don't feel like making a whole new thread, so I'll continue on this one.

The new project called TeenEDGE is still about Teens/Young Adults but it's now gonna have more about their behaviors, activities, habits, and insecurities. The first prints only came up to three because I wanted to conserve paper and although I took 2 36 exposure rolls, one roll came out with the most usable shots. So the 3 I printed are on my Flickr...which now is rated Moderate since Flickr thinks the Body Project may offend someone. Pfff.


----------



## white (Sep 22, 2010)

I like what you've done so far, and I think the concept has huge potential.

Go beyond the stereotype. Not saying your images are cliche; for me, personally, I have discovered that I get closer to an idea's true potential the longer I work with it.


----------



## Vautrin (Sep 23, 2010)

Sbuxo said:


> Don't feel like making a whole new thread, so I'll continue on this one.
> 
> The new project called TeenEDGE is still about Teens/Young Adults but it's now gonna have more about their behaviors, activities, habits, and insecurities.



I'm curious, are you looking at normal young adults?  You appear to have included a picture of someone snorting lines of ?cocaine?



Sbuxo said:


> The first prints only came up to three because I wanted to conserve paper and although I took 2 36 exposure rolls, one roll came out with the most usable shots.



It's possible to scan the negatives instead of the prints.  You might want to try that if you have some pictures you want to digitize.

The pictures are really impressive.  If the others are anything like that, definitely keep up the good work!

I noticed you mentioned that you weren't able to pull.  If you like low contrast and fine grain, why shoot an iso 400 film, why not, say, shoot iso 80 with more lighting? I ask because it seems like all your shots are with TMax 400 but none are at ISO 400


----------



## Sbuxo (Sep 23, 2010)

@white: thanks!
@vautrin: i live in miami, cocaine is "normal" haha..it's an underground scene. I always wanted to take a shot of it anyways, it fascinate me! (not the drug..just photographing it..x_x lol). I rather just scan the prints cuz I do have to make them anyways for critique. 
I usually do pull when I'm shooting Tri-x 400 (not tmax! ;P) cuz the contrast is sometimes overbearing and the grain is finer and i always get nice tonalities, but this time my light meter didn't do so well with the light under 200 so i had to do 400. I actually love tri-x, the Body Project was done entirely on it and produced wonderful tones and images for me.  I'm just gonna increase my light quality so I can shoot at my normal 200. [: Alsooo, I know about the cliche thing, I'm trying really hard not to fall in there. I decided to challenge myself with this subject, but with critiques every 2 weeks and juggling 4 other hard as$ classes..it's a real struggle to even get shots! lol. Thank you for your encouragement, I'll keep you guys informed. 

PS: Define normal? Boring?! Hell nooo. I'm shooting TeenEDGE which means interesting individuals only. Haha ;P

Expect soon:
*graffiti
*smoking 
*more self consciousness
*sexxxxx haha..


----------

