Nude portraits with D50+50mm 1.8

[tigerli]

After reading good reviews on Nikon 50mm 1.8 here, I have finally got it.:)

Here are a couple of shots with this lens. Critics are welcome.:D

http://www.pbase.com/victorwkli/image/57366032.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/victorwkli/image/57366031.jpg

[Esoterra]

dudes taking pics of naked dudes... not so sure about that one! unless your a woman!

no offense intended! :)

[erichlund]

Gender has nothing to do with art. One might question placing nudes on a "family" site, but that's another matter, and these photos don't show anything particularly offensive in that regard (in my limited opinion).

However, questioning someone's manhood when they are displaying their art is offensive, intended or not.

For the OP: Is the second image just a bit soft across the shoulders, arms and fingers. It seems it should be just a bit sharper across there. It could just be me. However, I like the lighting. I'm guessing a single softbox, feathering the subjects, perhaps a little more on axis in the second photo? Or maybe a reflector on the off light side.

[tigerli]

Eric, you put it so well that I don't have to response to Esoterra's childish comment.

These photos were taken at my photography instructor's studio using a softbox (left), a hair light (above) and a reflector a fill-in light (right). The model was hired for our studio class practice.

I prefer dramatic B&W, so some of the details could be lost after I adjusted the curve in Photoshop, or some part of the body was out of focus because of shallow DoF with F3.5.:(


Gender has nothing to do with art. One might question placing nudes on a "family" site, but that's another matter, and these photos don't show anything particularly offensive in that regard (in my limited opinion).

However, questioning someone's manhood when they are displaying their art is offensive, intended or not.

For the OP: Is the second image just a bit soft across the shoulders, arms and fingers. It seems it should be just a bit sharper across there. It could just be me. However, I like the lighting. I'm guessing a single softbox, feathering the subjects, perhaps a little more on axis in the second photo? Or maybe a reflector on the off light side.

[Esoterra]

I understand your point eric and tiger. Again, I didnt mean to offend and I figured the smiley face would indicate this.

[Buco]

"Offensive" is relative. You might like it, but others might not. Seeing that you opened this can of worms Eric...I WILL question a persons manhood if they have the "desire" to take pictures of nude people of their own gender. If a person is sensitive to having somone questioning their manhood then they obviously have issues with themselves. I do not see this as "art". I see this as a homosexual tendency expressed through a lens. Tiger, you posted the picture, so you set yourself up for people to question your manhood. You were looking for technical feedback on the skill of taking the photograph, but the subject is of question to me and you should think before you post. What is childish is ripping on somone for expressing their opinions- a god given right, unlike homosexuality.

[erichlund]

Buco - Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. As I mentioned, the piece can be questioned for it's appropriateness on this forum. The forum rules listed below are highlighted for the particular passages that are relevant here. Artists for centuries have explored "controversial" subjects, including the human form of both genders. This is perhaps not the site to exibit such works, as that could be interpreted as adult matter. However, perhaps I've traveled enough, or just lived long enough, to see things from a greater world view. Artistic work is not to be construed as an indicator of sexuality. Attacking an individual's person when they are only seeking an opinion of the quality of their work merely demonstrates a lack of your own oneness (if that's actually a word).

Forum Rules - Read Before Posting

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before you post a message, please read our forum rules. Failing to follow the rules will result in your message being deleted or disciplinary action including account termination.

* Do not cross-post messages. Create ONE thread only.
* No links to other commercial sites. This includes plugging your own website. Links to your photo galleries is okay.
* No "bumping" topics to the top of the list
* No SPAM
* No pyramid schemes (free cameras, free iPods, etc)
* No links to pirated software
* No classifieds
* No adult content
* Treat others with respect. No flame wars or insults! This includes "my camera is better than yours" messages!

Those who don't follow these simple rules will have their messages removed, and repeat offenders will be banned.

If you see a message that may violate the forum rules, please click on this icon () next to the offending message to bring it to our attention.

[jcon]

WOW, After reading the replies to this post I was very dissapointed with the ignorance from "Buco". Simply because one decides to take photos of a male model does not point to his sexual preferrence, nor does it call into question his sexual preference. I would be offended aswell if someone assumed that of me simply because of a piece of artwork. Do some research and you will find that alot of famous photgraphers have taken nudes of both sexes and have even published photographic books including said photos. As for the pictures violating site rules simply because its a "family" forum is absolute rubbish. It simply exhibits a mans shoulders and back. How is that offensive. Maybe we should be questioning your sexual tendenies for having a problem with them being posted here? Would that be mature? As for the OP, nice pictures, I agree, a little soft. Nice work other wise, dont listen to the hateful and unintelligent comments posted previously.

[coldrain]

Enlightenment has passed Buco's bibble belt I guess. Strange that such people can not see the beauty of what in their view their creator... has created.

And very ignorant and immature to 1. link the male body to homosexuality, and 2. to condemn homosexuality, all in the same sentence.

Ah well... a shame most great artists like Leonardo Da Vici and Rembrandt van Rijn were homosexuals then, huh Buco (if we follow your limitted view on these matters)?

These photos are just a study of the human body, nothing "erotic" about them. The male and female body are (/can be) beautiful, and if one can not view them without linking it to sexual matters one is to be pittied I guess.

As to the technical aspects of the photos, I have no experience in this matter but they are quite beautiful. I think I would try to get a bit more contrast to make it a bit more dramatic.

[acpryor]

Enlightenment has passed Buco's bibble belt I guess. Strange that such people can not see the beauty of what in their view their creator...

Can we please close this thread? This is going to get ugly....

[Buco]

Attacking an individual's person when they are only seeking an opinion of the quality of their work merely demonstrates a lack of your own oneness (if that's actually a word).

Eric, you put it so well that I don't have to response to Esoterra's childish comment.

The only people attacking anyone here is Tiger and coldrain (as usuall). If feeling good about looking at nude males makes someone feel "one" with themselves... then they can go ahead and feel it all they like. I'll have none of that!

As for the pictures violating site rules simply because its a "family" forum is absolute rubbish. It simply exhibits a mans shoulders and back.

This is where the problem starts Jcon. You call me ignorant because I don't appreciate this photo...because I make a big stink about it being posted here- yet it is ignorance you show when you think that everyone should accept your views and think that the photo is ok. This picture DOES violate my code of decency. To you, a back, shoulder, is ok... next thing you know people are posting a thigh, nipple, and so on...IT has to start somewhere and I have a problem with this.

Enlightenment has passed Buco's bibble belt I guess. Strange that such people can not see the beauty of what in their view their creator... has created...

And very ignorant and immature to 1. link the male body to homosexuality, and 2. to condemn homosexuality, all in the same sentence.

Ah well... a shame most great artists like Leonardo Da Vici and Rembrandt van Rijn were homosexuals then, huh Buco (if we follow your limitted view on these matters)?.

Coldrain, you of all people on this thread are guilty of ignorance and immaturity. Need I mention the countless times you have bickered and squalled in your own puffed pride arguing over mute and childish points online? Where you seek to mock and belittle my religious views, I stand up for a belief, a virtue...a sacred gift given to us from God- our bodies. Our bodies are a private thing, not to be strewn and flaunted for all to see. On the contrary, I do see the beauty of the human body. I do Condemn homosexuality. It is a rationalization and corrupt perversion of a beutiful gift that God has given us. Wether Leonardo or Rembrandt were homosexuals is another one of your mute points. their works are admired by some, but that isnt going to save him from fire and brimstone. hack at me all you want on this one... but at the end of the day- God will judge all, and if homosexuality was condoned by God then I think Adam would have had a male counterpart, not a woman. If Tiger is going to push the boundaries of this forum and post inapropriate pictures as such, I am going to oppose and hold fight with the idea that this forum remain a place of cleanliness and aprropriate for viewers of all ages and tolerances.

[coldrain]

I am very confused by your amazing views. All ages and tolerances? Apparently not, you seem to not to tolerate other peoples views.

And if we are to lower ourselves to the LEAST tolerant, then we are not allowed to post any photo of anything "created by god/allah". May I remind you that in certain streams of Islam it is forbidden to depict anything that god has created, according to them? This was the reason islamic art consisted of geometric patterns and caligraphy.

You may also remember that a few years ago, the Taliban blew up a huge statue that was on the world heritage list of the UN. You may not see the connection to your behaviour or ideas, but hopefully it is food for thought.

I will stand up against religious zealots, who want to force their own warped views upon others. Especially people who call themselves Christian, but contrary to what Jesus Christ himself did during his life, seem to thrive on condemning people who are different, who think or feel different.
I did have to laugh about your Adam and Eve line, it is quite illustrative on how people like you misuse the bibble for it to mean what you want it to mean.

And to end this rather sad post in a happy note:
I went to Greece this summer, and I am still in awe about all the ancient art I have seen there. Their civilization was truely impressive. Here an example fo how they celebrated the beauty of the human body in their art:

[Prospero]

Buco, I bet the cardinals chosing a new pope are gonna be really offended when they look up:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~dolkens/pictures/sistine2.jpg

Religion has nothing to do with this. Portrayal of nudity in art has nothing to do with either homosexuality or blasphemy.

If it was, they would have to repaint many churches, chapels and cathedrals in the Holy City of Rome.

[coldrain]

Prospero, I hardly think Buco is Catholic (not with those views). I rather think he may follow one of those extremist streams within one of the many new "christian" splinter groups that formed in the US out of our protestant churches, losing all that protestants stood for in the process.

The Catholic church has never been against art or science, their view of the world and the bibble has been more intellectual through the ages.

[jcon]

Buco...This is where the problem starts Jcon. You call me ignorant because I don't appreciate this photo...because I make a big stink about it being posted here- yet it is ignorance you show when you think that everyone should accept your views and think that the photo is ok.

OK think before you post, you are the one that believes that your beliefs are the one and only. You proved that by saying that homosexuality is wrong in gods eyes. Its because people like you that bigotry,racism and hatered still exists. I hardly find a mans shoulder displays homosexual tendencies. I think you need to relax and keep your personal beliefs to yourself and let the moderators do their job, if they view the pictures to be in violation(which obviously they dont!) the would have removed them. Grow up! *shakes head*

[acpryor]

It has gone the way I thought it would... Unfortunate...

I'm offended by Buco's comments... As a Christian, he surely doesn't represent my viewpoint which I'll keep to myself, but seems to exemplify the stereotypical "fire and brimstone" Christian that gives the rest of us a bad name. However, I'm also offended by Coldrain's comments in your intentional mispelling of "Bible" to imply it's nothing more than "bibble" or "babble" or whatever.

Jeff, if you could be so kind to close this thread before it gets uglier? I don't want to think less of any user on this board but would rather enjoy the fact that we all have different beliefs and backgrounds, but share a common interest in photography.

[GabOrcinus]

Buco, taking pictures of nude people of your same gender is to homosexuality what taking pictures of my -nude- dog is to bestiality. Grow up.

Everything else has already been said, and in a more articulate way than I could say it.

People..... *walks away shaking head*

[jcon]

acpryor, I understand your feelings and concerns. I also respect your opinion and beliefs, but if you are offended by this thread and no longer wish to view it, then why not just stop reading this particular thread? I do agree with your view on Buco, BTW.

[coldrain]

It has gone the way I thought it would... Unfortunate...

I'm offended by Buco's comments... As a Christian, he surely doesn't represent my viewpoint which I'll keep to myself, but seems to exemplify the stereotypical "fire and brimstone" Christian that gives the rest of us a bad name. However, I'm also offended by Coldrain's comments in your intentional mispelling of "Bible" to imply it's nothing more than "bibble" or "babble" or whatever.

Jeff, if you could be so kind to close this thread before it gets uglier? I don't want to think less of any user on this board but would rather enjoy the fact that we all have different beliefs and backgrounds, but share a common interest in photography.
acpryor, I never intended to offend you, no idea why you would think that.:confused:
That I misspelled bible has more to do with me not being a native English speaker than with me trying to offend. I find the bible a valuable book, and I would never try to hurt people by ridiculing it.

[acpryor]

acpryor, I understand your feelings and concerns. I also respect your opinion and beliefs, but if you are offended by this thread and no longer wish to view it, then why not just stop reading this particular thread? I do agree with your view on Buco, BTW.

I suppose when I click "New Posts" and see this thread to continue to come up, my curiosity gets the best of me. My hope was that Buco would temper his comments instead of getting even more argumentative. As a Christian, my hope is that other Christians go out of there way to be acceptable of people of different values/beliefs instead of being judgemental. I was hoping Buco would see how that his comments are indeed damaging and actually hurt the cause he professes to believe in. You can accept people without agreeing with their belief/moral system.

This is a photography forum that holds a bit more class than the average photography forums do, so I was a bit surprised and disappointed to see it going in this direction. Thankfully it's the exception, not the norm.

FYI... I don't offend easily. I didn't find the photos offensive in the least. I did find Buco's comments offensive however... as previously mentioned.

[acpryor]

acpryor, I never intended to offend you, no idea why you would think that.:confused:
That I misspelled bible has more to do with me not being a native English speaker than with me trying to offend. I find the bible a valuable book, and I would never try to hurt people by ridiculing it.

No worries. When I saw you mistype "Bible" several times, I assumed it was intentionally done to be subtle jab, but I was wrong. I stand corrected. Sorry for the accusation.

[acpryor]

I apparently didn't "get it" until I saw Buco's other posts where he intentionally posts stuff just to get a rise out of people. His posts on bird feeders and dissecting the dead birds, feeding chlorine to his kids, the whole nine yards had escaped me until I just stumbled across it. Apparently Buco's comments were meant to incite the original poster of the nude photo thread and for the most part, any body who believes the stereotypical crap Buco himself posted. So... I now "get it"... Unfortunately, for us as a forum, we have people like that who like to post things just to make others mad, stir up controversy, and so forth. Too bad I can't opt to "Ingore all posts" by a certain user. I'm now wiser for it.

There should be some kind of forum rule about this kind of behavior. There's a certain ettiquette to maintain.

[Clyde]

The original photos were well done technically and aesthetically. They also showed less flesh than you might see in a gym or on a beach. Others in this thread have noted that.

I will add some observations on the nude in contemporary art, and some demographic notes:

I run a figure drawing and painting group that meets for 6 hours a week. I think of my time with the figure as analagous to gym time for an athelete. I don't focus on the figure exclusively in my art, but time spent studying it improves every aspect of my art.

We typically get 5 female models for every male (that is, we get a male model around once every other month). For some reason men are less likely to be interested in modeling. Our group typically attracts slightly more male than female artists, however when we have a male model, our female artists tend not to show up. Almost all of the female artists I know are heterosexual. I don't know why heterosexual female artists tend to prefer to draw and paint the female body. Almost all of our male artists are also heterosexual. I expect the ratio of hetero/homosexual artists is about the same as in the general population of non-artists. Our religious backgrounds also reflect the population. Most of the "evangelical" artists I know tend to be younger than the rest of us. They don't have any problems with figure drawing (or they wouldn't come, obviously.)

We tend to discuss this sort of thing on break. Other interesting demographic facts: As a group we are disproportionally well educated. Pretty much all of us older than, say, 25 have at least one college degree. More than half of us have more than one college degree. At least locally, people with medical backgrounds are disproportionately represented.

Of course, we are not a photographic group. In fact, we don't allow photography, so these observations aren't specifically related to photography, but it seemed like people might be interested...

Clyde

[Prospero]

Interesting information, Clyde. It clears up some of the misconceptions some seemed to be having about nudity in art.
I think your story about art also applies to photography. After all, photography can be a form of art. In the case of the pictures by Tigerli it certainly is.

You are right about Buco, acpryor. I read his posts, and I suspect that he doesn't believe in anything he is actually saying, but that he is only doing saying them to create controversy. By the way, he also claimed after someone (who had been a member of the forum for just a few days) had started a thread on church interiors that taking pictures in churches was blasphemy.

[Buco]

Offended as you are to my beleifs, as much as you dislike what I have to say or how I say it...I would hope that people take a little more consideration to pictures they post before slapping it on up here. My views are expressed as a retaliation to the garbage that some people think they can get away with posting here. I didnt come here to this website to see half naked men- I came to this site to see art. This is no joke or ploy to get a rise out of anyone, as some might seem fit. This is my value and I have a right to speak my mind and express my displeasure. It's called freedom of speech.

[jcon]

My views are expressed as a retaliation to the garbage that some people think they can get away with posting here. I didnt come here to this website to see half naked men- I came to this site to see art. This is no joke or ploy to get a rise out of anyone, as some might seem fit. This is my value and I have a right to speak my mind and express my displeasure. It's called freedom of speech.

Retaliation? You are the one that started the ignorance by saying god forbids homosexuality. You also called into question the OP's sexual preference, what the hell does that have to do with a photography forum? You, my friend(not litteraly) are a very closed minded individual and I pitty you. You are correct sir, you are entitled to your opinion just as everyone else on here is. You are also entitled to keep your opinion to yourself if you dont like what someone else posts, maybe you should try the latter more often! I am finished with you and your nonsense...

acpryor, I believe that there is a way to mute other members, I am not positive but I think I remember hearing about it on here before, Buco seems like a prime candidate too;)

[Buco]

JCON. I retaliated to the pictures posted. Get the facts straight. And now you resort to name calling like coldrain- how predictable! If you post pictures that offend me, you will hear my opinion about it!

[coldrain]

Is "sir" or "friend" considered name calling? :rolleyes:

Anyway, you did not condemn the greek sculptor nor my making a photo of the sculpture (and posting it), what is up with that? Double standards?

I do find it very interesting what acpryor found... that you just seem to try and stir things up (in a rather lame and low way I might add).

Hopefully you will soon find another online forum to air your frustration-hobby. It is just a bit of a shame that your nonsense distracted a bit from Tigerli's posting of two photos he was a bit proud of.

[Buco]

Coldrain, you are so far from the truth, its not even worth arguing over it. There are no double standards. Again, you resort to your ridiculing,name calling, and debase another in the hopes that you will in turn boost your low self esteem. Like I said, rather predictable. I would think somone that learned to speak English as well as you have wouldn't have to resort to such! Ah I see, your buddy system... JCON and Coldrain. The fact that you feel you even need to respond to this thread is evidence of your maturity!

[jcon]

Buco, grow up, seriously! Like Coldrain said, I never called you any names. Quit making crap up! Yes, I would consider Coldrain a friend on this forum, he has helped me with some very informative posts when I have asked for the help. Maybe you should try and help others instead of crusify them. I am finished replying to you, so talk til ur lips fall off for all I care, I am finished with your B.S.

[goletitout]

Buco, just stop it. I find it fucking, and I mean REALLY FUCKING annoying and sad to read your statements. Go back to the Middle Ages, man.

Homosexuality...who cares. I´m not a homo, and nude male bodies don´t attract me at all, but a little bit of tolerance towards homosexual people is the least any hetero should have. You can think they´re weird...I also couldn´t ever imagine doing certain things with a man, never never ever, not for 1000000 dollars, but I tolerate homosexuals and don´t think God will send them to hell or such things. If those people feel and act that way, why not, let them live and don´t offend them.
By the way, I also don´t think these posted pictures have anything to do with homosexuality. If they would show a penis and the man would have a certain look in his eyes, then maybe. But that shoulders...oh man, that should be considered as pieces of art by anyone. When I saw the pictures, I also thought: "Uh, never seen such things on this forum", but I didn´t think of homosexuality, I primarily looked at the lighting, the sharpness and the composition of the pictures...and I must say, the look quite good to me. Yes, perhaps the DOF is a bit shallow, that´s true. Perhaps the poster shouldn´t habe used f3,5 but f5,6 or so.

[Montana]

"Offensive" is relative. You might like it, but others might not. Seeing that you opened this can of worms Eric...I WILL question a persons manhood if they have the "desire" to take pictures of nude people of their own gender. If a person is sensitive to having somone questioning their manhood then they obviously have issues with themselves. I do not see this as "art". I see this as a homosexual tendency expressed through a lens. Tiger, you posted the picture, so you set yourself up for people to question your manhood. You were looking for technical feedback on the skill of taking the photograph, but the subject is of question to me and you should think before you post. What is childish is ripping on somone for expressing their opinions- a god given right, unlike homosexuality.


That is just pathetic. Shame on you.

[Buco]

Goletitout...there are kids that read these forums. please refrain from your cussing. That is even more offensive than the pictures first posted. as far as I am concerned... the fact that you know what look a man would have in his eyes as he shows his genitals is more information than we want to hear, and tells everyone who you really are. You have discredited yourself with your language and your aparent lack of maturity, yes indeed your very comments have no remenants of any intellectual substance whatsoever!

[Buco]

Retaliation? You are the one that started the ignorance by saying god forbids homosexuality...blah blah blah blah... and more blah

You can thank Mr. Eric Lund for even brining up questioning a mans sexual orientation based on the pictures posted.

[Bullitt]

Well, this has been entertaining but it's time to get back to the subject at hand. I think the photo is slightly soft tigerli but everyone's eye has a different likeness, I like my photos a little sharper.

Regardless, I saw the photo of the beautiful Asian girl in another thread you posted and I think you have good taste doing B/W photos of any subject...

Good luck in your classes...

[erichlund]

I apparently didn't "get it" until I saw Buco's other posts where he intentionally posts stuff just to get a rise out of people. His posts on bird feeders and dissecting the dead birds, feeding chlorine to his kids, the whole nine yards had escaped me until I just stumbled across it. Apparently Buco's comments were meant to incite the original poster of the nude photo thread and for the most part, any body who believes the stereotypical crap Buco himself posted. So... I now "get it"... Unfortunately, for us as a forum, we have people like that who like to post things just to make others mad, stir up controversy, and so forth. Too bad I can't opt to "Ingore all posts" by a certain user. I'm now wiser for it.

There should be some kind of forum rule about this kind of behavior. There's a certain ettiquette to maintain.
You can ignore the posts of a particular user. Left click on the users name and select view public profile. There is a place to select add <person> to your ignore list. You will see their name, but their posts will be hidden.

[erichlund]

You can thank Mr. Eric Lund for even brining up questioning a mans sexual orientation based on the pictures posted.
Actually no. Now you must go back and read the entire thread. :p What I said was:

"Gender has nothing to do with art. One might question placing nudes on a "family" site, but that's another matter, and these photos don't show anything particularly offensive in that regard (in my limited opinion).

However, questioning someone's manhood when they are displaying their art is offensive, intended or not. "

The individual to whom I was responding apologized (BTW: accepted). My other point was about whether or not this site is a proper forum for the material, NOT because it offended me, but because it might offend someone. As we can see, it has, whether that offense has merit or not.

Tigerli, perhaps in the future, works like this should be posted as a link, with a clear warning so people who are easily offended by this branch of artistic expression can avoid damaging their retinas. Sadly, I feel this is the best solution.

I must add that I still think the photos were very well done technically. Interestingly, I spent Saturday taking a seminar on the use of professional lighting in the studio, so it was interesting to see an example of such work so shortly thereafter. I think a smaller aperture and more attention to critical focus would have served you well on the second photo. In fact, unless you are in rapid fire mode, manual focus is really to your advantage in a studio.

[Jeff Keller]

While I don't have any problem with the photos that were posted, I'm disappointed with some of the responses. I'm closing this thread -- and I guess I'll have to do the same with future threads like this.