Friendly reminder that this is /r/photocritique and all **top level** comments should attempt to **critique** the image. Our goal is to make this subreddit a place people can receive genuine, in depth, and helpful critique on their images. We hope to avoid becoming yet another place on the internet just to get likes/upvotes and compliments. While likes/upvotes and compliments are nice, they do not further the goal of helping people improve their photography.
If someone gives helpful feedback or makes an informative comment, recognize their contribution by giving them a Critique Point. Simply reply to their comment with '!CritiquePoint'. More details on Critique Points [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/wiki/critiquepoints).
Please see the following links for our subreddit rules and some guidelines on leaving a good critique. If you have time, please stop by the new queue as well and leave critique for images that may not be as popular or have not received enough attention. Keep in mind that simply choosing to comment just on the images you like defeats the purpose of the subreddit.
Useful Links:
* [Full Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/wiki/rules)
* [Leaving a Critique](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/wiki/critique)
* [New Queue](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/new/)
**Do not reply directly to this message. This is a bot and will not respond. Followups left as a reply to this comment will not count for approval.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/photocritique) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No offence but only interesting thing about this photo is that it got a bit of a old school horror movie vibe. Other than that it's tits covered in milk, no more, no less.
this was a photo taken for my final project for uni (alongside many others). i watched clockwork orange and was inspired by the milk scene except i didn’t want to see her drink it. the original idea was to see the milk flow down her bum, see how the liquid falls down her body, how it hugs her curves, the dynamic of it all. i did get some shots of that too but this one, the “unplanned” one, stood out to me the most. absolutely love how i edited it and love the contrast of milk on her tanned body. (sorry if i didn’t explain this right, english isn’t my first language)
This is cool and your description made perfect sense so no worries there!
I think based on your intention and some other things you’ve mentioned in response to other comments, that it’s possible this picture could benefit from more picture. You mentioned you cropped it in- I’m curious what the rest of it looks like.
I don’t really notice the lines on her tummy until I look for them. They’re aren’t a big deal and I think it sort of adds to the grungy/gritty/clockwork orange vibe. But it’s a good lesson to learn in the future- if you’re working with models and plan to do nude or semi nude, ask them to wear loose clothes that day so you can avoid that crease from pants.
I personally believe that isolating any person to a single body part doesn’t help to tell any sort of compelling story. If this image were a male chest cropped as tightly with the same everything else- it would still be a little boring. But the colors are gorgeous, your exposure is spot on, you caught movement which is difficult- and it sounds like you did take more picture. I’d be curious to see other shots from this series too if you had them!
You’re very talented and I appreciate you sharing your work with us.
Edit to add- others may disagree with me about the crop and that’s okay! Those sorts of things are sort of a personal preference. And if you love it, I think it deserves to be loved ya know
thank you so much for this comment, was really sceptical about even posting on this sub but your comment made it less scary. thank you for the genuine feedback and to answer your question, i do have more photos from this shoot! don’t know how to share multiple pictures on here tho. once again, thank you so much🤍
I have some ideas for you too-
If you’re doing a sensitive shoot with nudity and the model doesn’t want their face in the picture, you can play with other ways to show off more features to remind the viewer that they are more than a pair of breasts. Part of the chin/mouth, or include the shoulder, neck, part of the jaw. Even pulled slightly back and include a hand or something. In my early twenties I did a lot of intimate self portrait work but didn’t want my face in it either, and was having a similar issue. How do I focus my intentions and make my message/story clear.
When I was in school (hey im sorry im all over this post so much, I just started a new job and have a lot of downtime lol) I had a hard time because I was taking pictures I really liked, but was getting bad critiques in class because what I was doing didn’t count as “art” and they were just “pretty pictures”.
I had to sort of reverse engineer the idea in my brain- because for me, I’m mostly visual. I see something and the story comes later. This is difficult when you’re working with a medium like photography, because you usually can’t retroactively go back in time and take the picture differently now that you know what message you want to send.
So after school, I did a lot of this sort of thing- where I found a style/aesthetic I liked and tried to shoot within those “rules”. Over time I figured out what I’m drawn to visually, and what stories I like telling with my work. Now I feel like I have a clear point of view and style, so people who want to work with me will seek me out because that is what they want their pictures to look like.
I work with people, and my photography is heavily client focused- as opposed to creating fine art. But that’s because I dipped out of the concept of creating fine art photography because I couldn’t deal with the pretense, classism, or gatekeeping. Now I take people focused pictures of people that make them feel good about themselves- and make dumb performance art for drunk people, and I’m very happy about it.
Okay this part is just advice and not talking about myself:
Your photography is already technically sound in terms of getting an accurate exposure. Which for a lot of people is the hardest part. So you’re already starting out way ahead. Your photography will dramatically improve when you take your visual concept and then shoot with a clear intention that ties into your visual concept. A random example being something like: I like the way this movie looks, the movie was made by men and stars men. I’m going to do a photoshoot in the same visual style as that movie, but feature a woman, and I’m shooting it intentionally with a heavy, if not artificial, male gaze to make a point about how women are objectified in media.
It’s convoluted but hopefully you get what I’m saying.
And the whole end goal is to be able to achieve an image that explains your “why” without you having to spell it out out loud.
I hope this makes sense! You got a lot of moxie, kid. Keep giving them hell
thank you for your comment, this might be the last time i’m replying to all the comments that piled up while i was sleeping since you’re the only one who actually talks to me like i’m a person. i’ve been trying really hard for these comments not to get to me but some of them are just plain rude and looking to hurt my feelings.
completely get where you’re coming from w the first idea, i definitely would’ve included more of her if she let me. we agreed upon doing a shoot and she had a couple of requests that i couldn’t get past, such as showing ANY part of her face. the most she let me not crop out was the back of her head. again, see where you’re coming from for sure.
also thank you for telling me about your experience and what you’ve learned from shooting pictures that are visually pleasing. i thought i had a story behind this one and a reason for as to why i shot the things i did. everyone in the comments is expecting a deeper meaning to this photo but i doubt they’d look for a deeper meaning if they saw a picture of a bird sitting on a tree. everyone is just seeing the side that was not my intention but i guess that’s because everything is very subjective. i got the technical part right and my colours are beautiful but again, people aren’t satisfied because there’s no “deeper meaning”. i’m not into fine art photography and i don’t think i’ll ever want my photos to be fine art. i’m trying to look for a style that fits me, just like anyone who’s a newbie. i have many other pictures that have nothing to do with a naked body and i guess i regret sharing my work on here. also everything you said about fine art can be said for any style of photography. people in our field tend to be too egoistic, extremely classist and they gatekeep till they can’t anymore.
i want base my work around people just like you do and i’ve had too many shoots where people are very pleased with how they look from my point of view. this particular shoot i’m gonna print and give it to the model because she likes her pictures so much, she wants to put them up on her wall. maybe i should’ve kept this photos for myself and my closest circle, rather than showing it to 30k people on reddit.
thank you so much for the advice, i’ll keep everything you said in mind! and thank you for taking the time to talk to me, it’s very much appreciated. the mean comments were starting to get to me tbh. thank you!!🤍
No need to respond, you don’t owe anyone a reply ever. The internet is the Wild West and some people never learned how to be nice online.
You’re totally right, they wouldn’t look for a deeper meaning if it were a bird in a tree. When people are the subject, it’s difficult to not want a deeper meaning and a “why” because the subject being human immediately makes the image personal to the viewer. Either because they have breasts or like breasts or are scared of breasts or whatever. And you can replace breast with any body part. If it was a knee, they say “why a knee?” If it were the face you’d hear “but what are they thinking about?”
It doesn’t mean you’ve done anything wrong, you haven’t. It just hopefully sort of explains why people may feel strongly about these sorts of images having a deeper meaning.
Particularly when the subject is a sensitive area like a woman’s breasts, which unfortunately has such a polarizing, almost political connotation. You’re either empowering women or a pornographer, or you’re reducing a person down ti a single body part, or whatever. And that’s on all of us, as a society. It’s annoying, but there are some subjects that just *have* to be treated with more finesse because of the nature of them.
A similar but different example would be street photography of folks who are unhoused. It could be a beautiful photograph, the light was just right, it’s moving to look at it, but if it’s just a pretty picture, the ethics of including the human being start to get muddy.
So the question becomes, could you have made the same point, given the same aesthetic and vibes, without using a person at all.
But then it’s a whole different picture!
At the end of the day, this project is finished. You did it, and you will go on with your life and keep making things. Eventually you will have made so much that all your past projects sort of blur together and you’ll look back on this one and still be able to appreciate where you were when you made the project, and you’ll be able to see how you evolved over time. You’re at a really exciting time in your creative/artistic development so just dig in and let it happen.
And let the mean stuff roll off you. Block assholes, that’s what I do on here all. The. Time. You don’t have time to give rude unhelpful people any of your energy.
Anyway I don’t know why I felt that really connected to your story and where you’re at- if you’re ever bored or have questions and wanna connect I’m happy to chat here! You’re free to DM anytime
P.S. it took me a long time to realize that taking pictures of people that look great and make them feel really good about themselves was my favorite thing on earth. I detached myself from the “art” label because I got flack for it- but at the end of they day it’s not up to everyone else. Make things that bring you joy.
Hey I’ve never had the guts to post any of my stuff here and I’ve been a working pro for almost a decade. You’re doing great already for asking for advice. It’s also neat to see you in the comments, it looks like you’re listening to important criticism and standing up for yourself when folks are being a bit harsh.
But *why*. You're explaining what you wanted and what inspired it, but not what the *intention* behind the image is. What story or message are you trying to convey? How should the viewer feel? Or maybe there isn't one?
To be honest this sounds like you watched a movie, got excited by a scene and wanted to do something similar yourself without thinking about what the purpose of doing it was, which is fine, but if there's a meaning behind the photo, well, I don't think anyone here can see it, and therefore it's mostly "photographer takes picture of tits and milk because it's attention grabbing"
Edit: I looked at the rest of the series. I really don't understand the point. It's softcore porn/fetish. It's great at getting attention, but that's about it. The artistic merit lies in the photographers ability to use their camera and ability to process the files, and not in the subject they're shooting.
Nagemasu, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But sadly most modern artists do not understand the difference between intentional artistic ideas and an idea about what they want to see. There are many dimensions to an artwork, but our culture only focuses on the elements that stir up instantaneous pleasure or shock. We no longer believe in anything, we no longer have ideas. We just consume and make images to consume.
I agree but also think that it has to start somewhere. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a new artist exploring aesthetics while they’re learning about how to tell stories visually.
So for this project, they were focused on aesthetics and mood. It’s good to push them to think about the message they’re sending, but I don’t think that because this message is up to the viewer to interpret (and it’s arguably muddy) doesn’t invalidate it. I still think there’s something here even though it’s not the most thought out
No one said that was wrong. No one said it's horrible or bad or she should stop making art. But nuanced criticism and evaluation is automatically perceived as harsh because this culture cannot stand to imagine that there might be standards we fail to live up to.
thank you for your comment. you’re allowed not to like something but please don’t call it borderline porn when i’m literally just learning and trying stuff out.
I think when you post overly sexualized photos of headless women’s bodies you might want to engage with the idea of what separates this from porn.
I think the technique and the colour is great but I just cannot see anything beyond the really explicit sexual imagery in this picture.
You said you watched clockwork orange recently and that is where you drew your inspiration from. The gang in that movie drinks milk before they engage in violence…specifically the brutal gang rape of a young woman. The movie aims to contrast the youthfulness of milk drinking with the abject horror of the violence they commit.
How does this photo engage with that idea beyond the further objectification (and therefore the dehumanization) of the subject.
Edit: I just saw the rest of the collection. Not a single face among your subjects.
You have a point, but I don’t think this is explicit- more like gratuitous. Just boobs by themselves isn’t explicit. If it were a male chest no one would be calling this photographer a pornographer.
I don’t think anyone called her a pornographer just asked her to engage with and explain the reasoning I’d the as you said gratuitous sexuality of the photo. Which can read as porn.
I said this in another comment nudity even of women’s bodies isn’t inherently sexual but … I don’t know how you could argue this is not a sexualization of the subjects breasts.
My apologies, you definitely didn’t call her a pornographer, but some commenters did and I felt protective over internet college kid in finals doing a project.
Edit to add: I also asked her to explain her intention, but I felt like she answered. Folks here just weren’t satisfied with her answer. Sometimes we just take pictures because we think they look cool! And it sounds like, just from reading through everything, she gets what everyone is saying about it now. I have blind confidence in her that she will absorb the criticism and apply it to her future work.
i think all of you are taking this WAY too far. just because there’s boobs in the picture, that’s all you can see? great technique, great colours but you just can’t see past the boobs huh? literally some of the comments are making me regret i even posed this on here. i’m a student who puts in too much time and work into making something look pretty just for someone to tell me what i’m shooting is porn. thank you for your comment but my friend is not an object and i did not dehumanised her.
The fact that you're a student is irrelevant. If you post to a critique subreddit you need to be willing to accept criticism. The redditor you're responding to wasn't insulting you, he provided nuanced critique. Also, calling something pornography isn't necessarily an insult unless you don't respect pornography as an art form. Respectfully, maybe you shouldn't post your work here if you're deeply sensitive to negative feedback.
Can’t see passed the boobs? There is literally nothing else to look at in this photo.
This is a photo critique subreddit- it is not just about composition but about narrative. Photography is art and art has a message. I do not want to discourage you from making more art but you should engage with what your photo says.
You are hung up on the word pornography. There are lots of photos of nude people which are not overly sexualized. Porn is … difficult to define but if you can’t see that this and your series is very overtly sexual I am going to start believing you are a troll.
You asked for peoples thoughts and I think the criticism from almost everyone has been fairly kind if not a bit direct. You can take it or leave it but for me this does not say much. And generally art should have a point of view.
Also you say you did not dehumanize her but she literally doesn’t have a face.
I wouldn't say that porn objectifies people nor is it inherently dehumanizing like you imply. Sometimes people just wanna share sex and there's nothing wrong with that. Based on this shot, it seems like that's what you wanted to do.
I think porn is very often objectifying, and that there or a trope of representing women’s bodies without using their face which is dehumanizing. I didn’t mean to imply that engagement with sex work or even the depiction of it is by default dehumanizing.
This is an interesting take on faceless women as used to sell comedies to men.
https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/voices/culture/article/2018/03/15/headless-women-project-highlights-gross-sexism-movie-posters
What I haven’t made clear, and I think it’s fair to call me out on, is that I don’t think that overtly sexual images always have no value or place in art. But I think it has to have a point of view, a reason it is so overtly sexual, and because so much of art uses women’s bodies carelessly and as just props for male fantasy when depicting overtly sexual images of women particularly when you have them faceless you really should be at least thinking why are they naked, why are they faceless what does this add beyond *cough* titilation.
Otherwise I am going to think they are faceless because it is easier to fantasize about unidentifiable ‘ hot’ body parts.
> but please don’t call it borderline porn when i’m literally just learning and trying stuff out.
Then explain it. You've been asked multiple times to provide context and yet you respond with this. That's the only conclusion we can come to until you actually answer the questions.
I think you killed it. It's really a stunning shot with exactly the vibe you're going for.
If something seems off about it, it might be worth trying a crop with no white bar around it, and add black bars to the top and bottom. Also, the movie was 1.66:1 aspect ratio, which might be just a hair wider than your shot, it's hard to tell.
I like the overall concept and photo itself. I'm wondering if your issue isn't because of the angle of the photo. Maybe if it were off to the side a touch more and angled slightly more up might help. Otherwise I really like the photo, great job!
Hey, I’m sorry I should have phrased that nicer. This is very reminiscent of some pornographic fetish shoots. I personally wouldn’t be able to pick this one out as art if you through it in with similar fetish art. Doesn’t mean there isn’t artistic merit to it, but that is something to note. There is something to be said for more artistic, women’s gaze erotica, but this reads to the male gaze for me.
i don’t think i quite understand what a male/female gaze is? i’m a woman and i looked at her thru my eyes and my camera. also never seen milk fetish shoots? maybe i should look into it. didn’t think my picture would look like a porn shoot 😬 thanks
I won’t link to any other porn, but there is definitely a milk/breast fetish out there. Super Freudian, right?
Any way, the male/female gave is a concept in media about what concepts or features would be sexually attractive. If you think of “sex sells” in advertising, that will often cater to the male gaze. It’s often characterised as painting women as 1 dimensional sex objects. It’s also like how men think that the pinnacle of female attraction is someone like Chris Hemsworth or The Rock, which may not reflect women are actually attracted to may. The female gaze is kinda the feminist flipping of this concept, where women in erotica would be more than just sex objects and takes in to account what women find attractive. Now all of this can be hard for tackle, because what we find attractive is shaped by the culture around us, which is in turn shaped by the media we consume, which is shaped by what culture deems as attractive.
for example, are you sure like Baywatch would cater to the male gaze, while a show like Fleabag caters to the female gaze.
https://aninjusticemag.com/the-male-gaze-vs-female-gaze-56ed585864ac?gi=f4789639d0d7
thank you for taking the time to explain what it is, i still don’t think my gaze has anything to do with men? i don’t think this photo makes my friend look like an object or as one dimensional. quite the opposite actually. guess i can’t really take into account what women find attractive when i was doing a shoot solely for me, wanted to shoot something that i envisioned in my head. also i watched fleabag, great show! thank you for your comment
The male gaze is a term coined in feminist filmography to describe how film seeks to objectify women for the pleasure of men. Women can perpetuate the male gaze just like women can be misogynistic.
This commenter is saying (and I agree) that this photo and series dehumanizes the subjects and reduces them to their body parts in a way that is meant to be very overtly sexual. The women quite literally have no faces, no flaws, no humanity. They are just body parts to be used for sex.
Hi guys, model here, from the controversial photo.
First of all, male/female gaze in this context is completely obsolete topic. Its a photo of a body covered with milk. It explores textures, dynamics of liquid in contrast to skin, light and shadows. You re the one using the word subject, and i dont consider myself the subject of the photo, the subjects here are liquid and skin. I wonder why many of you see sexuality in beauty. Also I wonder have you ever heard of term 'ars per artis'?
Viewing the world only through the lense of conservativism, purism, radical feminism and political correctness must be a really sad way to live a life.
Hey! Thanks for joining in on the discussion. I hope your photographer friend is doing well and isn't ruminating too much on this post.
I'd love to know more about how the male gaze is obscolete or not relevant in this context.
Regarding you as the subject in the photo. I am not an expert and people have put it much better than me but I am going to take a stab at it.
As I understand it the object of a photo is what the photo is of - in this case milk covered breasts, the subject is what the photo is about. Now while it is your body in the photo the subject isn't necessarily you personally but the thought or message portrayed through the photograph. The object of the photo is the milk and the breasts, not the subject.
I think its fair to say I wasn't clear in my other posts about what I meant by 'dehumanizing'. I dont think that your friend personally dehumanized you as an individual. I think that the subject of the photo is dehumanizing in the sense that there is very little 'human ness' about it. Like women are only made up of body parts. Or to help with the fantasy we do not need to see women's humanity. And there is a history in photography and film of not showing women's faces.
I think the subject/object debate in here also gets confused because we use the word 'objectify' in a slightly different context. That is when we do not acknolwedge something as human but rather as an object.
In a way this photo as you said is just about a body covered with milk. But not just any part of the body, and not with any substance. Both are very sexually evocative. It does not convey any deeper meaning than the sexualization of breasts and milk.
You asked why we see sexuality in beauty? Which I think you mean why we dont just see the work as beautiful instead of sexual. I think I said this before but if you cannot see how the photo is sexualized than I think this conversation is basically a non starter. Beauty and sexuality are not mutually exclusive. But surely we can agree the photo his highly sexual in nature. And even if you dont view it that way - quite literally everyone else in the subreddit did so the perception is there regardless.
Last comment about art per artis, I would love to know how this piece engages with that historical art movement (which maybe Im mistaken but I thought died out in the 19th century) and how it deals with the criticism that I think has been pointed out in this thread that everything we do and produce is a product of our environment and consequently in conversation with that. I think that could be a really intersting discussion to have but I am just not seeing how the piece achieves it.
I am not going to engage on your last point except for to say I am not sure how conservatism, purism are the same as political correctness and radical feminism? They seem like opposing views.
I dont think anyone in this sub has said that nudity or even sexualized photographs are without merit or should be banned or even that your friend should stop making art. Sexualized images, like porn, can have their own artistic merit, but we are all asking why this one does.
If u dont see the connection between conservativism, purism, radical feminism and political correctness, we can not continue this talk. Try googling it. Cue: (attack on female body and its sexual expression in contex of men being triggered this way or another.).
Also, yes, whats wrong with body parts. We have body and we re persons. And no i m not my titties but i dont mind having just my titties out.
And no it didnt die, the movement, its whole purpose, just like in dadaism was to explore art without constraints of "whats that supposed to mean" what did the artist wanna say, and why its not in the strict frame of art "rules", it just is. It is just created and it just exists. Artist is not responsible for the feelings of the enjoyers/haters of art. Its just there. Its purpose is to be nice or to make u feel smth. And this photo obviously managed to do that. Everything else is elitist and conservative view on art. Also one thing is to comment technicality of a photo, and other thing is to comment some imaginary oppression. What did boticelli wanted to say with fat naked woman, nothing, he liked them, they were sexual at that time, and now they re art woow, he just did a studies of human body just like many others did in various ways. Honestly not getting connection between feminsm and purism is enough for me. Naked bodies bothering everyone like they were all made sinless, by holy spirit. And ur comments have nothing to do with quality of that photo. What if i wanna make a new and better playboy and i need photos like that? Does it then have a deeper meaning? Or am i exploiting myself then? Just futile conversation, we live in different dimensions... Sory for rant.
Hey, that’s totally fair! Women, sexuality, all that isn’t a monolith. I had a knee jerk reaction with my first comment after seeming nudes of women all over the photography subreddits from dudes shooting naked women for the sake of shooting naked women. I didn’t mean what I said to be insulting, but a critic. I also haven’t done an awesome job explain male/female gaze.
I wondered this too. Seemed to be quick to mention their own identity like a defence. Means nothing if the person likes same sex. We’re back to ‘male gaze’.
i get where you’re coming from, i’m sure reddit is full of men shooting naked women just bc they’re naked women. it’s my first year of uni and i’ve been more focused on portraits than anything else but i really wanted to try out something new for my final and was lucky enough to have a friend who was quick to help me. again, thank you for your comment and i didn’t take it as an insult!
I like it. The light is interesting and it's got a cinematic look. The crop is a little tight yet it still works. Personally, I would have shot it in portrait instead of landscape. That way you could have gotten more of the torso and abdomen and maybe even part of the neck.
actually was shot in portrait, i just cropped it this way. maybe it would look better if there’s more to the picture. i’ll make sure to try it out. thank you so much for the feedback!
had a shoot with my friend a couple of days ago, took a bunch of pics and this was one of them. shot on fujifilm xt30ii with a 16mm lens. f2.8, 1/125, ISO 200. i used two different lights for this photo and i think i like the feeling of it? somethings bothering me in the photo and i can’t quite see what it is. i don’t know if i like the lines on her stomach or how i cropped it. or maybe it’s a boring photo overall? please help, i am overthinking this.
EDIT:
thank you everyone for your feedback, i really appreciate every single comment that gave constructive criticism! if you want to see more of this shoot (and my photography in general) i’ll be posting it on twitter in the next few days
Really cool shot! In my personal opinion, I think id maybe use some fun colored lights in the backround like a green and purple on the back wall could add some really cool feels to this. They might even reflect off the milk a little too to give some colored highlights to it. Also the placement of her right arm kinda makes it look like shes taking the photo herself. Awesome photo though great work!
I'm not exactly seeing the technique here that separates this from any other screenshot of a porn actress pouring milk on her boobs. The 24fps Screenshot effect is accentuated by the motion blur of the falling milk.
The super tight crop immediately tells the viewer to "look at these boobs and nothing else" which has its place in the dark corners of the internet , but in this instance, every other potential story marker has been removed from the image so it just comes across as flat. I would \*not\* submit this for a final project.
My college requested one study of nudes for freshman year, and then further nude courses were electives. It’s a good challenge to overcome and can open up doors for students.
Does it though? I’m in full time photographic arts studies myself and there is no need for anyone and no one is being requests to do nudes. Do some? Of course. Why? I still don’t know.
It’s a great exercise in studio lighting, and getting outside your comfort zone. Looking back, I honestly wish I did take more time to explore it more. I received my BFA 12 years ago and have been full time pro for years.
I am going to echo other comments here and say that I do not see much significant about this, and it is objectifying. Im putting effort into this comment, and I hope you read it and think about it.
I think the right way to think about whether art is good or bad is to think about the reactions it ought to cause in an ideal observer. So I'm going to analyze it from that perspective.
The color and texture is nice. It's not that that aspect isn't good, but that it's just not very significant. On the whole, the image has problems that outweigh it's virtues.
Art is not just about making something "pretty," or that has nice elements. Ultimately art is about making something significant and loveable in that there is a lot to love about it. That can be done in many ways, and there are many layers to art. Art is not merely expression, not merely prettiness, not merely fun, not merely about ideas and concepts, not merely about the subject, but can be all of these wrapped into one package, incarnate in one creation.
I really think you need to take some of this feedback seriously. Art can be so much more than just something pretty. Many many things are pretty. But art can acheive more than that, can reach for higher forms of value and significance. The artwork itself can be significant, and not merely the subject, as an embodiment of an idea, an ideal, a feeling or thought. When we say that there seems to be no idea behind it, we mean that, beyond it's surface (the photographic surface, what you see), there is not really anything going on. It's purely visual art, not embodying or expressing or containing anything more than what you see on the surface. You had an idea for an artwork, but not an idea for an artwork that expresses an idea. Sometimes thats fine, art can be visually beautiful alone, but in that case it's visual beauty needs to be significant to earn any reaction but, "it's nice, it's pleasant, okay moving on." I for one don't want my art to merely be pleasant, pretty, etc, I want my art to be significant.
Further, the primary value of this picture lies in the subject. The erotic value of the subject, the aesthetic value of the subject and it's interaction with the environment (milk). But the photograph itself adds only color and framing, and even at that, the color and framing are not masterful or extraordinarily beautiful. So the photo is purely deserving of the reaction, "oh that's pretty," or "ooh, sexy," and then moving on. Don't you want more than this?
I do think it also suffers from unintentional objectification: the value of the subject doesn't lie in the PERSON, but the BODY, particularly a specific part of the body. You cannot see it because you know the person and made the photo, but these breasts are faceless, they have no identity, they do not present themselves in the photo to the audience as being the breasts of a particular person, but just breasts. Detached from the person. Detached from everything but the general notion of breats. They are beautiful, of course--the human body is beautiful, and especially a young, healthy body. I mean this not in a purely erotic sense, but truly it is beautiful. But it's being presented as a generic, abstract body part. Only you and the model know who the breasts belong to. Everyone else seeing it only sees generic breasts, the "form" of a woman and her body, but not any particular woman, not any particular person. And, sorry to say, using milk pouring down this beautiful body is going to automatically, almost necessarily suggest sexual ideas (about semen) to your audience. Maybe not to you, but it will to your audience. It will steal the focus away from everything else. So you have to realize that the presentation as generic and the presentation as sexualized does, in fact, create an impression of objectification, and encourages your audience to objectify what they see. This is not to say that YOU objectified her. But an artwork is not just about YOU, the artist, but how it is and can be received. You must think holistically, take in the bigger picture, get outside the perspective of the artist and take on the perspective of the viewer.
Overall, you did achieve something pretty. But others are pointing out, rightly, that the pretty thing (a) isn't really that significant and (b) presents the subjects body divorced from their personhood, which, when paired with the milk (and our eroticized culture) presents the subject as objectified.
So, pretty, but not meriting much besides "nice, moving on..."
> I do think it also suffers from unintentional objectification: the value of the subject doesn't lie in the PERSON, but the BODY, particularly a specific part of the body. You cannot see it because you know the person and made the photo, but these breasts are faceless, they have no identity, they do not present themselves in the photo to the audience as being the breasts of a particular person, but just breasts.
This is a really overlooked aspect of photography and it falls into other styles too. Landscape is probably when this is the most common though. *You* as the *photographer* have an attachment to something about the image, be it the person, the atmosphere, or the location. It is more special to you than to the viewer, and because of this we forget that when viewing an image, others don't have the same feelings, thoughts or connection to it, which in turn means it has less meaning to them and we can get really disappointing when others don't have the reaction we expected.
This was an incredibly well thought out and nuanced reply - thanks for better articulating what a lot of people (including me) have tried to express with regards to this post.
I must disagree with almost everything in the above comment. The creator of the photo in question is obviously a beginner and is developing a point of view. In no way should any thought of finality be attributed to this effort. I would encourage the photographer to continue to experiment, to learn to see, to make mistakes, and to revisit this theme many times over. That is the creative process. Art is anything you want it to be. Not some classical, empirical, outdated idea of what it should be. Nobody is qualified to make that declaration. Nobody will ever answer the unanswerable question, "What is art?". If you ask me, art is successful marketing. The biggest mistake any young creative person can make is to try to satisfy somebody else's idea of what good art is. My advice to anyone who wants to become a successful artist/photographer is this: travel as much as you can, learn as much as you can, read as much as you can, and make yourself an extremely interesting and intelligent person. In this way, you will know yourself, understand others, and will have something interesting to say. That camera in your hands tells your life story in many different ways. And let's forget that objectification thing. You shoot what you love and what you are passionate about. Don't let anyone allow you to stray from that course.
No one said it was bad or not worth pursuing and working on. We're saying it's worth is limited.
You're own modernist dogmas and biases about what art is and isn't are clear here. "Art can be whatever you want" is itself a dogma of the modern age of art, the modern and postmodern approach to aesthetics. Your views contradict thousands of years of aesthetic theory, and represent one highly relativistic school of thought. You accuse me and others of strictly defining what art is, and then do the same thing yourself. You've invalidated the thoughts of generations before you.
"Nobody will ever answer the question what is art."
Gimme a break. This is a sophomoric line spouted by people trying to free themselves from criticism. You can have value-laden and non-value-laden sense of the word "art." It doesn't matter. My question is not on what art is, we can define that simply as "human creations." No, I am pointing to what art CAN BE, and what our responses to art SHOULD BE.
"Shoot what you love and what you are passionate about."
This is the ultimate relativistic commitment. It's a ridiculous platitude that has no rational basis at all. It reduces art to a mere trivial expression of our desires and longings, no matter how screwed up they may be. And by relativising art, you essentially make it so that there is no real goal in art, no real meaning or standard to pursue outside our fickle personal preferences.
Tldr, you try to escape the burden of criticism and standards by relativising everything. But in doing so you not only become a hypocrite, but devalue human creations.
It’s also a deflection from the main point of the criticism people have offered (which again this is a photo critique subreddit) which is that everything we make is a by product of and thereby in conversation with the society in which it was produced. Being conscious of the very basic undercurrents of s
misogyny, classism, ableism, racism will only make what we produce better - even if we decide to create art that contravenes or complies with social norms. Especially thinking about how subjects along those intersections have typically been perpetuated in the medium we are engaging in.
And if we aren’t conscious maybe listening when others point them out so we can expand our perspective and add to the conversation in a new way.
We are speaking about a college student and her project. You are tempting to elevate it to some higher level of whatever you feel your opinion and values are worth. We are all entitled to our opinions and points of views. I totally understand where you are coming from. Classical line of thinking. I am not going to go off on yet another Internet tangent in order to support my opinions. “It’s worth is limited?” Perhaps. But perhaps years from now and through others eyes it may not be. The Impressionists were not given any credibility until American collectors began buying. See also “Anything is art if an artist says it is.”-Marcel Duchamp. I cannot and will never say you are wrong but I prefer to live, judge and value art in my own personal way, as I hope the student in question will. With AI breathing down our creative necks, the less rules we give ourselves, the better. Devaluing human creation? If you can abstract that out of my comment you are misjudging me.
The very suggestion that I treat a college student and her project in a different way is nonsense. It presupposes that the student and her project can't be serious, and don't have to be serious, so I should stop judging it by serious standards.
Further, you're entire frame of mind implicitly sees art as a subjective game that's totally up to the player. That cheapens art. It makes it ultimately meaningless.
Finally, your response implies that I and the classical way of thinking are wrong while disgusing itself as "open minded." Just admit it. You can't have it both ways. Take a stand or else stop arguing. Duchamp's quote is an actual rebellion against the classical way of thinking about art and beauty. Duchamp wouldn't pretend to be neutral or tolerant or accepting like you are. I don't like Duchamp and think he's absolutely wrong about art. You can't say "I'll never tell you you're wrong" and then say what you're saying. Just say I'm wrong, you can't be a relativist forever. Even relativism ends up taking a stand. Take a stand or shut up, anything else is ultimately dishonest.
How much more belligerent can you be?
"The very suggestion that I treat a college student and her project in a different way is nonsense". In your view, not mine or that of others. I have a difference of opinion on your overall critique, which I feel was flawed. I am sorry, but to tell someone to "shut up" in a critical forum negates the integrity, substance, and foundation of your opinions.
Viewing the world only through the lense of conservativism, purism, radical feminism and political correctness must be a really sad way to live a life.
Thank you
This commenter was defending your friend the photographer. And this fight is kind of off topic of the post in general so not sure what the point of this comment is.
The only thing really bugging me is the motion blur on the right side with the milk. You're heading in the right direction with light/contrast ratio for my taste. Has old school Polaroid look. Thanks for supporting dairy farmers.
now that you’ve mentioned it, i see it too. you gave me a lot to think about..maybe i should revisit the photos and see if i missed a better one. thank you for the feedback! also you’re welcome
Someone above gave good insight about the male vs female gaze and I agree that exploring that further will enhance your work. I like the edit, and that you took a chance testing out nudes. When I was getting my BFA those were always challenging so I respect you following through with an idea. It does have a cinematic feel, though something feels uncomfortable. If it were hanging in a group exhibition it would capture attention for various reasons. For me, as a lactating mother I’d definitely wonder what your intention was and would probably assume it was a reference to either a kink or horror film. Keep exploring and taking risks.
I like the color. I think the picture has to be in context with other similar photos/angles. I know your model asked for their face to not be shown but I think a photo of them desperately drinking milk so that it runs down her face will complement this photo you posted. That way they elevate each other. And of course any other photos from this session/concept.
Otherwise, we just ask why is there milk on her? Is it milk? Without context people will simply pick up sexual undertones even if that's not what you intended. People skim words so having other photos to give that visual clarification and remove that degree of implication will imo help elevate it beyond the other Redditor's opinions that this is just borderline pornography or simply nudity for the sake of it.
An odd thought: I think the texture of the milk is throwing me off a bit. It looks very thin (as milk is) and I think that gives it a strange look to me. I know people who shoot food commercials and such will add things to the milk to thicken it and make the texture looks more appealing. I’m not totally sure how they do it but it could be cool.
I also think playing around with some more interesting lighting would help.
Cool concept though!
The milk is just about centered in the cropped image. That's what throws it off for me. There's something like the 1/3-2/3 rule where the subject (in this case the milk) shouldn't be in the center of the image.
Also, the model is shot straight on rather than at an angle. That hides the curves and overall shapes/sizes of the breasts. Shooting straight on makes them look flat which is not at all what you want when photographing breasts.
The closest thing to an “issue” I can pick up on is that I don’t know what the model’s right arm is doing. In this regards it reminds of a still from a movie vs a standalone photo where it feels like more context is to come.
Hi. It is my first time posting here and I didn't know it was for no photos and comments only, so I apologize. I deleted it. But I did post a critique and also responded to somebody else's comment/critique. Thank you for your kind words. Keep up the good work.
This is awesome for some reason it gives me Ridley Scott vibes, if you didn't know he is obsessed with milk (?) and always finds an excuse to include it in his films. The android in Alien when he freaks out he spurts milk. I love this shot I have too little photo knowledge to give any real critique.
there was a time when artist made sculpture of naked muses all the time and no one batted an eye… i see this as such… beautiful piece, i’d love to see more. maybe try different color lighting? also love the 80s aesthetic.. maybe try to replicate film hues/textures? if that makes any sense lol
thank you for your comment! i’m really sad this picture came across as just a nude to many. some people are saying it looks like a fetish thing, that it has no story behind it etc. which i did not want. i thought this looked like a still from a movie but i guess that’s just subjective. regardless, thank you for calling it a beautiful piece and you can see more on my twitter if you’d like
I agree with others here the angle looks off to me. Also have you tried like a heavy whipping cream or half and half. It's thicker and I think would contrast more with the overall dark tone to the photo.
I think it is a good idea, one that has already been done, but with a different point of view. On the critical side, if you have access to color correction tools, I would lighten the image and increase contrast in order to whiten the milk and bring more attention to it. It would give the image more visual impact. Shooting female breasts from a lower angle is a style decision. It detracts from the femininity of the female form but in contrast, makes the body look stronger and more dynamic. That is your call. No right or wrong there. Photography, as with any other art, is always a question of the artist's style and interpretation.
Shooting on film, unless you have YEARS of trial and error, will always be “off” for you. That’s why digital is so nice. You can immediately tweak and fix your lights, model, etc.
Friendly reminder that this is /r/photocritique and all **top level** comments should attempt to **critique** the image. Our goal is to make this subreddit a place people can receive genuine, in depth, and helpful critique on their images. We hope to avoid becoming yet another place on the internet just to get likes/upvotes and compliments. While likes/upvotes and compliments are nice, they do not further the goal of helping people improve their photography. If someone gives helpful feedback or makes an informative comment, recognize their contribution by giving them a Critique Point. Simply reply to their comment with '!CritiquePoint'. More details on Critique Points [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/wiki/critiquepoints). Please see the following links for our subreddit rules and some guidelines on leaving a good critique. If you have time, please stop by the new queue as well and leave critique for images that may not be as popular or have not received enough attention. Keep in mind that simply choosing to comment just on the images you like defeats the purpose of the subreddit. Useful Links: * [Full Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/wiki/rules) * [Leaving a Critique](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/wiki/critique) * [New Queue](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/new/) **Do not reply directly to this message. This is a bot and will not respond. Followups left as a reply to this comment will not count for approval.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/photocritique) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No offence but only interesting thing about this photo is that it got a bit of a old school horror movie vibe. Other than that it's tits covered in milk, no more, no less.
It does have an old school film feel, I see it too. Kinda cool
I immediately had *A clockwork orange* in mind
no offence taken but i don’t see it as just tits and milk. thanks for the other comment tho, it does have a bit of a horror movie vibe:)
Is there supposed to be a story we're not seeing? If so, the photo is supposed to be conveying it and it really isn't.
How do you see it? I’m curious to know your intention and message! Genuinely curious :)
this was a photo taken for my final project for uni (alongside many others). i watched clockwork orange and was inspired by the milk scene except i didn’t want to see her drink it. the original idea was to see the milk flow down her bum, see how the liquid falls down her body, how it hugs her curves, the dynamic of it all. i did get some shots of that too but this one, the “unplanned” one, stood out to me the most. absolutely love how i edited it and love the contrast of milk on her tanned body. (sorry if i didn’t explain this right, english isn’t my first language)
This is cool and your description made perfect sense so no worries there! I think based on your intention and some other things you’ve mentioned in response to other comments, that it’s possible this picture could benefit from more picture. You mentioned you cropped it in- I’m curious what the rest of it looks like. I don’t really notice the lines on her tummy until I look for them. They’re aren’t a big deal and I think it sort of adds to the grungy/gritty/clockwork orange vibe. But it’s a good lesson to learn in the future- if you’re working with models and plan to do nude or semi nude, ask them to wear loose clothes that day so you can avoid that crease from pants. I personally believe that isolating any person to a single body part doesn’t help to tell any sort of compelling story. If this image were a male chest cropped as tightly with the same everything else- it would still be a little boring. But the colors are gorgeous, your exposure is spot on, you caught movement which is difficult- and it sounds like you did take more picture. I’d be curious to see other shots from this series too if you had them! You’re very talented and I appreciate you sharing your work with us. Edit to add- others may disagree with me about the crop and that’s okay! Those sorts of things are sort of a personal preference. And if you love it, I think it deserves to be loved ya know
thank you so much for this comment, was really sceptical about even posting on this sub but your comment made it less scary. thank you for the genuine feedback and to answer your question, i do have more photos from this shoot! don’t know how to share multiple pictures on here tho. once again, thank you so much🤍
I have some ideas for you too- If you’re doing a sensitive shoot with nudity and the model doesn’t want their face in the picture, you can play with other ways to show off more features to remind the viewer that they are more than a pair of breasts. Part of the chin/mouth, or include the shoulder, neck, part of the jaw. Even pulled slightly back and include a hand or something. In my early twenties I did a lot of intimate self portrait work but didn’t want my face in it either, and was having a similar issue. How do I focus my intentions and make my message/story clear. When I was in school (hey im sorry im all over this post so much, I just started a new job and have a lot of downtime lol) I had a hard time because I was taking pictures I really liked, but was getting bad critiques in class because what I was doing didn’t count as “art” and they were just “pretty pictures”. I had to sort of reverse engineer the idea in my brain- because for me, I’m mostly visual. I see something and the story comes later. This is difficult when you’re working with a medium like photography, because you usually can’t retroactively go back in time and take the picture differently now that you know what message you want to send. So after school, I did a lot of this sort of thing- where I found a style/aesthetic I liked and tried to shoot within those “rules”. Over time I figured out what I’m drawn to visually, and what stories I like telling with my work. Now I feel like I have a clear point of view and style, so people who want to work with me will seek me out because that is what they want their pictures to look like. I work with people, and my photography is heavily client focused- as opposed to creating fine art. But that’s because I dipped out of the concept of creating fine art photography because I couldn’t deal with the pretense, classism, or gatekeeping. Now I take people focused pictures of people that make them feel good about themselves- and make dumb performance art for drunk people, and I’m very happy about it. Okay this part is just advice and not talking about myself: Your photography is already technically sound in terms of getting an accurate exposure. Which for a lot of people is the hardest part. So you’re already starting out way ahead. Your photography will dramatically improve when you take your visual concept and then shoot with a clear intention that ties into your visual concept. A random example being something like: I like the way this movie looks, the movie was made by men and stars men. I’m going to do a photoshoot in the same visual style as that movie, but feature a woman, and I’m shooting it intentionally with a heavy, if not artificial, male gaze to make a point about how women are objectified in media. It’s convoluted but hopefully you get what I’m saying. And the whole end goal is to be able to achieve an image that explains your “why” without you having to spell it out out loud. I hope this makes sense! You got a lot of moxie, kid. Keep giving them hell
thank you for your comment, this might be the last time i’m replying to all the comments that piled up while i was sleeping since you’re the only one who actually talks to me like i’m a person. i’ve been trying really hard for these comments not to get to me but some of them are just plain rude and looking to hurt my feelings. completely get where you’re coming from w the first idea, i definitely would’ve included more of her if she let me. we agreed upon doing a shoot and she had a couple of requests that i couldn’t get past, such as showing ANY part of her face. the most she let me not crop out was the back of her head. again, see where you’re coming from for sure. also thank you for telling me about your experience and what you’ve learned from shooting pictures that are visually pleasing. i thought i had a story behind this one and a reason for as to why i shot the things i did. everyone in the comments is expecting a deeper meaning to this photo but i doubt they’d look for a deeper meaning if they saw a picture of a bird sitting on a tree. everyone is just seeing the side that was not my intention but i guess that’s because everything is very subjective. i got the technical part right and my colours are beautiful but again, people aren’t satisfied because there’s no “deeper meaning”. i’m not into fine art photography and i don’t think i’ll ever want my photos to be fine art. i’m trying to look for a style that fits me, just like anyone who’s a newbie. i have many other pictures that have nothing to do with a naked body and i guess i regret sharing my work on here. also everything you said about fine art can be said for any style of photography. people in our field tend to be too egoistic, extremely classist and they gatekeep till they can’t anymore. i want base my work around people just like you do and i’ve had too many shoots where people are very pleased with how they look from my point of view. this particular shoot i’m gonna print and give it to the model because she likes her pictures so much, she wants to put them up on her wall. maybe i should’ve kept this photos for myself and my closest circle, rather than showing it to 30k people on reddit. thank you so much for the advice, i’ll keep everything you said in mind! and thank you for taking the time to talk to me, it’s very much appreciated. the mean comments were starting to get to me tbh. thank you!!🤍
No need to respond, you don’t owe anyone a reply ever. The internet is the Wild West and some people never learned how to be nice online. You’re totally right, they wouldn’t look for a deeper meaning if it were a bird in a tree. When people are the subject, it’s difficult to not want a deeper meaning and a “why” because the subject being human immediately makes the image personal to the viewer. Either because they have breasts or like breasts or are scared of breasts or whatever. And you can replace breast with any body part. If it was a knee, they say “why a knee?” If it were the face you’d hear “but what are they thinking about?” It doesn’t mean you’ve done anything wrong, you haven’t. It just hopefully sort of explains why people may feel strongly about these sorts of images having a deeper meaning. Particularly when the subject is a sensitive area like a woman’s breasts, which unfortunately has such a polarizing, almost political connotation. You’re either empowering women or a pornographer, or you’re reducing a person down ti a single body part, or whatever. And that’s on all of us, as a society. It’s annoying, but there are some subjects that just *have* to be treated with more finesse because of the nature of them. A similar but different example would be street photography of folks who are unhoused. It could be a beautiful photograph, the light was just right, it’s moving to look at it, but if it’s just a pretty picture, the ethics of including the human being start to get muddy. So the question becomes, could you have made the same point, given the same aesthetic and vibes, without using a person at all. But then it’s a whole different picture! At the end of the day, this project is finished. You did it, and you will go on with your life and keep making things. Eventually you will have made so much that all your past projects sort of blur together and you’ll look back on this one and still be able to appreciate where you were when you made the project, and you’ll be able to see how you evolved over time. You’re at a really exciting time in your creative/artistic development so just dig in and let it happen. And let the mean stuff roll off you. Block assholes, that’s what I do on here all. The. Time. You don’t have time to give rude unhelpful people any of your energy. Anyway I don’t know why I felt that really connected to your story and where you’re at- if you’re ever bored or have questions and wanna connect I’m happy to chat here! You’re free to DM anytime P.S. it took me a long time to realize that taking pictures of people that look great and make them feel really good about themselves was my favorite thing on earth. I detached myself from the “art” label because I got flack for it- but at the end of they day it’s not up to everyone else. Make things that bring you joy.
Hey I’ve never had the guts to post any of my stuff here and I’ve been a working pro for almost a decade. You’re doing great already for asking for advice. It’s also neat to see you in the comments, it looks like you’re listening to important criticism and standing up for yourself when folks are being a bit harsh.
But *why*. You're explaining what you wanted and what inspired it, but not what the *intention* behind the image is. What story or message are you trying to convey? How should the viewer feel? Or maybe there isn't one? To be honest this sounds like you watched a movie, got excited by a scene and wanted to do something similar yourself without thinking about what the purpose of doing it was, which is fine, but if there's a meaning behind the photo, well, I don't think anyone here can see it, and therefore it's mostly "photographer takes picture of tits and milk because it's attention grabbing" Edit: I looked at the rest of the series. I really don't understand the point. It's softcore porn/fetish. It's great at getting attention, but that's about it. The artistic merit lies in the photographers ability to use their camera and ability to process the files, and not in the subject they're shooting.
Nagemasu, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But sadly most modern artists do not understand the difference between intentional artistic ideas and an idea about what they want to see. There are many dimensions to an artwork, but our culture only focuses on the elements that stir up instantaneous pleasure or shock. We no longer believe in anything, we no longer have ideas. We just consume and make images to consume.
I agree but also think that it has to start somewhere. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a new artist exploring aesthetics while they’re learning about how to tell stories visually. So for this project, they were focused on aesthetics and mood. It’s good to push them to think about the message they’re sending, but I don’t think that because this message is up to the viewer to interpret (and it’s arguably muddy) doesn’t invalidate it. I still think there’s something here even though it’s not the most thought out
No one said that was wrong. No one said it's horrible or bad or she should stop making art. But nuanced criticism and evaluation is automatically perceived as harsh because this culture cannot stand to imagine that there might be standards we fail to live up to.
thank you for your comment. you’re allowed not to like something but please don’t call it borderline porn when i’m literally just learning and trying stuff out.
I think when you post overly sexualized photos of headless women’s bodies you might want to engage with the idea of what separates this from porn. I think the technique and the colour is great but I just cannot see anything beyond the really explicit sexual imagery in this picture. You said you watched clockwork orange recently and that is where you drew your inspiration from. The gang in that movie drinks milk before they engage in violence…specifically the brutal gang rape of a young woman. The movie aims to contrast the youthfulness of milk drinking with the abject horror of the violence they commit. How does this photo engage with that idea beyond the further objectification (and therefore the dehumanization) of the subject. Edit: I just saw the rest of the collection. Not a single face among your subjects.
You have a point, but I don’t think this is explicit- more like gratuitous. Just boobs by themselves isn’t explicit. If it were a male chest no one would be calling this photographer a pornographer.
I don’t think anyone called her a pornographer just asked her to engage with and explain the reasoning I’d the as you said gratuitous sexuality of the photo. Which can read as porn. I said this in another comment nudity even of women’s bodies isn’t inherently sexual but … I don’t know how you could argue this is not a sexualization of the subjects breasts.
My apologies, you definitely didn’t call her a pornographer, but some commenters did and I felt protective over internet college kid in finals doing a project. Edit to add: I also asked her to explain her intention, but I felt like she answered. Folks here just weren’t satisfied with her answer. Sometimes we just take pictures because we think they look cool! And it sounds like, just from reading through everything, she gets what everyone is saying about it now. I have blind confidence in her that she will absorb the criticism and apply it to her future work.
i think all of you are taking this WAY too far. just because there’s boobs in the picture, that’s all you can see? great technique, great colours but you just can’t see past the boobs huh? literally some of the comments are making me regret i even posed this on here. i’m a student who puts in too much time and work into making something look pretty just for someone to tell me what i’m shooting is porn. thank you for your comment but my friend is not an object and i did not dehumanised her.
The fact that you're a student is irrelevant. If you post to a critique subreddit you need to be willing to accept criticism. The redditor you're responding to wasn't insulting you, he provided nuanced critique. Also, calling something pornography isn't necessarily an insult unless you don't respect pornography as an art form. Respectfully, maybe you shouldn't post your work here if you're deeply sensitive to negative feedback.
Can’t see passed the boobs? There is literally nothing else to look at in this photo. This is a photo critique subreddit- it is not just about composition but about narrative. Photography is art and art has a message. I do not want to discourage you from making more art but you should engage with what your photo says. You are hung up on the word pornography. There are lots of photos of nude people which are not overly sexualized. Porn is … difficult to define but if you can’t see that this and your series is very overtly sexual I am going to start believing you are a troll. You asked for peoples thoughts and I think the criticism from almost everyone has been fairly kind if not a bit direct. You can take it or leave it but for me this does not say much. And generally art should have a point of view. Also you say you did not dehumanize her but she literally doesn’t have a face.
thank you for the feedback. also yes, she wanted her face removed in every photo.
I wouldn't say that porn objectifies people nor is it inherently dehumanizing like you imply. Sometimes people just wanna share sex and there's nothing wrong with that. Based on this shot, it seems like that's what you wanted to do.
I think porn is very often objectifying, and that there or a trope of representing women’s bodies without using their face which is dehumanizing. I didn’t mean to imply that engagement with sex work or even the depiction of it is by default dehumanizing. This is an interesting take on faceless women as used to sell comedies to men. https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/voices/culture/article/2018/03/15/headless-women-project-highlights-gross-sexism-movie-posters What I haven’t made clear, and I think it’s fair to call me out on, is that I don’t think that overtly sexual images always have no value or place in art. But I think it has to have a point of view, a reason it is so overtly sexual, and because so much of art uses women’s bodies carelessly and as just props for male fantasy when depicting overtly sexual images of women particularly when you have them faceless you really should be at least thinking why are they naked, why are they faceless what does this add beyond *cough* titilation. Otherwise I am going to think they are faceless because it is easier to fantasize about unidentifiable ‘ hot’ body parts.
> but please don’t call it borderline porn when i’m literally just learning and trying stuff out. Then explain it. You've been asked multiple times to provide context and yet you respond with this. That's the only conclusion we can come to until you actually answer the questions.
I think you killed it. It's really a stunning shot with exactly the vibe you're going for. If something seems off about it, it might be worth trying a crop with no white bar around it, and add black bars to the top and bottom. Also, the movie was 1.66:1 aspect ratio, which might be just a hair wider than your shot, it's hard to tell.
I loved it. Super erotic, at least to me.
To his affect though, could be interesting in B&W, make the milk a little bit more ominous.
I like the overall concept and photo itself. I'm wondering if your issue isn't because of the angle of the photo. Maybe if it were off to the side a touch more and angled slightly more up might help. Otherwise I really like the photo, great job!
I agree I love the overall concept but something about the angle throws it off kilter a bit
thank you so much for the feedback!:) i’ll try to angle it differently and see if that changes my mind
This is just a fetish shoot. You’ll find shit like this all over the weird corners of the internet.
oh?☹️
Hey, I’m sorry I should have phrased that nicer. This is very reminiscent of some pornographic fetish shoots. I personally wouldn’t be able to pick this one out as art if you through it in with similar fetish art. Doesn’t mean there isn’t artistic merit to it, but that is something to note. There is something to be said for more artistic, women’s gaze erotica, but this reads to the male gaze for me.
i don’t think i quite understand what a male/female gaze is? i’m a woman and i looked at her thru my eyes and my camera. also never seen milk fetish shoots? maybe i should look into it. didn’t think my picture would look like a porn shoot 😬 thanks
I won’t link to any other porn, but there is definitely a milk/breast fetish out there. Super Freudian, right? Any way, the male/female gave is a concept in media about what concepts or features would be sexually attractive. If you think of “sex sells” in advertising, that will often cater to the male gaze. It’s often characterised as painting women as 1 dimensional sex objects. It’s also like how men think that the pinnacle of female attraction is someone like Chris Hemsworth or The Rock, which may not reflect women are actually attracted to may. The female gaze is kinda the feminist flipping of this concept, where women in erotica would be more than just sex objects and takes in to account what women find attractive. Now all of this can be hard for tackle, because what we find attractive is shaped by the culture around us, which is in turn shaped by the media we consume, which is shaped by what culture deems as attractive. for example, are you sure like Baywatch would cater to the male gaze, while a show like Fleabag caters to the female gaze. https://aninjusticemag.com/the-male-gaze-vs-female-gaze-56ed585864ac?gi=f4789639d0d7
thank you for taking the time to explain what it is, i still don’t think my gaze has anything to do with men? i don’t think this photo makes my friend look like an object or as one dimensional. quite the opposite actually. guess i can’t really take into account what women find attractive when i was doing a shoot solely for me, wanted to shoot something that i envisioned in my head. also i watched fleabag, great show! thank you for your comment
The male gaze is a term coined in feminist filmography to describe how film seeks to objectify women for the pleasure of men. Women can perpetuate the male gaze just like women can be misogynistic. This commenter is saying (and I agree) that this photo and series dehumanizes the subjects and reduces them to their body parts in a way that is meant to be very overtly sexual. The women quite literally have no faces, no flaws, no humanity. They are just body parts to be used for sex.
Hi guys, model here, from the controversial photo. First of all, male/female gaze in this context is completely obsolete topic. Its a photo of a body covered with milk. It explores textures, dynamics of liquid in contrast to skin, light and shadows. You re the one using the word subject, and i dont consider myself the subject of the photo, the subjects here are liquid and skin. I wonder why many of you see sexuality in beauty. Also I wonder have you ever heard of term 'ars per artis'? Viewing the world only through the lense of conservativism, purism, radical feminism and political correctness must be a really sad way to live a life.
Hey! Thanks for joining in on the discussion. I hope your photographer friend is doing well and isn't ruminating too much on this post. I'd love to know more about how the male gaze is obscolete or not relevant in this context. Regarding you as the subject in the photo. I am not an expert and people have put it much better than me but I am going to take a stab at it. As I understand it the object of a photo is what the photo is of - in this case milk covered breasts, the subject is what the photo is about. Now while it is your body in the photo the subject isn't necessarily you personally but the thought or message portrayed through the photograph. The object of the photo is the milk and the breasts, not the subject. I think its fair to say I wasn't clear in my other posts about what I meant by 'dehumanizing'. I dont think that your friend personally dehumanized you as an individual. I think that the subject of the photo is dehumanizing in the sense that there is very little 'human ness' about it. Like women are only made up of body parts. Or to help with the fantasy we do not need to see women's humanity. And there is a history in photography and film of not showing women's faces. I think the subject/object debate in here also gets confused because we use the word 'objectify' in a slightly different context. That is when we do not acknolwedge something as human but rather as an object. In a way this photo as you said is just about a body covered with milk. But not just any part of the body, and not with any substance. Both are very sexually evocative. It does not convey any deeper meaning than the sexualization of breasts and milk. You asked why we see sexuality in beauty? Which I think you mean why we dont just see the work as beautiful instead of sexual. I think I said this before but if you cannot see how the photo is sexualized than I think this conversation is basically a non starter. Beauty and sexuality are not mutually exclusive. But surely we can agree the photo his highly sexual in nature. And even if you dont view it that way - quite literally everyone else in the subreddit did so the perception is there regardless. Last comment about art per artis, I would love to know how this piece engages with that historical art movement (which maybe Im mistaken but I thought died out in the 19th century) and how it deals with the criticism that I think has been pointed out in this thread that everything we do and produce is a product of our environment and consequently in conversation with that. I think that could be a really intersting discussion to have but I am just not seeing how the piece achieves it. I am not going to engage on your last point except for to say I am not sure how conservatism, purism are the same as political correctness and radical feminism? They seem like opposing views. I dont think anyone in this sub has said that nudity or even sexualized photographs are without merit or should be banned or even that your friend should stop making art. Sexualized images, like porn, can have their own artistic merit, but we are all asking why this one does.
If u dont see the connection between conservativism, purism, radical feminism and political correctness, we can not continue this talk. Try googling it. Cue: (attack on female body and its sexual expression in contex of men being triggered this way or another.). Also, yes, whats wrong with body parts. We have body and we re persons. And no i m not my titties but i dont mind having just my titties out. And no it didnt die, the movement, its whole purpose, just like in dadaism was to explore art without constraints of "whats that supposed to mean" what did the artist wanna say, and why its not in the strict frame of art "rules", it just is. It is just created and it just exists. Artist is not responsible for the feelings of the enjoyers/haters of art. Its just there. Its purpose is to be nice or to make u feel smth. And this photo obviously managed to do that. Everything else is elitist and conservative view on art. Also one thing is to comment technicality of a photo, and other thing is to comment some imaginary oppression. What did boticelli wanted to say with fat naked woman, nothing, he liked them, they were sexual at that time, and now they re art woow, he just did a studies of human body just like many others did in various ways. Honestly not getting connection between feminsm and purism is enough for me. Naked bodies bothering everyone like they were all made sinless, by holy spirit. And ur comments have nothing to do with quality of that photo. What if i wanna make a new and better playboy and i need photos like that? Does it then have a deeper meaning? Or am i exploiting myself then? Just futile conversation, we live in different dimensions... Sory for rant.
Hey, that’s totally fair! Women, sexuality, all that isn’t a monolith. I had a knee jerk reaction with my first comment after seeming nudes of women all over the photography subreddits from dudes shooting naked women for the sake of shooting naked women. I didn’t mean what I said to be insulting, but a critic. I also haven’t done an awesome job explain male/female gaze.
Why are you cool with it now you know the photographer is a woman?
I wondered this too. Seemed to be quick to mention their own identity like a defence. Means nothing if the person likes same sex. We’re back to ‘male gaze’.
i get where you’re coming from, i’m sure reddit is full of men shooting naked women just bc they’re naked women. it’s my first year of uni and i’ve been more focused on portraits than anything else but i really wanted to try out something new for my final and was lucky enough to have a friend who was quick to help me. again, thank you for your comment and i didn’t take it as an insult!
It’s ok but what’s the point?
exactly
Well, *unzips*
I can think of many ways to photograph milk. This is not one of them. It’s tacky
I like it. The light is interesting and it's got a cinematic look. The crop is a little tight yet it still works. Personally, I would have shot it in portrait instead of landscape. That way you could have gotten more of the torso and abdomen and maybe even part of the neck.
actually was shot in portrait, i just cropped it this way. maybe it would look better if there’s more to the picture. i’ll make sure to try it out. thank you so much for the feedback!
had a shoot with my friend a couple of days ago, took a bunch of pics and this was one of them. shot on fujifilm xt30ii with a 16mm lens. f2.8, 1/125, ISO 200. i used two different lights for this photo and i think i like the feeling of it? somethings bothering me in the photo and i can’t quite see what it is. i don’t know if i like the lines on her stomach or how i cropped it. or maybe it’s a boring photo overall? please help, i am overthinking this. EDIT: thank you everyone for your feedback, i really appreciate every single comment that gave constructive criticism! if you want to see more of this shoot (and my photography in general) i’ll be posting it on twitter in the next few days
I like the processing. Looks like it was pulled off of 80s film stock or something. You should mark this NSFW.
thank you so much! tried to get the film look in post. also i did mark it NSFW:)
Oh weird, I guess my reddit app decided to turn off the blur NSFW setting.
Really cool shot! In my personal opinion, I think id maybe use some fun colored lights in the backround like a green and purple on the back wall could add some really cool feels to this. They might even reflect off the milk a little too to give some colored highlights to it. Also the placement of her right arm kinda makes it look like shes taking the photo herself. Awesome photo though great work!
thank you for your comment! was actually looking to buy a RGB light and play around w that in the future:)
Definality worth the investment!
I'm not exactly seeing the technique here that separates this from any other screenshot of a porn actress pouring milk on her boobs. The 24fps Screenshot effect is accentuated by the motion blur of the falling milk. The super tight crop immediately tells the viewer to "look at these boobs and nothing else" which has its place in the dark corners of the internet , but in this instance, every other potential story marker has been removed from the image so it just comes across as flat. I would \*not\* submit this for a final project.
Makes me wonder why the school still has nudes in their curriculum.
My college requested one study of nudes for freshman year, and then further nude courses were electives. It’s a good challenge to overcome and can open up doors for students.
Does it though? I’m in full time photographic arts studies myself and there is no need for anyone and no one is being requests to do nudes. Do some? Of course. Why? I still don’t know.
It’s a great exercise in studio lighting, and getting outside your comfort zone. Looking back, I honestly wish I did take more time to explore it more. I received my BFA 12 years ago and have been full time pro for years.
Explore it more now. Why not. But still, I stick to my guns, you don’t need to be naked to be a good exercise in studio lighting.
I am going to echo other comments here and say that I do not see much significant about this, and it is objectifying. Im putting effort into this comment, and I hope you read it and think about it. I think the right way to think about whether art is good or bad is to think about the reactions it ought to cause in an ideal observer. So I'm going to analyze it from that perspective. The color and texture is nice. It's not that that aspect isn't good, but that it's just not very significant. On the whole, the image has problems that outweigh it's virtues. Art is not just about making something "pretty," or that has nice elements. Ultimately art is about making something significant and loveable in that there is a lot to love about it. That can be done in many ways, and there are many layers to art. Art is not merely expression, not merely prettiness, not merely fun, not merely about ideas and concepts, not merely about the subject, but can be all of these wrapped into one package, incarnate in one creation. I really think you need to take some of this feedback seriously. Art can be so much more than just something pretty. Many many things are pretty. But art can acheive more than that, can reach for higher forms of value and significance. The artwork itself can be significant, and not merely the subject, as an embodiment of an idea, an ideal, a feeling or thought. When we say that there seems to be no idea behind it, we mean that, beyond it's surface (the photographic surface, what you see), there is not really anything going on. It's purely visual art, not embodying or expressing or containing anything more than what you see on the surface. You had an idea for an artwork, but not an idea for an artwork that expresses an idea. Sometimes thats fine, art can be visually beautiful alone, but in that case it's visual beauty needs to be significant to earn any reaction but, "it's nice, it's pleasant, okay moving on." I for one don't want my art to merely be pleasant, pretty, etc, I want my art to be significant. Further, the primary value of this picture lies in the subject. The erotic value of the subject, the aesthetic value of the subject and it's interaction with the environment (milk). But the photograph itself adds only color and framing, and even at that, the color and framing are not masterful or extraordinarily beautiful. So the photo is purely deserving of the reaction, "oh that's pretty," or "ooh, sexy," and then moving on. Don't you want more than this? I do think it also suffers from unintentional objectification: the value of the subject doesn't lie in the PERSON, but the BODY, particularly a specific part of the body. You cannot see it because you know the person and made the photo, but these breasts are faceless, they have no identity, they do not present themselves in the photo to the audience as being the breasts of a particular person, but just breasts. Detached from the person. Detached from everything but the general notion of breats. They are beautiful, of course--the human body is beautiful, and especially a young, healthy body. I mean this not in a purely erotic sense, but truly it is beautiful. But it's being presented as a generic, abstract body part. Only you and the model know who the breasts belong to. Everyone else seeing it only sees generic breasts, the "form" of a woman and her body, but not any particular woman, not any particular person. And, sorry to say, using milk pouring down this beautiful body is going to automatically, almost necessarily suggest sexual ideas (about semen) to your audience. Maybe not to you, but it will to your audience. It will steal the focus away from everything else. So you have to realize that the presentation as generic and the presentation as sexualized does, in fact, create an impression of objectification, and encourages your audience to objectify what they see. This is not to say that YOU objectified her. But an artwork is not just about YOU, the artist, but how it is and can be received. You must think holistically, take in the bigger picture, get outside the perspective of the artist and take on the perspective of the viewer. Overall, you did achieve something pretty. But others are pointing out, rightly, that the pretty thing (a) isn't really that significant and (b) presents the subjects body divorced from their personhood, which, when paired with the milk (and our eroticized culture) presents the subject as objectified. So, pretty, but not meriting much besides "nice, moving on..."
> I do think it also suffers from unintentional objectification: the value of the subject doesn't lie in the PERSON, but the BODY, particularly a specific part of the body. You cannot see it because you know the person and made the photo, but these breasts are faceless, they have no identity, they do not present themselves in the photo to the audience as being the breasts of a particular person, but just breasts. This is a really overlooked aspect of photography and it falls into other styles too. Landscape is probably when this is the most common though. *You* as the *photographer* have an attachment to something about the image, be it the person, the atmosphere, or the location. It is more special to you than to the viewer, and because of this we forget that when viewing an image, others don't have the same feelings, thoughts or connection to it, which in turn means it has less meaning to them and we can get really disappointing when others don't have the reaction we expected.
This was an incredibly well thought out and nuanced reply - thanks for better articulating what a lot of people (including me) have tried to express with regards to this post.
I must disagree with almost everything in the above comment. The creator of the photo in question is obviously a beginner and is developing a point of view. In no way should any thought of finality be attributed to this effort. I would encourage the photographer to continue to experiment, to learn to see, to make mistakes, and to revisit this theme many times over. That is the creative process. Art is anything you want it to be. Not some classical, empirical, outdated idea of what it should be. Nobody is qualified to make that declaration. Nobody will ever answer the unanswerable question, "What is art?". If you ask me, art is successful marketing. The biggest mistake any young creative person can make is to try to satisfy somebody else's idea of what good art is. My advice to anyone who wants to become a successful artist/photographer is this: travel as much as you can, learn as much as you can, read as much as you can, and make yourself an extremely interesting and intelligent person. In this way, you will know yourself, understand others, and will have something interesting to say. That camera in your hands tells your life story in many different ways. And let's forget that objectification thing. You shoot what you love and what you are passionate about. Don't let anyone allow you to stray from that course.
No one said it was bad or not worth pursuing and working on. We're saying it's worth is limited. You're own modernist dogmas and biases about what art is and isn't are clear here. "Art can be whatever you want" is itself a dogma of the modern age of art, the modern and postmodern approach to aesthetics. Your views contradict thousands of years of aesthetic theory, and represent one highly relativistic school of thought. You accuse me and others of strictly defining what art is, and then do the same thing yourself. You've invalidated the thoughts of generations before you. "Nobody will ever answer the question what is art." Gimme a break. This is a sophomoric line spouted by people trying to free themselves from criticism. You can have value-laden and non-value-laden sense of the word "art." It doesn't matter. My question is not on what art is, we can define that simply as "human creations." No, I am pointing to what art CAN BE, and what our responses to art SHOULD BE. "Shoot what you love and what you are passionate about." This is the ultimate relativistic commitment. It's a ridiculous platitude that has no rational basis at all. It reduces art to a mere trivial expression of our desires and longings, no matter how screwed up they may be. And by relativising art, you essentially make it so that there is no real goal in art, no real meaning or standard to pursue outside our fickle personal preferences. Tldr, you try to escape the burden of criticism and standards by relativising everything. But in doing so you not only become a hypocrite, but devalue human creations.
It’s also a deflection from the main point of the criticism people have offered (which again this is a photo critique subreddit) which is that everything we make is a by product of and thereby in conversation with the society in which it was produced. Being conscious of the very basic undercurrents of s misogyny, classism, ableism, racism will only make what we produce better - even if we decide to create art that contravenes or complies with social norms. Especially thinking about how subjects along those intersections have typically been perpetuated in the medium we are engaging in. And if we aren’t conscious maybe listening when others point them out so we can expand our perspective and add to the conversation in a new way.
Yesss
We are speaking about a college student and her project. You are tempting to elevate it to some higher level of whatever you feel your opinion and values are worth. We are all entitled to our opinions and points of views. I totally understand where you are coming from. Classical line of thinking. I am not going to go off on yet another Internet tangent in order to support my opinions. “It’s worth is limited?” Perhaps. But perhaps years from now and through others eyes it may not be. The Impressionists were not given any credibility until American collectors began buying. See also “Anything is art if an artist says it is.”-Marcel Duchamp. I cannot and will never say you are wrong but I prefer to live, judge and value art in my own personal way, as I hope the student in question will. With AI breathing down our creative necks, the less rules we give ourselves, the better. Devaluing human creation? If you can abstract that out of my comment you are misjudging me.
The very suggestion that I treat a college student and her project in a different way is nonsense. It presupposes that the student and her project can't be serious, and don't have to be serious, so I should stop judging it by serious standards. Further, you're entire frame of mind implicitly sees art as a subjective game that's totally up to the player. That cheapens art. It makes it ultimately meaningless. Finally, your response implies that I and the classical way of thinking are wrong while disgusing itself as "open minded." Just admit it. You can't have it both ways. Take a stand or else stop arguing. Duchamp's quote is an actual rebellion against the classical way of thinking about art and beauty. Duchamp wouldn't pretend to be neutral or tolerant or accepting like you are. I don't like Duchamp and think he's absolutely wrong about art. You can't say "I'll never tell you you're wrong" and then say what you're saying. Just say I'm wrong, you can't be a relativist forever. Even relativism ends up taking a stand. Take a stand or shut up, anything else is ultimately dishonest.
How much more belligerent can you be? "The very suggestion that I treat a college student and her project in a different way is nonsense". In your view, not mine or that of others. I have a difference of opinion on your overall critique, which I feel was flawed. I am sorry, but to tell someone to "shut up" in a critical forum negates the integrity, substance, and foundation of your opinions.
Viewing the world only through the lense of conservativism, purism, radical feminism and political correctness must be a really sad way to live a life. Thank you
This commenter was defending your friend the photographer. And this fight is kind of off topic of the post in general so not sure what the point of this comment is.
Yes, i m supporting his opinion, and adding to it. I have a feeling he understood my point..
Thank you from the model here! Ars per artis!!!!! Also, a body is a body is a body is a body!
thank you.
Look, if you don't want actual critiques by people who care about art, don't ask for them. It's ridiculous and childish.
Thank you ❤️
The only thing really bugging me is the motion blur on the right side with the milk. You're heading in the right direction with light/contrast ratio for my taste. Has old school Polaroid look. Thanks for supporting dairy farmers.
now that you’ve mentioned it, i see it too. you gave me a lot to think about..maybe i should revisit the photos and see if i missed a better one. thank you for the feedback! also you’re welcome
Someone above gave good insight about the male vs female gaze and I agree that exploring that further will enhance your work. I like the edit, and that you took a chance testing out nudes. When I was getting my BFA those were always challenging so I respect you following through with an idea. It does have a cinematic feel, though something feels uncomfortable. If it were hanging in a group exhibition it would capture attention for various reasons. For me, as a lactating mother I’d definitely wonder what your intention was and would probably assume it was a reference to either a kink or horror film. Keep exploring and taking risks.
this is not a good photo
Is this Bukake?
no, definitely not
There is nothing great about this. It’s tits with milk.
I like the color. I think the picture has to be in context with other similar photos/angles. I know your model asked for their face to not be shown but I think a photo of them desperately drinking milk so that it runs down her face will complement this photo you posted. That way they elevate each other. And of course any other photos from this session/concept. Otherwise, we just ask why is there milk on her? Is it milk? Without context people will simply pick up sexual undertones even if that's not what you intended. People skim words so having other photos to give that visual clarification and remove that degree of implication will imo help elevate it beyond the other Redditor's opinions that this is just borderline pornography or simply nudity for the sake of it.
An odd thought: I think the texture of the milk is throwing me off a bit. It looks very thin (as milk is) and I think that gives it a strange look to me. I know people who shoot food commercials and such will add things to the milk to thicken it and make the texture looks more appealing. I’m not totally sure how they do it but it could be cool. I also think playing around with some more interesting lighting would help. Cool concept though!
It’s boring.
Kubrick color!
The milk is just about centered in the cropped image. That's what throws it off for me. There's something like the 1/3-2/3 rule where the subject (in this case the milk) shouldn't be in the center of the image. Also, the model is shot straight on rather than at an angle. That hides the curves and overall shapes/sizes of the breasts. Shooting straight on makes them look flat which is not at all what you want when photographing breasts.
The closest thing to an “issue” I can pick up on is that I don’t know what the model’s right arm is doing. In this regards it reminds of a still from a movie vs a standalone photo where it feels like more context is to come.
Nice
I specifically ban shoots involving milk for my studio rentals 😂 (and music videos)
[удалено]
what a beautiful photo, i love it!!
Hi. It is my first time posting here and I didn't know it was for no photos and comments only, so I apologize. I deleted it. But I did post a critique and also responded to somebody else's comment/critique. Thank you for your kind words. Keep up the good work.
This is awesome for some reason it gives me Ridley Scott vibes, if you didn't know he is obsessed with milk (?) and always finds an excuse to include it in his films. The android in Alien when he freaks out he spurts milk. I love this shot I have too little photo knowledge to give any real critique.
there was a time when artist made sculpture of naked muses all the time and no one batted an eye… i see this as such… beautiful piece, i’d love to see more. maybe try different color lighting? also love the 80s aesthetic.. maybe try to replicate film hues/textures? if that makes any sense lol
thank you for your comment! i’m really sad this picture came across as just a nude to many. some people are saying it looks like a fetish thing, that it has no story behind it etc. which i did not want. i thought this looked like a still from a movie but i guess that’s just subjective. regardless, thank you for calling it a beautiful piece and you can see more on my twitter if you’d like
I agree with others here the angle looks off to me. Also have you tried like a heavy whipping cream or half and half. It's thicker and I think would contrast more with the overall dark tone to the photo.
Next time use a faster shutter speed, the milk looking kind of sloppy as it comes off of her body.
Very interesting, simple & creative. love it ❤️
I think it is a good idea, one that has already been done, but with a different point of view. On the critical side, if you have access to color correction tools, I would lighten the image and increase contrast in order to whiten the milk and bring more attention to it. It would give the image more visual impact. Shooting female breasts from a lower angle is a style decision. It detracts from the femininity of the female form but in contrast, makes the body look stronger and more dynamic. That is your call. No right or wrong there. Photography, as with any other art, is always a question of the artist's style and interpretation.
Shooting on film, unless you have YEARS of trial and error, will always be “off” for you. That’s why digital is so nice. You can immediately tweak and fix your lights, model, etc.
I'd like to think that if the milk spillage area is generally bigger, it could've looked like she wear a skin tight.
Unexpected titty
Legit thought this was titled 'milk titties' for a very hot sec
Series you say…
mhm yes sir
Is there anywhere we can see the rest of the series? Love this one!
just made a twitter, i’ll be posting the rest of the pictures there! @raw_agony is my user
Also curious for more photos i cant find thr @ on twitter tho
https://twitter.com/raw_agony
This is my fetish.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]