Shiva Photo wrote:
We all know about the GWC and his cheap thrills. What about the  legitimate phoyographers. Can all of them honestly say that they had or had not at least a tinge of arousal at a nude shoot  Have the Models sensed that and how did they deal with the situation. After all  Playboy has been around for decades only because of nude photos of beautiful women

I am GWC (and proud of it) but have no cheap thrills. Do you want to tell that the status of pro means automatically no cheap thrills? I do not shoot nudes for arousal either while shooting or any time later. I am not aroused while shooting, too many other things to do, control and think of. Actually I find shooting nudes highly asexual.

So your statement is on one side surely true, on the other it is highly offensive. You can not generalize like that it is the same as you would say all models doing nudes are whores.

Organic Photos by Ed wrote:

Your threads get more foolish all the time.

Pot..........

Shiva Photo wrote:
We all know about the GWC and his cheap thrills. What about the  legitimate phoyographers. Can all of them honestly say that they had or had not at least a tinge of arousal at a nude shoot  Have the Models sensed that and how did they deal with the situation. After all  Playboy has been around for decades only because of nude photos of beautiful women

You know how people ask whether or not they'll cross someone off their "list of people to work with" based on forum topics???

This is a prime example of what they meant.

Chris Beyond wrote:
Maybe the OP should have just said "I get boners during my photoshoots. I know it's totally inappropriate to tell people that here at a professional site, but I was hoping that some of you do too."

Very unprofessional.

Aroused does not translate into boner--please people.


arouse |əˈrouz| verb [ trans. ]
1 evoke or awaken (a feeling, emotion, or response) : something about the man aroused the guard's suspicions | the letter aroused in him a sense of urgency. • excite or provoke (someone) to anger or strong emotions : an ability to influence the audience and to arouse the masses. See note at incite . • excite (someone) sexually.
2 awaken (someone) from sleep : she had been aroused by the telephone.

Andreas Yiasimi wrote:
This is a question that's been asked and discussed amongst photographers of the highest level since Noah's ark. Here we see someone that's thrown the same question into the public eye and there's nothing wrong with that. It gives everyone a chance air their views and experiences on a larger scale.

What do I think? Let me put it this way, if our doctor at our local surgery walked around with a boner 24 hours a day id be worried! If our doctor developed a boner when I walked in the surgery Id be worried for my health! lol If our doctor developed a boner when he went home then that's his sexual freedom to do so! If our doctor developed a boner when my wife went in Id be worried for his life lol if I developed a boner when a nurse was checking me over, Ouch! lol

The Doctor has a duty to the public to practice medicine in a professional manner that is expected of him as does a photographer. That doesn't mean to say a photographer doesn't have the artistic licence to view what would be classed as a turn on through his lens. Especially if he is creating an erotic piece of art, I would be very surprised if someone claimed otherwise. The voyeuristic tendencies of both male and female photographers is part of the personal makeup that reflects in a unique personal style running through ports on this site. If for example I was taking a shot and it turned me on I'd be more excited about channeling my thoughts on what the end product would look like instead of gaining personal sexual pleasure for myself during a job. If photographers can't do that, then it's a problem. The same as it would be for a doctor. Seek another Job.

Don't forget the shoe can be on the other foot! If a model was over amorous during a shoot it's still up to the photographer to practice his profession like he should and control a situation accordingly, his job and his reputation will depend on it.

The doctor/ photographer analogy isn't analogous at all.

The doctor doesn't CREATE something meant to elicit an emotional, physical or mental reaction.  A photographer/ practitioner of the arts does.

The photographer/chef analogy works because both are creating something that is supposed to elicit a certain reaction.  a chef makes food that is supposed to be consumed and enjoyed by the people that he serves.  If he doesn't make food that he HIMSELF can consume and njoy then he's probably doing a pretty shitty job.  Conversely a photographer, in a lot of instances, is supposed to create an image that elicits arousal, lust, amorous feelings, etc.  if he/she cannot evoke the same feelings from him/herself then they are probably doing a pretty shitty job.

I feel like a lot of the respondents are so concerned with looking like a GWC that you aren't answering honestly.  Either that or you take pretty emotionless pictures.

RSM-images wrote:
.

The concensus seems to be that UNprofessional advances toward a model are offensive.

Would professional advances do?

.

Excellent quote, bravo!

Daniela V wrote:
You know how people ask whether or not they'll cross someone off their "list of people to work with" based on forum topics???

This is a prime example of what they meant.

One mans/womans  food is anothers poison. If the topic was not worthy of discussion it would have died after a few responses. When the responses exceed 100  your view is in the minority. Put up or shut up.

Have you been aroused by Nude Models

Yes.

Nicholaus wrote:
your supposed to be creating art, not porn

Art arouses all of the senses, havn't you seen an amazing image of a flower and for a moment felt as if you smelled the flower?  So what if someone looking at an image was aroused?  Does that make them a deviant?

You may want to talk to someone about that side of you that lashes out so violently in response to this issue.

Also, I had nude drawing in college, didn't even get a little turned on.  I was making art, but I can't draw very well so it was bad art...

Ed Selby wrote:
Too bad this thread disintegrated so quickly, because I think the question is a very legitimate one.

When I am photographing my subject - ANY subject - I hope for some sort of "attraction". Otherwise, why even bother putting the camera up to my eye?

Do I get turned on shooting nude models? Sometimes, yes. Although it has been said here that often we (the photographers) are too busy concentrating on the technical aspects of what we're doing, I think the best photos I've done are the ones when I wasn't thinking technically and was more earthy in my thoughts.

I see nothing wrong with getting "turned on" when shooting. Once the exposures are dialed in, and the concept is related to the model and she gets it, and I turn her loose to do her thing while I take pictures, the technical distractions dissolve. I am left with showing EVERYONE else who views my photos what it is that attracted me to that particular model.

I've been working on a new series of photos ("Don't Show This To Your Mamma") that are quite erotic. If there is no sense of eroticism going on during the shoot (the model has to act it, and I have to capture it) then the photo fails.

But hell, some of the sexiest shots I've done - the ones that have made by glasses fog up - have been with dressed models who just know how to *look* at the camera. Heh, one time a model gave me a look - she was completely clothed - and I gasped, "Wow...." as I pushed the shutter button.

Ed, I totally agree.  Out of all the Models I've worked with there are only a very few who can give that *look*.   One has been totally clothed whan she does it, and never when she is nude.   Those pix do say WOW.  When the camera come down, the *look* is gone.  That is a MODEL.

Ray Savage wrote:
Nope....Never EVER.....not even close.   

I'm WAY too busy trying to remember how to take half way decent pictures.

R

and other quotes

My mind is thiking about framing the shot, lighting, set up, looking for hair and makeup fixes etc...Really not much different from when clothed.

Shiva Photo wrote:

One mans/womans  food is anothers poison. If the topic was not worthy of discussion it would have died after a few responses. When the responses exceed 100  your view is in the minority. Put up or shut up.

Though you're very adept at cliches, your comment made no sense whatsoever. You're saying because there are over 100 responses, people are agreeing with you? Because Daniela doesn't agree with you, she is in the minority?

I'm so glad you're a "photographer" and not a statistician.

Shiva Photo wrote:

One mans/womans  food is anothers poison. If the topic was not worthy of discussion it would have died after a few responses. When the responses exceed 100  your view is in the minority. Put up or shut up.

I've read through the thread.

My view is not in the minority.
Furthermore, I have been discussing this topic; just because you don't like what I had to say, doesn't make my opinion invalid.

And don't tell me to put up or shut up. You only look ridiculous. I'm wondering if you even care though, given the fact that you started this thread in the first place.

yani wrote:
I look at my port and have the most comments on a pic of D's icy nips.  My personal second favorite piece in there has no comments.

Nice to be a favorite

Good save.

Michael Rothman wrote:
One has been totally clothed whan she does it, and never when she is nude.   Those pix do say WOW.  When the camera come down, the *look* is gone.  That is a MODEL.

THAT is important. The model was CLOTHED.

If all it takes is a nude body in front of you (this is for all the GWCs out there) to get aroused, wouldn't picking up a Playboy be cheaper than all that camera equipment?

Michael Rothman wrote:
Ed, I totally agree.  Out of all the Models I've worked with there are only a very few who can give that *look*.   One has been totally clothed whan she does it, and never when she is nude.   Those pix do say WOW.  When the camera come down, the *look* is gone.  That is a MODEL.

Nail on the head.  Thats what the OP was talking about.  Its just a look that the model has for a few moments.  The 'WOW' factor.

Daniela V wrote:
Pot..........

Smoke

Daniela V wrote:
[You know how people ask whether or not they'll cross someone off their "list of people to work with" based on forum topics???

This is a prime example of what they meant.

Is getting crossed off a bad thing?  As many times as you've been to my studio, have you never noticed that duct tape and staples are always at the ready????


I am simply going to assume if that comment was negative, it was aimed at guys who show their willy's at shoots or attempt to adjust stray pubes on a shaved model.

McKenzie Bros Photo wrote:

Nail on the head.  Thats what the OP was talking about.

The OP was talking about NUDE models. Michael commented on a CLOTHED model whose pictures say "WOW".

Huge difference.

Regardless, as a photographer, if you think the shot is hot, fine. But to get aroused by same...please. Pick up a Playboy and wank to that.

Daniela V wrote:
The OP was talking about NUDE models. Michael commented on a CLOTHED model whose pictures say "WOW".

Huge difference.

Regardless, as a photographer, if you think the shot is hot, fine. But to get aroused by same...please. Pick up a Playboy and wank to that.

So answer this, am I mistaken? Now the word 'aroused' means boner, because I was under the impression that it was not.  More of an internal tinge...Big difference.

yani wrote:

Daniela V wrote:
Pot..........

Smoke


Is getting crossed off a bad thing?  As many times as you've been to my studio, have you never noticed that duct tape and staples are always at the ready????


I am simply going to assume if that comment was negative, it was aimed at guys who show their willy's at shoots or attempt to adjust stray pubes on a shaved model.

I'll punch you.

Yeah yeah....

It depends on the reason whether or not being crossed off is a bad thing.

I'm not thinking it's too wise to come on here and ask what the OP asked. Again, if the model is hot- super. You think it's sexy, super.

Getting aroused is another story. And if you do, keep it to yourself and don't 1. write it on the forums and/or 2. let the model know.

Shiva Photo wrote:
We all know about the GWC and his cheap thrills. What about the  legitimate phoyographers. Can all of them honestly say that they had or had not at least a tinge of arousal at a nude shoot  Have the Models sensed that and how did they deal with the situation. After all  Playboy has been around for decades only because of nude photos of beautiful women

Can you share with class how you get aroused while shooting and what you tell your models if they notice you erect?  (I'm assuming this is why you're asking the question...or is this one of those...MY FRIEND has a problem sort of questions?     )

McKenzie Bros Photo wrote:

So answer this, am I mistaken? Now the word 'aroused' means boner, because I was under the impression that it was not.  More of an internal tingle...Big difference.

I'm not sure that the OP ever clarified that.

Daniela V wrote:
Regardless, as a photographer, if you think the shot is hot, fine. But to get aroused by same...please.

Nude/clothed makes no difference this late in the thread.  Basic premise being arousal.

That disclaimer being made,

please explain how someone is aroused by something that is not hot?

McKenzie Bros Photo wrote:
So answer this, am I mistaken? Now the word 'aroused' means boner, because I was under the impression that it was not.  More of an internal tingle...Big difference.

Daniela V wrote:
I'm not sure that the OP ever clarified that.

Maybe the OP went to go "check."

yani wrote:

Nude/clothed makes no difference this late in the thread.  Basic premise being arousal.

That disclaimer being made,

please explain how someone is aroused by something that is not hot?

I didn't say that. I said "if you think the shot is hot, fine, but to get aroused by same...please".

If you get all tingly and whatever fine- so help me God the day I see a photographer get an erection during a shoot.

Frankly, I'd hope the photographer would be more concerned with the actual shoot itself and getting everything right. If they are that distracted by the hot model, the shot isn't going to come out right.

Ed Selby wrote:
Too bad this thread disintegrated so quickly, because I think the question is a very legitimate one.

When I am photographing my subject - ANY subject - I hope for some sort of "attraction". Otherwise, why even bother putting the camera up to my eye?

Do I get turned on shooting nude models? Sometimes, yes. Although it has been said here that often we (the photographers) are too busy concentrating on the technical aspects of what we're doing, I think the best photos I've done are the ones when I wasn't thinking technically and was more earthy in my thoughts.

I see nothing wrong with getting "turned on" when shooting. Once the exposures are dialed in, and the concept is related to the model and she gets it, and I turn her loose to do her thing while I take pictures, the technical distractions dissolve. I am left with showing EVERYONE else who views my photos what it is that attracted me to that particular model.

I've been working on a new series of photos ("Don't Show This To Your Mamma") that are quite erotic. If there is no sense of eroticism going on during the shoot (the model has to act it, and I have to capture it) then the photo fails.

But hell, some of the sexiest shots I've done - the ones that have made by glasses fog up - have been with dressed models who just know how to *look* at the camera. Heh, one time a model gave me a look - she was completely clothed - and I gasped, "Wow...." as I pushed the shutter button.

Ed, I totally agree.  Out of all the Models I've worked with there are only a very few who can give that *look*.   One has been totally clothed whan she does it, and never when she is nude.   Those pix do say WOW.  When the camera come down, the *look* is gone.  That is a MODEL.

KM von Seidl wrote:

McKenzie Bros Photo wrote:
So answer this, am I mistaken? Now the word 'aroused' means boner, because I was under the impression that it was not.  More of an internal tingle...Big difference.

Maybe the OP went to go "check."

*giggles*

Daniela V wrote:
I didn't say that. I said "if you think the shot is hot, fine, but to get aroused by same...please".

If you get all tingly and whatever fine- so help me God the day I see a photographer get an erection during a shoot.

Frankly, I'd hope the photographer would be more concerned with the actual shoot itself and getting everything right. If they are that distracted by the hot model, the shot isn't going to come out right.

If the photographer IS getting everything right, and the shot/idea is arousing in nature, then wouldn't it stand to reason that he should get aroused by the shot?  since everything is right?  I mean if it's right and all cylinders are firing then that means ya'll are able to elicit the arousal you set out to elicit, shouldn't it START with the voyeur capturing the moment?


I think you all are equating "arousal" to rock hard erection sticking out of the zipper of a photographers bugle boys.  Or him announcing to the room "Wow I'm so fucking horny at this shot!"

Umm let's not take it to extremes now.  Think like adults please.

Novus Ordo wrote:
I think you all are equating "arousal" to rock hard erection sticking out of the zipper of a photographers bugle boys.  Or him announcing to the room "Wow I'm so fucking horny at this shot!"

I'm personally waiting for the OP to clarify and define the word "arousal". Getting turned on and getting an erection are two different things entirely.

Daniela V wrote:
I'm personally waiting for the OP to clarify and define the word "arousal". Getting turned on and getting an erection are two different things entirely.

Like yani said, at THIS point in the thread it doesn't matter what HE meant.


Devil's Advocate:

If he DID have an erection and you never knew about it would it matter?

Daniela V wrote:

If you get all tingly and whatever fine- so help me God the day I see a photographer get an erection during a shoot.

Then I am shooting Daniela with a bagful of ice in my shorts.

Novus Ordo wrote:

Like yani said, at THIS point in the thread it doesn't matter what HE meant.

Well, it does to me. Therefore, I'll ignore the thread based on the fact that I can't properly answer the question.

I have already said, however, that if a photographer gets an erection during the shoot, I find that inappropriate. Friggin' wank off before the model gets there or get a better sex life if you can't handle it.

Sorry, I just don't see it any other way.