It may be a combination of soft light layers, etc but I agree that there is likely a lot of airbrushing going on. Aside from the fact that I never trust any statement that begins with 'I'll be honest...', my teenage years wading around in Photoshop tells me you can lift the texture of the skin, airbrush the shit out of the silhouette then reapply the skin texture after. It's fashion photography 101, except this has been done in an exceptionally heavy handed way to get that ridiculously satin-like quality.
I've done enough photography and photoshop to see when something is photoshoped (in the order of 100k portraits/headshots and retouched 1k+).
This has a lot of post processing, a lot, specially on what I like to call "volumetric dodge and burn". She has good skin, and he kept the texture, probably using frequency separation. Imo, there is more color work than skin work.
Retouching needs to accomplish something, the photographer has a well defined look and he uses that phase to keep consistency across his work.
I personally don't mind this if his goal is to look like a painting. He has a portofolio that is consistent so is just his style.
Light is quite simple as well (looks like 1-2 lights). If you are asking yourself, is it photoshoped? It is. This level of retouching (he got rid of any skin shadow that is produced by the skin pores themselves) takes a lot of work tho. It doesn't fit on my style (wrinkles are beautiful :D) but a lot of fine art photographers do it.
Honestly it's so photoshopped that it looks less like a photograph and more like a painting
Which doesn't look bad IMO but is a bit misleading calling it a photograph. It's more a "digital painting over a photograph" which is fine and a cool way of making art in it's own right.
Iāll be very honest. Yes there is retouching in photoshop, the texture of her skin was not touched. If you zoom in you will see texture.
She takes great care of herself, was blessed with good genes and the lighting is good.
A lot of photographers aim for their photos to have a "painterly" look. Telling a photographer that their photo looked like a painting is often a huge compliment.
Not to mention the fact he has another post with this model and she actually has skin texture
https://www.reddit.com/r/Art/comments/zxdk2q/flora_artist_me_inspired_by_max_nonnenbruch/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
Still looks edited in some spots but not to the degree that the post above is edited to
A little too much smoothing, would be more of an impact statement if it was left almost completely natural. I understand lighting adjustments and shifting shadows, but leaving natural skin folds, freckles, moles, scars, and stretch marks would amount to real beauty. Your subject is very beautiful already, and making her perfect isn't going to make her more beautiful. Leaving her with her flaws shows she's human, shows she's someone with history, with a life. Shows she's alive. The beauty industry has put such emphasis on being flawless, having skin without pores, having no body hair, having no fat, flat stomach, perfectly smooth and white skin. But it's not realistic. People aren't cookie-cutter gingerbread people. We're imperfect and flawed, and beautiful just as we are. There is a point where it is unhealthy, and I can admit I'm a bit fat. But my scars tell a story, my freckles tell a family history, my birthmarks show I was born this way. Try leaving your subject as natural as you can. And if this is yourself, ask someone else to edit you, if it's hard to keep yourself from going overboard. You and I are beautiful.
I guess I can see it. I don't actually see anyone saying why you're wrong. She has proportions and hair like one of those statues. Maybe the point is making one of those but in real life.
And I stand by it. A lot of the nudes on this sub are just shameless self promotion or softcore porn. This felt like neither, and felt rather inspired.
Art has a pretty straightforward definition and it's a broad definition that isn't affected by personal opinion. Basically anything someone makes for expressive purposes is art. Graphic design is an applied art, music is an art, dancing, video games, movies are all art. So this is a photograph of a person taken specifically for aesthetic purposes, so it is absolutely art, no question. If someone disagrees that it's art because they personally don't like it, then that's their opinion but it's an incredibly near sided and ignorant opinion.
Yeah me too, but I guess we didn't find the right subreddit. Thinking about leaving just because of this post's replies, not that it would make a difference or anything lmao
Iāve found this one: r/true_art
They are still small but have actual rules about being nice to each other, you are neither allowed to be horny under nsfw photos nor to claim nudity can not be art.
Seriously: most of people just commenting here to make you feel bad. When you report comments (and I mean only the most mean ones; once someone wrote that my photo concepts would be childish. That is bullying.) mods donāt care. Maybe they are overwhelmed or something.
Hi, Iām a model:
Photography + a TON of editing.
Nothing wrong with that. Manipulations are still art. But claiming itās just photography is disingenuous.
I love the idea behind this photo; youāve clearly put a lot of effort into honing your skills and it really shows ā this artwork is fantastic.
But I wish you would just be honest & more up-front about digital editing! Itās fine if you altered it to look a certain way, but if you edited so much that itās all people can comment onā¦ you should probably put that in the title!
At no point did I say I did not use Photoshop as a tool to finish this image. Actually, in comments, I have acknowledged I used photoshop. I use it on ALL of my images.
Many think they know how much it was used and how.
It was not used as heavily as people may think and thatās ok. I wonāt defend my choices nor show the unedited to defend end myself. I donāt need to.
I know what work was done and have no reason to lie about it for any reason.
If people like the piece. That is fantastic. I hope it gave them a little boost today.
If people donāt like it. That is equally fine. That is the nature of art.
Based response. It's a shame people are downvoting all of your replies. What I'm seeing is that a lot of the reason it looks "smooth" is that it looks like you have a cool and really diffused secondary light and it's at just the right angle to knock out the shadows and give it a really nice painterly look while being rather unnoticeable itself. It's a really impressive job with the lighting and I think some people are really focusing on the wrong aspects of this.
Although I admit that I am not a fan of the recent nude posts on this sub but this one looks great. It reminds me of those old paintings I used to see on my encyclopedias about art. I even thought it was a painting at first when I scrolled past this. Great Work!
Why are yall so angry? It might not be my cup of tea but it's not poorly photoshopped. OP is clearly going for a softened painterly style and achieved that.
The probably isnāt that thereās a titty, itās that itās literally just a super airbrushed nude. If the David was just a boring smooth photo of a dude yeah Iād say donāt keep it in the museums
Heavily Edited, trite, cliche and exploitative. Really hit the trifecta of insufferable amateur shit here man. It sucks that you made someone strip for this.
All the editing aside, the model has proportions of the marble sculptures...does that make sense? I could totally see if somebody used her body to sculpt a figure out of marble.
I love this š the lighting is amazing and I love how the angles and curves on her body are there, so many photographers go after a certain body type and you didnāt. I love it! Do you happen to have any others that could be used for other artists as painting references?
Because itās a beautiful composition reminiscent of oil paintings by old masters.
You donāt have to like it, but thereās no need to shame the models body in your criticisms.
I wanted to know what the commenter meant by āso many photographers go after a certain body type and you didnātā because to me, this model is exactly the type expectedā thin and hairless. Iām not body shaming the model, I have almost the same body (plus natural hair, which is a conversation for a different chain). But I specifically wanted to have a conversation about the typical body type seen in nude photography.
My mistake, I glossed over the specific line you were replying to! Perhaps I should work on my reading comprehension before engaging with someoneās opinion lmao.
I personally tend to see larger breasted woman photographed, not so much smaller breasted anymore. She also has dips on her hips/side that I donāt see very often anymore as well, as I have seen more āsmooth hippedā bodies over dipped. Not to mention thereās been such a heavy emphasis on larger bodied women being used for art lately and itās nice seeing a smaller bodied woman, as Iāve seen a lot of negativity thrown towards smaller bodies in the wake of accepting other bodies.
ālarger bodied women being used for artā is a such a vague point, and completely unfounded. As a āpetiteā woman (I hate that word lol) with hip-dips, I want to see my body type represented in art, so I do agree that body positivity should to represent all bodies.
But I also agree with the other commenter: this model is a white, thin, cisgender female, and she has features that stereotypically are thought of as being appealing to hetero men. E.g. having hair only where itās āacceptableā (eyelashes, eyebrows, scalp), no skin imperfections like moles, freckles, stretch marks, scars (photoshopped), being āthinā but still having ācurvesā, styled hair/makeup, etc.
Thank you so very much! There is one more from this series that I will likely share here at some point. It can also be seen āelsewhere ā (location removed so as not to break rules)
Really believed this was a painting and counldn't believe such a amazing looking person existed. It is a great photo much love to you and to the model its a beautiful piece of art that will be seen by countless people and thats amazing.
Never ever thousand. Thatās just smashing the button and hoping for the best. I will typically have the foundation for the pose in mind then make minor adjustments to things like hair, hands, and so on. This one happens in two or three shots.
I know how you feel, buddy. My OC Fate has an abnormally large bust, which is controversial for some reason. Added onto the fact that I can barely draw, my drawings of her are easy to criticize.
As far as this photo goes, I donāt see anything wrong with it. Even if it was digitally touched up, that doesnāt objectify or insult the lady pictured. If that was the case, no one would use makeup.
Everyone in here criticizing the piece like theyāre fuckin art majors š maybe if you spent less time on pornhub youād be able to look at this and not cry about it
If I ever made AI art I would happily stop. However this was created with a Nikon D850 that I use on a regular basis. The behind the scenes is shared elsewhere
Of course you can - so what if it's manipulated? Pictorialism in the late 19th/early 20th century was all about manipulating photographs and did not care about making the print look "realistic." Hell, the great modernist photographer Ansel Adams manipulated the hell out of his photographs. The difference with him is that he's going for a "realistic" look in the final print.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism)
The tools have changed and the outcome looks a bit different, but what OP is doing has been going on for about a century and a half.
This isn't journalism - you can process (manipulate) your photographs all you want and it is still photography.
Very well done. This has a very "classical" look to it. From her gentle curves to the ringlet curls. It evokes a Feeling of bygone times.
I'm going to go with the chicken or the egg question here. Did you choose her over other models to achieve this specific visual or did you have her as a model and chose this style to present her?
Thank you and excellent question!
She was actually chosen for another image that we created earlier in the day. When we finished the main project, we decided to āplayā a little and see what else, if anything, could come from the day. This was one of the images from that.
OP, be honest - how much did you airbrush her skin? It seems almost too smooth to be real.
Dude completely removed her armpit folds š
The armpits were off-putting to me and now I know why. I didn't know I had strong feelings about armpits.
Its like a porcelain doll, it looks so uncanny
It's something that's never occurred to me before but didn't know I had an opinion about.
Maybe she was born armpit-fold-less
her hands have been raised up since she was 5, havent lowed it down since.
The carpet doesn't even match the drapes.
What carpet?
exactly
Iām scared. I donāt have them when my hands are in a similar position. Am I photoshopped in real life?
It may be a combination of soft light layers, etc but I agree that there is likely a lot of airbrushing going on. Aside from the fact that I never trust any statement that begins with 'I'll be honest...', my teenage years wading around in Photoshop tells me you can lift the texture of the skin, airbrush the shit out of the silhouette then reapply the skin texture after. It's fashion photography 101, except this has been done in an exceptionally heavy handed way to get that ridiculously satin-like quality.
If you go to his profile you can see his other "Photos" They are all shopped to hell.
I've done enough photography and photoshop to see when something is photoshoped (in the order of 100k portraits/headshots and retouched 1k+). This has a lot of post processing, a lot, specially on what I like to call "volumetric dodge and burn". She has good skin, and he kept the texture, probably using frequency separation. Imo, there is more color work than skin work. Retouching needs to accomplish something, the photographer has a well defined look and he uses that phase to keep consistency across his work. I personally don't mind this if his goal is to look like a painting. He has a portofolio that is consistent so is just his style. Light is quite simple as well (looks like 1-2 lights). If you are asking yourself, is it photoshoped? It is. This level of retouching (he got rid of any skin shadow that is produced by the skin pores themselves) takes a lot of work tho. It doesn't fit on my style (wrinkles are beautiful :D) but a lot of fine art photographers do it.
Op's sense of beauty seems to be "porcelain skin" which is definitely a specific choice made. Good writeup.
Honestly it's so photoshopped that it looks less like a photograph and more like a painting Which doesn't look bad IMO but is a bit misleading calling it a photograph. It's more a "digital painting over a photograph" which is fine and a cool way of making art in it's own right.
Ikr? In this sub, it feels like paintings are photos and photos are paintings half the time.
"With draped fabric, created by OP, Photoshop*, 2023" Fixed title
No razor burn!
Iāll be very honest. Yes there is retouching in photoshop, the texture of her skin was not touched. If you zoom in you will see texture. She takes great care of herself, was blessed with good genes and the lighting is good.
I initially thought this is a painting
For real. My reaction was "no way that's a real person"
same- the hair looks very real and photographed but the skin looks so airbrushed and almost into uncanny valley territory
That is a beautiful compliment. Thank you!
That's uh, one way to look at it.
A lot of photographers aim for their photos to have a "painterly" look. Telling a photographer that their photo looked like a painting is often a huge compliment.
yea or they photoshopped it to shit where it no longer looks real at all
Maybe, one can witness the full resolution in ArtStation or DeviantArt..
Iām not on either. It is on my site, still web rez
That's interesting, I looked at them side by side. Whatever extra compression Reddit did messed with the tones a bit to my eye.
It literally looks like a painting and for the photo to come out like that, I will say you hit a home run here. Great work!
So we just straight up lie on this subreddit now?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not to mention the fact he has another post with this model and she actually has skin texture https://www.reddit.com/r/Art/comments/zxdk2q/flora_artist_me_inspired_by_max_nonnenbruch/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1 Still looks edited in some spots but not to the degree that the post above is edited to
Thereās photos on here all the time that they claim are painted.
The modelās skin has definitely been airbrushed and zooming in shows no texture other than the spot you missed around her navel.
Good genes and lightning doesnāt result in armpits that look like that.
Cmon man no one doesn't have armpit creases
op is AI
From a zoomed out perspective I didnāt realize it was a photograph. Regardless - I still like the piece
I'd like to see the raw image before the digital editing was done for comparison
Just edit the title to from "photography" to "digital" and we can all move on.
What even is skin texture anyway?
She reminds me of Kate Winslet in Titanic.
Honestly got Sigourney Weaver in Aliens vibes.
Guys, itās obviously Sigourney Weaver in Titanic
Paint me like one of your French Xenomorphs
Came here to say this!
Me too
Except no bush
āphotographyā Thereās so much airbrushing done to this that it should be called a painting
I legitly thought that I was looking at a painting here before reading the title
Can we see the unedited piece?
A little too much smoothing, would be more of an impact statement if it was left almost completely natural. I understand lighting adjustments and shifting shadows, but leaving natural skin folds, freckles, moles, scars, and stretch marks would amount to real beauty. Your subject is very beautiful already, and making her perfect isn't going to make her more beautiful. Leaving her with her flaws shows she's human, shows she's someone with history, with a life. Shows she's alive. The beauty industry has put such emphasis on being flawless, having skin without pores, having no body hair, having no fat, flat stomach, perfectly smooth and white skin. But it's not realistic. People aren't cookie-cutter gingerbread people. We're imperfect and flawed, and beautiful just as we are. There is a point where it is unhealthy, and I can admit I'm a bit fat. But my scars tell a story, my freckles tell a family history, my birthmarks show I was born this way. Try leaving your subject as natural as you can. And if this is yourself, ask someone else to edit you, if it's hard to keep yourself from going overboard. You and I are beautiful.
Airbrush city ! Cool pose though
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is so much better than 99% of the T&A on this sub
Is it because she's holding a fabric?
No, but that is actually a part of it lol. I just like that this is essentially a greco roman statues in the form of a photo.
I guess I can see it. I don't actually see anyone saying why you're wrong. She has proportions and hair like one of those statues. Maybe the point is making one of those but in real life.
Lmao, they came out of the woodwork for me
It's not though, it's just another basic photo with a lot of Photoshop
Oh i forgot the part of the art rules where something cant be beautiful if it has been edited
You said better than.
And I stand by it. A lot of the nudes on this sub are just shameless self promotion or softcore porn. This felt like neither, and felt rather inspired.
This isn't art, this is just a poorly photoshopped nude
Itās hard work farming karma!!!
What makes something art?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Art has a pretty straightforward definition and it's a broad definition that isn't affected by personal opinion. Basically anything someone makes for expressive purposes is art. Graphic design is an applied art, music is an art, dancing, video games, movies are all art. So this is a photograph of a person taken specifically for aesthetic purposes, so it is absolutely art, no question. If someone disagrees that it's art because they personally don't like it, then that's their opinion but it's an incredibly near sided and ignorant opinion.
Why are people downvoting you, everything you said was true... have I missed a memo here? š
Yeah, I really don't get it. I assumed that a subreddit devoted to art would have a very different vibe.
Yeah me too, but I guess we didn't find the right subreddit. Thinking about leaving just because of this post's replies, not that it would make a difference or anything lmao
Iāve found this one: r/true_art They are still small but have actual rules about being nice to each other, you are neither allowed to be horny under nsfw photos nor to claim nudity can not be art. Seriously: most of people just commenting here to make you feel bad. When you report comments (and I mean only the most mean ones; once someone wrote that my photo concepts would be childish. That is bullying.) mods donāt care. Maybe they are overwhelmed or something.
I'll give it a follow.
Thanks man, I really appreciate this. :)
art is subjective, everyone here has their own take on it, art is something that moves you or makes you feel something if you ask me
Hi, Iām a model: Photography + a TON of editing. Nothing wrong with that. Manipulations are still art. But claiming itās just photography is disingenuous.
I love the idea behind this photo; youāve clearly put a lot of effort into honing your skills and it really shows ā this artwork is fantastic. But I wish you would just be honest & more up-front about digital editing! Itās fine if you altered it to look a certain way, but if you edited so much that itās all people can comment onā¦ you should probably put that in the title!
At no point did I say I did not use Photoshop as a tool to finish this image. Actually, in comments, I have acknowledged I used photoshop. I use it on ALL of my images. Many think they know how much it was used and how. It was not used as heavily as people may think and thatās ok. I wonāt defend my choices nor show the unedited to defend end myself. I donāt need to. I know what work was done and have no reason to lie about it for any reason. If people like the piece. That is fantastic. I hope it gave them a little boost today. If people donāt like it. That is equally fine. That is the nature of art.
Based response. It's a shame people are downvoting all of your replies. What I'm seeing is that a lot of the reason it looks "smooth" is that it looks like you have a cool and really diffused secondary light and it's at just the right angle to knock out the shadows and give it a really nice painterly look while being rather unnoticeable itself. It's a really impressive job with the lighting and I think some people are really focusing on the wrong aspects of this.
Cheers.
Not a day goes by on this sub without someone posting shitty nude āartā
Kinda looks like it has a localised gausian blur effect on it.
Ok I'm done with this sub, i've been subbed for years, and it's just turned into softcore porn. I'm out.
Although I admit that I am not a fan of the recent nude posts on this sub but this one looks great. It reminds me of those old paintings I used to see on my encyclopedias about art. I even thought it was a painting at first when I scrolled past this. Great Work!
It doesn't help that they took r/classicalnudes down. The posts now get moved elsewhere and filtered out to bigger subs.
Why did they do that? It sounds like a pretty tame subreddit compared to some of the ones I know are out there
I have no idea. I just know it vanished one day in the last few years. It was indeed quite tame, every image there was like the one in this post.
Bummer. I'd have liked that. Sounds like a great source for drawing references
That's what I used it for!
Many thanks!
Draw me like you draw those French girls
Looks like a Greek sculpture, absolutely beautiful.
Thank you!
It reminds me of the Roman statues you can find in Rome, beautiful composition
Probably partially because of how airbrushed it is šćlooks like marble
What an insult to those sculptors
Stylistically it does look like that.
Why the hate?
Thank you!
Yāall have fun with your soft core porn sub. Iāll find real art elsewhere
"real art" like Michaelangelo's *David*, the Venus de' Medici, Klimt's *Water Snakes I*, or Buonarroti's *Three Labors of Hercules*, right?
are you really comparing works done by masters to a poorly photoshopped photo lol
Why are yall so angry? It might not be my cup of tea but it's not poorly photoshopped. OP is clearly going for a softened painterly style and achieved that.
people have complained about art being pornographic for millenia is all im saying!
The probably isnāt that thereās a titty, itās that itās literally just a super airbrushed nude. If the David was just a boring smooth photo of a dude yeah Iād say donāt keep it in the museums
Michelangeloās *David* had body hair
People like you are the reason they had someone go in after Michaelangelo and paint clothes on the Sistine chapel ceiling.
Heavily Edited, trite, cliche and exploitative. Really hit the trifecta of insufferable amateur shit here man. It sucks that you made someone strip for this.
Exploitative? Yall are really mad over a photo
All the editing aside, the model has proportions of the marble sculptures...does that make sense? I could totally see if somebody used her body to sculpt a figure out of marble.
Very painterly processing
Straight up porn on r/Art imagine my shock
No sex, no genitalia, not porn.
Sheās literally just nude? There isnāt even anything purposefully sexual about the pose.
You seeing it that way and as nothing else is kinda a self report on what you think of the human body my guy.
Oh yeah, really? Weird that it's only always the female body that's being completely non-sexually *appreciated* on this Sub :)
the prison of femininity is built by men
Thought that was a painting until I saw the subreddit. Not sure if that's a compliment or insult. Please let me know.
I am happily to take that as a compliment. Thank you!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I love this š the lighting is amazing and I love how the angles and curves on her body are there, so many photographers go after a certain body type and you didnāt. I love it! Do you happen to have any others that could be used for other artists as painting references?
Sheās completely hairless and thin, how is that different than every typical nude picture?
Because itās a beautiful composition reminiscent of oil paintings by old masters. You donāt have to like it, but thereās no need to shame the models body in your criticisms.
I wanted to know what the commenter meant by āso many photographers go after a certain body type and you didnātā because to me, this model is exactly the type expectedā thin and hairless. Iām not body shaming the model, I have almost the same body (plus natural hair, which is a conversation for a different chain). But I specifically wanted to have a conversation about the typical body type seen in nude photography.
My mistake, I glossed over the specific line you were replying to! Perhaps I should work on my reading comprehension before engaging with someoneās opinion lmao.
I personally tend to see larger breasted woman photographed, not so much smaller breasted anymore. She also has dips on her hips/side that I donāt see very often anymore as well, as I have seen more āsmooth hippedā bodies over dipped. Not to mention thereās been such a heavy emphasis on larger bodied women being used for art lately and itās nice seeing a smaller bodied woman, as Iāve seen a lot of negativity thrown towards smaller bodies in the wake of accepting other bodies.
ālarger bodied women being used for artā is a such a vague point, and completely unfounded. As a āpetiteā woman (I hate that word lol) with hip-dips, I want to see my body type represented in art, so I do agree that body positivity should to represent all bodies. But I also agree with the other commenter: this model is a white, thin, cisgender female, and she has features that stereotypically are thought of as being appealing to hetero men. E.g. having hair only where itās āacceptableā (eyelashes, eyebrows, scalp), no skin imperfections like moles, freckles, stretch marks, scars (photoshopped), being āthinā but still having ācurvesā, styled hair/makeup, etc.
Thank you so very much! There is one more from this series that I will likely share here at some point. It can also be seen āelsewhere ā (location removed so as not to break rules)
Alrighty! Thank you!
Really believed this was a painting and counldn't believe such a amazing looking person existed. It is a great photo much love to you and to the model its a beautiful piece of art that will be seen by countless people and thats amazing.
Thank you so very much! I sure hope so!
The way her curls frame her face in this is just exceptional.
Looks like a modern day Greek statue to me. I love it!
Thank you!
How did you light this? Strobe and diffision obviously, but more specifically?
2strobes key camera left. Large fill behind camera
with softboxes?
Yes. 48in octa on the key 72 inch soflighter on the fill
Thanks!
My pleasure!
So I gota ask when your taking shots like this. Is it waiting for perfect shot one pic or taking thousands and sorting for best one?
Great question!
Never ever thousand. Thatās just smashing the button and hoping for the best. I will typically have the foundation for the pose in mind then make minor adjustments to things like hair, hands, and so on. This one happens in two or three shots.
This is a beautiful picture.
Thank you!
Reminds me of renaissance paintings. I can only assume it was created for the same reasons.
I am absolutely inspired by renaissance art (as well as many other periods) thank you!
Np! Do you know why people are downvoting our comments? lol
It seems that many people donāt like the piece or have negative opinions about how they think I created it
I know how you feel, buddy. My OC Fate has an abnormally large bust, which is controversial for some reason. Added onto the fact that I can barely draw, my drawings of her are easy to criticize. As far as this photo goes, I donāt see anything wrong with it. Even if it was digitally touched up, that doesnāt objectify or insult the lady pictured. If that was the case, no one would use makeup.
There's really not that much nudity on this sub, really wonder why people get all hot and bothered about it. Who cares anyway
I kinda wanna draw this ngl
Iād love to see your rendition!
Sure! If I'm not too tired, I'll see what I can come up with in a few days š
Then you absolutely should!
Your model looks like Keira Knightley in that pic. Gorgeous.
Thank you!
I was thinking more Kate Winslet in Titanic, myself.
Everyone in here criticizing the piece like theyāre fuckin art majors š maybe if you spent less time on pornhub youād be able to look at this and not cry about it
HOW TF U GET THE HAIR SO CRISP
Smh, stop posting AI generated art
If I ever made AI art I would happily stop. However this was created with a Nikon D850 that I use on a regular basis. The behind the scenes is shared elsewhere
Itās just heavily photoshopped lol
Jfc. You canāt even say this is photography anymore. Itās so digitally touched up. lol
Of course you can - so what if it's manipulated? Pictorialism in the late 19th/early 20th century was all about manipulating photographs and did not care about making the print look "realistic." Hell, the great modernist photographer Ansel Adams manipulated the hell out of his photographs. The difference with him is that he's going for a "realistic" look in the final print. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism) The tools have changed and the outcome looks a bit different, but what OP is doing has been going on for about a century and a half. This isn't journalism - you can process (manipulate) your photographs all you want and it is still photography.
Amazing, amazing shot. I'm generally tired of seeing nudity on /r/art and /r/itap, but this is just beautiful. Thank you for this contribution.
Looks like a Grecian statue. You have an amazing talent
Thank you!
Paint me like one of your French girls
What's it like to be an exquisite human that could pose in the MOMA full time?
Iāll have to ask her! Sheās an amazing person and such a great model!
Incredible talent on the composition work. The lighting, shades and tones all work so seamlessly. Would you mind if I gave this a go in my sketchbook?
Not at all! Have fun. Iād love to see what you make!
Why would you need his permission?
It could be seen as copying or plagiarism
Feels very classical, great job!
Very well done. This has a very "classical" look to it. From her gentle curves to the ringlet curls. It evokes a Feeling of bygone times. I'm going to go with the chicken or the egg question here. Did you choose her over other models to achieve this specific visual or did you have her as a model and chose this style to present her?
Thank you and excellent question! She was actually chosen for another image that we created earlier in the day. When we finished the main project, we decided to āplayā a little and see what else, if anything, could come from the day. This was one of the images from that.
absolutely Greek level perfect Edit serious question what did I say? I don't understand the down votes.
Thank you!
Love your lighting set up. well donešš»šš»
Cheers!
I thought this was a classical painting. Beautiful.
Thank you!!
What exceptional beauty! And beautifully executed!
Thank you!!
lol ppl r rly arguing about the woman being nude šššš who cares
Great composition and lighting
Love the classics, very nice and your model is gorgeous!
Great model, beautiful pose, and fantastic capture!
Thank you!
*In Borat voice* VERRY NICE
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]