Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Less Can Be Best When More Remains

Famed photographer and writer, Diane Arbus, once said, "Lately I've been struck with how I really love what you can't see in a photograph."

I'm quite sure Ms. Arbus wasn't referring to glamour or tease photography when she said that but her words certainly apply.

As most of you know, leastwise those of you who regularly (or even semi-regularly) read this blog know, I'm a glamour/tease photographer. I get paid to shoot pretty, sexy women in various stages of dress and undress. It's nice work if you can get it. Lately, business being what it is these days, I'm getting less of it, much less, but that's not what I'm writing about today. My last update speaks, in some ways tho not all, to that subject if you want to read about that kinda stuff.

I've been shooting clothed, scantily clothed, and unclothed women for quite a few years. In all, the number of times I've shot pretty girls in sexy and revealing ways numbers in the thousands. Okay. Maybe a couple of thousand or more, perhaps as many as three-thousand, but that still qualifies as "thousands," right? And in that time, as you might expect, I've developed a few opinions about glamour and tease photography. One of those opinions mirrors Ms. Arbus's words regarding what you can't see in photos.

As you may have already guessed, especially considering the Diane Arbus quote I began this update with, I believe photos of models still wearing something -- and that something might be as little as the skimpiest pair of thong underwear on the planet -- tend to be sexier and more seductive and alluring than when my models are wearing their birthday suits and nothing else. In other words, it's what you don't see that often adds power to a glamour or tease photo.

It's certainly no revelation that leaving some things to the imagination enhances many photos, especially glamour and tease photos. D'uh, right? And none of this is to say I'm in any way turned off by gorgeous, buck-naked models. I'm not. Not at all "not!" But for sheer seductiveness and sexual allure, many of the photos I've snapped, that is those where a bit of wardrobe remains on the model, generally rate higher on the HOT! scale than those where my model is fully naked. Leastwise, for me they do.

Generally, when I'm shooting a glam/tease model, we begin with her wearing something. It might be lingerie, a bikini, bra and panties, or she might be fully clothed in some sexy outfit. Perhaps even a not-so-sexy outfit. From there, I start shooting, the model starts posing and, at some point (usually when I direct her to begin) she starts peeling. What begins with a fully-clothed model ends with a fully unclothed model. How long that transformation takes generally depends on how long I might have with the model. It might be ten minutes, it might be an hour or more.

Interestingly, many models often rush the process of getting out of their clothes. In certain aspects of my life, I'm all for beautiful women hurrying to undress when I'm with them. Not so, however, when I'm photographing them. Often, I have to slow my models down when we're shooting. I don't know why they're in such a rush to get naked? I know it's not because I look like God's gift to women, not even close. But being in a rush to get naked is something many glam and tease models seem to be in. I occasionally ask why?

I usually get the same answer: "I love being naked!"

Gotta love that!

"I love when you're naked too, beautiful!" I sometimes tell them in response. "But I need you to slow down some."

I try to have my camera raised to my eye and ready to snap when I say that because the cute, pretend-pouting expressions that sometimes happen after I tell them to slow down their undressing are just too sexy!

You see, I'm being payed to shoot sexy, seductive photos of these girls and my clients want as many photos of the models still dressed or partially-dressed as they do those revealing her completely naked. In fact, most of my clients generally want more of the less-dressed content than anything else. And there's a reason for that, one that I agree with: the sexiest photos usually lie amongst those where the model is still wearing something, anything, even the slightest bit of something or anything.

Anyway, as usual, I'm just saying.

I've posted the photo at the top before, probably the color version, but I think it's a decent (some might say, "indecent") example of how leaving some things to the imagination can be sexier than when nothing is left to the imagination. I know photos like the one at the top often do a better job of fueling my imagination than those of models fully unclothed. That's not always true but it is often enough.

You might or might not agree. If you don't agree, that's cool. We all have our opinions. Please note I snapped plenty of pics of the model at the top wearing absolutely nothing. In my opinion, the photo above, and some others like it, are sexier than all the naked photos I shot of her. But maybe that's just me? You can click the pic to enlarge it.

1 comment:

iain said...

Completely agree with you on this point. Leaving something to the imagination adds much more impact to the image in my opinion.