WirtzWorld Loc: SE WI

Wow, 200??

Anyway, this girl's name is Regina. I just looked it up. Good to give the girls at least name recognition. I believe I found her on ModelMayhem. She was previoiusly posted in Nude no. 191 without her name.

This is a better look at all of her and the set up that we used for her goth candle series. I have lots of her, so look for more in the future. I'm not really fond of tattoos either, so don't waste time with that, but I think they work with this photo style that we did together. Anyway, you'd go far and wide both to find a more pleasant person. She's not a book cover, you have to go inside to judge her.

Just Fred Loc: Darwin's Waiting Room

Well, I'm not a fan of bolt-ons, but the photo is eye-catching in any event.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

I'll ignore the tattoos, but can I complain about the bad implants?

WirtzWorld Loc: SE WI

Sure you can. Free country right? (Well not so much any more, but who’s counting?)

As you sit in judgement of these bad implants, please consider this: you meet or are introduced to a nice looking 20 year old girl who agrees to pose nude for you. The first thing you notice is her tattoos and larger than they should be breasts. Then you tell her, ‘well I would do a shoot with you, but I don’t like tattoos or fake (?) breasts, So, no thanks.’

I don’t think so. Anyone I know would take the opportunity to shoot a live nude woman by the horns. All of the practice you want of shooting wig and dress forms can’t replace 10 minutes of shooting a live, willing and agreeable young model. And you just might find her to be beautiful inside as well as outside, and you just might have a ball. If you say that you wouldn’t shoot her based on those things, I’d say that you were crazy or lying.

And why so judgmental? I believe most of the audience here is let’s say, 50 or above. Maybe this tattooed breastified woman doesn’t like photographers with belt overhang, or bald heads, or whatever else we get as we age.

If we got to be here, let’s live.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I get a bit miffed at folks who put artificial boundaries on a critique. Why can one be critical of anything at all in a photo EXCEPT the model? I think viewers should be allowed to express their honest opinion of a photo, and if tattoos or bad implants “ruin the shot” for them then so be it. They don’t have to be rude, crude, or insulting, but they should be allowed to tell it like it is for them.

That said, I think John made a good case for why this photo was taken and why it is being presented.

As for “tits and tats” (sorry for that, but the words just go together so well for my sense of humour) the tats are less distracting for me. (And yes, I restrained myself by not referring to what is more distracting; they are quite unusual, and very unnatural looking.)

WirtzWorld Loc: SE WI

Ya, John. You are correct in questioning my artificial boundaries on critique. So y’all, open season on any commentary within the limits of civility and good taste.

(As I stated earlier, I’m not a fan of tattoos either. I am, however, the world’s foremost fan and expert on the breasts if the female of our species. As would follow, I do have an opinion about these particular examples. Firstly, her nipples probably should have been put back in their proper location. Secondly, I think if that’s how she’s going to wear them, who am I to say?).

I never did this shot with any other model, so I’m showing it with her. I have some portfolios of models that I would never expose to the light of day. These aren’t in that group.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I am not sure about the expert part, although it is a great aspiration.

There is doctor named Timothy Burr who wrote a book titled BISBA: Burr Identification System for Breast Analysis. It was published in 1965 and used copies are available online.

Description: No matter how little or much breasts have meant to you before, you've now reached a turning point. Once you have read even a few chapters of BISBA, you can never again have only a detached interest in the myriad variety of breasts you daily encounter. From here on, every one of them will be seen as an open window that lets you peek into the mysteries of its possessor.

The book is a fun read. Burr postulates that a woman's breasts and her personality are inseparable, and you can determine her personality from an analysis of her breasts. The relationship is so tight that by changing her personality she can change the characteristics of her breasts. Spoiler: the book is a spoof, which Burr admits, but he states that one of his objectives was to show that science need not be boring.

In Part I of the book he does a very scientific analysis of the breast by defining several characteristics and the range of values for these characteristics. For example, the breast is a bag with stuffing; you can have a large bag with little stuffing, or a small bag with lots of stuffing. Nipples are located geometrically centered, or deviating by the cardinal points of a compass when viewed from the front. When viewed from the side the nipples can be pointing up, straight out, or down.

In Part II Burr describes the personalities of the female as related to the various breast characteristics. As it turns out, the shapeliest and most attractive breasts in terms of size, geometry, positioning, density, feel, etc, belong to the "dumb blonde" (excuse the terminology, but the book was written before political correctness was de rigueur).

Burr also creates a few interesting terms that he defines in a glossary in Part III. For example: gynaecomammology is the study of the female breast. Burr states that in order to be a true student of gynaecomammology you have to be able to answer three questions in the affirmative: 1) you have to have seen a woman's breasts; 2) you have to have felt a woman's breasts; and 3) you have to have had two women side by side so that you can compare the breasts.

I managed to get hold of a copy at a book sale many years ago. It was the best $1 I ever spent on a book!

And I will say that YOU could have provided some very nice images to help illustrate the book, which only has pencil sketches of the wide variety of mammae that he describes.

rdemarco52 Loc: Wantagh, NY

My thoughts exactly.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Might as well add a bell and a book to the composition.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Visual artists should study breast anatomy. Sorry for hijacking your post.

azted Loc: Las Vegas, NV.

As a former candle manufacturer, I am a little put off by the combination and setting. maybe crop her at the knees and it is a more pleasing image. Don't get me wrong, I love your work and lighting specifically, but the bottom of the picture is distracting!

JimG1 Loc: Waxahachie, TX

Just gonna toss this out there. The only opinion on how Breast implants look is the person's that got them. If they make her happy and improves her self image then more power to her.

Love the photo! The lighting is great and I love the environment you've created.

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

Let's hope her "implants" don't explode.

srg

Great photo, great composition, great color, great writeup under the photo. Well done.

Wroley1 Loc: Athens,GA

She looks great, i like the pose and the smile on her face makes you look beyond the tats. NO, I did not misspell what I wrote.