Yeah, I partly agree. I know that there are a bunch of “harmony” rules in photography, that disallow certain perspectives.

But sometimes I think: wouldn’t be certain pictures more interesting, if they would break the rules?

For example: the golden cut defines in what proportions a body should lie within a picture. If you willingly break that rule, you will get pretty ugly – and sometimes amazingly dynamic – pictures.

Or, why not just shoot the back view of a female body in a photo session?
Disturbing? Maybe. But might be quite interesting as well.

What about placing the model in front of a large mirror?

I have come across a couple of sexy movies with a model stripping and dancing in front of a mirror. Only a couple, but they do work really well. Due to the offset mirror reflection you see both the front and the back of the model at once.

I have the vague feeling this could be a nightmare to light properly, but perhaps it will work without to many problems.

A second idea, what about a rear view of the model, but she is turning / twisting her upper body, to look backwards, perhaps to look down at her bottom, to see what is going on?

I have some data to add to this debate.

Often, models believe they have “good” sides and “bad” sides. Clearly, they are all stunningly gorgeous and their “bad” side is a hundred times better than most people’s “any side at all”. Nonetheless, if they have any freedom of movement AT ALL, you can guarentee that they will ALWAYS turn to face the camera in what they believe is the best way.

Since I don’t often shoot sets where the girl is totally immobilised, she’s usually got enough freedom of movement to show her “best” side.

Yesterday I did two more bondage X factor shoots, with two relatively experienced models. For one set with each of them I consciously tried to get some good “behind” shots.

Honestly, it was like swimming through glue. I had to say repeatedly direct them to stay in anything like a rearwards-on position. In “regular” poses they’d stay in a pose they were happy with and find variations. In the “rearwards on” poses they’d stay for ONE shot. If that. Then I’d have to direct them AGAIN to get another shot. I’d ask them to stay in that position and they simply wouldn’t, they’d move in between me giving the direction and pressing the shutter release!

I was also trying to move myself into position to take these shots… and damn me if they didn’t turn around to follow me so I couldn’t get the shot!

It was a very interesting experience.

These were experienced, good models and a pleasure to work with. But in this one instance they were amazing hard to pose. I don’t know whether or not they realised they were even doing it.

I think it shows that I am used to leaving the posing to the model, because after all that’s her job. I’m sure at some level they are right that they do have a best side, or at least a side which they are more comfortable facing and that some poses aren’t so flattering. I do like working with pro models who know how to make themselves look good and pose attractively. But the downside is that is can be like chasing quicksilver to get a specific pose that the model isn’t comfortable giving you.

I should add that the level of explictness of the shot would not have been an issue in this case. Obviously models who do not model with their legs wide open would be uncomfortable holding a pose which might show too much.

So the answer may be that I have to find some models who are specifically good at and comfortable with a particular sort of pose.

I’d love to hear from Ariel, Sammie, Kate or one of the other models…

Hywel.

Edited By Hywel on 1206698989

Hmmm, interesting discussion 🙂 I agree with Sammie, the problem with being a full-time model is that you end up seeing an AWFUL lot of pictures of yourself both good and bad. And the bad ones are the ones that stick in my memory 🙂 So it’s hard to break the habit of doing poses that are ‘safe’ and to try poses that might make you look ungainly. Of course, once you’ve got a good relationship with a photographer you can trust, it’s easier to take a few risks because you can have faith that he won’t use a picture that makes you look terrible 🙂 I agree with Sammie that I always feel as though I should be somehow facing the camera in order to convey some expression, but I’ll try harder to do back views too from now on 🙂

And I like your bottom, Sammie :spin

Also, I think as an experienced bondage model, I think that a lot of the feeling of the image is in the models expression- so a rear shot without my face in is emotionless- and not what you all want to see.

See I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that (and I know what I want to see). While the face does add expression I’ve seen many very fine shots that do not include the face and which instead have artistic or erotic appeal purely from the interplay of light and form or the particular pose of the model. I think perhaps you underestimate the extent to which the pure bodily form of the model is something enjoyable to see. If you look at some of the series of classic nudes you’ll see a lot of famous images that do not include the face.

Even in shots that include the face that doesn’t mean the model must always be looking back at the camera, for example, shots with the model deliberately looking away from the camera into the distance can convey a very strong feeling.

This has been a very interesting discussion. My untutored assumption was that the photographer controlled the model’s posing (especially in BDSM shots) so that the balance of poses we are seeing is Hywel’s preference – yet it seems to be quite the reverse!

I personally always like to see the models eyes, especially for bondage sets. But I agree with Stephen about there being some excellent art-nude pictures with the models face not actually seen. Some of these can be very striking indeed, as stand alone shots.

However, for me, I feel these are only successful if the image has a very dramatic feel to it, to overcome the lack of facial expression that’s not seen. For example, if it’s very low-key lighting, strong shadows or very moody in some way, then this helps pour emotion and feeling back into the picture to compensate for not seeing the models eyes and make it much more striking. If it doesn’t have this, and you can’t see the face, then it feels somewhat lifeless. Does that make any sense?

I really like shots taken from behind (and I think Ariel & Sammie have fabulous bottoms!), but I prefer their face to at least be partially seen by being turned to one side, looking over their shoulder or looking down in some way, but not necessarily directly at the camera.

Cheers
Steve

( posted for domestos29 … in order to post images on the forum they already have to be uploaded to a web server somewhere, you can’t just upload from your PC. If people want to post stuff, please email to me at webmaster@restrainedelegance.com and I will post them)

Hywel.

Hey Hywel,

your report was quite interesting. I never really realized that the model is actually defining the picture, and not so much the photographer…

But it’s true, I guess. When you see those modelling shows (in Germany, currently another episode of “Germany’s next top model is running), the photographer basically says: “give me sexy, give me cool…” , and the girls try to give him something he might like. This is basically as specific as it gets.

For me, this sheds a new light on the modelling business…

I guess, to get more control of a scene, you would have to invest much more time into a single shot.

Btw. , several years ago I had a single BDSM tutorial shooting here in Germany. Most of my pictures were pretty boring, a good bunch of them were even horrible… but the few I really liked were these, when the model didn’t pay attention for a moment. They weren’t so… artificial, but much more alive.
This is why I think that bad pictures are sometimes the better pictures.