JSouthworth wrote:

Somehow I don't think so.

-
That you do not think so is unremarkable and unsurprising,  However, the rules clearly state that ciriques belong in the critique section and only those that request a critique can be so critiqued.  Critiquing the pose of the model is still a critique of the photographer.  Are you trying to be brigged?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
-
That you do not think so is unremarkable and unsurprising,  However, the rules clearly state that ciriques belong in the critique section and only those that request a critique can be so critiqued.  Critiquing the pose of the model is still a critique of the photographer.  Are you trying to be brigged?

When did I make these supposed "critiques" you're referring to? Did I actually make any reference to posing, or do you have an overactive imagination?

JSouthworth wrote:
When did I make these supposed "critiques" you're referring to? Did I actually make any reference to posing, or do you have an overactive imagination?

Oh it was definitely a critique, a malicious and unfounded one at that.

Based on admin's continued tolerance of your presence on this site though I doubt you have too much to worry about - which is probably why you appear so confident that you'll get away with it.

JSouthworth wrote:
When did I make these supposed "critiques" you're referring to? Did I actually make any reference to posing, or do you have an overactive imagination?

"Did I actually make any reference to posing?" Yes, you did. 

Reading comprehension is not an overactive imagination.  Is your insinuation another one of your projections?

You did manage to derail a thread, once again.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
"Did I actually make any reference to posing?" Yes, you did.

Wrong, not that you've been getting many things right recently.

JSouthworth wrote:
Wrong, not that you've been getting many things right recently.

You have about the weakest comebacks and poorest self-awareness a man could portray in posts.  You are projecting, AGAIN.

Now then Englishman, it has been a dozen posts since you derailed the thread with an unsolicited critique.  Can you pretend you are grown up and let it go?

thatzkatz wrote:
I shoot fine art nudes. I don't shoot glamour or cheesecake. I mostly shoot TFP.  Recently, several models were very "open" with their poses, consciously showing very NSFW content. Usually, if it's one or two "slips," I don't send those to the models as that's just what happens when you're posing nude, and O.F. content is not what I'm aiming for - which is why I presume is the reason the models choose to work with me. But with these recent experiences, I don't know if I should ask the model if she wants these more graphic images along with my regular selections, or not.

I presume I'm not the only photographer who has this experience, so I'd appreciate guidance from both photos and models. How should I treat the "girly bits" photos that were not in my mood-board?  Also, do any of you discuss this question up-front with each other before the session?

Hi there, long time photog, new MM member. 

the thread looked like it was getting off track, so i wanted to go back to your original post and reread it. 

First, good on you for being professional with your talent.  I'm assuming you at least let the models know there was a slip or two.  I would like to add that if anyone is doing a nude shoot, chances are something is going to slip.  They should be aware of this.  If you haven't done so already, perhaps before the shoot, discuss this ahead of time and see if they would still like the images or not.  Deleting is the best option, but I always opt for as much communication up front and in my release forms.  The last thing i'd ever want to hear from someone is "Oh i didn't know that/we didn't discuss that'

2nd - It's interesting what is considered, OF content nowadays.  it can be nude or non-nude.  If you don't want to be associated with that, do you have some wording in your release form requesting that non of your images should be published on OF?  Just something to be mindful of.

3rd. Finally, if the pose seemed intentional, i.e. not an unintentional 'slip', i would stop what you were doing and ask the question as professional as possible, something to the effect of "Apologies, but do you want me to shoot you in this pose? I ask because i'm seeing more than what I usually photograph." 

I hope my post will help you. Keep on doing your thing man and no worries!

Focuspuller wrote:
"When did I make these supposed "critiques" you're referring to? Did I actually make any reference to posing, or do you have an overactive imagination?"

" I'm just wondering why it is that some of your models look a little pissed."

And FYI there is no drinking or drug use on my sets.

No, the model's facial expression and the model's pose are two different things. And I used the word pissed to mean annoyed, not drunk.

JSouthworth wrote:
No, the model's facial expression and the model's pose are two different things. And I used the word pissed to mean annoyed, not drunk.

Southy, it's obvious to everyone that your only reason for posting this baloney is so that you can claim ignorance should a moderator see your unsolicited, malicious and unfounded critique, in the hope that your penance will be commuted in some way. Let's hope they're not as daft as you evidently perceive them to be and you get what you deserve.

JSouthworth wrote:

No, the model's facial expression and the model's pose are two different things. And I used the word pissed to mean annoyed, not drunk.

I don't want to add fuel to this banter but I don't think our British friend offered a critique, just a questionable opinion. I looked at Focuspuller's page to see what pissed models look like and I couldn't find any. I saw lots of lovely girls/women/females (what ever we call that species ) who were naked and beautiful. But I didn't see any looking pissed by what ever definition you apply to that word. I wonder if Mr Southworth has ever, in fact seen a pissed woman. It isn't something easily forgotten.

P R E S T O N wrote:
That's what I do. If a model is showing more than my understanding of what was agreed before the shoot commenced, then I pause and alert her to that fact.

Sometimes though, you don't notice until you are done with the shoot and transfer the photos to your computer. I posted about my experience with this happening on the first page. In case you didn't see it, here's what I said:

That's happened to me a few times while shooting TF. To be fair, with a long shoot that spans 100's of pics, sometimes you just don't realize it while shooting. Sometimes it's something minor, such as a water bottle left in the corner of the pic. Other times while shooting implieds, well, it can be a bit more surprising.

I once did a towel set with implied nudity. For one part, the model was supposed to hold the towel in front of her. Her sides were shown, so she couldn't have any clothes on underneath the towel, but it completely covered her boobs and private area. I took a ton of pics, and we moved onto the next picture set and so on, until the photoshoot was complete and she went home.

Later that night while I was looking through them, I noticed that in a few of the pictures she lifted the towel way too high, fully exposing her vagina. I couldn't believe that neither of us noticed it at the time, but I guess it happens. She was quite careful too, even telling me that she was glad that I had no mirrors in the room.

Anyway, I still sent her every pic. That was the agreement.

JSouthworth wrote:
Why is "art nude" or even "fine art nude" photography not generally accepted as fine art, or Art with a capital "A"? Maybe because the willingness on the part of the art nude photographer to work under an arbitrary set of rules is considered un-artistic at a basic level.

Tell that to Robert Mapelthorpe . . . or the collectors that spent millions on his works

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

Tell that to Robert Mapelthorpe . . . or the collectors that spent millions on his works

I wouldn't wish to imply that it isn't possible to do good work within the limitations of the art nude level. But calling something art doesn't necessarily make it so.

JSouthworth wrote:
I wouldn't wish to imply that it isn't possible to do good work within the limitations of the art nude level.

How gracious of you.

Maybe you work according to the limitations of academic and critic-created genres, but actual artists honor such arbitrary genre classifications by violating them regularly.

JSouthworth wrote:

I wouldn't wish to imply that it isn't possible to do good work within the limitations of the art nude level. But calling something art doesn't necessarily make it so.

Thomas Holm is one very good photographer whose work I like very much, which is not the same thing as wanting to imitate it.

JSouthworth wrote:
Why is "art nude" or even "fine art nude" photography not generally accepted as fine art, or Art with a capital "A"? Maybe because the willingness on the part of the art nude photographer to work under an arbitrary set of rules is considered un-artistic at a basic level.

Capitalizing art to distinguish art from Art is meaningless.  You could use adjectives to further define your subject, such as fine art; crappy art; childish art; mature art; art by Degas; art by toddlers.   But, it's all art.

(For clarity: It's is the same as it is.)

JSouthworth wrote:
But calling something art doesn't necessarily make it so.

Denying something is art doesn't make it so.  Art has a definition.  It is broad.  Perhaps you could make an effort to learn about art rather than to try to alter the definition.

JSouthworth wrote:
Thomas Holm is one very good photographer whose work I like very much, which is not the same thing as wanting to imitate it.

The quoted post is a statement without relevance to the topic. 

As were his previous comments.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Capitalizing art to distinguish art from Art is meaningless.  You could use adjectives to further define your subject, such as fine art; crappy art; childish art; mature art; art by Degas; art by toddlers.   But, it's all art.

(For clarity: It's is the same as it is.)

Art with a capital A as in Art Garfunkel. Or as in God with a capital G. I don't usually capitalise the word art, it's more like a figure of speech really. The point is that art nude and fine art nude photography are not generally regarded as fine art.

JSouthworth wrote:
Art with a capital A as in Art Garfunkel. Or as in God with a capital G. I don't usually capitalise the word art, it's more like a figure of speech really.The point is that art nude and fine art nude photography are not generally regarded as fine art.

In addition to you once again having dragged a topic so far off the rails it should probably be locked the real point to be made is that as usual you've used one of your favorite intellectually dishonest tactics. That of presenting your opinion as fact, when in actuality it's just another number added to your extensive list of prevarications. Art nude, and fine art nude photography are well recognized genres in the art world. Full stop.

Naked Before the Camera Metropolitan Museum of Art

Nude Exhibition at Fotografiska New York  The Contemporary Museum Of Photography, Art and Culture

JSouthworth wrote:
Art with a capital A as in Art Garfunkel. Or as in God with a capital G. I don't usually capitalise the word art, it's more like a figure of speech really. The point is that art nude and fine art nude photography are not generally regarded as fine art.

-
In some threads you deflect because your arguments can't stand up to scrutiny. 

In this off topic excursion, your post is blatantly incredulous and dishonest.

JSouthworth wrote:

Art with a capital A as in Art Garfunkel. Or as in God with a capital G. I don't usually capitalise the word art, it's more like a figure of speech really. The point is that art nude and fine art nude photography are not generally regarded as fine art.

Within the art world there is a certain prejudice against photography, which partly derives from the perception that photographs are easily reproduced, hence the practice of scoring through negatives which personally I think is stupid, that's just vandalism really.

JSouthworth wrote:
Within the art world there is a certain prejudice against photography, which partly derives from the perception that photographs are easily reproduced, hence the practice of scoring through negatives which personally I think is stupid, that's just vandalism really.

Once again you're using your own unsupported bullshit presented as fact;

The following museums have outstanding curated photographic collections and exhibits. They are recognized around the world as some of the finest repositories of photographic art works.

1. Museum für Fotografie, Berlin
2. Sala Canal Isabel II, Madrid
3. Les Douches la Galerie, Paris
4. Musée d'Orsay, Paris
5.Lianzhou Museum of Photography
6.Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography
7. Museum of Modern Art in New York
8. Portuguese Center of Photography, Porto
9. The Photographers’ Gallery, London
10. Yossi Milo Gallery , New York
11. Fraenkel Gallery, San Francisco
12. Three Shadows Photography Art Center, Beijing
13. Hamiltons Gallery, London
14. Galleria Carla Sozzani, Milan
15. TORCH Gallery, Amsterdam

Not to mention the literally 1000's of other  museums and galleries worldwide that have photographic collections. I wonder why if photography is as maligned as an art form as you aver (without attribution) why would the keepers of art even bother with it? Additionally if you google "scoring negatives for destruction" you will get zero results for the practice. It would seem that photographic negatives just aren't destroyed in that manner, so apparently (not surprisingly though) you appear to have made that up as well! Your expertise in regard to artistic photography has been exposed for what it is. Feel free to respond if you wish. there is nothing left to be debated about whether photography (nude or otherwise) is a well respected art form, it is. I'm done here.

JSouthworth wrote:
The idea that a photograph can be defined as artistic on the basis of which parts of the human body are visible is obvious nonsense. What we're dealing with here is merely a convention within photography whereby the term "art nude" or "fine art nude" is used to describe photographs which do not show the model's pubic area.

Personally I don't see the need to make an issue out of what you can or can't see in a photograph, when the objectives of the photographer are artistic, beyond the extent to which the subject content affects the overall visual balance and visual impact of the image, which will always be dependent on the viewer to some extent but in general, the audience for art photography is made up of sophisticated people.

In practical terms "art nude" levels restrict the range of poses possible, in a frontal standing pose for example it is typically necessary for the model to keep her legs together or even cross them over, which makes a normal stance or an active pose impossible.

Getting back to the question of what art means in a photographic context, I think it helps to be aware of visual art generally rather than just looking at other peoples' photography. Personally I like the "naive art" of Henri Rousseau and Emil Nolde. Films are another source of inspiration as is alternative religion. Tarot cards are quite interesting with their usually simple but striking images.

JSouthworth wrote:
Getting back to the question of what art means in a photographic context,

How about getting back to:
What to do with the "girly bits" photos

Mark Salo wrote:
How about getting back to:
What to do with the "girly bits" photos

I think that question is a little simplistic or even naive, because it assumes that there is a problem if the image shows external genitalia. But why would that be the case if the pictures are intended for a sophisticated adult audience? In art, frankness and sincerity are valued qualities.

JSouthworth wrote:
I think that question is a little simplistic or even naive, because it assumes that there is a problem if the image shows external genitalia. But why would that be the case if the pictures are intended for a sophisticated adult audience? In art, frankness and sincerity are valued qualities.

A lot of people seem to have the idea that you can't deal with sexual themes in art. I think that's because they're ignorant about art. Or at any rate they're not familiar with Japanese art, or the work of Henri Toulouse-Lautrec for example. And so they buy into this idea that it's essential to avoid any sexual suggestion, and consequently they get tramlined into producing lightweight pseudo-art photography.

Quite often I see "art nude" pictures which I like, but then when I try to remember them, I can't.

Mark Salo wrote:
nvm

What does that mean in English, not very much? Don't use in-words and abbreviations that nobody will understand in three months time from now.

Mark Salo wrote:
nvm

JSouthworth wrote:
What does that mean in English, not very much? Don't use in-words and abbreviations that nobody will understand in three months time from now.

You have properly chastened me.
I repent in sackcloth and ashes.

JSouthworth wrote:
A lot of people seem to have the idea that you can't deal with sexual themes in art. I think that's because they're ignorant about art. Or at any rate they're not familiar with Japanese art, or the work of Henri Toulouse-Lautrec for example.
Quite often I see "art nude" pictures which I like, but then when I try to remember them, I can't.

You have picked a very strange example in Toulouse-Lautrec. I looked over about 340 of his paintings and saw one, perhaps two that could possibly "deal with sexual themes".  I would have to wonder if you know anything about his work. Perhaps you are the one who is ignorant about art.

Weldphoto wrote:
You have picked a very strange example in Toulouse-Lautrec. I looked over about 340 of his paintings and saw one, perhaps two that could possibly "deal with sexual themes".  I would have to wonder if you know anything about his work. Perhaps you are the one who is ignorant about art.

I like to think I know something about Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec although I'm not an expert. He spent a lot of time in the Paris brothels and music halls, drew a lot of scenes in those places, was very much a part of that milieu. The book Erotica Universalis by Gilles Neret includes a couple of his erotic drawings, Salvador Dali and Edgar Degas might be better examples. The point is that sexual themes are not taboo in art generally.