What makes a good naturist photo vs an artistic nude?
Obviously the goal and intent is different. Naturist photography is about documenting and depicting naturism. An artistic nude is about the human body as a subject - it's a portrait, or a study of the body's shape, or the body's relationship to the environment, etc.
Generally, what makes a naturist photo is the context. It's a photo of a naturist practicing naturism. Sometimes the context is obvious - if the subject is clearly on a naturist resort, then you can infer that it's naturism.
But absent that context or any explanation to go along with the photo it becomes harder to tell. Nudes in nature (or really almost any setting other than a studio) could be either one. And I think if the goal is to take not just a naturist photo but also a good photo (well lit, well composed, etc) it becomes even harder to distinguish.
Try as I might, I can't come up with any useful distinction. It's just kind of "I know it when I see it". So I'm curious what other peoples thoughts are on this. What are the qualities that make for a good naturist photo in your view, and what distinguishes it from artistic nudity?
I see artistic nudes as focusing on composition, and naturist photos more as depicting action while naked, The first is a careful study and the second often a spontaneous snapshot.
With artistic nudes I particularly like those with human skin contrasting to another opposite texture such as stone. So a well composed shot of a naked rock climber could accomplish both.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!