# Lauren (NSFW)



## Austin Greene (Mar 26, 2015)

From a shoot this past weekend. Lauren does volunteer work for battered women, and is a generally awesome person. She wanted to do an implied nude shoot that wasn't about sex appeal. It was a blast, and we'll certainly be working together more in the future 

P.S: I am not posting this in the nude subforum because there isn't anything showing. Therefore, I thought it would be appropriate for here since less is showing then some swimsuit shots others have posted. Yes, she's naked, but she is _*modest.*_

Hope you like it!
Austin




Lauren by TogaLive, on Flickr


----------



## photoguy99 (Mar 26, 2015)

I think a lower camera angle would help with the message of power.


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 26, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> I think a lower camera angle would help with the message of power.



I can't say it was about "power." We weren't going for something that turned her into a god. That's very different from empowerment, imo.

More along the lines of accomplishing an implied nude shoot, minus the rampant sex appeal that leaks into these types of shoots so easily.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

she seems like a nice person! Not so sure i see anything for empowerment here. I do like the premise of the photo. The hand placement on the chin does strike me  as a little awkward, i cant understand why just does. Her butt on that rock probably isn't too comfortable. So yeah. I don't see the empowerment.  Nice photo anyway. The lack of sex appeal you nailed (and i mean this in a good way). This would be hard to do for empowerment imo. Nudity in itself comes with a certain sense of vulnerability.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 26, 2015)

The little bit of sky is simultaneously distracting and essential. With it the eye is drawn out of the frame, without it the composition is stagnant.


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 26, 2015)

bribrius said:


> The lack of sex appeal you nailed (and i mean this in a good way).



What you just described is exactly the empowerment we were going for. Separating a female body from the sex appeal so many assign from it. In her mind and my own, that is empowerment. I think folks just have different meanings for the word, I'll edit the original post.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

unpopular said:


> The little bit of sky is simultaneously distracting and essential. With it the eye is drawn out of the frame, without it the composition is stagnant.


interesting you mentioned that. I was looking at it too but couldn't really make heads of tales of a better suggestion. You typed what i seemed to lack the wording for.


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 26, 2015)

unpopular said:


> The little bit of sky is simultaneously distracting and essential. With it the eye is drawn out of the frame, without it the composition is stagnant.



I'm quite happy if that's the case, and appreciate the perspective  Can't agree with the second half, though. Everything here is pretty much exactly as intended.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Mar 26, 2015)

I think about how cold she must be.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 26, 2015)

Austin Greene said:


> Everything here is pretty much exactly as intended.



This has no bearing at all on if it was a successful choice. By admitting that it was intentional only says to me that you've made a poor choice.

You have every right to be proud of the image, at least visually. But don't be so confident that you overlook the obvious. The image is very good, but it's not a perfect masterpiece. The gooey background is a mistake in my opinion, and the bit of sky - albeit the best choice given the circumstances - is nonetheless problematic.

As for the concept, I'm underwhelmed. By simply covering her naughty bits and claiming it's a feminist piece, you're essentially saying that women must be "modest" - else they are subject to being sexual objects; that the only non-pornographic place for the female form is if it is essentially obstructed from view. Covering her breasts in particular only furthers the sexualization of  female anatomy within the context of your intent.

It's a fine nude portrait, and if it were left at that it would have been successful. Placing this socio-political baggage onto it though calls into question it's legitimacy.

As an image, it succeeds. As a statement, it fails.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 26, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Austin Greene said:
> 
> 
> > Everything here is pretty much exactly as intended.
> ...


I'm pretty much with UP on this.  I like the image, I think it's well done, 'though I wish you'd used a polarizing filter to knock down those reflections on the water at least somewhat, and that bit of sky bothers my eye.  As well, watch your posing; this is a very tricky shot in some respects, and while I can't tell if it's actually happening, the way she has her right arm positioned makes it appear as if she's pressing it into her breast.

As for the message.  Sorry, but I don't get it.  Not one little bit.  I always look at images before I read any text in a post so that my thought process isn't 'polluted' by the poster's, and I can form my own conclusions.  In this case, I got 'gentle', vulnerable' a sort of 'lady in the lake' thing.  That said, I'm not sure how I would have shot an implied nude to show empowerment, so....


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 26, 2015)

very tastefully done!


----------



## JoeW (Mar 26, 2015)

I like the image, I think it's a good one.  Kudos to your model for having the courage to do this.  Here are my suggestions:
1.  The sky in the upper left is distracting--either remove it/clone it away or crop it out.
2.  If you could repose, I'd have a bit more of her feet/ankles out of the water.  As it is, they are cut off...and a long flowing line is lost.
3.  Love, love, love the light on the left side of her hair--beautiful stuff there.
4.  There is a tendency for people who shoot some nudes outdoors to just have a cute chick and hey, she's outside!  Look for ways to find aspects like color/shapes/texture/form/light to either integrate or contrast the model with in the environment.  To put it another way, integrate her into the surrounds so she either fits in or she contrasts with it.  Here are some ideas...
--she's got some triangle action going there with her legs...any chance of a tree trunk nearby she could align with?
--she's in water, change the angle you're shooting at and get a reflection.
--or shoot with a longer exposure and blur the water to create a soft, ephemeral feel that would match her expression and pose.
--or put her on her stomach as if she's a creature of the water and emerging from it on to the shore.
Don't take these suggestions as criticism of the pose or of the shot, just ways to compose her that utilize the environment better.  She's a good model and it's a lovely shot but you've got tremendous potential here.


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 26, 2015)

unpopular said:


> This has no bearing at all on if it was a successful choice. By admitting that it was intentional only says to me that you've made a poor choice. You have every right to be proud of the image, at least visually. But don't be so confident that you overlook the obvious. The image is very good, but it's not a perfect masterpiece. The gooey background is a mistake in my opinion, and the bit of sky - albeit the best choice given the circumstances - is nonetheless problematic.



By admitting that it came out how I'd like it to come out says it was a great choice. I've said nothing about the photo being a "masterpiece" or anything of the like. You've assumed that. Instead, all I've said is that the photo came out as I had thought it should. That says nothing about the quality of the image, or the composition for that matter. I'm all for critique, but try to keep things from getting personal.




unpopular said:


> As for the concept, I'm underwhelmed. By simply covering her naughty bits and claiming it's a feminist piece, you're essentially saying that women must be "modest" - else they are subject to being sexual objects; that the only non-pornographic place for the female form is if it is essentially obstructed from view. Covering her breasts in particular only furthers the sexualization of  female anatomy within the context of your intent.



First off, I've not mentioned this being a feminist work at all. Another assumption on your part, and a poor one. You might want to curb those, considering everything you mention here has _nothing_ to do with the point of this image. Per the client's request, she asked that we make a photo that keeps her own beauty in tact, without showing off her other features. There is nothing feminist about that. There is nothing about that saying that the female form has to be obstructed, or that women have to be modest. Quite the opposite. You've successfully, and completely misconstrued the entire concept.



unpopular said:


> It's a fine nude portrait, and if it were left at that it would have been successful. Placing this socio-political baggage onto it though calls into question it's legitimacy.
> 
> As an image, it succeeds. As a statement, it fails.



Just keep in mind that you are the _only_ one associating that baggage with it. It is not meant to be a statement, it's meant to be a portrait in a specific context. This is not one of those cases where a photo is meant to carry a huge message. Instead, you've tacked that message onto the image through your own rhetoric. You have no business doing that, and frankly, it isn't fair that you'd expect it to live up to some grand feminist concept you've invented for it.

If you're going to make assumptions, and then draw your own circumstantial conclusions from them in such a grievous nature, do me a favor and don't do it with my photos.

Again, I'm all for critique. But proper technical critique does not involve personal assaults, or assigning your own ideology to a photo. If you think the top left is distracting, great, leave it at that. If I've placed that light there, then it was a choice, and I'll stick by it. If it was a poor choice, I'll learn from that. However, if it think it adds something to the photo, then I'll leave it. It's not being over-confident, it's called standing by your decisions.

EDIT: I do realize that part of the miscommunication here could be the fact that she *is *covered here. This is part of an entire shoot. Many of which, she is completely uncovered. The only reason I'm posting this image alone is: A) I'm not a monetary supporter of the forum so I don't have access to the nude forum and therefore cannot post, and B) I won't be posting those images in the first place out of respect for her own privacy. In that sense, anyone seeing this image and trying to consolidate whatever "message" they might assign to it, along with the fact that she is covered, might find those two points in conflict. I still, however, think the root of the problem is trying to ascribe a message in a place where one was never meant to be.


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 26, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> very tastefully done!



Thank you. Glad someone can see it as a photo without pasting their own ideology to it


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 26, 2015)

tirediron said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Austin Greene said:
> ...



I appreciate the critique. But, again, I don't see where people are picking up on a concept of a message. This is a personal portrait. There is no grandiose feminist message. People assume "empowerment" means some grand thing whenever a female is involved, but in this case it's simply about a girl having her portrait done, comfortably, without it being laced with sex appeal.

I do agree with you on the elbow. From what I can remember she wasn't pressing back, but it does appear that way. Something to look out for in the future


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 26, 2015)

IMHO, it's beautiful and tastefully done.  The only thing is her expression is a bit confusing, at least at first glance.  Other than that, I like it.


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 26, 2015)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> I think about how cold she must be.


Haha, this I completely understand  It was a bit chilly, but she was a trooper. For her particular competitive sport she's up at 4am most days for practice anyways, usually in local waterways like this one, so she was surprisingly comfortable.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 26, 2015)

Beautiful portrait, and I think it was executed really well.

As far as people making personal assaults on your images, I've found that it is common in this forum especially when there really isn't much else for them to critique on an image and especially so when they themselves couldn't even come close to creating an image with any sort of impact or quality, so they make up reasons to try and tell you that you don't know what you're doing. This forum has a handful of members and moderators who will try to cut you down and stuff you into a boring little box of so-called "perfection". Don't fall into that trap. Keep doing what you're doing.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 26, 2015)

DanOstergren said:


> Beautiful portrait, and I think it was executed really well.
> 
> As far as people making personal assaults on your images, I've found that it is common in this forum especially when there really isn't much else for them to critique on an image and especially so when they themselves couldn't even come close to creating an image with any sort of impact or quality, so they make up reasons to try and tell you that you don't know what you're doing. This forum has a handful of members and moderators who will try to cut you down and stuff you into a boring little box of so-called "perfection". Don't fall into that trap. Keep doing what you're doing.


Let's be very clear about something folks:  No one has made any sort of personal attack on the OPs image.  Everyone has said that it's a nice image; a couple of us have indicated that we don't see the theme that the OP indicates he was trying to capture, but disagreement is NOT a personal attack!  It's an expression of another viewpoint, and for those who are sensitive to critique, please indicate that you are posting to share only and not for C&C.  One of the fundamental purposes of art is encourage discussion, and Austin's image has done that, so purely from that perspective it must be a success.  I can assure you that if there are any personal attacks the moderating team will deal with quickly.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

Austin Greene said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > very tastefully done!
> ...


ummmmm. you originally had in your opening that this photo was about womens empowerment. Which i thought was a good premise.  The only ideology placed in this was by you. Granted, you retracted it after. Perhaps a misinterpretation of the purpose of the photo by the viewers reading the comments. But the ideology wasn't place on it by us.  It was placed on in from your opening lines stating it was womens empowerment.


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 26, 2015)

DanOstergren said:


> Beautiful portrait, and I think it was executed really well.
> 
> As far as people making personal assaults on your images, I've found that it is common in this forum especially when there really isn't much else for them to critique on an image and especially so when they themselves couldn't even come close to creating an image with any sort of impact or quality, so they make up reasons to try and tell you that you don't know what you're doing. This forum has a handful of members and moderators who will try to cut you down and stuff you into a boring little box of so-called "perfection". Don't fall into that trap. Keep doing what you're doing.



I really appreciate the perspective man. I love your work and, to be honest, I kept it in mind going into this shoot. Seeing your support really seals the deal that I'm happy with the image as a whole. 



tirediron said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Beautiful portrait, and I think it was executed really well.
> ...



I couldn't appreciate more what the mods do for us. You guys really are on top of it, and keep this thing we call TPF running. We all owe you for it. 

My biggest gripe here was with one person. If I came across as trying to send a feminist message with my writing, or the photo, that isn't what was intended. I don't think that was really quite clear, and so some folks latched onto my defense of the image as me being arrogant or over-confident in it being a "masterpiece". Bottom line, there was never any message being sent, or to defend. 

To me, this is just a client feeling comfortable with her body, and there is something great about that. End of story, imho.


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 26, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Austin Greene said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



As I mentioned earlier, that statement was misinterpreted. I never said anything about sending a feminist message. My intention was just to show that it can be empowering for a client to be nude in a photo, without needing to add sex appeal. If I confused people, I apologize for that, and that is exactly why I made sure to edit that single line of the original post within minutes of people getting confused. 

My problem was that some people, even when the OP says they might be misinterpreting things and has taken steps to avoid it, continue to try and argue a point that is completely null. That's not even critique, it's pestering.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 26, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Austin Greene said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



the initial post said...
"implied nude shoot that wasn't about sex appeal"

the "empowerment" comment came later, in post #6, but it was only (as far as I see it anyway) in regards to how it was defined earlier. (post #3) 
to me, it seems like Austin pretty much explained the shot in Post #1 and #3...all the other ideology came later, and from other people.  Its not a right -vs- wrong thing, its just how different people see the photo. 

if the premise of the shot was to imply nudity without actually showing any naughty bits, i would say he pulled it off nicely.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 26, 2015)

Austin Greene said:


> ...My problem was that some people, even when the OP says they might be misinterpreting things and has taken steps to avoid it, continue to try and argue a point that is completely null. That's not even critique, it's pestering.


I think what you're forgetting Austin, is that interpretation is totally subjective.  If someone puts the same photo in front of you and I and says, "What does this mean to you in 25 words", chances are we're going to have different stories.  You know you've nailed a concept when_ most_ people interpret the image along the same lines as you envisioned it.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 26, 2015)

Austin Greene said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Beautiful portrait, and I think it was executed really well.
> ...


Thanks! Keep up the good work. 

People are always going to try and force their ideals on your images. To me saying that covering the breasts is objectifying her even further is absolutely absurd and is reaching, and I agree with you that it goes past the line of critique and becomes personal.


----------



## photoguy99 (Mar 26, 2015)

I believe "empowered" appeared, originally, in the OP, and was deleted as Austin clarified things. The following commentary about empowerment and feminism derives from that, and from replies to replies and so on.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 26, 2015)

This has been a very ugly C&C thread.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 26, 2015)

Derrel said:


> This has been a very ugly C&C thread.


It's a shame, because the subject was not


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

Derrel said:


> This has been a very ugly C&C thread.


To many personal feelings involved when it is suppose to be just about the image.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 26, 2015)

I just think people have a very narrow view of female empowerment. I like the image, and I can see how it can be empowering. Not everything has to be on-the-nose.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 26, 2015)

Austin Greene said:


> some folks latched onto my defense of the image as me being arrogant or over-confident in it being a "masterpiece". Bottom line, there was never any message being sent, or to defend.



The assertion that simply because a choice was intentional can invalidate criticism is inherently over-confident and arrogant. It's saying that whatever you choose is "good" by virtue that you chose it alone.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 26, 2015)

Austin Greene said:


> and so some folks latched onto my defense of the image as me being arrogant or over-confident in it being a "masterpiece". Bottom line, there was never any message being sent, or to defend.



Every picture I have ever taken is a masterpiece and I'm not shy about it.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 26, 2015)

Our society tends to equate nakedness with sexuality, which is why breastfeeding gets into so much trouble.  So, that's the elephant in the room, whether we want to acknowledge it or not.  And whether intended or not, messages will be perceived.

That said, she's an attractive woman.  Her pose is generally relaxed, except for the position of the right hand, which looks somewhat awkward in the way she's holding to her chin.  Perhaps that was necessary to hide her left breast, but I'm thinking having her hand lower down, even if it revealed some of the breast, would have felt more natural.

In my mind, empowerment comes from the person feeling (and showing) that they are in control of the situation, that THEY are the ones who are deciding what will happen.  Except for the previously-mentioned hand, the rest of her pose appears natural and relaxed.  She certainly does not look out of place in the setting.  That to me is a key part of the empowerment - that the setting not be forced or artificial.  

In some ways, the lack of any clothing or props (as can be seen in boudoir sessions) communicate the lack of sexual intent.  I don't feel the image invites us to look at her as a sexual being.  And frankly, we "should" be more relaxed about seeing people in the buff, but as since marketing implied sexuality is so prevalent, it's hard to drop that form of brainwashing.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 26, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Austin Greene said:
> 
> 
> > some folks latched onto my defense of the image as me being arrogant or over-confident in it being a "masterpiece". Bottom line, there was never any message being sent, or to defend.
> ...


I don't see it as arrogant. I think we have every right to defend our choices, just as you do to critique them.


----------



## funwitha7d (Mar 27, 2015)

one day, maybe 10 - 20 years time I imagine she will look back fondly at this image, its not something many would be into but she is attractive and this is a lovely photo, noting more nothing less but what a great record for her from this time, I'm not so clued up on all the technical things but just like it.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 27, 2015)

DanOstergren said:


> I don't see it as arrogant. I think we have every right to defend our choices, just as you do to critique them.



I would agree, except that the choice wasn't defended. OP asserted it's success by virtue of it being intentional. 

This is such a typical overly attached response to a critique.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 27, 2015)

unpopular said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see it as arrogant. I think we have every right to defend our choices, just as you do to critique them.
> ...


Just as yours is such a typical response to someone explaining their choice in a photograph when that choice called to question and the critic disagrees with what the photographer has to say. Your critique is not universal fact.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 27, 2015)

DanOstergren said:


> Just as yours is such a typical response to someone explaining their choice in a photograph when that choice called to question and the critic disagrees with what the photographer has to say. Your critique is not universal fact.



He didn't explain anything. He just said it was intentional. I don't care about that. This doesn't make it successful. I've made lots of bad choices in my stuff, choices I made intentionally.

I don't mind people disagreeing; I don't mind dialogue, but essentially saying 'yeah, but I'm right and you're wrong' isn't dialogue, it isn't an explanation or reasoning. It's just arrogant. It's an attitude that says "I don't make bad choices/any choice I make is always good".

If you're only willing to look at what was overseen in your work, you'll get _nowhere_. Those are like the little typos, with enough practice and feedback you'll get through them. 

What you want to really listen to closely to is criticism of what you did intentionally, and really discuss what it was that motivated that choice and how that choice was or was not successful.

Those discussions are way more useful to me, and I never write this kind of critique off the way that the OP did here.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 27, 2015)

unpopular said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Just as yours is such a typical response to someone explaining their choice in a photograph when that choice called to question and the critic disagrees with what the photographer has to say. Your critique is not universal fact.
> ...


I don't see how "I'm quite happy if that's the case, and appreciate the perspective  Can't agree with the second half, though. Everything here is pretty much exactly as intended" is an even remotely arrogant response. Quite polite actually, and you even mentioned in the first place that it worked, so what's the problem? It seems to me like you just wanted to accuse him of being arrogant because he didn't completely validate your opinion, and accusing him of such has nothing to do with the photograph whatsoever.


----------



## BrickHouse (Mar 27, 2015)

I think it's lovely. The color palette and skin tones are very inviting and comfortable. I think pgriz has the critique I agree with most. Very nicely done. I am not distracted by the upper left corner, then again, I've never noticed if someone has a tree or post growing out of their head or some other comment that gets thrown around.


----------



## funwitha7d (Mar 27, 2015)

very nicely put BrickHouse


----------



## jenko (Mar 27, 2015)

I love the image. Very beautiful, natural, and the color is so rich and earthy. My next request for you is to get her in one of your gorgeous landscapes!!!! My heart trembles at the very idea!!


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 27, 2015)

vania said:


> I want to make a picture like that, but never get a model that will do it


What about friends and family? You may be surprised at who would love to have photos of themselves like this.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 27, 2015)

vania said:


> I want to make a picture like that, but never get a model that will do it



Hey you can always do a selfie.


----------



## otherprof (Mar 27, 2015)

Austin Greene said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


Samuel Goldwyn once said, "When I want to send a message, I call Western Union." A beautiful image doesn't have to say anything, and people who argue about what it is saying, and whether it should be saying it that way or at all, may be missing the point which is the image itself. Politics belongs in some photos, e.g. the Fahey-Klein Gallery in L.A. just opened a show of civil rights photos. But most of those photos out as images, even without the context.  Roger Fry once wrote about one of the first Chinese artists to visit England. They took him to the great museums and galleries and tried to wow him with the best they had. It turned out that a lot of the renaissance art left him cold, because he didn't get the stories or iconography. As images, they did not move him. When he got to the impressionists, he was wowed. Reading Fry made me look at images differently. Now I ask things like, "If I didn't know this was a reference to the Annunciation would it be worth looking at?


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 30, 2015)

Oh, wow. I come back from a weekend of engagement shooting and just noticed how much this thread blew up. I do really appreciate that so many of you liked the photo, and I'll do my best to get you another soon enough  

Keep shootin'! 



funwitha7d said:


> one day, maybe 10 - 20 years time I imagine she will look back fondly at this image, its not something many would be into but she is attractive and this is a lovely photo, noting more nothing less but what a great record for her from this time, I'm not so clued up on all the technical things but just like it.



My assistant on this day had the exact same thought. We're now in the process of getting a shoot together for her as well!  



jenko said:


> I love the image. Very beautiful, natural, and the color is so rich and earthy. My next request for you is to get her in one of your gorgeous landscapes!!!! My heart trembles at the very idea!!



More and more I think I've found myself inching towards that end of things, portraits mixed with really vast landscapes. At the moment, I think I'll pick up a bit too much distortion with the 17-40, but I'd certainly like to give it a go. 



vania said:


> I want to make a picture like that, but never get a model that will do it



Like other folks mentioned, you'd be amazed as how open people are once they realize you aren't a creep. My goal in every shoot is for a subject to be as comfortable with me as if we were best friends or family. Make them comfortable, and the shoots will come  



otherprof said:


> Austin Greene said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



This is a really cool, really informative piece of history. I'm reading up on it now!


----------



## beagle100 (Apr 6, 2015)

Austin Greene said:


> Oh, wow. I come back from a weekend of engagement shooting and just noticed how much this thread blew up. I do really appreciate that so many of you liked the photo, and I'll do my best to get you another soon enough
> 
> Keep shootin'!
> 
> ...


----------



## beagle100 (Apr 6, 2015)

modestly fine!


----------



## FITBMX (Apr 7, 2015)

Lovely and tasteful, I really like it! Good Job!!!


----------

