Thursday, November 1, 2012

FINE ART NUDE PHOTOGRAPHY – GALLERY 2




The most widely read article of this blog is “Fine art Nude Photography” from March 19, 2012.  Considering its popularity, I decided to expand on the theme by publishing a second gallery.  As I mentioned before, historically, the human form has fascinated artists probably more than any other subject. Therefore it should come as no surprise that the same fascination has extended to photography as well.

Many of the great photographers have produced fine art nudes like Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Steichen, Edward Weston, Man Ray, Helmut Newton…, just to mention a few.

When it comes to fine art nude photography, it is quite easy to take a photograph of a person without any clothes.  That, however, is not art and should not be attempted to be presented as such.  Instead the emphasis should not be so much on nudity but on shape, form, lighting, design and composition.  It is my hope that today’s gallery meets those criteria.


Marlies Amling

Marlies Amling

Marlies Amling

Marlies Amling

Marlies Amling

Marlies Amling

Heinz Richter

Heinz Richter

Heinz Richter

Heinz Richter

Heinz Richter

Blaine Schultz


For more on the same theme go to:

FINE ART NUDE PHOTOGRAPHY

FINE ART NUDES – A DIFFERENT APPROACH

PHOTOSHOP ART




20 comments:

  1. Shouldn't there be some warning that these posts are NSFW and potentially harmful for children?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Man, the world is full of small minded PC idiots.

      Delete
    2. I agree. I am sure you noticed by some of the other comments below that there are quite a few readers here that agree with you.

      Delete
  2. If any of these posts are not safe for work (NSFW) depends on the attitude of the workplace in regard to art. I definitely reject the assertion that any of these images are potentially harmful for children. We are talking about the human form here, not some pornographic distortion of it. Why is it that photography is always handled differently in this regard than other forms of art. Is anybody requesting museums to post warning signs for their exhibit’s that show images or statues depicting the human form? Are such sculptures in public places required to do the same? I am a member of MIA, the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. I regularly see groups of school children visit the place, as a matter of fact, they regularly have a special children’s day. There are no restrictions as to which areas of the museum are open to the children, including the photography exhibits. Apparently there is no potential harm to children in a museum or in public places, why should this blog be any different?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I certainly see nothing objectionable on this blog. It seems that some people have difficulties to distinguish between art and porn. Must be the result of living in a rather puritan society. As far as depicting nudity in public, places like the Sistine Chapel and just about any rococo church should be added to the discussion also.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is a long list of examples. For instance, Lady Justice is often depicted nude or with her breasts exposed. This has been done for centuries. For example, Lucas Cranach the Elder created a painting called "Gerechtigkeit als nackte Frau mit Schwert und Waage" (Justice as a naked Woman with Sword and Scales). It is displayed in a museum in Amsterdam. To my knowledge, nobody has ever been harmed by viewing this piece of art.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You seem to apply some different techniques in some of your pictures. I hope you don’t mind my asking how this was done. In the first of your pictures, the color silhouette, I like the texture in the photograph. Was this done in Photoshop? Then, the stripes of light in the next picture, how did you modify the light source to show that pattern? Finally, in the next picture, the sheer sheet of material seems to just float in air. How on earth did you manage to do that? Finally, is the last picture by Marlies Amling a solarization? If so, was it done with Photoshop or the old fashioned way?

    ReplyDelete
  6. By all means, ask. I very much like the participation of the readers of this blog. I just wish there was more of it.
    The color silhouette was done via strictly basic photographic means, no Photoshop. The set was lit as you see it. The pattern is the result of placing a Chameleon Cloth (previously available from Calumet Camera www.calumetphoto.com) between the camera and the subject. It is grey in color with a texture not unlike an ordinary clothes dryer sheet.
    The stripes of light are the result of using the appropriate mask in a light with a projector attachment added to it. These work very much like a slide projector and allow a multitude of light patterns to be projected, either just on the background or on both the subject and the background as in this particular case.
    The shot with the sheer sheet of material is the result of a lot of patience – you should see the takeouts. I had the model hold the sheet in both hand and then toss it up in the air. All I did was to fire the camera just at the right moment. The best result is what you see here.
    Yes, the photograph by Marlies is a solarization and it was done in Photoshop.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Was the first photo done with a soft focus filter or a soft focus lens? With a Leitz Thambar by chance?

    ReplyDelete
  8. No Thambar, and, as far as I know, no other soft focus lens or soft focus filter. Just the application of the blur feature in photoshop

    ReplyDelete
  9. That's what I like about this blog, I can learn something. Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you very much. I just hope I would get more submissions from the readers of this blog. That way we all, me included, could learn from each other.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The last photograph is rather grainy. Was it shot on film?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Some time ago I heard of a front projector. Is that basically the same as a projector attachment on a light source?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Not really. A front projection system is based on a special projector combined with a highly reflective lenticular projection screen. The projector has a special holder for the camera. It shoots through a half-way morror which allows the projection lens to be superimposed over the camera lens. Subsequently, any projected image comes from the identical position as the camera and its lens. That has the result of the projected image on the screen not showing any shadows cast by the subject matter in front of the screen at all. The projector has a modeling light for proper composition, but the exposure is done via a flash tube. Subsequently, all subject lighting must be done with flash equipment also. The result of all of this is that it offers a relatively convenient means to project virtually any background scene via a slide, without ever leaving the studio. Even though the image is also projected on the subject during exposure, the reflectivity of the lenticular screen is several stops higher than that of even a white subject, meaning that the image projected onto the subject is invisible in the resulting photograph.
    Front projection systems have been replaced with green screen systems which can install the background image electronically.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Interesting. Doesn't the light from the subject lighting that falls on the screen pollute the projected image, kind of like leaving the lights on when using a slide projector? It seems that such a system puts severe limitations on the subject lighting.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Good question. Actually, this is a lot less problematic as it may seem. But there are a few things that one needs to look out for. For one thing, the subject should be about five feet in front of the screen or at least as far as depth of field allows. Then, once the lighting is being set up, use gobos, barn doors etc. to block as much light off the screen as possible. But one does not have to go to unusual length to do so. The lenticular screen has the unique property of reflecting any light that reaches the screen back in the very direction where it came from. With other words, any of the subject lighting that reaches the screen will be reflected back to the light source and thus become virtually invisible to the camera. This also helps the brightness of the background image because its light is reflected right back to the projector. These lenticular screens were initially developed by 3M in Minnesota.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It definitely seems that in the film days a good photographer had to have a much broader knowledge to do his craft. Thank you for being willing to pass on some of that knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You are certainly welcome. You are right, in the old days photographers definitely needed a broader knowledge in order to tackle a broad amount of subject matter and I have to admit that sometimes I miss those days. But we shouldn't look down on these days of digital photography, electronics, computers and Photoshop. These new developments definitely have made even difficult photographic tasks a lot easier to accomplish. Actually, not so much easier than less time consuming, providing one has the necessary knowledge and training to apply them accurately. Photoshop, for instance, is an amazing marvel. But it also has a relatively steep learning curve to apply it properly. Unfortunately way too many camera users look upon it as the cure all for any mistakes or lack of knowledge. That it cannot do. Photoshop doesn't correct for poor composition or poor lighting, for instance. To be a good photographer still requires a good knowledge of the craft.

    ReplyDelete