UnoMundo wrote:

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

*snickers*

Daniela V wrote:

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.

Can't find something inappropriate if you never know about it.

Daniela V wrote:
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.

In some ways it is a legitimate question.  I am assuming the OP meant tingle and not a raging, pants ripping, nail hammering woody. 

I think that if a shoot reaches that point, that the situation must be dealt with.  How to deal with it?  A deep breath?  A glass of water?  A set change? Politely and professionally let the model know that waht she is doing is H O T hot and ask her to kick it up or stop?

I rant because the lines between perversion and professional behaviour are being crossed here.  You know me as well as anyone.   I value my art and my reputation more than anything but at the end of the day I am still a human of the male species.


My name is Yani.  I am addicted to this train wreck of forums.  Help!!!!

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.

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

Oh I don't know.

I always wonder why an erection issue is at the head of a photographers head about issues to discuss on a photography and model forum.


Maybe this is an issue us female photographers are horribly unaware of...  is there too much Viagra  drifting out there in MM land?   Is this a natural phenomena that plagues all male photographers?   I just wonder why I've never seen it dealt with or discussed as in depth as it seems to plague those with cameras on MM.

I wonder what the problem really is....

Novus Ordo wrote:

Can't find something inappropriate if you never know about it.

What I don't know isn't going to hurt me.

KM von Seidl wrote:

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.

Oh I don't know.

I always wonder why an erection issue is at the head of a photographers head about issues to discuss on a photography and model forum.


Maybe this is an issue us female photographers are horribly unaware of...  is there too much Viagra  drifting out there in MM land?   Is this a natural phenomena that plagues all male photographers?   I just wonder why I've never seen it dealt with or discussed as in depth as it seems to plague those with cameras on MM.

I wonder what the problem really is....

Men are visual creatures and turned on by what they see.  Women not so much.  The difference IS almost entirely male related.

yani wrote:
In some ways it is a legitimate question. 

...My name is Yani.  I am addicted to this train wreck of forums.  Help!!!!

Poor yani.  Take comfort that we are all addicts.

Daniela V wrote:
What I don't know isn't going to hurt me.

That's the point.  But hom often does that happen?

If you're talking about some guy making his engorged member KNOWN throughout the course of the shoot then yeah it's probably an issue.  But MOST photographers aren't going to do that (GWC's and some largely famous pro's that are KNOWN for their pervasiveness don't count).

yani wrote:
In some ways it is a legitimate question.  I am assuming the OP meant tingle and not a raging, pants ripping, nail hammering woody. 

I think that if a shoot reaches that point, that the situation must be dealt with.  How to deal with it?  A deep breath?  A glass of water?  A set change? Politely and professionally let the model know that waht she is doing is H O T hot and ask her to kick it up or stop?

I rant because the lines between perversion and professional behaviour are being crossed here.  You know me as well as anyone.   I value my art and my reputation more than anything but at the end of the day I am still a human of the male species.


My name is Yani.  I am addicted to this train wreck of forums.  Help!!!!

I'm not assuming what the OP meant. I want the OP (so do others) to come back and clarify what he meant. It makes a difference to me. And, c'mon, I didn't say "raging, pants ripping, nail hammering woody"...now who's being extreme?

I know you and you know me. How would I deal with it? You know I'd be embarassed- you know that. Would I ignore it? I don't know, it's never happened to me. I would think I would not because it would make a difference with my shoot. Part of me would sit there posing thinking "well, he's not even paying attention to if the lighting and everything is perfect"...and I would be right.

I, just like any other person, find it difficult to concentrate on anything else when I'm aroused. So, I think it's safe to assume that if the photographer is that turned on, that he isn't paying attention to the actual shoot.

Novus Ordo wrote:
That's the point.  But how often does that happen?

You're right. I don't know.

But when they come on here admitting it on the forums, I'm suddenly well aware.

If it happens, and I don't know- then great. If I know, I'll probably end the shoot.

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 have often wondered why some say "nude photos of beautiful women."  The photos aren't what is nude, the women are.  They are photos of nude women, not nude photos of women.     Just a technicality, I guess.  Kinda like saying a hot cup of coffee when it is really a cup of hot coffee.

DougJ wrote:

I have often wondered why some say "nude photos of beautiful women."  The photos aren't what is nude, the women are.  They are photos of nude women, not nude photos of women.     Just a technicality, I guess.  Kinda like saying a hot cup of coffee when it is really a cup of hot coffee.

*blink blink*

and there goes the random train.

Daniela V wrote:

You're right. I don't know.

But when they come on here admitting it on the forums, I'm suddenly well aware.

If it happens, and I don't know- then great. If I know, I'll probably end the shoot.

Again, how would you know?  He never said in his post (even if he IS talking about raging boners) that he's all for letting the model know, or wearing biker shorts to his shoots so it's obvious.

Novus Ordo wrote:
Again, how would you know?  He never said in his post (even if he IS talking about raging boners) that he's all for letting the model know, or wearing biker shorts to his shoots so it's obvious.

That made me spit out coffee...lol...biker shorts...

Novus Ordo wrote:
Again, how would you know?

We keep going back and forth.

I said, if I didn't know, fine. If I do know, not fine.

Wank off to a Playboy before the model gets there. Or get a better sex life.

I know men get visually aroused moreso than women, but understand that female models are going to be a little skeeved out by this topic.

McKenzie Bros Photo wrote:

That made me spit out coffee...lol

Yeah the visual is mighty funny lol.

Daniela V wrote:

We keep going back and forth.

I said, if I didn't know, fine. If I do know, not fine.

Wank off to a Playboy before the model gets there. Or get a better sex life.

I know men get visually aroused moreso than women, but understand that female models are going to be a little skeeved out by this topic.

Meh and IMO that's a bit of a juvenile attitude to have about it.  Especially if the images you create are sexual in nature.  To expect the pizza man to not like pizza just cause he makes them is a bit short sighted.

Novus Ordo wrote:

Meh and IMO that's a bit of a juvenile attitude to have about it.  Especially if the images you create are sexual in nature.  To expect the pizza man to not like pizza just cause he makes them is a bit short sighted.

IMO it's not a juvenile attitude, and yes, I took offense to that.

I'll agree to disagree with you, and leave it at that.

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

DougJ wrote:
I have often wondered why some say "nude photos of beautiful women."  The photos aren't what is nude, the women are.  They are photos of nude women, not nude photos of women.     Just a technicality, I guess.  Kinda like saying a hot cup of coffee when it is really a cup of hot coffee.

Maybe the OP was just a tad excited when typing out his question, so much so that he couldn't think....hard at all.    If so I wonder what he does when he's trying to concentrate on taking nude photos of beautiful women.


ps...I wonder why people say "tuna fish."   Tuna is a fish.   You don't say...anyone want some salmon fish.

Shiva Photo wrote:
Maybe the above rules must be extended to the photo shoot per Daniela.

Careful.

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.

Daniela V wrote:

IMO it's not a juvenile attitude, and yes, I took offense to that.

I'll agree to disagree with you, and leave it at that.

That's fine.  Sorry you took offense but I meant every word of it.

KM von Seidl wrote:
If so I wonder what he does when he's trying to concentrate on taking nude photos of beautiful women.

Meanwhile, there isn't a nude picture in his entire MM portfolio.

Makes one wonder if he has a private collection....

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.

Dude- you make a good point- but this is the fourth time you've posted it. Enough.

KM von Seidl wrote:
If so I wonder what he does when he's trying to concentrate on taking nude photos of beautiful women.

Daniela V wrote:
Meanwhile, there isn't a nude picture in his entire MM portfolio.

Makes one wonder if he has a private collection....

Hmmmmm. 

Or maybe he's never taken a nude photo because he is worried about this very issue.   Maybe he can clarify for us.

Daniela V wrote:
I, just like any other person, find it difficult to concentrate on anything else when I'm aroused. So, I think it's safe to assume that if the photographer is that turned on, that he isn't paying attention to the actual shoot.

I believe that you are speaking for the female gender.   If men could not concentrate when they were aroused,  nothing would every get done.

In general we are slightly better than dogs but there are still quite a few that will hump your leg if they can without getting slapped on the nose.

With all love and respect, stop yapping about the OP's meaning... this thread has gone too far on assumptions.  You  have worked with the right people and the issue has not become a problem because of professionalism.

It is an issue and it is a question.   

IMHO, it is a better question for an open forum than for boy's room talk.  If in fact the OP was looking for Penthouse Letters type answers,  I for one am glad he has vanished.

Gavin - Eyeforanimage wrote:
What a stoooopid topic.. was it designed to just increase mistrust between models and photographers. I thought we were on here to discuss furthering our opportunites to model and shoot. Let's drop the topic and leave it in the gutter where it belongs. New here and hoped for more enlightened opinion (that's not aimed at those who treated the topic with the disdain it deserved. Models that are paranoid will get nowhere.. snappers who perv will get no where. Get real!

While I agree with you 100%, I think you'll find that topics like this pop up, no pun intended, very often on the boards.

KM von Seidl wrote:
Maybe he can clarify for us.

Without being rude and crass?

Doubt it.

Daniela V wrote:

Meanwhile, there isn't a nude picture in his entire MM portfolio.

Makes one wonder if he has a private collection....

No in fact My models are more clothed than one can imagine.

Intend to start a private collection. Of course Daniela would be my first pick. Guaranteed to have a fire extinguisher, first aid kit, duct tape, industrial grade stapler, Glue gun and a chastity belt.

yani wrote:
With all love and respect, stop yapping about the OP's meaning... this thread has gone too far on assumptions.  You  have worked with the right people and the issue has not become a problem because of professionalism.

It is an issue and it is a question.

Fine.

Consider my answers invalid and I'll ignore this thread. Clearly I cannot answer this because I've never experienced it, and I'm answering things the wrong way.

*annoyed*

Shiva Photo wrote:
Intend to start a private collection. Of course Daniela would be my first pick. Guaranteed to have a fire extinguisher, first aid kit, duct tape, industrial grade stapler, Glue gun and a chastity belt.

I've got nothin' that won't get me banned. Knock yourself out.

*leaves thread*

Brian Nesbit wrote:
"I'd like to give her the high hard one, right here and right now."  And if any of you are thinking that or have thought that, perhaps you should renew your GWC card.

That is plain unadulterated BULLSHIT.

Thought police????

:::::Stomps feet:::::   :::spits twice::::

Actions are the determining factor.


Get real.

Daniela V wrote:
While I agree with you 100%, I think you'll find that topics like this pop up, no pun intended, very often on the boards.

If its such a 'stoooopid topic', why are you so concerned with it---to the point of dominating the post with in the forum?  Its like the argument, just change the channel.  Oh wait, we(society) are addicted to the things we hate.


*never mind-she changed the channel*  shrugs-oh well...

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

After 45 years of shooting partially to totally nude females I can say for the most part no during the shoot. My concentration is on all of the aspects of getting the shot. I did have a model ten years ago who was a dancer run over to where I was standing and suddenly check to see if I was aroused with her hand. It so startled me that I almost ended the shoot. I do get aroused once in a while when editing the images since like every other red blooded male the female form is instinctively designed to move us. It is obvious as I watch most models pose in the all together
that they get aroused and the experience of nude posing is a very erotic experience for them. (No, I've never been "smart enough" to expect or allow a professional shoot to turn into something else so there is no sexual tension or exspectation in my studio. My "rep" and business would quickly fade if I did, I'm afraid.)