18+ Male nude
Hi folks new here, I have just gotten into photography a year ago and have taken a lot of pictures so far of all types of things which I post on other forums, but I recenlty took this photo of a friend he wanted for his wife as she did something similar for him last year.
I think this is a a very tasteful photo myself I guess in the boudoir area but for a wife instead of a husband.
I wanted to know thoughts people had, lighting Post process etc.
As I can see myself getting into people photography.
I know almost everywhere it's pictures of women in this type of togging but just hoping to get Crit on the components that make the picture. And of course if not permitted here just let me know and unfortunately I had to chop his head off to post on the web per his request.
I think this is a a very tasteful photo myself I guess in the boudoir area but for a wife instead of a husband.
I wanted to know thoughts people had, lighting Post process etc.
As I can see myself getting into people photography.
I know almost everywhere it's pictures of women in this type of togging but just hoping to get Crit on the components that make the picture. And of course if not permitted here just let me know and unfortunately I had to chop his head off to post on the web per his request.
Nikon D40 Nikon 16-85mm Tamron 70-300mm
0
Comments
As for the technical components of the photo, I'm thinking the guy is ripped enough that a bit less fill (or more side light) would have helped to excentuate his musculature. A bit of oil on the skin would have helped in this as well.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
The lighting is not bad, but could be much more exciting, I think
Welcome to Dgrin
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
Genitalia like everything else on our bodies, is all about context. There is a place and time for it all.
I could imagine a hundred ways to use genitalia in composition, yet I don't because ...really because it hasn't struck me to do so..
Homophobia is pretty well rampant in these United States, which is why you'll catch such grief for exposing it to others. They can stand all day long and look at a gals bits and parts and ooh and ahh, but be very offended by the exposure of the penis. Weird and true.
On to the Matter at Hand. I think darker is better when shooting guys for the impact. You and your Buddy ought to try again and take a nod from Scott and try some side lighting and perhaps oil this guy up. tone down the lighting a bit and try and focus the lighting too to create some atmosphere....alluring, etc. Try and knock his wife's socks off..She's seen it all, so simple exposure won't do, you have to get creative.
And you needn't "think" inside the box here....Just because you exposed him this way this time, you could also try a side turn, or even fully from the rear, etc
Also a suggestion I tend to make is to look at others work and mimic it..poses, lighting, etc...always a good place to start...
I am curious to see what his wife has to say. There not into photography at all so I don't expect anything critical from them.
I really like the body scaping shots I have seen done in here, they look awesome, I might have to show him some of those and maybe try that.
I wish I could get my wife to do it, but that just aint happening! :nono
I can't agree more. Why must people get their feathers ruffled because there is a male body on display? In surfing thru this section, I've seen mostly female bodies. And no one has any issues on that. I can admit that some of the women were amazing to look at, and I'm a straight woman. Why it doesn't work the other way around I'll never understand. But, I degress...
I'm new to photography, so I don't know technical stuff to comment on. But I can give a woman's pov on the photo. I think it's very nicely done. I really like the pose, I find it captivating. I do not feel it is overemphasizing the genitalia. I like the play of shadows that are cast due to the lighting. I like how not everything is showing, leaves food for the imagination. I understand the head was cropped at model's request, but I honestly think just the peek of a face makes it a very sensual image. I would imagine his wife will be very pleased with her Mother's Day gift.
That is, unless it's erect and in (or near) one of a female's bodily orifices. Kinda a double-standard, no?
The fact is, though... to a LOT of women (forget about men for a moment), the penis isn't attractive. As proud as men are of them, they just... aren't.
Females can better appreciate a female body, and males can better appreciate a female body... that's just the way it is. I doubt any one of us will change that.
That said, I don't have a problem with this shot at all, except as what was said before "she's seen it all already"... so it has to be special - something different, something she may not have ever seen.
Canon 7d
2 Canon 40d
70-200 f2.8L IS, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, 28mm f1.8, Tamron 17-55 f2.8, ProOptic 8mm Fisheye
And a bunch of other stuff
Simply - beauty is in the eye of the beholder - period, end of sentence.
This has become about a penis, and not a photo. What I've tried to state before, is that when I look at this photo, I see everything about it, not just genitalia. Personally, I'm not all that fond of seeing a woman's genitalia, I have my own and I don't need to see it else where.
And regarding, "she's seen it all already, etc.", while that's a very true statement, if my husband presented me with a photo just like the above, I would be beyond thrilled, for the simple fact that it's not something he would normally do. So even though, I've seen it all before, to have it presented this way would be something very special indeed.
I'm climbing off my soapbox now. And I certainly hope future comments, help this togger in his photographic endevours, and genitalia focus disapates. Sorry, for some reason, this has just irked me (perhaps because nearly every photo I've seen in this section has been women and I feel a breath of fresh air with a male?), and I felt I needed to chime in.
I personally think she will be thrilled for a lot of the reasons that rings said and also like I said earlier there not toggers, and a lot of times I think we forget what just the regular non-toggin person would think about something because we are so critical of ourselves.
Time will tell I guess, I appreciate everyones critique and hopefully I can add some more photos of a human for more critique, as said earlier this is my first attempt and I have a ton to learn.
Thanks again Everyone.
Could it have been 'pushed'? Sure. But same can be said for any photo.
As I see it, it's being pretty close to 'Spot On'. The only kick that I could give is, the right hand being posed as is (big and flat, long), and that the stance kinda makes me think of my bathroom posture.... Is the camera sitting in a urinal? (jk)
Really, though; nice shot.
I see where you are coming from, and in most cases I would agree. Show a hint of the carapau, and folks do tend to head for the hills.
In this case, however, complaining about the penis is legitimate, for several reasons.
A) This shot is dominated by the penis
I don't think that this was actually the intent of the photographer, at least not in the "O great, anothe penis shot [roll eyes]" way. One of the reason I hate about 80% of the male nude shots that I see is that they usually consist of a dude (whose head is cropped out) grabbing a not entirely flaccid member and kind of poking it at the camera lens, often while striking a supposedly macho ramboesque pose. This is boring, and possible porny as well, but mostly boring.
This isn't exactly what the OP did here. Sure, the head is cut off, but I don't think that necessarily makes it look like an ad in the back of Bear Magazine. However, the yingyang is clearly the focus of the pic. The light is pretty even everywhere else, so the schnamschnam is the only area of any significant contrast. So that's where the eye is inexorably drawn. This is, in fact, a photo about a penis. And that's where the trouble, so to speak, "arises."
The thing about the "object in question" (that's what I call mine under all circumstances, photo related or not, BTW) is that it looks funky. The way the light make a "v" above the crotchoidal area actually makes it seem as if the object in question is actually some sort of elephantine trunk, or a prosthetic. It appears to be growing out of an area up towards the middle of the subject's chest. Tucking the old boy in also makes the scrotal area look entirely out of proportion. It's really quite monstrous, but not in a cool, Maplethorpe way (and I actually do think Maplethorpe is cool, despite the fact that I am married. To a woman, even).
I really don't like this photo because the penis, which is the subject, needs to look either more natural, or much less natural. As it is, it looks only weird.