Another nude in a landscape attempt—now with another version in the thread.

[rogerxnz]

How about this one: "Pauahatanui Tree Spirit"?

Please also see the alternative version in one of my posts below.
Roger

[RSL]

Uh uh!

[GrahamBy]

I think that the "nude in landscape" genre, and its modern spin-off "nude in industrial wasteland or abandoned factory" have become such a cliché that one needs to carefully examine what one is trying to do. If you want to photograph a nude, why not just photograph a nude? Are you in reality just being a bit coy with yourself and your viewers? I like naked bodies and trees, but I'm less convinced by their combination, I'm afraid.

I'm sure there are exceptions...

[stamper]

I find it attractive. Then again I haven't seen much of this kind of thing, so I am not blase. Worth the effort to post it.

[RSL]

To me the worst problem is that it's forced. The girl's body doesn't belong there unless she died, and the tree rings on her body are -- well I hate to have to say it, but -- ridiculous. Most nudes in woods, water, whatever at least strain to make the situation seem natural. This one doesn't. It's extremely unnatural.

[muntanela]

I find it attractive. Then again I haven't seen much of this kind of thing, so I am not blase. Worth the effort to post it.

I agree, it's very interesting, a bit art nouveau style perhaps. Anyway i find it very pleasant, both aesthetically and intellectually.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...The girl's body doesn't belong there unless she died...

I am sure there is a forensic photography competition somewhere 

[GrahamBy]

Should you ever find yourself working with a police forensics lab, think carefully before you ask to look at their photo collection 

[BobDavid]

Sure, we always run the risk of treading on cliches, but this picture is finely executed. The trick is to create a set of 8-12 images of this quality while ensuring each image has unique attributes.

[rogerxnz]

I really appreciate all your comments although I'm not sure what to make of the "Uh uh!" one—I try to pronounce it but can't get any meaning from the sound.

Never mind. The image of the stump was taken to combine with the nude for a competition (results not out yet). The topic is "Artistic—anything goes". I liked the texture of the cut face of the stump but I know a pic of just the stump would not be interesting enough to compete. I attach a pic so you can judge.

I added the nude to provide more interest and "art". I allowed her to be semi-transparent to show the combination of her texture and that of the stump. After all, she is a tree spirit and she's allowed to be ethereal!

I like the combination of the textures and the tones.

As to "what is the nude in the picture?", it's up to the viewer to work out but one possibility is that, as she is a tree spirit (as stated in the title), she's mourning the death of the tree!

I could have taken the approach of contrasting the texture of the stump with the smoothness of the nude. I didn't because I thought there was too much contrast and that the semi-transparent approach was more subtle.

I attach a version with the nude at 100% opacity.

What do you think about that version? I think I should have entered it as well!
Roger

[Rob C]

Roger,

The problem's not your image.

The problem, today, is the genre. It has been done to death by almost every guy who ever shot a model. Nudes are simply not interesting anymore. Whether one tries to shoot like old French postcards, Playboy, Penthouse or anything in between, the day has passed. That's why there is only porn today. Porn doesn't depend on beauty, talent, era or anything else remotely likely to make a photographer feel good about himself.

If you want to see beauty you have to get into top flight fashion photography for one of the Vogues, Elles or Harper's Bazaars.

As with all things creative, the scales are tipping to the extremes, and the middle ground no longer exists in any meaningful way. (For myself, I have absolutely no wish to do it again; I have a great wish to be back in fashion photography. I think that offers the best experience available within model work. You can play with fantasy. It doesn't get any better than that.)

It sucks, but it's how it is - or at least, how I see it.

Rob C

[rogerxnz]

Thank you, Rob C, but, with respect your view, makes very sad reading.

I feel that even if what you say is true, we should not let it stop us from doing what we enjoy and striving to present our own versions and visions.

There must be millions of "old barn", "lonely tree', "wooden posts in water" shots out there and I am sure there will be millions more. And so there should because we all think we can add something personal or different. Maybe, there is a unique cloud above or a special area of weathered timber or a nude in the window or misty water or whatever. Maybe, it is just the pleasure of making our own versions of the cliches.

There must be some reason why we repeat them!

Luckily, I am an amateur photographer and can do things just for fun. In fact, my insurance cover says I cannot sell any images. I get pleasure from making my images even if they are not "top flight". I would never have the budget to do a "real" fashion shoot but I enjoyed the (two) shoots I have done with nude models. I have learnt a lot from them and will do more.

I wonder if part of the problem is that we have very expensive gear and we can make great photos but it is hard to get recognition for our efforts. Not only is everyone else producing great images but also most of our images are unseen by any one except ourselves. Getting paid for an image gives some recognition but very few landscape images are sold. Getting an award or place for an image at some competition (even at your local camera club) earns some recognition but it can be disappointing to spend hours on a great image and but get beaten by a shot of a cute cat!

We know that when we die, our magnificent images will be trashed by our families because they cannot cope with thousands of someone else's images let alone their own images.

In many ways, a lot of what we do with our impressive gear is pointless! But I still do it because I like the technical challenge and, every so often, I make an image which holds people's attention for more than a second. So, I keep on shooting.

Your website has lots of great images and you have obviously been photographing for years. Maybe you need to try something new!

Sorry for my rant but I am fascinated with the issue of why we all amass so much gear and take the same cliched photos when we know that we will never do anything with the shots. It seems to me there is no value or point in what we do except we have the momentary pleasure of pressing a button and seeing a two-second preview.
Roger

Roger,

The problem's not your image.

The problem, today, is the genre. It has been done to death by almost every guy who ever shot a model. Nudes are simply not interesting anymore. Whether one tries to shoot like old French postcards, Playboy, Penthouse or anything in between, the day has passed. That's why there is only porn today. Porn doesn't depend on beauty, talent, era or anything else remotely likely to make a photographer feel good about himself.

If you want to see beauty you have to get into top flight fashion photography for one of the Vogues, Elles or Harper's Bazaars.

As with all things creative, the scales are tipping to the extremes, and the middle ground no longer exists in any meaningful way. (For myself, I have absolutely no wish to do it again; I have a great wish to be back in fashion photography. I think that offers the best experience available within model work. You can play with fantasy. It doesn't get any better than that.)

It sucks, but it's how it is - or at least, how I see it.

Rob C

[Rob C]

Thank you, Rob C, but, with respect

1. your view, makes very sad reading.

I feel that even if what you say is true, we should not let it stop us from doing what we enjoy and striving to present our own versions and visions.

2.  There must be millions of "old barn", "lonely tree', "wooden posts in water" shots out there and I am sure there will be millions more. And so there should because we all think we can add something personal or different. Maybe, there is a unique cloud above or a special area of weathered timber or a nude in the window or misty water or whatever. Maybe, it is just the pleasure of making our own versions of the cliches.

3..There must be some reason why we repeat them!

Luckily, I am an amateur photographer and can do things just for fun. In fact, my insurance cover says I cannot sell any images. I get pleasure from making my images even if they are not "top flight". I would never have the budget to do a "real" fashion shoot but I enjoyed the (two) shoots I have done with nude models. I have learnt a lot from them and will do more.

I wonder if part of the problem is that we have very expensive gear and we can make great photos but it is hard to get recognition for our efforts. Not only is everyone else producing great images but also most of our images are unseen by any one except ourselves. Getting paid for an image gives some recognition but very few landscape images are sold. Getting an award or place for an image at some competition (even at your local camera club) earns some recognition but it can be disappointing to spend hours on a great image and but get beaten by a shot of a cute cat!

We know that when we die, our magnificent images will be trashed by our families because they cannot cope with thousands of someone else's images let alone their own images.

In many ways, a lot of what we do with our impressive gear is pointless! But I still do it because I like the technical challenge and, every so often, I make an image which holds people's attention for more than a second. So, I keep on shooting.

Your website has lots of great images and you have obviously been photographing for years.

4.  Maybe you need to try something new!

Sorry for my rant but I am fascinated with the issue of why we all amass so much gear and take the same cliched photos when we know that we will never do anything with the shots. It seems to me there is no value or point in what we do except we have the momentary pleasure of pressing a button and seeing a two-second preview.
Roger

Hi Roger,

Excuse my mucking up your layout, but it makes for easier answering.

1.  I agree, and feel exactly the same, and wish it were not so.

2.  That's also the problem with those genres: done to death and beyond.

3.  Yes, we are limited by ourselves; mainly by our imagination.

4.  I would if I could, but in my own case I said I'd gladly return to fashion photography, but that horse has long bolted the barn. So to keep living an interested lfe, I'm doing my blurs and reflections... not very much, but better than nothing and, in their own way, quite rewarding.

From your personal position, if it's new to you (as you state) then I see the attraction; for me, I feel a bit like a family doctor but definitely not a gynaecologist! But for either of us, the point, I think, isn't the personal one but my original contention: the genre has become boring for the viewer by its ubiquity. Hence the comment about your posting of the image and the relative lack of excitement about it: not your fault.

Rob C

[GrahamBy]

I'm a little less gloomy than Rob C, but then he's been there and done it. I'd suggest that the remaining role for the non-pornographic nude is as nude portraiture, for the same reason that there will always be an interest in portraiture: each subject is new.

The downside, is that portraiture is never going to be saleable unless the subject is famous. There is not much interest in generic portraiture outside fashion... where unfortunately there is so much makeup and post-processing involved that it's getting difficiult to tell human from CGI.

Otherwise, the only other really interesting nude photography is happening in feminist porn (yes, there is a pro-sex stream of feminism), where there is a real effort to picture sexual activity in a way that is captures women enjoying themselves... where the standard version is about gynecological detail, crude masculine fantasy, humiliation and pain. Some of those photos really challenge what is obscene or offensive, just by changing the feeling that is coming from the participants.

[Rob C]

I'm a little less gloomy than Rob C, but then he's been there and done it. I'd suggest that the remaining role for the non-pornographic nude is as nude portraiture, for the same reason that there will always be an interest in portraiture: each subject is new.

The downside, is that portraiture is never going to be saleable unless the subject is famous. Their is not much interest in generic portraiture outside fashion... where unfortunately there is so much makeup and post-processing involved that it's getting difficiult to tell human from CGI.

Otherwise, the only other really interesting nude photography is happening in feminist porn (yes, there is a pro-sex stream of feminism), where there is a real effort to picture sexual activity in a way that is captures women enjoying themselves... where the standard version is about gynecological detail, crude masculine fantasy, humiliation and pain. Some of those photos really challenge what is obscene or offensive, just by changing the feeling that is coming from the participants.

Yes, and that's a pity, IMO, because it kills personality and introduces, as you write, CGI. I prefer people to window dummies, even if the latter can be more beautiful, in a dead sort of way.

I'm not sure if selling was part of the original deal in this thread - if it was, it's a wan hope, but you never can tell! That it was meant for a competition doesn't make clear if money was involved.

As you know, Sieff did a lot of nude portraiture, but even so, it seemed to be a bit stilted and into formula. I'm thinking of the Torses Nus series here. But then, I think he used the formula to keep a sense of consistency going which, in itself, adds to boredom. Yep, even with him!

Just another sunset, then...

Rob

[RSL]

The "uh uh one" means "no." Rob cut to the chase in his comments. This crap has been overdone for so long it's beyond cliche now. Several years ago a guy was putting out hundreds of bucks an issue to put pictures in Black & White magazine of a nude in the water with a parasol. This went on for a couple years until the tedium probably overcame even the author. Don't get me wrong. I love beautiful nudes. But a nude with tree rings is. . . well, I don't want to be insulting, so I'll leave it at that.