This is a tricky one. I know the new policy is no nude or semi-nudes, but it doesn't seem to go into any more detail than that. Does it simply mean we can't show breasts or bottoms/the other side, or does it mean we can't show exposed legs, men's chests, etc? I hope this one will not be considered nude, as he was actually wearing speedos in the picture, and it shows nothing more than part of his leg, and his back and arms and face. It's rated PG, at worst. :) *shrug* At any rate, I wanted to post this image to see what you might have to say about the overall image itself. I used the add noise filter in Photoshop to add the "film grain", then changed the color to more of a brownish tone. Any comments? :)
People can be GREAT subjects...if they're willing to work with you to allow you to shoot them the way you see them. These "dancers" were really cool to work for. They trusted me, and were more than happy to do these different poses...and they were also more than willing to offer their own input, and I was actually surprised that, even though they claim to have no real knowledge of photography, their ideas were rather good. This picture, however, was the result of his posing the way I asked him to. :) As far as the lighting on this one goes...it was simple. One strobe with an umbrella (I don't have the money for soft boxes yet, which are actually WAY better), placed slightly camera right, and rather high up, shining down on him from a steep angle. Now, I was able to see every detail in his face when I looked at it through my view finder, but I just remembered that film isn't nearly as capable of seeing such subtle tones, so I knew that when I stopped my aperture down so low, his face and anything else that looked shadowy would be thrown into almost complete darkness. :) If they hadn't been, then that's always remedied by burning in the shadows, or, if you use Photoshop a lot like I do, just bump up the contrast, or turn down the brightness, or a combination of the too. This usually works fine, though sometimes you also have to use curves...if you're not familiar with this feature, or with Photoshop in general, then nevermind the curves thing. :) It's tricky.
As far as my putting it under portraits...well, that was the hard part. I couldn't figure out WHAT I should put it under. I never like to put my stuff under art, per se, because I never know what others will consider art, and I never call what I do art until others have confirmed that that's what they consider it. :) *shrug* I just try to MAKE a photograph that will appeal to me in some way, and hopefully, to others. More often than not, though, I find that my work only appeals to me. :) About the only time it appeals to others is when I've taken a picture that they've specifically requested, with all the elements they want to see in it. I can usually give them almost exactly what they want if they communicate it to me properly. *shrug* That's going to be the main purpose of my business...the ability to give them exactly what they want...and, sometimes, things they didn't even know they could have. :)
I like this Larry....great shadows on here....a reflective mood as well....my photo eye is wandering in the direction of people as well...would like to hear how you lit this one....I would think to call this photoart rather than portrait for the simple reason that the man is unidentifiable and it just seems to give a feel of every man instead of just one.(if that really has any bearing on anything)....great shot.
0 
