ELiffmann wrote:
very nice!  Second is my least favorite.  Seems pushed in post or something and has a "too hard" feeling for my taste.

Thanks--I actually was going for more of a gritty look with that one. I wanted to try a couple different takes on it.

karenjerzykphotography wrote:
Well done!

Thanks!

Good Egg Productions wrote:
With all due respect.... you couldn't have worked with a better model for art nudes.

I have a weird feeling you'd have gotten amazing stuff with your iphone and a desk lamp.

there's no doubt that the model added to the quality of these shots. as with much of photography, the subject plays a huge role in the final product.

that said, I did put a lot of thought into how I lit her and composed the shots. but i'm sorry you seem so unimpressed.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
With all due respect.... you couldn't have worked with a better model for art nudes.

I have a weird feeling you'd have gotten amazing stuff with your iphone and a desk lamp.

...about sums it up, without saying the obvious.

dhp wrote:

there's no doubt that the model added to the quality of these shots. as with much of photography, the subject plays a huge role in the final product.

that said, I did put a lot of thought into how I lit her and composed the shots. but i'm sorry you seem so unimpressed.

If you wanted a handjob, here...

The images are very good.

EXCELLENT for a first attempt at art nudes ever.

I don't necessarily agree with the noise in the treatments.

Good job.

dhp wrote:
First Art Nudes -- Thoughts?

Not that I notice.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
If you wanted a handjob, here...

The images are very good.

EXCELLENT for a first attempt at art nudes ever.

I just took issue in what I interpreted to imply that I did virtually nothing in the creation of these photographs. Which is unhelpful and condescending. Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's how I took it.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
I don't necessarily agree with the noise in the treatments.

Good job.

This is more helpful.

BCADULTART wrote:
Model is great.  Lighting is good, I think, but the post work is way off, My OP.

The problem might be in how you did the B & W conversions?

Hope you saved the RAW files.

Chuck

What is "way off" about the B&W in your eyes?

Thanks all others, for the comments

Good Egg Productions wrote:
I apologize.  Wrong foot.

What I was doing was complimenting you on your choice for a model to dip your toes into the world of art nudes.

I've seen some people take models of this caliber and really do them an injustice.  You have not made such a mistake.  I like the images.  I think very little things like a slightly wider framing may have made things better.  The crops look a little tight on the all three images.

I wish I had more space to work with but I was using my tiny apt in SF. I agree the framing is a bit tight. Originally we were going to do some location work but it was freezing cold. Next time...

Good Egg Productions wrote:
So that's all I was saying.  It's probably jealousy that I haven't ever had the pleasure of working with her.

No worries. She is a tremendously talented model. I'd be jealous, too.

SMASSH STUDIO wrote:
I dont think they are bad but they are just boring for me. Those shots are no different than naked girl with caution tape or on railroad tracks. Nothing about them is original or shows you as the artist because they are simply representations of a million other shots done a million times before:(

I agree with you that they are not anything particularly unique or original. Therefore calling it "fine art" is probably a stretch, but I meant it more in terms of genre. However I disagree that about it conceptually being equated to the caution tape and railroad track types shots.

Railroads, gas masks, caution tapes, and similarly cliche shots are uninventive but at the same time serve no purpose and have no meaning (generally speaking). There is no objective criteria with which to evaluate these types of shots ("what's the point?"). You only have the content, which has no meaning, and therefore is constantly ridiculed. It's not ridiculed purely because it is repeated, but more because it is repeated AND serves no purpose.

Whereas what I was after was something that could be looked at both objectively and subjectively:

The purpose of this shoot was finding ways to define the lines and physicality of the model. It was also experimental in that I had never done anything like this before (so I didn't exactly have high hopes of re-defining a genre). This is something that can be evaluated objectively (does the light and shadow define the figure? if no, what could be changed to reach that goal?). Whether or not it is of interest of you falls under subjectivity and I respect other's opinions of whether something I create is boring or not. And if that's how you feel, I totally accept that.

Kent Art Photography wrote:
They're not so much black and white, they're more grey and grey.  Having said that, for a first attempt they're very good, I think.

Have you thought about posting the originals in the retouching forum to see what others can do with them?

Thanks. I was very deliberate in my processing and was also just experimenting with the look. I know that traditionally these shots have a wider range of grays within them, tonally go from black to white, and tend to look very smooth and "pretty." I wasn't going for that. I was looking to push it into raw and gritty.

I'm very comfortable in my post production so I don't have any interest really in seeing what others do with it.

Neil Snape wrote:
Really like them, the light and form are wonderful.

Thank you Neil--I am a big fan of your work. Your work with color mixing and gels have been inspirational for years!

-- Thanks all others for your comments as well!