|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Female clothed seated open leg pose....awkward?
I've noticed some models posing seated, front facing, clothed, with open legs. The camera is level with and pointing directly at the crotch. Maybe it's just me, but it makes me uncomfortable. When did crotch shots become normal? Jun 27 18 10:27 am Link People do what people want to do. Nothing is normal or abnormal. Personally, I would never do this. But just one worthless opinion.  Jun 27 18 10:34 am Link I like it when done right. It looks sexy and powerful.  {random image plucked from the world wide web} Jun 27 18 10:57 am Link What Black Z Eddie said Jun 28 18 06:15 am Link Doesn't bother me eitherway. I want the Model to feel comfortable to pose anyway they want. I want them to express themselves without constraints. My objective is to guide them in a theme (if it's a commercial shoot) and let them take it from there. If that means they want to point their crotch at the lens then so be it. Let models express themselves, then edit later. Mark Jun 28 18 06:48 am Link Isn't it somewhat cultural? Is this a "lady like" attribute which is still required? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/as … 8a17d57176 Jun 28 18 12:11 pm Link I don't see as a crotch pic. Think of it this way if the same female poses for a cropped head shot and she is wearing a V Neck top are you focusing on her boobs? What if she is well endowed and showing more cleavage? Some of the great artists who painted nudes who be devastated if people looked at their work as porn. Jun 28 18 01:57 pm Link Artists try to convey different things in different ways. A portrait photographer might want to convey who a person is (their personality) through their portraits. A "glamour" photographer may want to convey the sensuality of the human form and/or that of their subject. Some may do that with implied nudes, nudes, and even "penthouse" style images. Some viewers may find the clothed model posed in a more "provocative" way more sensual or it may impact them in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable, as it did with you. The very fact that it challenged your sensibilities and made you consider your reaction to it is a good thing in my book. I pray that I never strive for "normal" when making images in an effort to create art. If I'm documenting an event or a wedding or shooting family photos, then there may be "norms" I observe, but even then I hope I can add something creative to my client's images. Jun 29 18 05:52 am Link The only photographs that have ever made me uncomfortable were of mutilated bodies from war or murder. Photos of children who are obviously in a sad situation with no sign of love or help in their future bother me a lot. These are images that are hard to put out of mind. A clothed model's crotch probably doesn't even register with me and is forgotten as quick as it was seen. Jun 29 18 08:05 am Link Nope, but that's just me. If I see something I don't necessarily agree with and it's not hurting anyone else, I simply take my eyes and point them in another direction. Crisis over. Jun 29 18 11:50 am Link There is a very famous Helmut Newton shot of basically the same pose done on a couch. Beauty like crude is in the eye of the beholder. I find it an intriguing effect, one looks to find what they know should be there but is blocked by the clothing and a little disappointment or shame arises. Remember, art is there to evoke a reaction or emotion from the viewer. Jul 03 18 05:14 pm Link Jul 03 18 06:33 pm Link Miss 5 11 wrote:
Jul 03 18 10:54 pm Link Vector One Photography wrote: The same photo crossed my mind when i read this thread title Jul 04 18 02:00 am Link Howard Tarragon wrote: You may be a person of a different generation when there were still rules and etiquette that were based in blatant sexism. Jul 05 18 09:58 am Link Udor, You may be right, I may be a product of my generation, but to me, a guy doesn't look that cool sitting spread-legged either. https://i.imgur.com/lenYn4m.jpg The picture above shows a camel toe and maybe more. This is sexy? Empowered? Not for me, in this shot. Elsewhere, maybe. Just my 2 cents Jul 05 18 11:22 am Link Howard Tarragon wrote: I am totally okay with this kind of photo... also... this is obviously a latex/rubber fetish fashion shoot and the woman looks pretty strong to me. Jul 05 18 12:37 pm Link lol Jul 05 18 12:45 pm Link This thread is making me realize how infrequently I pose in pants. I definitely wouldn't do that pose in a dress, because I don't think it would look good, but in pants, I think it can be a good "power pose" depending on the look you're going for. Some people just don't like that pose, I think it can look ok, but it depends on context. Jul 05 18 08:27 pm Link Black Z Eddie wrote: Wait, That is an Implied Clothed Crotch Shot. Jul 09 18 05:33 pm Link Black Z Eddie wrote: I think in an image like this and done correctly it works perfectly. It's a latex/fetish shoot for one, and not only does it imply power but it's supposed to be a bit provocative and sexy. Guess it all comes down to the look you're going for. I would never do this nude, not my style. Something like this example, I really like it. Jul 09 18 05:42 pm Link 
Model Posts: 6639 MacMurdo - permanent station of the US, Sector claimed by New Zealand, Antarctica Howard Tarragon wrote: I see no camels in that image, just a beautiful woman. If you want to refer to a part of someone's anatomy, you should use accurate terms, although I have no idea why you have an issue that a perfectly natural part of her body is showing. Jul 10 18 03:59 pm Link |
