One school of thought states: “If a model is wearing anything, she is not nude”. In a pure sense, I agree with this.

I’ve heard some say, wrongly in my opinion, that if the parts that are covered by a bikini are showing, the model is nude. This is an apt definition for naked, but not nude.

For me, in the context of an aesthetic discussion, a nude is an image that shows the entire bodily form, free from notions of modesty or compositional distractions. So, if the image has the intended artistic intent and effect, it can be considered as such. A certain amount of drapery or accent obscuring the body for artistic intent (and not for the sake of modesty) does not, in my opinion, keep an image from qualifying.

Like all verbal definitions for visual arts, this one is nebulous at best, and, at the end of the day, academic. It is interesting to ponder, up to a point, after which the discussion becomes a distraction to the production of our images.

Not Really a Nude?

Learn Nude Photography

Sometimes, I think the addition of modifiers, such as in, “fashion nude,” “art nude,” “glamour nude,” and so on are an attempt to legitimize their photographs. I don’t think figure photography needs to be legitimized beyond the legitimacy that is earned by merit of the images themselves. I’ve even seem some of these as distinct entries in wikipedia and other lexicons. The terms mentioned above are are barely descriptive of any particular style or genre. Certainly terms like implied nude and covered nude serve the purpose of indicating a photograph that is inexplicit or perhaps lacks actual nudity.  But the others seem to distract in many cases from the work.

If one is describing a site to either entice folks to visit or to warn those who might be offended, some of these modifiers may serve a purpose. However, once someone is viewing the work, I’m not sure we need to explain to them, or persuade them, that its either art or glamour.

In some cases, I see people adding modifiers to the word because it matches a domain name that was available. I’m reluctant to name specifics because that might offend the owners of those sites, though I’m really not condemning practice. We all have to make compromises to get the domain names we want. I’m not sure, however that we need to build brands that match the exact domain name.

Here is an example of a “dark, semi-monochromatic figure art bodyscape”

To those who agonize over the question of “is it art?” I suggest that we replace the question with “what is the artist’s intent?” In a great many nude photographs, the intent is simply to flatter the subject or appease the viewer. In these images, the model is posed in order to be either flattered or scintillating but not always to be visually interesting. Artistic intent is evident in photographs that explore composition and experiment with the elements of visual design. Certainly, unskilled images that pander to a preconceived voyeuristic desires are easily labeled as crude or tasteless. By exploring shapes, texture, the beauty of nature, line, and form in ways that are unexpected to the viewer, the artist reveals their intent. The skillful combination of compositional elements should provoke emotion, but not for the mere desire to provoke a reaction. Art need not have a definitive message. A powerful work of art can raise more questions than it answers. Rather, it is a creative process that is more about artist than viewer.

The question of, “what constitutes art?” is no more prevalent than in the arena of figure photography. Depictions of the body that seek only to gratify the audience through entertainment or decoration are assumed to be mere pin-ups, or, worse, simply for prurient consumption. The more explicit the image, the more likely it will be interpreted as smut. But, nude content does not preclude an image from being art, nor does entertainment value or beauty.

Since legitimate are can contain elements of eroticism, entertainment, and decoration, it is not possible to eliminate works simply on the basis of the inclusion of these facets. It is the inclusion of artistic vision and the absence of it that is central to aesthetics. The message of the artist, as opposed to gratification of the audience, is what is central to the nature of art.

Regardless of centuries of study, the nature of art has yet to be defined and evidently never will be. Each attempt, replete with a condemnation of previous definitions, fails to describe totally, what art is and what it is not. Those who struggle to know what is and is not art, do so in large part to assign value to artwork. To be able to say that this artwork is better than that artwork is an enticing goal, but usually a futile one. It is undeniable that nude images attract commentary from legions of critics who have little more knowledge of art than their own opinions.

You can put forth extreme effort and produce safe nudes with everything where it should be. Everything can be predictably arranged; the focus, lighting, and depth of field according to what people expect. Prudent, tried-and-true, boring compositions will win you much praise and adoration. Many will smile and nod in recognition that you have neither bent nor broken a single rule. Other photographers will identify with your style. You have applied a heavy vignette, smoothed the skin until the model no longer looks human, pumped up the contrast and the saturation, over-sharpened, and increased the uber-amazingness factor. The other uber-amazing photographers will love your collection of Instagram filtered work, complete with the Polaroid look, fake light leak, simulated film grain, and nostaga-at-the-push-of-a-button. You will receive lengthy accolades such as “awesome”, “wow”, “diggity”, and others.

Except adhering to a formula is not what art is about. That is just putting on a show without heart or soul. Do not become too obsesses with following rules and pleasing your critics. Take a risk; then take another. Dare to be different. The crowd who appreciates you work will be smaller, but better educated. If you truly put sweat and talent into making something from your own mind, you will find an audience.

When you receive lots of praise, you should feel good. But, when you get thoughtful feedback, is when you should feel a sense of accomplishment.

Model is centered, pose is static, and distractions abound

Why would anyone waste money on a light meter? It is a fair assessment that most photographers, including very serious ones, can get by without an external light meter. When I say external, it is to differentiate between a handheld meter and the one in your camera.

I seldom rely on a handheld light meter, especially in my studio. However, I still use a light meter in unfamiliar situations. My LCD does not tell me how much something is over/under exposed. The preview image on my camera’s LCD does not tell me the value of each small area of the scene I am interested in. Also, the LCD is not going to tell me when my edge lights are ¼ stop brighter than I intended. The LCD gets me close, but in loading the RAW file after a shoot, I sometimes end up with scenes I wished I had metered more carefully. A ¼ stop might not make much difference in most cases, where you can just selectively dodge and burn. But what about the unintended consequences of spot-exposure adjustments in post-processing, such as loss of subtle texture? Suffice to say, you need to be rather nit-picky about your results to worry about such things, and feel the need to meter.

Some people put a thermometer in beer before they drink it. I have often wondered what is wrong with them. Can’t they tell if they like the beer without having to take its temperature first? This may be the way some people view those of us who use a light meter. Why don’t we just look at the three-and-a-half-inch LCD for two seconds to determine if we like what we see? After all, the LCD displays almost a full megapixel of information. And, if we are worried about the fact that the screen image looks differently based on the ambient light, there is always the histogram.

Unfortunately, the histogram only tells you about the scene in aggregate, not what each light is doing. The LCD really is too small to see what highlight or shadow texture in hair or skin is going to look like when the final image goes to print. The light meter helps me to know what each light is doing across the entire scene, not just the net affect for a single pose within the model zone. The truth is, I usually rely on my LCD and some experimentation to get the light right.

For most people, a handheld meter is overkill. If your images are only destined for a web page, few people may even notice the difference, much less care. If you have strong ideas that produce passionate images, then the nuanced trade-offs between a metered work flow and a non-metered workflow may cancel each other out.

But, I do not anticipate getting rid of my meter. I use a light meter when I am trying a new light setup. This is especially useful before the model arrives. If I do not have enough power to blast through the diffusion material on a new softbox, I do not want to waste time hauling out more power packs during shooting time. If I get a new light, new modifier, an extension cable, or anything else that will affect power output, I use my meter to learn what the net effect is. Basically, any time I am at a loss for knowledge, I seek the most detailed information I can find. When it comes to light output, only my handheld meter can give me that.

So, just as I do not check my body temperature every day to make sure it is still a healthy 98.6 F (37 C), I do not need a light meter when I already know approximately what is going on with the light.

So, I am still waiting for the total phase-out of the light meter, especially the spot meter. Is the “spot-histogram” around the corner? That would be a feature I would use.

Maybe I am a dinosaur, clinging to the tools I loved when I shot and developed film and used flash powder to illuminate the scene. Heck, I still own oil paints; everyone knows that oil painting is a useless technology now that we have photography, right?

A light meter was useful in getting the effect I wanted

It’s Not Fair

I’ve heard many times, “It’s not fair,” in comment on how some nude models get lots of work while others do not. Often it is the aspiring model, having trouble finding work, who is commenting.

Nude modeling is not supposed to be egalitarian or documentary. Whether the decision maker is the photographer, an art director, or a publisher there is no obligation to take all applicants. Just as with any employment there will always be more applicants than open positions. Even qualified applicants will be turned away.

No, It’s Not Fair, and It’s Not Supposed to Be

Too tall, too short, too heavy, too thin, too male, too female, and any number of other reasons prevent a prospective model from getting the part. There is a misconception among some that if they try hard enough, they can get any part. While I encourage aspiring models not to give up, you have to find your niche. While you’re trying to find your niche you have to be realistic. It may take a long time and you may face a lot of rejection.

Certainly there are those who will accept just about any applicant for their projects. These entry-level projects are a fine way to start, provided they are legitimate opportunities. Most everyone has to start at the bottom and work their way up. It’s one of the few “fair” things about any industry. But most models want to get to the next level. Many expect to be injected right at the top from the very beginning. It’s simply not going to happen.

Meeting the Minimum Requirement is Seldom Enough

Make sure you read the requirements for any casting call. If it says minimum height is 5’6″ and you’re 5’5″ and three quarters, don’t get your hopes up. Even applicants who are 5’7″ are going up against those who are 5’10″. If height is stressed in the casting, they are probably looking for long legs. Unless you are “tall for your height” (leggy), you will still not be the most qualified even if you meet the minimum requirements.

Not every genre of modeling is going to be for you either. No photographer is obligated to shoot in multiple styles or a even a single traditional style. Just because your look is perfect for a popular style of nude photography doesn’t mean you’re a shoe-in for every job.

I had one model write to me “I don’t have the face for fashion or glamour, which is why I am perfect for nudes.” While this makes sense for some genres of nude photography, again it’s not a guarantee of employment. The majority of nude photography de-emphasizes the face to some degree simply by the inclusion of the body. But the degree to which the face is important varies from style to style. There may be more options for an aesthetically pleasing nude without the face than in other types of photography. However, not having the face for glamour doesn’t mean you’re perfect for nudes. (Side note: I did not find the model in question unattractive. I’m not saying who she is, but I photographed her and thought her face was one of the more interesting things about the images.)

Don’t Be Discouraged

If you are an aspiring model, don’t give up after a few rejections. It’s not fair, but you’re not being singled out. I’ve rejected models that were too thin, too busty, too tall, and other reasons that you might think would give them an advantage. The fact is, like other photographers, I’m looking for something in particular for each shoot. You won’t know what that is until you ask us. And like most employment applications, you’re more likely not to get the job than to get it.

I’ve had some models contact me twenty times without being awarded a shoot. I’ve even referred some overly persistent models to other photographers (admittedly with the selfish purpose of getting them off my back.) But other models have contacted me multiple times and only found work on the third or fourth contact.

Persistence will help you. Broaden your horizons and look for different types of castings, especially those where you fit in the middle or high end of the requirements. If they want someone 5’4″ or taller and you’re 5’6″, go for it. If they ask for few tattoos and you have zero, don’t forget to mention that. If they want comfort with implied nude and you’ve experience with full nudity, let them know when you apply. Look for those opportunities where you have an unfair advantage.

Sarah H. is a wonderful and experienced nude model, who applied a few times before I had a project for which she was suited. I’ve now shot with her several times.

It’s been a long time since I’ve had a TFP photo shoot. A long time ago I made a decision to pay all my models. It was the right decision for me. However, TFP is still right for some situations, even among experienced and skilled models and photographers.

TFP (once Time for Prints, before digital) is when a model and photographer do a shoot for free. No modeling fees. No photography fees. Both get images for their use. Details will vary, but that’s the gist of it. It’s also sometimes known as TFCD (time for CD) or TFDVD or TF*, etc. But “TFP” is the more widely used term.

This practice has been both revered and reviled. Truth is, it has its place for many models and photographers, including beginners and veterans alike.

I’ve heard some say “never do TFP” as blanket advice. When some says “never” it reminds me of the time I saw a paramedic running to someone’s aid with a pair of scissors in hand; never run with scissors, I thought to myself; never say never.

I’ve done maybe two TFP shoots in the last five years. But every once in a while someone comes along with an interesting idea that I want to do, only it doesn’t fit into what I’m hiring for. In that case, I do TFP.

If you’ve read Internet forums about composition, you’ve undoubtedly seen advice “not to cut off the model’s arms or legs,” or “if you crop a limb, do it between the joints.” You’ve probably also seen in major magazines stunning examples of photos that blatantly violate these so-called rules. And you probably have stumbled upon at least one discussion that asks why these rules exist if so many successful photos obviously disobey them. If you look to works of master artists such as Michelangelo or Degas you will see they sometimes framed their figures with limbs, hands, or feet cut off. Did the master artists goof? No, they just knew how to break the rules and make a successful composition. When done properly, it can make the composition more distinct and interesting.

The reason these rules exist is that they provide a structured framework for creating well-balanced images. If you’ve read my other posts pertaining to “rules of composition,” you know I’m not a fan of static, safe images. Read more

I’m sometimes asked, “Why is the model nude?” Occasionally it’s phrased, “why is the model naked?”

Here is a list of fun responses I’ve given. Many apply to most of my images, while others apply to only some of my images. Enjoy

1. She was born that way
2. I find it more interesting that way
3. That’s what she wanted
4. That’s what I wanted
5. That’s what almost everyone except you wanted
6. She’s beautiful
7. Because I wasn’t interested in photographing clothing, jewelry, or hair wraps at the time
8. Why not?
9. Because I don’t live in Saudi Arabia (any more)
10. Nudes have been the subject of artists  for millennia; the oldest artwork (22,000 B.C.) is a nude female statue. Why stop now just become some prude is cruising the internet to comment on nude photos?