Jump to content

Meet Rani (contains nudity)

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

By Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS
in People

Recommended Posts

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi

Here are a few of many pictures that I took of my friend Rani. Rani is a freelance model working and living in Jakarta Indonesia, I was lucky enough to catch up with Rani while she was visiting family in Malaysia, so we decided to have a day out in the sticks doing some outdoor photography. As you can see (or will see when I get around to sifting through all the DNG) as the day progressed the braver we both got......lol

All shots were taken with my Leica S007 and either S120, 70 and even my S30mm.....some with profoto B1 flash and some without.

 

Rani

 

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
x
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Posted
Posted

Last one for tonight.......I find that the S007 files render very nice in B&W

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
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Posted
Posted

This is my favourite one up to now............

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
IkarusJohn

IkarusJohn

Posted
Posted

I'm never sure about nude photography; actually, I'm never sure about the use of models generally. I understand that the model here is a friend of yours, Neil, and I have no particular issue with these images - I'm far from prudish. But what I struggle with is, how do you assess such photos?

 

I'm not wishing to offend, and really my comments are not about your images; but they raise the issue, so here goes.

 

If we photograph a model (someone relatively unknown to the photographer), it is by definition a staged environment. What is the purpose of the photographs? To work on technique? To capture image of a beautiful woman/man/child? All perfectly valid, but of less interest (to me, anyway). I tend to see this as commercial work, where you're creating an image to sell clothes, perfume, makeup or some other product. Personally, not that interesting - why? They can be pleasing images (as Neil's are). I guess it's a combination of things - context, relationship between photographer and subject, the lack of any spontaneity? I'm not at all sure.

 

Add nudity, and what is the impact? Certainly, the naked body is beautiful. Our local gallery recently ran an exhibition "The Body Laid Bare" (Nude art from the Tate Collection). The exhibit started with the historical, and went through private, modern, real and surreal, flesh, erotic, political to vulnerable; Rodin, Degas, Turner, Picasso ... fabulous.

 

There is undoubtedly a challenge in getting skin tones right, and the relationship with the photographer is important. But, I struggle at times to understand the point. Coplans' self portraits (nude at the age of 74) had significant impact, despite being confronting.

 

The test for me (of nudes) is to look at the subject's eyes and to wonder what he/she is thinking, and to imagine how the image would look if the subject was clothed. I think Robert Maplethorpe made sharing intimacy in nudity hard for almost everyone who followed.

 

Cheers

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm never sure about nude photography; actually, I'm never sure about the use of models generally. I understand that the model here is a friend of yours, Neil, and I have no particular issue with these images - I'm far from prudish. But what I struggle with is, how do you assess such photos?

 

I'm not wishing to offend, and really my comments are not about your images; but they raise the issue, so here goes.

 

If we photograph a model (someone relatively unknown to the photographer), it is by definition a staged environment. What is the purpose of the photographs? To work on technique? To capture image of a beautiful woman/man/child? All perfectly valid, but of less interest (to me, anyway). I tend to see this as commercial work, where you're creating an image to sell clothes, perfume, makeup or some other product. Personally, not that interesting - why? They can be pleasing images (as Neil's are). I guess it's a combination of things - context, relationship between photographer and subject, the lack of any spontaneity? I'm not at all sure.

 

Add nudity, and what is the impact? Certainly, the naked body is beautiful. Our local gallery recently ran an exhibition "The Body Laid Bare" (Nude art from the Tate Collection). The exhibit started with the historical, and went through private, modern, real and surreal, flesh, erotic, political to vulnerable; Rodin, Degas, Turner, Picasso ... fabulous.

 

There is undoubtedly a challenge in getting skin tones right, and the relationship with the photographer is important. But, I struggle at times to understand the point. Coplans' self portraits (nude at the age of 74) had significant impact, despite being confronting.

 

The test for me (of nudes) is to look at the subject's eyes and to wonder what he/she is thinking, and to imagine how the image would look if the subject was clothed. I think Robert Maplethorpe made sharing intimacy in nudity hard for almost everyone who followed.

 

Cheers

John

 

Morning John,

Thanks for your comments.

I to have thought about why people take pictures of naked men and women, because theres not a lot you can do with them after yo have taken the pictures............I mean its not like you can add them to your Facebook timeline.

 

For me last Sunday, I guess it was a bit of how do you do it and what will the pictures turn out like...........there was also the exciting factor of taking these naked pictures of a beautiful young lady out in the open, not that we were doing it in a built up area but more so in the middle of nowhere.

 

I took a total of 300 plus pictures that day and surprisingly enough a good few of them had the correct exposure along with most being in focus.........except for a batch of 30 plus pictures that I tried to shoot at f8 and 1/30 using my S120mm lens hand held.......not a good combination.

 

The other difficult side of shooting naked bodies is making the picture pleasing ..................as there is a fine line between nude art and porn

 

All in all we both had a fantastic day out and had a lot of fun............it doesn't get better than that :) :) 

 

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites
hoppyman

hoppyman

Posted
Posted

Neil from what you have shared here I especially like the first two (colour) images. Soft muted colour and gentle lines are very flattering for your friend I think. I would add too that my comments on how I shoot in studio apply to very different conditions there including DoF of course (just added up and I have about 35 000 DNGs shot that way with S cameras plus about 8 with the SL. How did that happen!!!)
 

For John I don't really understand what you are expressing. Perhaps 10% of my photography might be in this genre. I don't think that everyone need enjoy every genre of course. Surely nudes are one of the classical themes for photography too though.
For me, why you shoot, 'what is their purpose' might encompass a large range of reasons, just as it might for all styles of photography. Equally there is a range of styles within that broad nude category in any case.
I think that each person's view is reflecting their own personality/culture and taste as well. Again that applies to any genre that I can think of. For example political reporting, war correspondents, landscapes, wildlife, street photography, social activism, travel I have friends with excellence in all of those fields, while I might have dabbled with only a couple of those in the past.

Your point about looking into the model's eyes, perhaps touches on whether the photo would be better/worse or no different were the model clothed? In classical art nude where the model is more an abstract form in nature perhaps, that eye connection is generally completely avoided though. For a fashion nude or glamour or implied nude the model's eyes may have different significance. I might add that the model's 'bubble' is or should be always respected in any event whether the image calls for expressive eyes or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Posted
Posted

A kind of old and new shot.........

 

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
SilentShutter

SilentShutter

Posted
Posted

I'm never sure about nude photography; actually, I'm never sure about the use of models generally. I understand that the model here is a friend of yours, Neil, and I have no particular issue with these images - I'm far from prudish. But what I struggle with is, how do you assess such photos?

 

I'm not wishing to offend, and really my comments are not about your images; but they raise the issue, so here goes.

 

If we photograph a model (someone relatively unknown to the photographer), it is by definition a staged environment. What is the purpose of the photographs? To work on technique? To capture image of a beautiful woman/man/child? All perfectly valid, but of less interest (to me, anyway). I tend to see this as commercial work, where you're creating an image to sell clothes, perfume, makeup or some other product. Personally, not that interesting - why? They can be pleasing images (as Neil's are). I guess it's a combination of things - context, relationship between photographer and subject, the lack of any spontaneity? I'm not at all sure.

 

Add nudity, and what is the impact? Certainly, the naked body is beautiful. Our local gallery recently ran an exhibition "The Body Laid Bare" (Nude art from the Tate Collection). The exhibit started with the historical, and went through private, modern, real and surreal, flesh, erotic, political to vulnerable; Rodin, Degas, Turner, Picasso ... fabulous.

 

There is undoubtedly a challenge in getting skin tones right, and the relationship with the photographer is important. But, I struggle at times to understand the point. Coplans' self portraits (nude at the age of 74) had significant impact, despite being confronting.

 

The test for me (of nudes) is to look at the subject's eyes and to wonder what he/she is thinking, and to imagine how the image would look if the subject was clothed. I think Robert Maplethorpe made sharing intimacy in nudity hard for almost everyone who followed.

 

Cheers

John

 

Nude pictures are like a walk on thin ice. Mostly because there are so much definitions and ideas how people think about it.

What is the red line ? What do I want to show or have to hide ? Can I manipulate what I want the beholder see in it ?

For me a naked body is not enough I want also a reflection of the person and this is a very hard task......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith (M)

Keith (M)

Posted
Posted

Compare and contrast with David Bailey's offerings!  (M240, 50mm Summilux ASPH)

PS - taking that photo almost resulted in me being thrown out of the National Portrait Gallery!

 

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
hoppyman

hoppyman

Posted
Posted

Hi Geoff, I agree. The question I was posing, at its most elemental, is what's the point?

John you mentioned that you were unsure about nude photography and using models in general. That's as broad a perspective on people photography as I can think of and a pretty radical position to take from my viewpoint. vive la différence I guess!

Link to post
Share on other sites
IkarusJohn

IkarusJohn

Posted
Posted

John you mentioned that you were unsure about nude photography and using models in general. That's as broad a perspective on people photography as I can think of and a pretty radical position to take from my viewpoint. vive la différence I guess!

 

 

Absolutely!  

 

My comment was not meant to be derogatory, but a genuine question; based on my approach to photography, I don't see a point, but that doesn't mean that others do not get pleasure from it or should not do it.  It's just a style of photography that doesn't interest me - photos of strangers, in controlled lighting and staged poses.

 

My interests run more to people I know in unguarded moments, landscapes or just contextual images, handheld with available light (only because I rarely get a flash right).

 

Cheers

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...