This is of course no reflection on you, but I don't like this lot of photos of his. The girls have a zombie quality to them, something lifeless in their faces, and also, for me, their bodies. (Somebody mentioned wood?) They are placed in the photos as pieces of furniture might be placed in a storage room. Here or there, there or here. A front end here, a back end there... There's no aesthetic. Pantyhose crotch seams, yuck! I think this guy really does not have any appreciation of these models. To my eyes he is just inflating cliches.
And how come this guy thinks it's appropriate to use 4 letter vocabulary just because he is discussing nude photography? It's just low, in my opinion.
Nevertheless a relevant addition to the little bit of discussion that is happening here about the topic.
Thanks for posting the link!
Richard is definitely not for everyone but I love his work.
I've been following him since the mid 80s when I saw his movie "Fingered".
This is of course no reflection on you, but I don't like this lot of photos of his. The girls have a zombie quality to them, something lifeless in their faces, and also, for me, their bodies. (Somebody mentioned wood?) They are placed in the photos as pieces of furniture might be placed in a storage room. Here or there, there or here. A front end here, a back end there... There's no aesthetic. Pantyhose crotch seams, yuck! I think this guy really does not have any appreciation of these models. To my eyes he is just inflating cliches.
And how come this guy thinks it's appropriate to use 4 letter vocabulary just because he is discussing nude photography? It's just low, in my opinion.
Nevertheless a relevant addition to the little bit of discussion that is happening here about the topic.
Neil
I don't agree with what you're saying about his use of the models. I found them to be very involved in the scenes. In most of them he's going for a voyeur theme and I think it works very well.
I was expecting 'models' to charge more. When I took the shots of Jarisel (I'll post some up for you guys soon) It cost me about 150 dollars and she did it for free. LoL.
I refuse to take another portrait shot until I get the light kit.
Great read. I've been taking 'sexy' pictures for quite sometime now, and this provides both legal and cost wise insight.
I'm paying 50 per hour from now on. Let them get their hair and nials done on thier own. Hahahaha!
Comments
dak.smugmug.com
Good find and an interesting insider story.
This is of course no reflection on you, but I don't like this lot of photos of his. The girls have a zombie quality to them, something lifeless in their faces, and also, for me, their bodies. (Somebody mentioned wood?) They are placed in the photos as pieces of furniture might be placed in a storage room. Here or there, there or here. A front end here, a back end there... There's no aesthetic. Pantyhose crotch seams, yuck! I think this guy really does not have any appreciation of these models. To my eyes he is just inflating cliches.
And how come this guy thinks it's appropriate to use 4 letter vocabulary just because he is discussing nude photography? It's just low, in my opinion.
Nevertheless a relevant addition to the little bit of discussion that is happening here about the topic.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Richard is definitely not for everyone but I love his work.
I've been following him since the mid 80s when I saw his movie "Fingered".
I don't agree with what you're saying about his use of the models. I found them to be very involved in the scenes. In most of them he's going for a voyeur theme and I think it works very well.
I refuse to take another portrait shot until I get the light kit.
Great read. I've been taking 'sexy' pictures for quite sometime now, and this provides both legal and cost wise insight.
I'm paying 50 per hour from now on. Let them get their hair and nials done on thier own. Hahahaha!
Nikon Shooter
It's all about the moment...
dak.smugmug.com