Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
There are two ways to arouse a viewer of a photo. One is to show them a physical act. The other is to do it by empathy - showing someone feeling aroused. I don't know what the actual definition of porn vs erotica is, but I've decided that for my purposes porn is showing the act and erotica is showing the feeling. Acting, even the best, is fake. You can do or say anything you want, but in the end a model is only going to feel aroused if willing and then they follow their process. All the thinking and planning and sharing photos isn't going to change that. For true erotica, you can only be the conduit for the model. Over time, if you establish yourself as someone who does this well, models who want to explore that will come to you and do their thing unprompted in front of the camera. That's the point where you can begin to put your stamp on it - the way you interpret what the model does. But until you've established that you can do this well, you're only going to get models who will fake it in front of the camera.
Photographer
Derek Ridgers
Posts: 1625
London, England, United Kingdom
Mikey McMichaels wrote: There are two ways to arouse a viewer of a photo. One is to show them a physical act. The other is to do it by empathy - showing someone feeling aroused. I don't know what the actual definition of porn vs erotica is, but I've decided that for my purposes porn is showing the act and erotica is showing the feeling. Acting, even the best, is fake. You can do or say anything you want, but in the end a model is only going to feel aroused if willing and then they follow their process. All the thinking and planning and sharing photos isn't going to change that. For true erotica, you can only be the conduit for the model. Over time, if you establish yourself as someone who does this well, models who want to explore that will come to you and do their thing unprompted in front of the camera. That's the point where you can begin to put your stamp on it - the way you interpret what the model does. But until you've established that you can do this well, you're only going to get models who will fake it in front of the camera. Thanks very much for your help and advice on this one Mikey. I’m sure you’re right. Although, for some models, it certainly doesn’t seem like acting. In fact, I’m sure it isn’t. They are just able to turn it on and off like a tap. I was shooting one such model on Friday. We were in a deserted outside location. I’ve shot there before and never seen another soul. We were interrupted by a couple of perfectly friendly people who said they were “gardeners”. Once they could see we were busy they kindly left us to it. My model was able to carry on just where she’d stopped, as through nothing had happened. The answer here is that she isn’t really a professional model. She’s full time student earning extra money from (mainly) hobbyist photographers. She’s very good at expressing her sexuality. I asked her about this and she told me that it was this that led her into being a model, rather than vice-versa. Whether she could act out other emotions as freely and as easily I don’t know but I doubt it.
Photographer
Francisco Castro
Posts: 2628
Cincinnati, Ohio, US
Not a model, but I have had this exact conversation with models and the consensus I was given was that "Erotic" indicates "sexual overtones" without necessarily being nude, while "nude" is the artistic showing of the naked form without necessarily having "sexual overtones". "Erotic" would also likely involve posing with other models in an image with sex as a theme, while a lot of models who pose nude will not shoot nudes in contact with another model.
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Derek Ridgers wrote: Thanks very much for your help and advice on this one Mikey. I’m sure you’re right. Although, for some models, it certainly doesn’t seem like acting. In fact, I’m sure it isn’t. They are just able to turn it on and off like a tap. I was shooting one such model on Friday. We were in a deserted outside location. I’ve shot there before and never seen another soul. We were interrupted by a couple of perfectly friendly people who said they were “gardeners”. Once they could see we were busy they kindly left us to it. My model was able to carry on just where she’d stopped, as through nothing had happened. The answer here is that she isn’t really a professional model. She’s full time student earning extra money from (mainly) hobbyist photographers. She’s very good at expressing her sexuality. I asked her about this and she told me that it was this that led her into being a model, rather than vice-versa. Whether she could act out other emotions as freely and as easily I don’t know but I doubt it. I think some people act, and other people make themselves feel it for real - whatever its, not just erotic feelings. I think a lot of people are self-conscious about being emotional in any way in front of other people - even if it's just on the inside. The ones who aren't will always have an easier time.
Photographer
Eyesso
Posts: 1218
Orlando, Florida, US
Mikey McMichaels wrote: There are two ways to arouse a viewer of a photo. One is to show them a physical act. The other is to do it by empathy - showing someone feeling aroused. I don't know what the actual definition of porn vs erotica is, but I've decided that for my purposes porn is showing the act and erotica is showing the feeling. Acting, even the best, is fake. You can do or say anything you want, but in the end a model is only going to feel aroused if willing and then they follow their process. All the thinking and planning and sharing photos isn't going to change that. For true erotica, you can only be the conduit for the model. Over time, if you establish yourself as someone who does this well, models who want to explore that will come to you and do their thing unprompted in front of the camera. That's the point where you can begin to put your stamp on it - the way you interpret what the model does. But until you've established that you can do this well, you're only going to get models who will fake it in front of the camera. THIS....is guru level advice. Seriously one of the best nuggets of knowledge I've read on here. Thanks.
Photographer
Visual Delights
Posts: 204
Austin, Texas, US
Mikey McMichaels wrote: ... I've decided that for my purposes porn is showing the act and erotica is showing the feeling. I'll second the appreciation for the pithy way you phrased that.
Photographer
C.C. Holdings
Posts: 914
Los Angeles, California, US
Send visual examples of what you want to shoot, works very well for me, and also create a portfolio or profile that contains a lot of that genre if you've shot it before. You'll get the models that are available to shoot that, and weed out the ones not available to shoot that. Also, money.
Photographer
TomFRohwer
Posts: 1601
Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Risen Phoenix Photo wrote: To me the erotic should tell a story. Like (...) Erotic is always "to me". And that's the point - and the problem. To me many of the stuff labeled as "erotic" is just boring and not in the slightest erotic. In turn I find some stuff erotic which other people will not regard as erotic.
I’m interested in how other photographers operate when faced with a beautiful, highly experienced but emotionally unengaged model? There is no shure formula. And first of all: while it's nice to shoot erotic pictures that I regard as erotic I am capable to shoot images that other people may regard as erotic.
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 10856
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Risen Phoenix Photo wrote: Models engage and emote only when they are comfortable with the photographer and the build a trust over time. You have undoubted experienced this in your 30 years of erotic photography. But to my taste most photographers miss the mark entirely when they talk about erotic imagery. To me the erotic should tell a story. Like an Anais Nin short story as opposed to a clinical description of fucking. Just shooting spread shots of Vulvas, labia minor, and vaginas seems rather gynecological to me. That being said you are one hell of a photographer who tell that story so well. Totally. Erotic can be fully clothed. Totally nude and pink, can and often is totally not erotic. I have been to too many erotic art shows that were completely boring. View "The Servant" for a highly erotic movie, that shows nothing in the way of body parts.
Photographer
D a v i d s o n
Posts: 1216
Gig Harbor, Washington, US
Derek Ridgers wrote: I’ve been shooting erotica in its various forms for nearly 30 years now and only in the last few weeks has it started to occur to me how difficult this genre can be. A couple of weeks ago, I photographed a very beautiful model. She had great hair and make up and wonderfully clear skin. She was friendly and seemed intelligent. She’s worked with hundreds of good photographers and has a huge portfolio. But she just wasn’t sexy. Or maybe I should say, not sexy for me. I just couldn’t seem to get her away from the glamour and art nude poses she does so well and into an area that was sensual and dramatic. At one point I asked her to be “more sexual” and when that failed to have the slightest effect, I asked her to “think of her boyfriend”. She seemed okay at the time but afterwards she emailed me and said she was uncomfortable with this approach. Obviously I apologised and her message left me feeling embarrassed, contrite and very stupid. I admit, I have said this kind of thing before because, with most models, I like to shoot a range of different emotions during a shoot. I wondered where I’d gone wrong and hence this posting. The above model had ‘erotica’ checked her list of genres. I went through her huge portfolio and couldn’t really find anything sexy at all. But I only did this afterwards. Leading me to conclude that maybe she doesn’t actually know what erotica means. Maybe I was just persuaded to leave my brain unengaged because of her beauty? So… I’m interested in how other photographers operate when faced with a beautiful, highly experienced but emotionally unengaged model? It happens, reason could be almost anything really. Sounds like you enjoy challenges, so try again with her. I agree that the model needs to feel comfortable with you and her surroundings but I’m sure that’s a given with your years of experience and quality of your work. Erotic to me is a sense of desire, sensually arousing; some of the nudes I shoot are erotic in that sense, and some are simply nude to show their unconcealed raw beauty. Maybe she is the later of the too.
Photographer
RTE Photography
Posts: 1511
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, California, US
I have found that many young people have very little if any knowledge of what exactly the term "Erotic" means. I have seen many new models list Shoot "Erotic" on their pages, but also say no nudes, glamour, lingerie, etc. If I have the time, I send them a message giving them the definition of Erotic from the dictionary, erotic adjective erotic literature: sexy, sexually arousing, sexually stimulating, titillating, suggestive; pornographic, sexually explicit, lewd, smutty, hard-core, soft-core, dirty, racy, risqué, ribald, naughty; sexual, sensual, amatory; seductive, alluring, tantalizing; informal blue, X-rated, steamy, raunchy, bootylicious; euphemistic adult. I find it helps to meet models first to get to know each other and discuss exactly what kind of shoot we want to do and be sure we are working on the same page. Of course, when you get on the set, there may still be some who are really not capable of emoting and it can be very difficult to try to explain what you are looking for without sounding creepy. Hopefully the model is professional enough to understand the difference, but I agree it is almost impossible to try to get the point across without using some language which some might find offensive.
Photographer
Mary Durante Youtt
Posts: 520
Barnegat, New Jersey, US
As a woman and a photographer, I think "erotic" starts in the mind, shows through the eyes and moves into body language. It doesn't necessitate nudity. Just my humble opinion.
Photographer
Derek Ridgers
Posts: 1625
London, England, United Kingdom
RTE Photography wrote: I have found that many young people have very little if any knowledge of what exactly the term "Erotic" means. I have seen many new models list Shoot "Erotic" on their pages, but also say no nudes, glamour, lingerie, etc. If I have the time, I send them a message giving them the definition of Erotic from the dictionary, erotic adjective erotic literature: sexy, sexually arousing, sexually stimulating, titillating, suggestive; pornographic, sexually explicit, lewd, smutty, hard-core, soft-core, dirty, racy, risqué, ribald, naughty; sexual, sensual, amatory; seductive, alluring, tantalizing; informal blue, X-rated, steamy, raunchy, bootylicious; euphemistic adult. Virtually none of this is in my dictionary on my Mac. I think if I sent any of my models this definition I’d be lucky to get anyone. “Sensual” and “seductive” is enough IMHO and maybe with a few qualifications like “naked” if necessary. Besides anything else, I don’t always want to have to spell everything out because I want to leave a little for the interpretation. I told the last non-model I asked (who accepted) that I wanted the photos to be erotic but that she could interpret this in whatever way she wanted.
Photographer
AgX
Posts: 2851
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Derek Ridgers wrote: “Sensual” and “seductive” is enough IMHO and maybe with a few qualifications like “naked” if necessary. Besides anything else, I don’t always want to have to spell everything out because I want to leave a little for the interpretation. I told the last non-model I asked (who accepted) that I wanted the photos to be erotic but that she could interpret this in whatever way she wanted. Again, I believe if you don't clearly define what it is that you want to portray, and you leave it up to the model's ability to "interpret this in whatever way she wanted", there's a reasonably good chance you'll end up right where you were when you were prompted to start this thread:
Derek Ridgers wrote: She seemed okay at the time but afterwards she emailed me and said she was uncomfortable with this approach. Obviously I apologised and her message left me feeling embarrassed, contrite and very stupid.
Photographer
Kelvin Hammond
Posts: 17397
Billings, Montana, US
I never ever found models to pull off erotica very well, even though they are great at glamour. Two different things. With glamour, there is no need to convince anyone that you're into it. It's aloof, just a body or a face, pretty, shapely, whatever. IMO, housewives have always been far more erotic then models, because even though they may not be as fit or experienced, they do possess the one component that erotica really requires: the shoot is erotic to them, and it's easy to see that. But, it's generally not publishable, so it has it's downside (though what market is there for it these days anyway?). The models I tried it with always looked like they were pretending, you could see it in their eyes, and thus their body language. I've done it for 30 years as well, and I can't be convinced that a model genuinely feels "erotic". Sure, they know they are fun to look at, that's easy to pose for... but there isn't anything erotic about fake eroticism. That's probably why Playboy stopped putting out the centerfold: you can't spank to that anymore. All it is is cute. The internet gave us more specific tastes, and the unbelievably of a professional model just doesn't ring true. It's not the models that changed... we did.
Photographer
Derek Ridgers
Posts: 1625
London, England, United Kingdom
AgX wrote: Again, I believe if you don't clearly define what it is that you want to portray, and you leave it up to the model's ability to "interpret this in whatever way she wanted", there's a reasonably good chance you'll end up right where you were when you were prompted to start this thread: Well of course this is a good point. But I think I’ve learnt a lot in the weeks since I instigated this thread. And I think the answer is that I need to look at the models previous work more closely. And, if she isn’t a model, then I have to be more open minded. But the reason for me choosing this approach rather than being more specific is that I want my photographs to be more about the model than about me. To induce a certain verité quality if I can. And now I have a couple of models I’m working with more often and who seem to be able to produce this, so I feel I have my solution.
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Derek Ridgers wrote: Well of course this is a good point. But I think I’ve learnt a lot in the weeks since I instigated this thread. And I think the answer is that I need to look at the models previous work more closely. And, if she isn’t a model, then I have to be more open minded. But the reason for me choosing this approach rather than being more specific is that I want my photographs to be more about the model than about me. To induce a certain verité quality if I can. And now I have a couple of models I’m working with more often and who seem to be able to produce this, so I feel I have my solution. That's great!
|