[SI] Erotica - Brian's Comments

I'll have to go a little easy on everyone considering I barely made this
mandate (see the date info on the EXIF) and erotica is a difficult
subject to capture. It's not nudity, it's not pornography... it falls
in between smut and art. Has to be risque enough to stimulate emotions,
tame enough to provoke thought and not anger. God knows I went through
tons of photos searching for the one that best expressed my thoughts on
the subject.

Skip Middleton:
Nice image, good figure study, but like Tom, I don't find anything
specifically erotic about it. I guess because the subject is too
distant, the lighting a bit undramatic and a lack of context.

Paresh Pandit:
It's a... tree. I suppose it could be erotic... if you were a tree
*u**er. While I'm sure the concept could be made to work, nothing in
this image elicits any "erotic" response from me.

Steve McCartney:
Ah, the wiseguy approach. Picture is a bit cold, the subject feels
impersonal and too far away. It could be all the porcelain.

Tom Hudson:
Pretty decent and fairly close to my original idea for the mandate,
which was to focus on the chest and neck of a woman. Lighting angle
works good, and the softness doesn't really hurt the image. A lower cut
top and/or something to draw attention to the neckline would make it a
lot more interesting.

Alan Browne*:
You and your archive shots - bah!
This photo is kind of like a Renaissance painting in the sense that it
just sort of celebrates the female form without really offering the hint
of explicit gratification I think the mandate needs. Nothing bad about
it, but nothing overtly sexy about it either.

Bowser:
Another wiseguy. I applaud your effort - if you can't wow 'em, at least
make them laugh. Very well done.

Bret Douglas:
There's nothing really "sexy" here. Sure, the berries are red... and
round... but that really doesn't get you very far these days. I'm sure
a close up of some sort that allowed the fruit to mimic the shape of
buttocks or breasts might have worked better, but this image has too
many round things.

I said I was going to give you a paragraph or two, so here you are.
Happy? Didn't think so.

Graham Fountain:
I guess this falls under the category of "Botanic Erotic" for our
photosynthesizing friends, so I'll forgo my cheap shots at using
flowers, corals and other wavy things as Freudian substitutes for
genitalia. The pedals have a smooth enough texture, but the whole
pistil/stamen thing is just pornographic.

Vic Mason:
Yet another smart ass. Lighting is a bit hard. Those are indeed some
mighty big... fruits. The most erotic thing present is the backdrop
peeling away to expose... the vertical blinds!

Eric Quesnel-Williams:
Sheesh! Do ANY of the regular shoot-in photographers know enough hot
babes well enough to recruit them as models? I think this would have
been better if you cooked the hot dog first to bring up some beads of
fat on the surface.

Brian Baird:
Most of the credit for this has to go to my model, who was willing
enough to dress up like a high dollar hooker, pose for about an hour
while I tried to figure out exactly what I was trying to achieve and
gracious enough to not make me sleep on the couch afterwards.

The only things I don't like about this photo the legs not looking quite
right in the background and the neck being sort of at an odd angle to
keep the rest of the head out of the shot.

Giorgio Stromboli:
Not really an erotic shot, more of just a test-shot kind deal. The pose
isn't particularly flattering to the model. Next time, less light,
sexier pose and pouty-er lips.

Simon Lee:
It would have been better with a real woman.

McLeod:
Yeah, she's hot, in focus and well lit. But it looks more like a Sears
catalog shoot than an erotic photograph. This is my main beef with
Victoria's Secret these days: you take a super-hot woman, put her in
just enough clothes to avoid a serious lawsuit and then pose her in a
manner completely devoid of sexual context.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Brian C. Baird wrote:


Alan Browne*:
You and your archive shots - bah!
This photo is kind of like a Renaissance painting in the sense that it
just sort of celebrates the female form without really offering the hint
of explicit gratification I think the mandate needs. Nothing bad about
it, but nothing overtly sexy about it either.

"But mother, what a lover, she wears me out" -- apologies to Rod S.

There are many erotic curves about our lovelies, and the "shot hip" is one of my
favourite expressions of the feminine form... there are about 2,017 others...!

PS: I do LOVE your shot, it is not only erotic, but Cinema Verité at the same
time ... the opera gloves are a bit over the top but the pearls are pure class.
A little hint of stocking top and .... I'll stop now... but well done.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- [SI gallery]: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- [SI rulz]: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

I gotta say something...
You and Tom both commented that you don't see anything erotic about my shot.
Of course, eroticism is in the eye of the beholder, but...arched back, hands
grasping breasts and that's not erotic? Hmm, maybe I need a different
definition...G

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
I'll have to go a little easy on everyone considering I barely made this
mandate (see the date info on the EXIF) and erotica is a difficult
subject to capture. It's not nudity, it's not pornography... it falls
in between smut and art. Has to be risque enough to stimulate emotions,
tame enough to provoke thought and not anger. God knows I went through
tons of photos searching for the one that best expressed my thoughts on
the subject.

Skip Middleton:
Nice image, good figure study, but like Tom, I don't find anything
specifically erotic about it. I guess because the subject is too
distant, the lighting a bit undramatic and a lack of context.

Paresh Pandit:
It's a... tree. I suppose it could be erotic... if you were a tree
*u**er. While I'm sure the concept could be made to work, nothing in
this image elicits any "erotic" response from me.

Steve McCartney:
Ah, the wiseguy approach. Picture is a bit cold, the subject feels
impersonal and too far away. It could be all the porcelain.

Tom Hudson:
Pretty decent and fairly close to my original idea for the mandate,
which was to focus on the chest and neck of a woman. Lighting angle
works good, and the softness doesn't really hurt the image. A lower cut
top and/or something to draw attention to the neckline would make it a
lot more interesting.

Alan Browne*:
You and your archive shots - bah!
This photo is kind of like a Renaissance painting in the sense that it
just sort of celebrates the female form without really offering the hint
of explicit gratification I think the mandate needs. Nothing bad about
it, but nothing overtly sexy about it either.

Bowser:
Another wiseguy. I applaud your effort - if you can't wow 'em, at least
make them laugh. Very well done.

Bret Douglas:
There's nothing really "sexy" here. Sure, the berries are red... and
round... but that really doesn't get you very far these days. I'm sure
a close up of some sort that allowed the fruit to mimic the shape of
buttocks or breasts might have worked better, but this image has too
many round things.

I said I was going to give you a paragraph or two, so here you are.
Happy? Didn't think so.

Graham Fountain:
I guess this falls under the category of "Botanic Erotic" for our
photosynthesizing friends, so I'll forgo my cheap shots at using
flowers, corals and other wavy things as Freudian substitutes for
genitalia. The pedals have a smooth enough texture, but the whole
pistil/stamen thing is just pornographic.

Vic Mason:
Yet another smart ass. Lighting is a bit hard. Those are indeed some
mighty big... fruits. The most erotic thing present is the backdrop
peeling away to expose... the vertical blinds!

Eric Quesnel-Williams:
Sheesh! Do ANY of the regular shoot-in photographers know enough hot
babes well enough to recruit them as models? I think this would have
been better if you cooked the hot dog first to bring up some beads of
fat on the surface.

Brian Baird:
Most of the credit for this has to go to my model, who was willing
enough to dress up like a high dollar hooker, pose for about an hour
while I tried to figure out exactly what I was trying to achieve and
gracious enough to not make me sleep on the couch afterwards.

The only things I don't like about this photo the legs not looking quite
right in the background and the neck being sort of at an odd angle to
keep the rest of the head out of the shot.

Giorgio Stromboli:
Not really an erotic shot, more of just a test-shot kind deal. The pose
isn't particularly flattering to the model. Next time, less light,
sexier pose and pouty-er lips.

Simon Lee:
It would have been better with a real woman.

McLeod:
Yeah, she's hot, in focus and well lit. But it looks more like a Sears
catalog shoot than an erotic photograph. This is my main beef with
Victoria's Secret these days: you take a super-hot woman, put her in
just enough clothes to avoid a serious lawsuit and then pose her in a
manner completely devoid of sexual context.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Brian C. Baird wrote in message ...

Steve McCartney:
Ah, the wiseguy approach. Picture is a bit cold, the subject feels
impersonal and too far away. It could be all the porcelain.


Well, the subject was "erotica", not "erotic". So arguably, by taking
a photo of erotica, as opposed to an erotic photo, I'm about the only
one who can claim to have followed the mandate!

Yeah, and as someone else mentioned in their comments, the flash is
reflected just about everywhere!

To answer *your* technical points, as well, I've shot this in b&w with
my Pentax and a 50mm f2 @ ~f4 or so, and no flash, so maybe that'll
improve - I dunno, not developed yet. I'll keep you posted if you
like. OTOH, of course, these sorts of magazines arguably are
impersonal, and are often read in that kind of situation. Harsh &
ugly. Perhaps I did a better job than I realised?

Cheers,
Steve
(and congrats to those that were braver and more talented than I and
actually got some nice studies in!)

Brian C. Baird wrote in message ...

Steve McCartney:
Ah, the wiseguy approach. Picture is a bit cold, the subject feels
impersonal and too far away. It could be all the porcelain.


Well, the subject was "erotica", not "erotic". So arguably, by taking
a photo of erotica, as opposed to an erotic photo, I'm about the only
one who can claim to have followed the mandate!

Yeah, and as someone else mentioned in their comments, the flash is
reflected just about everywhere!

To answer *your* technical points, as well, I've shot this in b&w with
my Pentax and a 50mm f2 @ ~f4 or so, and no flash, so maybe that'll
improve - I dunno, not developed yet. I'll keep you posted if you
like. OTOH, of course, these sorts of magazines arguably are
impersonal, and are often read in that kind of situation. Harsh &
ugly. Perhaps I did a better job than I realised?

Cheers,
Steve
(and congrats to those that were braver and more talented than I and
actually got some nice studies in!)

In article ,= 20
says...
"But mother, what a lover, she wears me out" -- apologies to Rod S.

There are many erotic curves about our lovelies, and the "shot hip" is on=
e of my=20
favourite expressions of the feminine form... there are about 2,017 other=
s...!

Agreed.
=20
PS: I do LOVE your shot, it is not only erotic, but Cinema Verit=E9 at t=
he same=20
time ... the opera gloves are a bit over the top but the pearls are pure =
class.=20
A little hint of stocking top and .... I'll stop now... but well done.

Thank you.
--=20
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
Well, the subject was "erotica", not "erotic". So arguably, by taking
a photo of erotica, as opposed to an erotic photo, I'm about the only
one who can claim to have followed the mandate!

You got me there!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article Usgkd.124998$hj.48710@fed1read07,
says...
I gotta say something...
You and Tom both commented that you don't see anything erotic about my shot.
Of course, eroticism is in the eye of the beholder, but...arched back, hands
grasping breasts and that's not erotic? Hmm, maybe I need a different
definition...G

It very much is in the eye of the beholder, but I think your shot comes
across more as a figure study and less of an erotic shot. Could be
saturation - the pose is fairly classic, and when you've stared at as
many pictures of naked women as... I really shouldn't be admitting to
this.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Kibo informs me that Brian C. Baird stated that:

Paresh Pandit:
It's a... tree. I suppose it could be erotic... if you were a tree
*u**er. While I'm sure the concept could be made to work, nothing in
this image elicits any "erotic" response from me.

*boggle*

How on earth could anyone fail to see Paresh's visual analogy between
the form of the tree & that of a female figure? Jeez guys, his photo is
arguably the most original interpretation of the mandate.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Kibo informs me that Brian C. Baird stated that:

Paresh Pandit:
It's a... tree. I suppose it could be erotic... if you were a tree
*u**er. While I'm sure the concept could be made to work, nothing in
this image elicits any "erotic" response from me.

*boggle*

How on earth could anyone fail to see Paresh's visual analogy between
the form of the tree & that of a female figure? Jeez guys, his photo is
arguably the most original interpretation of the mandate.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------