HOME | DD
aqua1000 β
07-2065
[NSFW]
Published: 2008-03-25 04:52:25 +0000 UTC; Views: 29989; Favourites: 1125; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
2007 modelsRelated content
Comments: 872
This has been featured in the Tender Loving Couples feature in my journal as part of a series celebrating the beatuy of the male form: [link] If you would like it to be removed, simply let me know and I will gladly do so.
Thanks to you and the models for sharing for sharing this beautiful artwork!
π: 0 β©: 0
These comments are depressing, if you don't like it, move the fuck on. Stop complaining, no-one gives a shit about what you think.
π: 0 β©: 0
Nah. I quite like this picture.
π: 0 β©: 0
Do you feel better now for leaving that impressive, tolerant and intelligent comment that everyone was expecting to see?
Haters gonna hate I guess, keep hating if that's what makes you feel alive. How pitiful. I really feel sorry for all the people here who isn't capable of thinking outside the box.
π: 0 β©: 0
Please, someone, close the comments, my brain can't take all this amount of ignorance all at once!
π: 0 β©: 0
Why? What do you not like about it?
π: 0 β©: 1
How come you don't like it?
π: 0 β©: 0
I love it though wish there had been a fill light, less directional / hard shadows. Shadows can be so miserable to work with.
π: 0 β©: 1
I went through all of your work and I do approach photography primarily as a painter.
I think these two photographs are your strongest: this one [link] because you managed a back lit background but it is not washed out and you still have volume to a well lit figure - that is hard to do; and secondly this one, [link] has emotion and the cast of the shadows evoke time of day, like in the evening, reinforcing the emotion.
It is hard to get drama in a static image, and I see you going down avenues with strong shadows like here and the image above: [link] the figure in the second photo I linked to disappears and and use of color like this: [link] overwhelms the image. The first linked photo in black and white would have been great with a diffuse light source from the front to illuminate him; if you had one or two low watt maps with tissue over the bulbs to bring up the figure and balance the light from behind. I would recommend you work to control shadows and color, less is more! If you do very well, when you get stronger skills in the future use dramatic shadows then, the example I would show is like Victor Skrebneski [link] His visual vaobulary is strongly influence by fashion photography. The master of strong shadows for me will always be Yousuf Karsh [link] Also consider Mapplethorpe because he was a master at using strong shadows and still keeping a wide range of tones, even in black and white the skin glows with life.
Some photos are blurred. Use a tripod, use a tripod, use a tripod. I know, I hate tripods, too. They are cumbersome and not spontaneous, but you can keep the setting loose and learn to frame shots with one quickly. Or try a monopod or at least increase your shooting speed to avoid blur. Look into a basic lighting kit and a reflector. I have a set lighting rig: it is three cheap clamp lamps from a hardware store, the same daylight bulbs (Reveal brand incandescent), tissue paper or "Tuffspun" to cover the bulbs for diffuse light, a white piece of styrofoam board or a silver matte surface to reflect light toward and soften shadows. Extra tripods, chairs, etc are good to hold lights for you. Staying married to daylight or a single, strong light source is not helping you.
You have people willing to pose for you but it seems like you are on a stylistic cusp. I am subjectively interpreting your work as seeking to be artistically beautiful, even sexual but it ranges into "pin ups" too much. I think you can do so much better than pin-ups and create aesthetic work. You can reclaim the sexual from the pornographic. Or if you want to do pornographic work, then just go for it; but pick a side for each work you are creating, make your intentions with each work clear. I read the images as portraits. The better ones, you were able to take your time and I think you and the model were in a relaxed state and you had concentration. Shoot hundreds of photos but only display the best one or two from the lot. I hope you are working digitally. Without having to pay for film, you are free to shoot hundreds of images. I also feel your are not trying to quote Classicism and use any of the historical art cannon poses common to modeling as inherited by the Renaissance from Greco-Roman sources. Working strictly Contemporarily is working for you and helps you avoid clichΓ©s by not copying Classicism. You need to bring out elements particular to each person you shoot, maybe look for particular gestures or movements from their life, something dynamic and capture each person in a more life like fashion. When you find the graceful elements that you like, I see them caught best where the man is in repose, and then see and capture still images from a range of movement I think you will find your vocabulary as a photographer. I think this is an earlier photograph here [link] and even if you were both at ease in the setting the image is hard to read: he looks too vulnerable to be sensual. Maybe even think of each work like a drawing, take a painter's approach to composition, like the framing on this one [link] also the tonal qualities are very good.
I think also if you get a lot of strong and favorable responses from this DD photograph it is because it avoids the Western art obsession with portraying singular subjects, which is particular to our culture and also very lonely [link] or better yet, yo quote Kenneth Clark from The Nude in 1956 "..it is necessary to labor the obvious and say that no nude, however abstract, should fail to arouse in the spectator some vestige of erotic feeling, even though it be only the faintest shadow -and if it does not do so, it is bad art and false morals. The desire to grasp and be united with another human body is so fundamental a part of our nature that our judgment of what is known as "pure form" is inevitably influenced by it; and one of the difficulties of the nude as a subject for art is that these instincts cannot lie hidden, as they do, for example, in our enjoyment of a piece of pottery, hereby gaining the force of sublimation, but are dragged into the foreground, where they risk upsetting the unity of responses from which a work of art derives its independent life. Even so, the amount of erotic content a work of art can hold in solution is very high."
π: 0 β©: 0
I love this - its beautiful, very soft and sweet, and I like their expressions - but I wish people didn't find it so easy to be mean over the internet. Some of the comments this photo has received are just awful. I don't get how some people can be so cruel. I really don't understand.
π: 0 β©: 1
There are many self professed arbiters of taste who missed the basic rule "if you don't like it, don't f**king look at it." In my case, I avoid the garish work of Rubens. I appreciate he created the first (or an early) international European style of painting but he was such a suck up to Marie de Medici. That was totally selling out if there ever was someone who totally sold out. Thus I avoid Rubens.
π: 0 β©: 0
Wow, and none of the yaoi fangirls doing this:
I'm surprised!
π: 0 β©: 0
This is just beautiful 
Scratch that, I support human rights, love, tolerance, and equality! The picture isn't ruining your life, so shut up.
Just go home.
π: 0 β©: 1
No. There would still be people getting upset over a straight couple. Mostly those occasional Tumblrtard Social Justice Sallies who go on about cisgender privileges.
I can just imagine it. "It's only getting such nice feedback because it's a straight couple. Those whities need to check their cis privileges."
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh god, isn't the ones who call people βcis scumsβ? I have no idea.
I don't get upset over any couple, gay or straight.
Ugh white people. (I made an plz account of that).
π: 0 β©: 0
This is a very great piece. I love how its more romantic-sexual implied then outright porn because this is tasteful and looks really wel done.
If this was a man and a woman there would also be 1000 comments some of them would comment about the nudity howeveer there would hardly be anyone call it STRAIGHT CRAP, and omg I dont want to see straight porn,
there would be no jackass who feels the need to express their homophobia on the picture. Also there would be hardly any comments how there is to much straight art despite the fact about 90 pro cent of adds, television, internet, music, movies,novels, comics are all HETEROSEXUAL.
π: 0 β©: 1
To all those who "hate" this picture:
Is this affecting your life?
Is this affecting you in any way shape or form?
Are you involved in this in any way?
No? Then maybe you should respect the owner of the picture and the lovely models and go somewhere else because homophobia is not, and never will be, tolerated. And to the bigot Christians: prove that God did create homosexuality, because God wouldn't create it if he didn't want it.
Homosexuality is shared by many species, but homophobia is only found in one.
=====
To the owner of this lovely picture: Sorry about that. This is an amazing picture. Congratz on the DD. I hope the models in this picture have a great life as well.
π: 0 β©: 2
Yes to the first question, second question is redundant and third one makes no sense. I got a good one, lets all be gay and see what happens to life, then ask if it affects anyone. You idiots trying to justify this gay crap need to learn better instead of being selfish idiots.
As for the christians, God created men, not what men do, they have free will to be stupid like this, just like a killer or rapist, does that make it right? sigh.
π: 0 β©: 5
How is a relationship between two consenting adults comparable to someone who murders and rapes?
π: 0 β©: 1
Because in many societies, raping is not considered wrong as well as killing either but most consider it wrong(what ever that means). But this wasn't the point, the point was free will. I'm not going to explain simple things like this again, if you can't keep up, move along kid.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, most of the world isn't gay and by the looks of it, we really do need to lower our population.
And how about you answer all the questions? Explain how this picture effects your life. Is it causing you pain? Do you need a doctor? Or is it shorting out the circuits in that puny little brain of yours?
Stop wasting your time baawing over something that you will never change. If God really didn't want gay people on this earth, he would have stopped it by now, wouldn't he?
But he hasn't done anything. I bet he is sitting up there in Heaven, wondering why people like you are freaking out over what gender other people like.
π: 0 β©: 0
What if everybody became gay? If you're concerned about reproduction then there are two options: A: Surrogate mothers for the gays and artificial insemination for the lesbians.
You bigoted morons keep forgetting that there are other ways to make children other than the classic penis to vagina scenario. Not mention that the thousands of children in foster care and adoption agencies would finally have a decent home to go into.
Although this 'everybody is gay' scenario is about as fictional as a unicorn since being gay is not a choice.
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh forgot to add.
What would happen if everyone became gay?
Well if everyone became bi then the only thing that would change is everyone would be able to marry whoever they want, everyone will be treated equally, and std may drop because everyone will be informed properly of stds and sexual orientation and everyone will have access to the drugs that help those who have stds.
But hey, everyone is unique so until then, respect and knowledge goes a long way.
π: 0 β©: 1
wow, such a lost generation. You'll figure it when you grow up.
π: 0 β©: 3
Better to be part of a generation that accepts everyone equally, doesn't hate people for being different, and is open-minded. I like how you called us "selfish idiots" for respecting people's orientation, when it's the other way around; it's more selfish to restrict love to just between straight people.
π: 0 β©: 0
You sound like an 80 year old in the 1970's years after the Civil Rights act.
π: 0 β©: 0
I love how you don't reply to the comment with all the evidence proving you wrong.
I would be rather be part of a generation who wants peace for all, then a bigot, hypercritical, homophobic generation.
And I have grown up. You on the other hand needs to grow up and accept the fact that no matter how much you bitch and whine, God put gays on this world and they are going to stay.
π: 0 β©: 0
The Christians should come up with legit proof as to why gays shouldn't marry, instead of going off a 3000 year old fictional book as well.
π: 0 β©: 1
A christians bible is not fictional to them, it is their belief and to attack someone's belief is an attack on them. But if you want to attack religion, thats pretty much the entire world. Besides, you exist, they exist and everyone on this planet exists and has a chance at life because a MAN and a WOMEN brought them into this world, there is no more sense to be made to understand that.
π: 0 β©: 1
Not all Christians follow the bible, and a lot of the bibles "rules" are no longer valid and now illegal in today's world. There is also a lot of Christians who use the book as an excuse to attack others.
Yeah, I exist. Not only am I not going anywhere, I also say that gays should have the right to marry the person they love. So may be some people should learn some proper respect about it
I'm talking about the love between two human adults, not reproduction. They are two completely different things.
π: 0 β©: 1
Who said all christians follow a bible??? Its just there for reinforcement for them, what they feel and know comes not from the word but from eveything. This is getting boring, like talking to one of my own kids when they were young and clueless like yourself. Take this up with your folks, okay.
Oh, and btw, love and reproduction are exactly the same thing, but I don't expect you to understand.
π: 0 β©: 5
Explain asexual reproduction.
π: 0 β©: 0
What about infertile people? They can't have children because some medical problem so they can't love? Bullshit.
Reproduction is when you have a baby. Please explain how love and reproduction are the same.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey kids, this is something you should be asking your mother and father, you know, that man and woman that brought you into this world.
π: 0 β©: 1
just because someone has a baby doesn't mean theyre in love
boy/boy and girl/girl relationships are perfectly capable of love
π: 0 β©: 1
Do you love your mother, father, etc? Do you go around wanting to screw them, of course not, but why not if you love them? You will learn this when you grow up, stop this silliness and ask your parents. You love a friend of the same sex just as you do your family. When you can answer why you don't screw your folks, you'll have the answer to why the gay crap is purely ridiculous. Now, stop this. No more responses.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't want to screw my family because incest is gross and so is pedophilia.
I don't see what homosexuals have to do with pedophilia and incest.
And about the pedophilia argument against homosexuals: That's complete bullshit. Notice how they say creepy old men when girls are taught about internet safety?
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>