Claudio_martins Posted December 9, 2006 Share #1 Posted December 9, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks for looking, comments are welcome! Leica M3/ summicron 35mm/ TriX 800/ Beutler Developer Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/11015-nude/?do=findComment&comment=114751'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 9, 2006 Posted December 9, 2006 Hi Claudio_martins, Take a look here Nude. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
square_one Posted December 10, 2006 Share #2 Posted December 10, 2006 Claudio - Since you really seem to want comments and no one has contributed, I will give you mine. The 'female nude' is extremely difficult, why 99.999% of the images we see are just plain dumb. I applaud you for taking-up the challenge. Right off, when they are perched on rocks, hanging from trees, leaning on a Corvette, I find them - if not foolishly-lewd - simply unnatural. A Helmut Newton will occasionally surprise with an exception to the rule - say a truly-riveting picture of a naked lady in a bar on a bar stool with a cigarette dangling out of her too-red mouth wearing nothing but high heels - but most of his stuff is just voyeurish, sells magazines and books and makes everybody money, but not truly great nude stuff. Now, a real, live, unclothed woman in her natural surroundings - the bath, the bedroom - where she is herself, sexual without trying to be, like the females within great paintings - that's natural, that's respectful, and that can be beautiful. How often do we see that? Almost never. Your image is in between, not exploitive but very unnatural, and I can't relate to this woman laid out on a crinkled backdrop photographed straight down upon like a fish out of water ... but ... sink her pretty much as she is into the rumpled sheets of a bed where she is more comfortable with her nakedness, her tense expression more relaxed, that would be a female female, both a male's female and female's female if that makes any sense. Keep at it, you're ahead of many already! Bruce PS Also feel the grain is a bit too arty and the hint of necklace distracts, kills the needed warmth and softness of NUDE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest umb Posted December 10, 2006 Share #3 Posted December 10, 2006 I like the picture and I would like it even more if the name line was a smaller typo and not in such an obstrusive position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuny Posted December 10, 2006 Share #4 Posted December 10, 2006 Claudio - I agree with both comments above. Taking umb's a step further, place the signature, if you must have it, in the uniportant (in this image) lower edge. To add to what Bruce wrote, I had a conversation with a woman who was our lead legal counsel regarding nude art. Her feeling was that most female nude photos by women seem to work better, and that those by men usually reflect a different agenda. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claudio_martins Posted December 10, 2006 Author Share #5 Posted December 10, 2006 HI! I thank to all the commentaries, critical and really my name in the photo has an exaggerated size. It only lacked to an information in this pic: It was made in 1979, 27 years behind. Today I would make it in another way. Thanks, Claudio Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.