Tina Ginger wrote:

Haha Juan!I didn't know you knew all the boobie signs lol..I guess mine would have to be the 5th down.. jk!!Anyways,I think you are one of the best photog's in Tx,and the fact that you don't shoot nudes makes me more comfortable with you.When I see a guy with a bunch of nudes in his port it really  makes me think he's into photography for something more than just photography

I actually counted, too. LOL

FotoGuyTX wrote:
If you like art. then do what you feel is artistic. Art is one self expression. If nude art is how someone would like to express one's self then yes they need it in there port

Their, their, their, due watt ewe want two dew.

luciano  Mello wrote:
I don't shoot nude either, I did in the past, but now there is one  reason that i don't shoot nude anymore, I think it's boring, I don't see anything new in nude pictures it's always the same thing 89% it's just a copy of a copy of a copy what they did in the past. A men vison over the female body full of sexual cliches, I saw some few photographers who made a really diferent and good work, something that goes over the edge, but most of all are boring. I know some will trhow rocks at my house after that, however it's my opnion nude shots don't thrill me as much as a creative fashion shot or beauty shot.

I'm not going to throw rocks but I do differ.  I agree that nudes are hard to do differently.  They have been done by every great artist since time began.  I am sure that every possible view has been done.  To me that just makes it better.  If you shoot a nude and it does get attention then you've done something special and timeless. 

To me there could never be anything more boring than fashion photography.  Fashion (fad) by defination is short term and has no lasting value, if any value at all. It can be pretty but to me it's just lipstick on a chicken.  No matter how you dress it up, it's still a chicken.

To each his own....

Richard Brooks Photos wrote:

luciano 
To me there could never be anything more boring than fashion photography.  Fashion (fad) by defination is short term and has no lasting value, if any value at all. It can be pretty but to me it's just lipstick on a chicken.  No matter how you dress it up, it's still a chicken.

To each his own....[/quote wrote:

LOL! I have to laugh at that one. That can be true sometimes....but i know of a few amazing fashion photographers past and present. Just pretty pictures.

VRG Photography wrote:
Lipstick on a chicken...

Let's talk about this for a minute.

Perhaps I should explain this for those who didn't grow up in the midwest.

Lipstick on a chicken, no matter how much you use it's still a chicken.

Sometimes refered to as a pig in a wig.

This refers to the fact that no matter how much you dress something up it doesn't change what the thing is.

That pretty much sums up fashion as far as I can tell and I think it speaks to fashion vs nudes.

Lastly - Take the picture of the chicken with it's feather but leave off the lipstick (and sunglasses).

LOL

Richard Brooks Photos wrote:

Perhaps I should explain this for those who didn't grow up in the midwest.

Lipstick on a chicken, no matter how much you use it's still a chicken.

Sometimes refered to as a pig in a wig.

This refers to the fact that no matter how much you dress something up it doesn't change what the thing is.

That pretty much sums up fashion as far as I can tell and I think it speaks to fashion vs nudes.

Lastly - Take the picture of the chicken with it's feather but leave off the lipstick (and sunglasses).

LOL

Okay, now I'm going to sleep now.

I hope I don't have any nightmares of a pack lipstickless chickens demanding TFCD's from me. LOL

I'll let you know what happens when I wake up.

XposurePhoto wrote:
Well..Picture this: what picture would you rather take...a picture of a Chicken with all its feathers or no feathers? hmmmm (sorry I can'y spell)

XP

We're talking implied vs. artistic nudity now, right?

Does the chicken have a nice ass? Is it curvy? Will it decline an after-shoot meal at KFC with me?

These questions MUST BE ANSWERED, or there WILL BE NO SHOOT!

fuscophoto wrote:
LOL! I have to laugh at that one. That can be true sometimes....but i know of a few amazing fashion photographers past and present. Just pretty pictures.

I did not intend to imply that fashion photographers where not great photographers.  I was just making fun of the subject matter....rb

VRG Photography wrote:

I actually counted, too. LOL

Haha!!

Richard Brooks Photos wrote:
I'm not going to throw rocks but I do differ.  I agree that nudes are hard to do differently.  They have been done by every great artist since time began.  I am sure that every possible view has been done.  To me that just makes it better.  If you shoot a nude and it does get attention then you've done something special and timeless. 

To me there could never be anything more boring than fashion photography.  Fashion (fad) by defination is short term and has no lasting value, if any value at all. It can be pretty but to me it's just lipstick on a chicken.  No matter how you dress it up, it's still a chicken.

To each his own....

lol, and dead on.

Now, lipstick on a chicken... was that fried, or broiled? 

I'm starting to get some very odd ideas here

Rude Food is edible fashion.

XposurePhoto wrote:
What really happened to “Photographyâ€? are people that horny now days that needs to see more hardcore stuff to like your work?

It's been addressed in many threads and messages, but you take a slightly different angle with your OP. 

If I shoot a clothed model, what is in my picture is the clothes: eg: fashion. 

When I strip her down, I'm now shooting "natural beauty" that was not someone ELSE's artificial creation.

I can add to or take away from, my image, on my own choosing, but if my models do not start out nude, then I have no vision, only some "statement" made by someone else, and purchased by the model, or client, or whatever.  It's*NOT* artistic, or my vision, or even a collaboration between model and photographer.  It's a picture of some clothing. 

Only when you strip it down, does it become "art".  Otherwise, it's advertising.

Give me a rope, a stick, a ball, a body.  But, they must be iconic, or generic, not belonging to some label or designer.  Otherwise, like so many portfolios here advertising the photographer in HUGE letters, and artsy fartsy images that do nothing to show off the MODEL (in HER portfolio) this whole thing you OP'd about is cookoo too.

Sorry.... but to deny the female form, in it's natural beauty as only the interest of the 'horney' is downright myopic and insulting.

Rude Food......  at a loss.

RudeFood wrote:

It's been addressed in many threads and messages, but you take a slightly different angle with your OP. 

If I shoot a clothed model, what is in my picture is the clothes: eg: fashion. 

When I strip her down, I'm now shooting "natural beauty" that was not someone ELSE's artificial creation.

I can add to or take away from, my image, on my own choosing, but if my models do not start out nude, then I have no vision, only some "statement" made by someone else, and purchased by the model, or client, or whatever.  It's*NOT* artistic, or my vision, or even a collaboration between model and photographer.  It's a picture of some clothing. 

Only when you strip it down, does it become "art".  Otherwise, it's advertising.

Give me a rope, a stick, a ball, a body.  But, they must be iconic, or generic, not belonging to some label or designer.  Otherwise, like so many portfolios here advertising the photographer in HUGE letters, and artsy fartsy images that do nothing to show off the MODEL (in HER portfolio) this whole thing you OP'd about is cookoo too.

Sorry.... but to deny the female form, in it's natural beauty as only the interest of the 'horney' is downright myopic and insulting.

Rude Food......  at a loss.

I don't really agree with this. While shooting the nude in it's natural form is both beautifull and artistic (depending on how well it's been photographed) there is a great deal of artistic photographs of clothed people. Photographing a person wearing clothes isn't about the clothes; it's about the person, the location, the style, the atmosphere, the mood, etc. Clothing can make a huge statement in an artistic piece. Sometimes a costume is needed to convey an idea. But to simply dismiss a photo of a clothed model as "non-art" is extremely shortsighted, and seemingly very ignorant of the art of photography. And sometimes the differance between fashion photography and fine art photography can get rather blurred, especially by a really good photographer (Helmet Newton, Diane Arbus, Joyce Tenneson, Richard Avedon to name just a few).

  -P-

KM von Seidl wrote:
I disagree with your premise.  That it's a nude tit that gets a photographer attention.  Just look at the gadzillion threads asking models to post their favourite photographers, the best photographers, the photographers they'd most like to have their babies, etc.  It ain't the photographers concentrating on bare tits.    I tend to think if one really wants to start collecting an internet reputation with models, you hang out in chat rooms or shoutbox.  Get a following that way.  Or, god forbid, produce good work and have people notice it.

I agree. Like I said before (and in othert threads) it is my non-nude images that get the most comments and views. And maybe my nude photos just suck... you never know.

 

Pat Thielen wrote:
This same thing has been posted many times, and I keep reporting the same thing: The images in my portfolio that get the most views and comments are my non-nude images. I think people like what they like; be it nude or not. So, it's been my experience that my nude images (at least on this site) do not get the most views and so I feel people aren't here just looking for nude images.

  -P-

It's usually that way for photographers, but for models, it's different.

People don't (usually) visit a photographer's page for nudes, they go straight to the model, for some strange reason. They would probably get more from the model's page than the photographer's.

VRG Photography wrote:

It's usually that way for photographers, but for models, it's different.

People don't (usually) visit a photographer's page for nudes, they go straight to the model, for some strange reason. They would probably get more from the model's page than the photographer's.

This may well be the case; I hadn't thought of this before. I have an account over on Model Place, and it's hard to tell because traffic is so low over there but I think the trend is my non-nudes are getting more views and comments over there as well (how's that for a run-on sentance?). I actually find this rather interesting, because I would assume the nudes would be getting more attention than the non-nude images. But really -- if your theory is true I wonder what would make a nude "less interesting" on a photographer's port than on a model's.

  Things to keep you awake at night...

  -P-

Pat Thielen wrote:
This may well be the case; I hadn't thought of this before. I have an account over on Model Place, and it's hard to tell because traffic is so low over there but I think the trend is my non-nudes are getting more views and comments over there as well (how's that for a run-on sentance?). I actually find this rather interesting, because I would assume the nudes would be getting more attention than the non-nude images. But really -- if your theory is true I wonder what would make a nude "less interesting" on a photographer's port than on a model's.

  Things to keep you awake at night...

  -P-

Pat,

I really think you have two things to look at:

1. Traffic
2. Purpose

The TRAFFIC that a photographer gets is naturally going to be lower than that of the model, and the traffic that we DO get is most likely from the model's page, which most likely has the same image they just drooled over.

The PURPOSE of them going to a photographer's site is strictly to see if the photographer has anything that they haven't seen, already.

Unless you have something on your site that is NOT on another model's page, then the comments and views on those pics will be less.

Taking all that into account, a photographer could probably get away with using about 2-3 nudes out of 20 and still have the same basic effect, as long as the model links their pictures to the photographer's profile/portfolio.

VRG Photography wrote:
Pat,

I really think you have two things to look at:

1. Traffic
2. Purpose

The TRAFFIC that a photographer gets is naturally going to be lower than that of the model, and the traffic that we DO get is most likely from the model's page, which most likely has the same image they just drooled over.

The PURPOSE of them going to a photographer's site is strictly to see if the photographer has anything that they haven't seen, already.

Unless you have something on your site that is NOT on another model's page, then the comments and views on those pics will be less.

Taking all that into account, a photographer could probably get away with using about 2-3 nudes out of 20 and still have the same basic effect, as long as the model links their pictures to the photographer's profile/portfolio.

In the case of my port I have only two photos linked to models on MM; none of the other people I've photographed have accounts here. So, in my case it's rather interesting because they haven't seen the photo in a model's portfolio first. But I know what you're saying.

  -P-

XposurePhoto wrote:
For a while I have noticed that there is great Photography in this forum, but some of the Artists/Photographers have not been recognized as great ones until they show a nipple (of the models) or more nudity or see thru stuff...so my question is...do we as Artists/Photographers have to have nudity in out portfolios to be recognized in the online-photography biz or to be hired for jobs



Well i hope not.. i work to implied topless only!!!