Studio lighting!

Gertrud1 · 22-01-07 20:37:00

The_Elfman wrote:

Gertrud1 wrote:
and why doesn't mine get the neat box around the quote like everyone else's??
I've done it for you Gertrud1. If you want to find out how to do this click [url=http://www.ifeelmyself.com/forum/help.php#img]tag: below the text box. If you need any further help in using the forum please feel free to email me. I'm always at your service.

oh thank you kindly

Siobhan · 22-01-07 20:40:16

Could we have a moment, please, just to sit and bask with how WONDERFUL Elfman is??!!

{{{{{the pause}}}}}

Elfman, the powers that be were certainly spot on when they asked you to be our moderator!

i love you.

I know Americans are overly upfront with our emotions, and sometimes offend people with how effusive we are, or how communicative about our enthusiasms, so don't let it upset. you. But I love you. And I know I'm not alone!

The_Elfman · 22-01-07 21:55:56

Oh. Thanks Chere. Believe it or not you have actually rendered me speechless. But thank you.

CousinWayne · 01-03-08 21:30:14

Wow!

I haven't looked at this forum discussion since I posted that Studio Lighting rant a year or so ago. 127 posts resulted. Some people agreed with me, some disagreed, and numerous other discussions and opinions sprang forth, on topics unrelated to my original observations. Opinions, rebuttals, expressions of undying love, character assassinations: a potpourri of the best the internet has to offer.

Getting back to studio lighting, though, if only for a moment. My opinion still stands. The deep shadows on the models from exaggerated sidelighting are just too much, though the videographer seems to be toning it down a bit lately.

There is nothing at all wrong with this lighting format. It works to great advantage in still photography, and once in a while in video. It is a superb technique for emphasizing the female form in figure study photography.

But I truly enjoy watching the female orgasm in all its beauty. It is one of Mother Nature's most blessed gifts. IFM presents this phenomenon as a wholesome, healthy, and beautiful art form. I know it's a matter of taste and personal preference, but I find that the sidelighting and deep shadows detract from the event, rather than enhance it.

I used the term "girl parts," which several people glommed on to right away, and assumed that I was hoping for something a bit more hard-core than IFM material. Not so. I don't particularly care for the material that by rights would be more at home in a gynecology journal.

When I watch a lady masturbate in person, I do not get down on my knees and try to peer inside, and I don't much care for still or video material that takes this approach. I like to sit quietly at a discreet distance and take in the show. I try to sit close enough that I can see everything that's going on, but I try not to invade her circle of comfort. Indeed, with those women who have performed for me several times, we are quite comfortable with the viewing distance (and lighting!) arrangements, but when I watch a lady for the first time, we actually discuss where she would like me to be, and we are both comfortable with the arrangements. (Indeed, the Technical Discussion with a lady about how things should be for her, as she masturbates for my viewing pleasure, seems to be fairly effective "foreplay" for the event.)

Girl Parts: Here are the girl parts I like to watch.

I like to see her hair, as it spreads out in disarray as she moves about on her pillow.

I like to watch her face, the little twitches and expressions as new pangs of pleasure surprise her, the expression of concentration as she works on it, the little furrows in her brow as the orgasm starts, the grimace (unmistakable with any other facial expression in the repertoire) as she experiences the orgasmic peak, the expression of relief and release as she subsides, and the inevitable little smile and eye contact when she comes back down.

I like to watch her chest, breasts, and tummy. Some women develop a "sex flush" as the orgasm takes place; her whole torso turns a delightful pink. Some womens' breasts get a bit bigger as they go through the cycle; that's interesting to see. Her neck and tummy muscles are working as she massages herself.

I like to watch her hands. Masters and Johnson were right; no two women masturbate the same way; the variety is endless. I like to watch her fingers as she finds exactly the right spot, and manipulates it. Some women do it with their right hand, some with their left. Some are switch hitters, and some drive with both hands on the wheel. Some women caress one or both breasts, and some clutch violently at them. I like to watch the free hand grasping tightly on the pillow, the sheet, or anything else at hand while the orgasm happens.

I like to watch her legs. As the approaching orgasm spreads through her body like a warm syrup, her legs become animated. They move, they straighten, they close, they spread apart, they thrust her pelvis upward. I knew a lady once who inevitably crossed her legs at the ankle about halfway into it, and from that point on, her legs were ramrod straight and rigid right through the orgasm.

If the lady is having a real toe-curler of an orgasm, I want to see the toes curling.

None of this is available when all of the aforementioned girl parts are hidden in deep shadow. Subtle, even light reveals all, and emphasizes the performer/viewer relationship.

I call to witness artist MacKenzie, and her video Miss Mac, a year or so ago, which remains one of my favourite IFM contributions. She did a simultaneuos BA and ISM shoot on the beach once, which were artistically pretty good, particularly her interaction with the viewer, but technically not great.

I suspect that she saw the results the same way, and with some obvious forethought and planning, she came up shortly thereafter with Miss Mac for IFM, which is superb. She (evidently) thought, where would a guy (or lady) want to be to watch this event? Where would I be comfortable having him sit? What would he want to see?

She then placed her camera at the appropriate location, ensured good and even lighting, and positioned herself so that everything was in view. She treated herself to what appeared to be a fulfilling masturbate and a satisfying orgasm. Very intense for the viewer.

She also did one called "seclude." This one was outside in natural flat light (open shade), and the sex flush on her upper chest and breasts is very obvious as she has her orgasm.

I really appreciate this approach; it is not too clinical, it's very erotic, and not even remotely smutty. It's good stuff, and I'd like to hear the thoughts of others who share this preference.

blissed · 02-03-08 00:21:30

Wow james thats a long post! :) I think this segment tho gets your main point across.

jamesgrant wrote:

The deep shadows on the models from exaggerated sidelighting are just too much, though the videographer seems to be toning it down a bit lately.
There is nothing at all wrong with this lighting format. It works to great advantage in still photography, and once in a while in video. It is a superb technique for emphasizing the female form in figure study photography.
But I truly enjoy watching the female orgasm in all its beauty. It is one of Mother Nature's most blessed gifts. IFM presents this phenomenon as a wholesome, healthy, and beautiful art form. I know it's a matter of taste and personal preference, but I find that the sidelighting and deep shadows detract from the event, rather than enhance it.
I used the term "girl parts," which several people glommed on to right away, and assumed that I was hoping for something a bit more hard-core than IFM material. Not so. I don't particularly care for the material that by rights would be more at home in a gynecology journal.

Personally I think vulva's are beautiful and when your giving someone pleasure I think the fact that you do find them beautiful is arousing for them too. I have no guilt or problem in seeing them in fabulous detail, I think their lovely. That beauty is celebrated in many folio's at ISM where it's an option for contributors. Along with clothing, the lighting and especially shadows are technique's available to extend that option to contributors here. This seems fairly obvious to me, tho I might be wrong.

.

CousinWayne · 02-03-08 19:03:02

Blissed;

Thanx. 'preciate your observations. I share your view that vulvas (vulvae?) are beuatiful entities, but I'm not sure if they are beautiful in their own right, like a roses, or are beautiful by association: anything that brings so much joy and pleasure to both parties simply has to be beautiful. Either way, they're great, but my point was that for me, they are not the central visual treat when observing females having orgasms. For me, if there is one central point, it is the face.

For information, a number of years ago, I was skulking around in a local sex-goodies shop, and came across a book given over completely to female genitalia. It included a portfolio of vulvas.

Dozens of women, sporting every imaginable size and shape of vulva, had allowed a photographer to take close-up, WOW (wide-open wazoo), gynecology journal quality, feet in the stirrups, photographs of their genitals. (No bodies, no faces, just pussies.) Some of the subjects were holding themselves open with their fingers, and some proudly displayed their spectacular inner labia. Coiffures included everything from completely shaven to wild tropical forests, with some amazing trim jobs in between.

Working from these photographs, an illustrator had penned beautiful, highly detailed, pen & ink renditions of these vulvas. There were about four paintings on each page, and the section went on for many pages. This, to illustrate the author's point that there was nearly endless variety in female genitals, almost as individual as fingerprints.

These were very educational and informative drawings. They were spectacularly beautiful, and eminently successful in demonstrating the variety that exists.

Alas, I didn't have much money in my pocket that day, and I opted for a cheeseburger at McDonald's rather than the book. When I returned several days later to buy the book, it was gone, and I haven't seen a copy since. Worse, I didn't remember the name, then or now. All I remembered was that it had a yellow cover, with one of the illustrations on the cover.

Maybe, if either of us are lucky, a copy of that book will surface again somewhere, either in your part of the world or mine.

Bye bye.

nihpuad · 03-03-08 06:14:20

jamesgrant wrote:

For information, a number of years ago, I was skulking around in a local sex-goodies shop, and came across a book given over completely to female genitalia. It included a portfolio of vulvas.
....
Working from these photographs, an illustrator had penned beautiful, highly detailed, pen & ink renditions of these vulvas. There were about four paintings on each page, and the section went on for many pages. This, to illustrate the author's point that there was nearly endless variety in female genitals, almost as individual as fingerprints.

I don't know if it's what you saw, but your description reminded me of Betty Dodson's book Sex for One (which, sadly, I haven't seen... but I've heard so many references to it and interviews about it that I feel like I have). Does this look like what you're thinking of?

CousinWayne · 03-03-08 08:21:37

Nihpuad:

Nope. I know Ms. Dodson's book, and I have a couple of copies of it around here. I don't recall any such illustrations in the books, but there may have been previous or later printings of it, other than the ones I have, which featured these illustrations. Or, maybe I just don't remember them. I don't have the remotest idea right now where my copies of the book are, but they're asssuredly buried among several thousand other books around my place. If I find them, I'll check it out.

The book I referred to was out a good five years before Ms. Dodson's book, and likely longer, as it had been around for a while when I discovered it. But, thanks for the suggestion. ...James

blissed · 03-03-08 13:29:10

The copy on the link was an interesting read, she said she made the drawings a year later for a lecture tour, probably using them where the actual photo's would be too sensitive. Nihpuad, that looks like a really good book, I think I'll get it when it's downloadable.

jamesgrant wrote:

I opted for a cheeseburger at McDonald's rather than the book. .

Ha ha thats definitely one cheeseburger too many :)

.

CousinWayne · 03-03-08 17:53:19

Blissed:

The illustrations were likely presented instead of photographs, not because the photographs would have been too sensitive, but because the pen & ink renderings would have been more explicit and informative, in much the same way illustrations are used instead of photographs to illustrate types of suitcases at the lost luggage counter at the airport, or to show how to assemble furniture purchased from Ikea. (A good illustrator can write his own ticket.)

James

blissed · 04-03-08 00:54:14

jamesgrant wrote:

in much the same way illustrations are used instead of photographs to illustrate types of suitcases at the lost luggage counter at the airport, or to show how to assemble furniture purchased from Ikea.

She could make the drawings into a vulva manual, so each vulva is clearly labeled with a full set of instructions, that'd be quite handy :)

.

CousinWayne · 05-03-08 04:14:47

To Nihpuad:

I located one of my copies of Ms. Dodson's Sex for One, and immediately I recalled the drawings inside. It's been quite a few years since I last looked into that book, and I had forgotten the drawings completely. It's exceptional artwork.

The renderings that appear on pages 60-63 are quite similar to the ones I referred to above. They are apparently by a different artist, but the general idea is exactly the same. Thanks for reminding me of them, and I'll continue to look for the book I originally referenced.

To Blissed:

I like your suggestion about labels on the various parts, and instructions for their use. (Vulvology 101?) Once, many years ago, a close friend treated me to a guided tour of hers, including the names of the parts, and how they might best be used. It was a singularly informative lesson, the more so because of her comfort level with the subject.

... James

CousinWayne · 05-03-08 07:29:52

Blissed:

Further investigation reveals that on page 71 of Ms. Dodson's book, there are more illustrations of the same high standard, with the parts identified, as per your wishes. (The text gives instructions, of a sort.)

Forget about waiting till it's downloadable; hie yourself down to the local bookstore, or sex goodies shop, and buy a copy. It's still a current title.

Betty Dodson: Sex for One; The Joy of Selfloving. (Yes, one word. She commits other crimes against the language, too, but otherwise the book is first-rate.) Harmony Books, New York.

...James

smarty · 06-03-08 22:17:11

One of the very first IFM I came upon was indeed a closeup (even though you say you don't do that). It was primarily "focused" on her stomach, expecially her belly button. What was breathtaking about it was that the lighting was absolutely perfect. The tiny light hairs on her skin all around. Now I may not be a great fan of the European look, and even I will trim my underarm hair so I don't trip on it, and even pubic hair can get bulky. But to be able to capture on film the softness of hair must have been intentional, and it worked beautifully. Unfortunately I have not been able to find that since. Can anybody help?

In college I had a friend who had more body hair than I had ever seen on anybody. She was a redhead, strikingly beautiful, but hair all over her, not just arms and legs. We finally made love one night, and I had one of the most intense climaxes ever. Part of it was that after I came, she held on to me, and I just kept bucking. And I think the sensation of her hair also helped. It wasn't long, but it was very soft and erotic.

There is a time and place for closeups. I'm a fan of black and white photography with just an arm or the curve of the back. It can be every bit as sensual as a full-body image, which I enjoy here.

I am not, however, eager to inspect the no-no areas that porn fixates on. If I wanted to do that, I would have been a urologist, proctologist or a gynecologist. Now that is a scary thought.

gala · 06-03-08 22:52:51

It's probably Charlotte_V's 'up close'.

dandan · 03-06-08 11:18:43

Nowaysis wrote:

All that said, I can agree that the ominous lighting sometimes can be frustrating, there are a number of contributors I wouldn't mind seeing in a bit more detail even in the full body shot. But given the premises of the site, its production and its content, I don't see that any good could come out of whining simply because the naughty bits aren't floodlighted.

Who says it has to be the naughty bits? I was a member here a year or two ago, I recently returned. One of the absolute best new additions since my previous membership was Nita's (the woman riding the arm of the sofa). It was well lit, but nipples and vulva were very infrequently shown. However, you could see the movement of her hips, the arch of her back, and the ecstasy on her face, and it was incredibly erotic.

Another newer video (emi's shadows) was literally almost entirely shadow. I don't mind the dim lighting in principle, it works for a lot of the videos, but in this video I literally could only see the girl's shin and a few knuckles for about half of the video, her leg obscured her face that entire time. When you take a still and can't even tell what you're looking at, you might have gone a bit overboard with stark minimalist lighting. Frankly, it made me think of a girl on a webcam who forgot to turn on some lights for her watching boyfriend.

kirejos · 04-06-08 01:16:29

dandan wrote:

I don't mind the dim lighting in principle, it works for a lot of the videos, but in this video.....

There are plenty of contributions here that don't do it for me for one reason or another. Thankfully, the vast majority do. I'm sure I could single out one of my least favorite and nitpick, but you know what I do? I watch one of the other hundreds that I like.

Do we really need to go through another round of "I don't like the lighting " complaints?? God, it gets old. Thankfully, the people at IFM actually exercise some creative license when they make their aesthetic decisions.

gala · 04-06-08 01:30:49

dandan wrote:

Another newer video (emi's shadows) was literally almost entirely shadow. I don't mind the dim lighting in principle, it works for a lot of the videos, but in this video I literally could only see the girl's shin and a few knuckles for about half of the video, her leg obscured her face that entire time. When you take a still and can't even tell what you're looking at, you might have gone a bit overboard with stark minimalist lighting. Frankly, it made me think of a girl on a webcam who forgot to turn on some lights for her watching boyfriend.

This was actually a beautiful mistake - if I'm not mixing up my facts that was the only usable angle from that shoot, and the way Emi moved in and out of the light was really gorgeous to us. I quite like that video to be honest, because I like the context it requires you to create, and I like the invocation of the act without actually seeing every part of it. The light reminds you of motion, and the motion reminds you of rhythms, and the rhythms remind you of sex.

One man's trash and whatnot.

aven frey · 04-06-08 03:09:18

Like Gala I find that when I have to fill in the black with my imagination it's a lot more erotic and interesting to me. Evocation is something very powerful and I would love to see us experiment with this more.

dandan · 04-06-08 08:44:04

kirejos wrote:

There are plenty of contributions here that don't do it for me for one reason or another. Thankfully, the vast majority do. I'm sure I could single out one of my least favorite and nitpick, but you know what I do? I watch one of the other hundreds that I like.
Do we really need to go through another round of "I don't like the lighting " complaints?? God, it gets old. Thankfully, the people at IFM actually exercise some creative license when they make their aesthetic decisions.

If this is art, and I think that's the operating assumption here at this site, then it is open to criticism and discussion. Art without criticism stagnates. You can't really provide an alternative to shallow porn to appeal to the artistic sensibilities in the viewership, provide a forum for such people in which to discuss said alternative, and actually expect them to give nothing but glowing praise. If you do, I wonder if you actually know any artists?

kirejos · 04-06-08 12:31:39

dandan wrote:

If this is art, and I think that's the operating assumption here at this site, then it is open to criticism and discussion. Art without criticism stagnates. You can't really provide an alternative to shallow porn to appeal to the artistic sensibilities in the viewership, provide a forum for such people in which to discuss said alternative, and actually expect them to give nothing but glowing praise. If you do, I wonder if you actually know any artists?

I don't work at IFM, I'm just a member here. I don't provide you with anything. Obviously, the people at IFM expect criticism in the forum, but they're not the ones calling you out on your criticism, are they? I am, which I'm perfectly entitled to do.

Criticism goes both ways, that's the nature of a forum. You can provide opinionated and obnoxious commentary, and so can I. My opinionated and obnoxious response to your criticism, is that studio lighting complaining gets very boring.

If you were a member here a year or two ago, then you know exactly what they do with lighting in "the bedroom". I just think it's funny that you would re-subscribe, and then complain about it.

The diversity of member's tastes here is why they offer many different kinds of contributions. Don't you like the contributions in rooms filled with natural light? I highly recommend Elaina's "Perched", or Sascha's "Welcome In 1 & 2", or Wendy's "Sat'dy Arvo 1 & 2", or Asha's "Bouquet", or Annalogue's "Nesty Nerd", or Pixie's "Rattled". I also recommend some of the brightly lit outdoor/public contributions from Anne, Azara, Liza, Vada, Cle, Leda, & Bobby, just to mention a few.

Last edited by kirejos (04-06-08 12:33:03)

dandan · 04-06-08 19:09:12

kirejos wrote:

I don't work at IFM, I'm just a member here. I don't provide you with anything. Obviously, the people at IFM expect criticism in the forum, but they're not the ones calling you out on your criticism, are they? I am, which I'm perfectly entitled to do.

It was a generic "you". And have the creators specifically called me out? No. But I have seen those affiliated with this site express displeasure with criticism at other times. That's beside the point, though, because it's a general statement. You don't have to be affiliated with this site on a creative level for my statement to be relevant. One could easily say "participate" rather than "provide" and my point would still be valid.

kirejos wrote:

Criticism goes both ways, that's the nature of a forum. You can provide opinionated and obnoxious commentary, and so can I. My opinionated and obnoxious response to your criticism, is that studio lighting complaining gets very boring.

I didn't say you couldn't. I merely said that people here ought to expect it.

kirejos wrote:

If you were a member here a year or two ago, then you know exactly what they do with lighting in "the bedroom". I just think it's funny that you would re-subscribe, and then complain about it.

What's funny about it? I should think that it obviously shows that I think highly enough of the other styles on display here to overlook the "bedroom" lighting.

kirejos wrote:

The diversity of member's tastes here is why they offer many different kinds of contributions. Don't you like the contributions in rooms filled with natural light? I highly recommend Elaina's "Perched", or Sascha's "Welcome In 1 & 2", or Wendy's "Sat'dy Arvo 1 & 2", or Asha's "Bouquet", or Annalogue's "Nesty Nerd", or Pixie's "Rattled". I also recommend some of the brightly lit outdoor/public contributions from Anne, Azara, Liza, Vada, Cle, Leda, & Bobby, just to mention a few.

I obviously like those with natural light. I've talked a lot about natural light and have given multiple examples in multiple posts in this thread and others of natural light shoots that I'd like to see more of.

aven frey · 05-06-08 02:10:52

dandan wrote:

If this is art, and I think that's the operating assumption here at this site, then it is open to criticism and discussion. Art without criticism stagnates.

Yes I agree with this but it should be constructive and not aggressive, not that I'm suggesting that's how you personally sound but as you would know when we talk about the lighting it more then often is. We also get quite annoyed because most of the time people suggest changes that would make us just the same as a lot of what is already out there!

dandan wrote:

I wonder if you actually know any artists?

To be honest dandan, if you did then you'd know that harsh critism often sends them (me included) running to the toilets to cry!

phexy · 05-06-08 02:44:50

Makes me wonder if Bill Henson ran to the toilets to cry when his latest photographic exhibition was accused of being porn... I know I did!

momentextase · 05-06-08 21:41:03

dandan wrote:

If this is art, and I think that's the operating assumption here at this site...

Well... there's your problem.

Not meaning to be too didactic, too argumentative or too keen to point out the obvious... I invite you to consider:

This site is not about art.

It is about SEX!!!! Women's orgasm to be specific!!

Any art that occurs here, is secondary to what I perceive is the sites main goal... to carve a niche in the commercial internet where women's sex is portrayed as it IS. Of the women, by the women and -in some important ways -for the women.

It is about sex, orgasm, and the most yummy part in my mind... getting to, shamelessly seeking and dancing with-orgasm. Not more than it is, not what males think it is, and not less than it is.

The word "grounded" comes to mind. Art is not the goal, a true, holistic look into womens sexuality and the way they do masturbation is the content goal.

It's just the fact that art does often happen here (how, considering the subject, could it not?) that confuses people.

#126 22-01-07 20:37:00

Re: Studio lighting!

#127 22-01-07 20:40:16

Re: Studio lighting!

#128 22-01-07 21:55:56

Re: Studio lighting!

#129 01-03-08 21:30:14

Re: Studio lighting!

#130 02-03-08 00:21:30

Re: Studio lighting!

#131 02-03-08 19:03:02

Re: Studio lighting!

#132 03-03-08 06:14:20

Re: Studio lighting!

#133 03-03-08 08:21:37

Re: Studio lighting!

#134 03-03-08 13:29:10

Re: Studio lighting!

#135 03-03-08 17:53:19

Re: Studio lighting!

#136 04-03-08 00:54:14

Re: Studio lighting!

#137 05-03-08 04:14:47

Re: Studio lighting!

#138 05-03-08 07:29:52

Re: Studio lighting!

#139 06-03-08 22:17:11

Re: Studio lighting!

#140 06-03-08 22:52:51

Re: Studio lighting!

#141 03-06-08 11:18:43

Re: Studio lighting!

#142 04-06-08 01:16:29

Re: Studio lighting!

#143 04-06-08 01:30:49

Re: Studio lighting!

#144 04-06-08 03:09:18

Re: Studio lighting!

#145 04-06-08 08:44:04

Re: Studio lighting!

#146 04-06-08 12:31:39

Re: Studio lighting!

#147 04-06-08 19:09:12

Re: Studio lighting!

#148 05-06-08 02:10:52

Re: Studio lighting!

#149 05-06-08 02:44:50

Re: Studio lighting!

#150 05-06-08 21:41:03

Re: Studio lighting!

Board footer