DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

Thank you for all comments. Sorry if I over reacted.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Nice work there, Harry.

riderxlx Loc: DFW area Texas

I think all three are very well done the last one is a nice effect with the blurred plants adding to the atmosphere and overall image. These are very very good images Harry , thank you for sharing.
Bruce

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

No blury plant in the foreground.

(Download)

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Same here.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Much better. Thanks.

riderxlx Loc: DFW area Texas

Either way Harry I like them both. Very good images, thanks for sharing.
bruce

ski Loc: West Coast, USA

#1 is the best. The lines of her body are perfect.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Very cool work. Nice Impressionism interpretation. I am surprised no one commented on the Seurat and Monet "look" to it.

I think color rather than B&W would be the way to go for your fine shots not only in light of the fact that there were very few known Impressionist B&W pieces done but that B&W is more associated with overall focused work like Ansel Adams for example so it seems kind of too technical a treatment for this look. Another way of saying, it's great but needs color!

DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

I've been a long time fan of Ruth Bernhard a long time b&w photographer of female nudes.

Ruth Barnhard

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

Yes, simply put nudity is showing skin without clothes but I believe most in nude photography would define it as showing some portion of the nude body, whether breasts, pubic area, buttocks, or at least artistically done in shadows, curves, etc. Therefore I thought the OP had done an interesting (believe I called it absolutely amazing) job of photography someone with no clothes and yet covering up the nudity of her body. As for your uninformed opinion of looking to get titillated, I would dare you to review my almost 2,000 comments on UHH and fine one you can point to in this area. I have always tried to be complimentary or give constructive criticism or I pass on commenting. I have been a photographer for 50 years, I have seen my share of nudes (and naked women) and at 75 yrs old a little past your sophomoric thoughts of looking for "tits or maybe a pussy" to view free (although I don't challenge there are some here for that purpose, would challenge your accusation of MOST men here doing so). I am here to learn, help when I can, enjoy the work of many. You might consider the same.

RTCreed Loc: Forest Park, IL

I seldom respond to posted pictures, but these are artfully done and should be enjoyed for the beauty of the model's body and the photographer's view.

DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

What is Fine Art Figure Photography?
Fine art figure photography is often referred to as nude photography, though the photographs are not always of entirely nude bodies. A fine art photographer may take photos of specific body parts, such as the feet, the muscles on an arm, or a side view of a face. Fine art photographs are not sexually explicit photographs that would be seen in a skin magazine. Those photos are referred to as erotic photography. Instead, these photographs strive to show the beauty in the human body and rarely even show the faces of the subjects.


Subjects in figure photography are a study of the physical structure of a human. They are not portraits, but rather a composition. Bodies in these photographs are often shot using light extremes (very dark or very light) so as to highlight a specific part of the body. Often times the bodies are oiled to show subtleties in texture and form.