Patrick Walberg wrote:

Very true!  The pose of the hands over the breasts have been used in classic art as well as modern images since ... well the beginning of time?  So we pretty much borrow (sometimes out right steal!) from past images that worked.  It doesn't mean it will work for all of us.  It can be great, or it can be cliche.

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery...

-Jael-

LeBrone wrote:
I just say, use anything but your hands to cover the nipple. Be creative. the hands are way over-used, and not as sexy as a selectively placed shadow or any other body part.

Well put.

hypothetical photographer wrote:
I'm an experienced photographer and boy am I tired of seeing  type of photos. How cliched can you get.  These kinds of images are just .  What goes with this?

Oftentimes when you check the OPs page you'll find some kind of other cliched image. This is the really funny and completely predictable part of this waste of time thread. In the case of the current OP who saw the need to rag on "hands over breasts" images, one can find angel wings AND wronkled sheet backgrounds. It then becomes clear that the OP just wanted to feel superior about something at the expense of other photographers.

Naturally someone always posts some images of the maligned type that are excellent thus making it obvious, once again, that with enough creativity, any subject can be a great image.

Of course these cliche complaint threads have been done exhaustively demonstrating that the OP didn't bother to use the search engine. If you want to email the offended OP, usually their email address will be a yahoo or hotmail account.

Curt Burgess wrote:
We've seen this style of thread before....

Goes like...


Oftentimes when you check the OPs page you'll find some kind of other cliched image. This is the really funny and completely predictable part of this waste of time thread. In the case of the current OP who saw the need to rag on "hands over breasts" images, one can find angel wings AND wronkled sheet backgrounds. It then becomes clear that the OP just wanted to feel superior about something at the expense of other photographers.

Naturally someone always posts some images of the maligned type that are excellent thus making it obvious, once again, that with enough creativity, any subject can be a great image.

Of course these cliche complaint threads have been done exhaustively demonstrating that the OP didn't bother to use the search engine.

So you're saying this THREAD is cliche?

lol

PapaVic Photography wrote:
sometimes the intention of the photographer is not to call attention to the breasts but rather other elements of the model's body within the photograph:

sorry, this one says she has more hair on her arms than I do

Katherine Phoenix wrote:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1368123
check this one out.

Fantastic. Your arm almost looks like a bra supporting your chest.

Ransom J wrote:
So you're saying this THREAD is cliche?

lol

I guess I am!

That and I just like using the word wronkled.

Curt Burgess wrote:
We've seen this style of thread before....

Goes like...


Oftentimes when you check the OPs page you'll find some kind of other cliched image. This is the really funny and completely predictable part of this waste of time thread. In the case of the current OP who saw the need to rag on "hands over breasts" images, one can find angel wings AND wronkled sheet backgrounds. It then becomes clear that the OP just wanted to feel superior about something at the expense of other photographers.

Naturally someone always posts some images of the maligned type that are excellent thus making it obvious, once again, that with enough creativity, any subject can be a great image.

Of course these cliche complaint threads have been done exhaustively demonstrating that the OP didn't bother to use the search engine. If you want to email the offended OP, usually their email address will be a yahoo or hotmail account.

You are absolutely right.  But the fact is that if you have been in MM for a while you would notice that people who post will suddenly disappear. MM is like a family of butterflies that make up a rapidly changing population. If everyone checked the threads of previous months this sort of thing would stop. But then how many new subjects can you cook up? And how many like you have pointed this out? Would there be a thread dedicated to those that point this fact out? There used to be a poster in MM who surpassed 2000  and then he disappeared and or flamed out. He was a nice guy with good ideas. Does Xtremeartist ring a bell?  Check the beginning of the you don't need a job you have Audrey thread and you will find him there. It is a pity but that's how MM works.
Alexwh

RGK Photography wrote:

sorry, this one says she has more hair on her arms than I do

How terribly observant of you.  No wonder you are a Professional Photographer.

alexwh wrote:
You are absolutely right.  But the fact is that if you have been in MM for a while you would notice that people who post will suddenly disappear. MM is like a family of butterflies that make up a rapidly changing population. If everyone checked the threads of previous months this sort of thing would stop. But then how many new subjects can you cook up? And how many like you have pointed this out? Would there be a thread dedicated to those that point this fact out? There used to be a poster in MM who surpassed 2000  and then he disappeared and or flamed out. He was a nice guy with good ideas. Does Xtremeartist ring a bell?  Check the beginning of the you don't need a job you have Audrey thread and you will find him there. It is a pity but that's how MM works.
Alexwh

I've been on MM for awhile (10 days longer than you ) and have noticed that. 

My main point was that when people bring up the "cliched photograph" issue, it's 1) inevitably hypocritical, 2) indicates some kind of superior attitude over other classes of images or photographers, and 3) reflects a lack of creativity.

Curt Burgess wrote:
I've been on MM for awhile (10 days longer than you ) and have noticed that. 

My main point was that when people bring up the "cliched photograph" issue, it's 1) inevitably hypocritical, 2) indicates some kind of superior attitude over other classes of images or photographers, and 3) reflects a lack of creativity.

And of course when one tries to start a brand new thread it is most often ignored. For example if you started a thread: How many of you have photographed a model on subway tracks? In the last 30 minutes I saw at least three pictures on the opening page right that had a woman on train tracks.
Alexwh

Katherine Phoenix wrote:
so we can post them in our avitars and on myspace!!

Katherine is right. They won't let you put up nudes as an avatar and myspace won't let you either.

If anyone wants to take a look at some nice tits, check out Katherine's. Those are a really nice set.

Glamour Makeover Studio wrote:
who started this form of art, or is this art?

doubt be '' art '' very often
mostly be '''glamour''

if it were a shadow hiding part and a technically pro shot
it would be Art!!!

Christopher Ambler wrote:
Please, take a step back and stop being so snobbish.

The pose draws the distinction between what is allowed in mainstream American publications that are not considered nude, and what is not.

It's the difference between Maxim, which any pimply-faced 15 year-old can buy on the newsstand and Playboy, which he, for better or worse, can not.

Nipple and areola are considered nude. Covered, any amount of breast showing is considered non-nude for publication standards (note that I'm not making a legal distinction or even a codified distinction).

If you don't personally like the pose, fantastic. I, personally, hate clowns. But they seem to be popular at the circus. My problem, I suspect.

Quoted for truth.

BillyT wrote:
Katherine is right. They won't let you put up nudes as an avatar and myspace won't let you either.

If anyone wants to take a look at some nice tits, check out Katherine's. Those are a really nice set.

It's rare that on MM we have an artistic critique as erudite and in depth as BillyT's analysis.   I for one am impressed.

BillyT wrote:

Katherine is right. They won't let you put up nudes as an avatar and myspace won't let you either.

If anyone wants to take a look at some nice tits, check out Katherine's. Those are a really nice set.

Classy.

RGK Photography wrote:
sorry, this one says she has more hair on her arms than I do

Rick, you must not have much hair?  My arms are far more hairy than that! Her body hair is light, and that does not bother me in the least. I like the composition and the belly button piercing.  It's a nice example of the hand bra, but with a different perspective.  I think the model might have been teenaged back in 2003?   Never the less, I'd shoot with her in a heart beat!

Additional;  I'm about as hairy as Robin Williams!  That's just a little less hairy as an ape! 

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Rick, you must not have much hair?  My arms are far more hairy than that! Her body hair is light, and that does not bother me in the least. I like the composition and the belly button piercing.  It's a nice example of the hand bra, but with a different perspective.  I think the model might have been teenaged back in 2003?   Never the less, I'd shoot with her in a heart beat!

Additional;  I'm about as hairy as Robin Williams!  That's just a little less hairy as an ape! 

just fyi: the model was a week short of her 21st b-day when that was shot.  She's still tiny: 4'10"/93lbs/32A

Anjel Britt wrote:

doubt be '' art '' very often
mostly be '''glamour''

if it were a shadow hiding part and a technically pro shot
it would be Art!!!

yes because inclusion/ lack of shadows define art.

Anjel Britt wrote:
doubt be '' art '' very often
mostly be '''glamour''

if it were a shadow hiding part and a technically pro shot
it would be Art!!!

Ransom J wrote:
yes because inclusion/ lack of shadows define art.

That's right.  More shadows, the artier, right?  I can't afford to fuck this up at this point in my career.

BillyT wrote:

Katherine is right. They won't let you put up nudes as an avatar and myspace won't let you either.

If anyone wants to take a look at some nice tits, check out Katherine's. Those are a really nice set.

Aw thanks,I have pretty eyes too if ya wanna check them out also!

Paramour Productions wrote:
Not sure if the real answer was given to the OP or not as I couldn't get through most of this thread....

The reason you see a lot of that imagery is due to the rise of the lad mag (FHM, Stuff, Maxim, American Curves, Etc.) which in America does not shot breasts, or more accurately, does not show nipples.

It is truly stupid, however the stupidity does not usually stem from the photographer (if you look in my port you will see a shot like that from a recent magazine submission shoot) but rather from the "morals" of the country.  If you are shooting commercial glamour, this will be half your port (implied nude/tease material).

There are only so many ways to cover a nipple.....

Thanks for being open and honest!!!!!

KM von Seidl wrote:
It's rare that on MM we have an artistic critique as erudite and in depth as BillyT's analysis.   I for one am impressed.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!  I just revisited this thread and spit Mountain Dew all over my keyboard....

Christopher Ambler said it best, and had I bothered to read the thread all the way the first time, I could have just quoted it.

As to the Shadow and technically correct = art, comment.  Yes and no.  I've seen a lot of "art" that is just shitty photography in B&W...  When shooting commercial glamour you need a certain amount of shadows but never too much and really it depends on the publication.  It is a genre unto it's own with it's own rules and standards just like any other.

As for the technically correct comment, not all glam shooters are inept with a camera.  Pick up any playboy and look at the centerfold.  You may not like the imagery or the style, you may not like the fact that it is the same basic formula time after time, but I assure you they are not put together sloppily...

By the way this is also why many shooting glam prefer shooting fake breasts.  It's not a personal preference, it just makes shooting implied glamour work easier.  I don't have it in my port yet, but there is another from the log cabin series with Nicole Valentine where the tails of her bandana just cover her nipples and in one instance she's holding the tails.  It's a typical cheesecake glamour shot, but it works.  It's far easier to do this with breasts that stay put than with breasts that don't.  Also, if you can't show the nipple and you still want a hot "topless" shot, you need more mass (preferably with a small areola, which also must be covered) fake breasts are easier to work with as they don't require support. If the breasts are large and natural and do require support, often the hand on the breasts is necessary unless using other clothing/props, which is sometimes easier said than done.