When I first heard the term I pictured a girl holding her bra at the end of her outstretched arms with two fingers. I have since concluded that it is when one or more female human mammary glands are fully or partially enclosed by one or more hands. I am not sure what the limits are for those of you who feel that hand bras are cliche.
some models won't do full topless but they will do implied/covered nudes. maybe it's because the hand bra is something you can see in regular US fashion magazines so it's considered less risky. and for some models implied/covered nudes are a step toward full nudes (dipping their toe in the water first). so i think it's less of an artistic decision than being something that allows the model to feel comfortable being topless. also you see implieds being used for the avatar although some are less implied than others.
as part of our zivity strip-tease sets we will do some implieds for variety. i like it when the model has long hair and can do the implied with the hair.
Some people experience difficulty appreciating implied nudity, and this form in particular has received a lot of negative attention.
All I can say to that is; some women express their power by baring their bodies, others express their power with their modesty. I respect and appreciate the beauty and power of all women.
I relate to my age old statement, be clothed, be nude, or go home.
Hand bras are some sort of epic fail to pretend they are nude. They call it implied nude, but sorry, you are nude, you just have your arms on your bits, that doesn't make it implied, it makes it nude/covered.
It is like the pastie idea. Be totally nude, but cover that small area of the body with a sticker and suddenly .. (drumroll) not nude..
This of course is my opinion, but for me, it is one or the other, there is no in between for me.
for me it's all good (whatever the model/customer is comfortable with) but i tend to like these arm bras (and bead bras) better than hand bras (unless the hands are from someone else). of course some models have more to cover than others (god bless them!)
Hunter Wald wrote: When I first heard the term I pictured a girl holding her bra at the end of her outstretched arms with two fingers. I have since concluded that it is when one or more female human mammary glands are fully or partially enclosed by one or more hands. I am not sure what the limits are for those of you who feel that hand bras are cliche.
Toto Photo
Posts: 1,116
San Francisco, California, US
Hunter Wald wrote: ...I am not sure what the limits are for those of you who feel that hand bras are cliche...
OP, I found this part of your post much more interesting to try to respond to, than a definition which you already accurately stated.
I would say your drawing is not a cliche. I especially appreciate how the facial expression, which I read as disdain for being asked to expose herself for probably the first time, so matches the very simplistic motivation of a shy, newmodel--a hand bra, which, in this instance, might better be described as a girl quickly covering her private parts.
hm, I wouldn't consider any of those handbras. It's not automatically a handbra everytime you use an arm or something else to cover up a boob. It's a handbra when you use your hands to "cup" your boobs, so that your hans form a bra.
I think they can work very well at times but it depends a lot on the model. The times they work for me is when the model conveys some sort of emotion that supports the fact that they are covering themselves. They can be teasing or coy, or shy or vulnerable. Just something that explains the moment beyond that they've been told to pose that way.
I've shot a few of those shots that I like a lot. I generally prefer implied shots where an arm or something else is doing the blocking over a straight up hand bra though.
Imageography wrote: I relate to my age old statement, be clothed, be nude, or go home.
Hand bras are some sort of epic fail to pretend they are nude.
I find hands on breasts to merely be one extra form of posing.
The reality is that if photographers can't capture a model with hands posed on breasts, along without, there remains an aspect of photography they have not mastered yet. Or, maybe they don't like it.
It could be akin to posing with eyes open, or eyes shut. Or legs crossed, or legs spread. One is not better than the other ... they are just variations.
I would like to thank everybody that has contributed to this string. Some of the contributions were cute, some humorous, some informative, some insightful. I appreciate those who took the time to expand upon their thoughts. I looked at the profile and portfolio of everyone who responded. I must say emphatically, there is some very impressive work among the group.
However, I am somewhat perplexed. It seems to me that covering one's breast with her (or his) arms and hands are the result of a natural movement of the arms. To eliminate these positions from all photographs and other art would be stating, "only the fully exposed breast is art"? Or, there is no story to tell in a an image in which the breast is covered by hands or arms. As TOTO PHOTO pointed out, he saw a story in my sketch. I may have erased and redrew her eyes and mouth a dozen times to get that expression. When I have drawn her breasts (see the other drawings of her in my port if you would like), it was pretty much one and done. They are cute but not really expressive. I am sure I could tell a story with her breast exposed (again, see my other drawings of her) but I couldn't possibly tell that story with her breast exposed. Did I ruin a perfectly good nude by covering her breast? I don't think so.
There was a thread a while back from a guy asking advice about his first shoot using a railroad location. After all was said in response to his query, he concluded that though it may have been done to death, he had not done it. I feel the same way. Should I not shoot a person in a doorway because it has been done before? A person standing in a field, lake, stream or ocean? How about in a bed, bathtub, shower, or other piece of furniture? Should I cover a woman's chest, next time, with a chain saw, piece of firewood, or maybe a couple of rocks that were laying around? Would that be a creative attempt? Or perhaps I should pose her sitting with her knees drawn up to her chest? Same result, different limbs? What of pin ups? Or those adorable shots were she is teasing about puling down her panties or taking her bra off? They should all be off limits because they have al been done to death?
Is it still a hand bra when the model is wearing a bra, bathing, suit or shirt and her hands or arms are folded over one or both mammaries?
Is creativity, by definition, original work that has never been done before, by anyone, anyplace? Should all wedding photography cease because it has been done before? I am sure bridezilla's will love that concept.
Imageography, I think your work is creative and well executed. But in respect to your port, there is a conflict with your statements. Many of the model are certainly not nude. And then there are the following two shots:
They are both great pieces, but are they not hand bras by the definitions that have been presented in this string? This of course, is not a critique, simply a question related to the discussion and your input to the discussion.
If I wanted to develop a method for cold fusion, I am likely to do so without learning what other people already know. So, when I posted this originally, I was thinking, did I waste my time doing that drawing because I did something cliche? Maybe. Maybe not. I like it. She likes it. I am building my skills by learning things that other people already know, and I am learning these things from these other people. Am not limited by the creative opinions of other people just because someone already did "it"? It doesn't matter if it is cliche, does it?
| 
| 
| edu