M on the stone bed

Looks like a nude woman on a rock to me.

Bonjour Y + M.

All I write below is written in a friendly tone of voice with the sole intent to help.
I write it not to discourage you at all, but rather to ENCOURAGE you to pursue a path that the two of you CAN take because of your partnership in the venture.

The work you two are doing within the Nude Genre is extensive and obviously you are both committed to it and each other.

Many of the images are good. Y does a good job on the camera work, and M does a good job bringing a natural pose and look to the images. Working together you have potential.

But what about this image (and some earlier ones)?

I don't think you two are reaching your real potential with images like this.

Many seem to be "standard pieces" (e.g. Nude in Abandoned Building, Nude Looks in Cracked Mirror, Nude in Doorway, etc.) that one would expect to see in a typical nude portfolio by a typical photographer. In other words, IF one went to a convention of nude photographers and looked at all of their portfolios, I am sure one would find many images similar to this (Nude Woman on Rocks). So, it is a "standard" in the genre. Or...looked at another way (being more critical)...it is an easy thing to copy or emulate. I suggest you avoid that.

The thing about "standard" images like this (in ANY genre) is that they are considered with all the baggage of ALL the other earlier images shown or seen by other photographers. THAT is a LOT of baggage. In other words, your image above has to be considered or WILL BE considered like all the other (countless) similar images.

From my POV, that means that the image will likely be compared to the range of similar images and the viewer will ask themselves, "What is new in this one?"

In short, the choice of a "standard" nude pose or composition or set (e.g. Nude Woman on Rocks, or Nude Woman on Tree Trunk Across Stream, etc.) devolves down to "how pretty is the woman." Because there is often not much else that is different from image to image.

My Simple Suggestion 1: Avoid these "standard" compositions and search for new or less frequently seen compositions. Show us something new.

Or...

Simple Suggestion 2: Take the Standard and raise it to a new level.

This one is the hardest to accomplish because there have been SO MANY images like this made and seen. Because so many look so much alike, there is very little that can be done to distinguish one from another IF one stays with "Nude Woman on Rocks." The most common "difference" is the shape of the rock the woman is draped over or sitting on (see below for more on this), but I don't think that alone raises the image to a new level.

Or...

Simple Suggestion 3: Take the Standard and CHANGE something noticeable to add more interest (with something new). From my POV, this could be something as simple but very powerful as a facial expression...since almost ALL "nude" models seem to adapt the same blank look (very common). Apparently, most photographers just include more of the scene (more of the river, forest, lake shore, ocean and they make a "Landscape with Nude Figure" type of image. Then THOSE things become the difference we notice, not so much the woman.

My General "Simple Suggestion" is not easy to accomplish:
"Show us something we have NOT seen before." That is a big challenge. But, I think YOU TWO can do it. Just use YOUR creativity and avoid emulating something else you (and we) have already seen. Be Different!

My feeling is that the two of you could make images that most will not. Because of your relationship...and because M obviously feels comfortable posing for you with a very natural look.

Good luck and light to you. I hope you find these words encouraging and from a friend, as that is my intent.

Steady Hand wrote:

.../...
My General "Simple Suggestion" is not easy to accomplish:
"Show us something we have NOT seen before." That is a big challenge. But, I think YOU TWO can do it. Just use YOUR creativity and avoid emulating something else you (and we) have already seen. Be Different!

My feeling is that the two of you could make images that most will not. Because of your relationship...and because M obviously feels comfortable posing for you with a very natural look.

Good luck and light to you. I hope you find these words encouraging and from a friend, as that is my intent.

Thanks for this "simple suggestion" Steady. It's a big challenge and encouraging indeed. Will be scouting new paths with Muriel trying to be ... different

Good light to you to, dear friend

Still looks like a rock and not a bed

Hi Y, I have been following your work for some time now and it is good and inspiring. Keep up the good work. Cheers.

Hi Steady,
I am an amateur shooter (read I shoot only my wife n kids) and a frequent visitor here to the forums, but haven't posted any pics here yet. I just wanted to let you know your thought provoking, candid, respectful and descriptive comments mean a lot to noobs like me. Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge and expertise in an unassuming way. Am looking forward to your book too.

Good light to both of you!
Cheers, A.

The lack of modeling turns it into just another nude woman.

Regarding the pose, it looks like she fell off a cliff and that's how she landed.

On the other hand, b/w processing is interesting.

new post.

I still work on the Irish shooting results ...

Lights little high on my screen. Doesn't evoke much to me, but that, of course, is very personal

On a positive note, and on the screen here at home, the B&W tonality looks very good. Gregg

John P Mulgrew wrote:
Looks like a nude woman on a rock to me.

Posts like these provide nothing constructive.

synthesist wrote:
John P Mulgrew wrote:
Looks like a nude woman on a rock to me.

Posts like these provide nothing constructive.



Then I guess you don't get humor, oh well.

The model looks like she has some trouble finding a comfortable position on the rock.

Y_vdm wrote:
M on the stone bed

There doesn't seem to be any redeeming reason for the pic. It's just a nude woman on a rock, in flat daylight. The whole thing could have been done with a pinhole camera.

pilles wrote:
Y_vdm wrote:
M on the stone bed

There doesn't seem to be any redeeming reason for the pic. It's just a nude woman on a rock, in flat daylight. The whole thing could have been done with a pinhole camera.

Thanks for your reactions Pilles. However as I admit the double critic on the concept and realization, I don't understand why a pinhole camera should be a negative comment. I never said that I'm using pro-camera and/or lenses and if a pinhole camera can help me to create bette pictures, I will use a pinhole camera.

The redeeming reason is because I'm not yet able to "feel" if a pic works or not and I expect critics and advices from other fellows on the forum. If you advice is to avoid negative spaces or to not redeem, it doesn't help me so much . Other members answered with short or long critics, and really negatives ones on this pictures, it helped me, and Muriel, to raise our skills and knowledge.

Finally, as I read and appreciate all critics from members on "impressions" or "works or not", I always give a look to members website and own pictures when the critics are about technical issues.

John P Mulgrew wrote:
synthesist wrote:
John P Mulgrew wrote:
Looks like a nude woman on a rock to me.

Posts like these provide nothing constructive.



Then I guess you don't get humor, oh well.


My bad, it doesn't convey very well over the internet.

It seems like very post marked nude has a comment like this.
I liken it to the assholes who post "first!" in every other forum.

Y_vdm wrote:
pilles wrote:
Y_vdm wrote:
M on the stone bed

There doesn't seem to be any redeeming reason for the pic. It's just a nude woman on a rock, in flat daylight. The whole thing could have been done with a pinhole camera.

Thanks for your reactions Pilles. However as I admit the double critic on the concept and realization, I don't understand why a pinhole camera should be a negative comment. I never said that I'm using pro-camera and/or lenses and if a pinhole camera can help me to create bette pictures, I will use a pinhole camera.

The redeeming reason is because I'm not yet able to "feel" if a pic works or not and I expect critics and advices from other fellows on the forum. If you advice is to avoid negative spaces or to not redeem, it doesn't help me so much . Other members answered with short or long critics, and really negatives ones on this pictures, it helped me, and Muriel, to raise our skills and knowledge.

Finally, as I read and appreciate all critics from members on "impressions" or "works or not", I always give a look to members website and own pictures when the critics are about technical issues.

Hey, that's one of the nicest answers I've had here. Congratulations on your restraint. Most people here like to spout off and most of it is pretty juvenile.
As far as you needing helpful comments, perhaps you are having difficulty interpretting my comments. for instance, when I say its flat lighting, you mean you don't know what that means and what to do about it? I means it needs shadows and modeling. There, does that make you feel better?

Can I suggest that you take a long look at the work of past and current masters to see if it suggests places to restart this journey?

Bill Brandt, Edward Weston, Harry Callahan are three that had a powerful vision to draw from...and I'm sure many others will be suggested.....