As some of you may know, I'm a bit of photographer in my spare time, and have photographed singles as well as couples for their own personal collections... and while talking with a couple the other night about a possible shoot with them, we discussed whether the photos should leave something to the imagination, or show everything.
Now, personally, I prefer photos that don't show all, as it adds an air of mystery to them, and captures your interest in the subject even more. They make you imagine what you can't see, just like reading a book rather than seeing the film.
I was just wondering what your thoughts are on the subject. Do you prefer the coy shots, where the model's are either partially clothed / nude but not fully revealing or the full on, legs akimbo, top shelf style ?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
something to the imagination or bare all !?
Orgasminator
coy evry time, well nearly every time
Mrs and I have dabled with photography for a while (not the kind you lot are thinking of) did a city and guilds course a while ago. I did get to shoot my sister in law once but it was very rushed and I dont think I did a great job, although wouldnt mind the oppertunity to shoot someone again under better conditions. I prefere black and white shadowy low light pics that just show enough but not too much.
WOLF :taz:
WOLF :taz:
Sex God
please dont look at my www.!!!!!
I would love to get some photos done ........ but have to say that I do prefer the covered shots, leaves something to the imagination. Although I adore the nude 'arty' shots, just of different parts of the body, different angles etc
Yep, would love to try that - not by Brumlad tho!!!! Can see it now, striking up my sexiest pose and him holding one of them joke squirty cameras
:kick:
Yep, would love to try that - not by Brumlad tho!!!! Can see it now, striking up my sexiest pose and him holding one of them joke squirty cameras
:kick:
Quote by brumlad
personally, I prefer photos that don't show all, as it adds an air of mystery to them, and captures your interest in the subject even more. They make you imagine what you can't see, just like reading a book rather than seeing the film.
Have to agree with you on that one. I was lucky enough to have a few (is 200 considered a few
) pics taken by a friend who was starting up as a photographer. Apart from 4 or 5 (2 were taken with another fem and the others show my boobs ) I have enough clothes on to leave something to the imagination LOL and I wouldnt be embarrassed if my sons saw the pics.Lucy
But I wouldnt mind some black + white ones done Brumlad :grin:
_______________________
Non-ad ad no 101012 lol
There is a style called Simple Nudes - where they are naked, but it is natural and you see everything, but nothing is explicit.
The quality of the photos is very high.
Erotic is between simple and explicit.
You get mags where men and women are naked, she's spread, he's erect, but they are just posing together, in positions, no penetration.
You get mags which are hard core porn where you see full penetration.
Yet this can still be artisticly done.
Anyone see that mag for couples Desire a few years back?
Both explicit and erotic.
A woman doing held-open and a man being erect can still look natural and artisic.
It depends what you look for and what you like.
There is always a market for all these things, different tastes - different strokes (no pun intended) for different strokes.
Rachel
The quality of the photos is very high.
Erotic is between simple and explicit.
You get mags where men and women are naked, she's spread, he's erect, but they are just posing together, in positions, no penetration.
You get mags which are hard core porn where you see full penetration.
Yet this can still be artisticly done.
Anyone see that mag for couples Desire a few years back?
Both explicit and erotic.
A woman doing held-open and a man being erect can still look natural and artisic.
It depends what you look for and what you like.
There is always a market for all these things, different tastes - different strokes (no pun intended) for different strokes.
Rachel
I suppose swingers would have a different view of this from the general public, as we see explicit "live porn" regularly, at parties, dogging, etc.
So we wouldn't get the same effect from seeing it in a mag as somebody who uses that as their only "window" on the scenes.
If you look at our ad, you'll see we leave nothing to the imaginaion in our pics!
If you've got it flaunt it, after all.
Rachel
So we wouldn't get the same effect from seeing it in a mag as somebody who uses that as their only "window" on the scenes.
If you look at our ad, you'll see we leave nothing to the imaginaion in our pics!
If you've got it flaunt it, after all.
Rachel
I definately prefer to have something left to the imagination,Not that our ad does though
Theres something about women in dresses and nothing else that really turns me that Clare ever wears dresses :cry: :cry: :cry: .Poor me.
Steve,xxx
(if any females out there want to send some pics of them wearing dresses and nothing else to us then please do
:D :D )
Theres something about women in dresses and nothing else that really turns me that Clare ever wears dresses :cry: :cry: :cry: .Poor me.
Steve,xxx
(if any females out there want to send some pics of them wearing dresses and nothing else to us then please do
:D :D ) 
Sex God
The line between art and porn is not easy to find, and depends a lot on the viewer. It's not as simple as "show everything = porn, hide some bits = art". For me, it's the wrong question. I'd prefer to see art, regardless of how much is shown, or how.
Having said that, from my limited experience it's a lot easier to create something arty if you're not showing everything. Artistic explicitness requires more talent than I have. Not that it's easy to create something arty.
Having said that, from my limited experience it's a lot easier to create something arty if you're not showing everything. Artistic explicitness requires more talent than I have. Not that it's easy to create something arty.
