Free Range Naturism

Naturism => Naturism & Art => Topic started by: eyesup on June 07, 2017, 11:01:00 PM

Title: Naked Nudity
Post by: eyesup on June 07, 2017, 11:01:00 PM
Is it possible the be even more naked than simply without clothes?

Nudity, especially on social media, is censored no matter the context. Even classic art has been subjected to it. Provocative images of people barely dressed are deemed ok. But not everyday nudity. When erotic and/or provocative photos are presented as ďArtĒ, they are treated differently than natural and normal photos of naked people in everyday scenes. Itís a hypocritical system.

A woman photographer takes issue with the increasing split personality of online censorship with this gallery (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sasha-frolova-busts-photography-feminism_us_57e9546fe4b0e28b2b553161) of photos of barechested women where she has altered her photos by removing the offending nipples. Itís startling how the removal of a single, natural feature of the body can change the photo of a person from pleasing to one that makes you uneasy at first, at a minimum, and after a minute can be disturbing. It makes them seem less human. Yet itís what the censors want. They donít want to see those nipples! Which is even more disturbing.

She states, ďThe images address the ďcanít winĒ attitude that women face in relation to their bodies, often deemed inappropriate in their natural state.Ē  The pictorial that has removed a seemingly insignificant feature of the human body that has a surprisingly significant effect.

Duane
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: jbeegoode on June 07, 2017, 11:41:14 PM
Breast cancer survivors with augmentations might be disturbed by this, but one of them does look a tad alien.

So, the the censors idea creates a titillation (oh crap, another pun) a hidden jewel, which is the opposite of its intent. This doesn't.

I see images and people everyday with free breast, so I see something missing. I wonder how the more sheltered would see this.
Jbee
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: nuduke on June 08, 2017, 12:58:55 AM

Those pics certainly do make you realise how habituated we are to certain things.  My reaction to smoothed out breasts feels strangely uneasy for some reason.  I guess it would be the same for smoothed out noses or eyes.  The images feel 'incomplete'.  Good bit of Art that. Makes you think about your prejudices and preconceptions.
John
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: Patrick1951 on November 19, 2017, 06:59:58 AM
It would be a worthwhile exercise to offer some  of these to facebook! See what those dictatorial editors say?
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: BlueTrain on March 05, 2018, 09:24:37 PM
Although the whole exercise seems a little strained, there is still something there. It probably isn't what the artist intended, though.

Generally speaking, women in virtually all societies around the world do not expose their nipples. Yet woe to a woman who is flat-chested. The altered images covers all the bases.
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: Bob Knows on March 05, 2018, 10:15:57 PM
Generally speaking, women in virtually all societies around the world do not expose their nipples. Yet woe to a woman who is flat-chested. The altered images covers all the bases.

There is a movement in Africa to restore traditional tribal nudity, especially for female breasts.   It was their standard until taken away by Christian colonialists in the 20th century. 

I find altered images offensive.   
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: eyesup on March 07, 2018, 06:55:19 PM
Quote from: Bob Knows
Quote from: BlueTrain
Generally speaking, women in virtually all societies around the world do not expose their nipples. Yet woe to a woman who is flat-chested. The altered images covers all the bases.

There is a movement in Africa to restore traditional tribal nudity, especially for female breasts.   It was their standard until taken away by Christian colonialists in the 20th century.

I find altered images offensive.

Iím assuming you are referring to photographs. :) Paintings are by nature, an impression recorded by the artist. Of course, once the painting is finished, itís an image. The bane of the terminally vain is hi-res digital photography. Too true to life. Too tempting and easy to alter them.

Every culture has prohibitions. Some very odd to us westerners. Some donít allow the navel to be visible, but all else is allowed. Some the face, some the legs. Some cultures force the wife to follow her husband at a set distance.

Of course our culture seems to annoy everyone, we at least donít discriminate in that regard. :D

Duane
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: John P on March 24, 2018, 03:16:17 AM
Generally speaking, women in virtually all societies around the world do not expose their nipples. Yet woe to a woman who is flat-chested. The altered images covers all the bases.

That wasn't true until Europeans conquered the earth! In hot countries most people went around topless, and it wasn't considered erotic at all. What was unusual anywhere though, was a society where they just didn't think it was necessary to wear clothes. It seems as if the first artifact anyone wants to make is a covering for the genitals--either men's or women's or both.

I can recall reading somewhere the record of an interview between a white woman and an African tribeswoman. The white woman said that in western countries, women's breasts are considered erotic, and men are endlessly interested in them. And the African could hardly believe it: finally she burst into laughter and said "Well then, in your country men are no better than babies!"
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: jbeegoode on March 24, 2018, 04:33:40 AM
I think that the genital covering is more enhancement or to draw attention to virility. A guys gonna do what I guys gotta do to get laid...or spread his sperm and progeny. South America was covered with totally naked tribes. In many, it was just the males covering with sometimes very weird stuff.

Head cover, hair style and then some strange penis cover.

When the Europeans arrive, they get people to cover up, but they also record with pictures of people covered up, who may not always to have been so. The one who writes and records is like the historians of the winning side who record history.
Native, or more primitive tend to get an edict from an elder and then it gets accepted that things have always been that way. Even people who lived in clothing could drop off the robes without hassling with shame until this Victorian and church thing.   
Jbee
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: Peter S on March 24, 2018, 07:07:39 AM
I read many years ago that when the first early Victorian costume-adorned bather went into the sea at Brighton there was a rush to save them as onlookers believed they were committing suicide; up till them all sea an£ river bathing had been naked. Canít quote the source or the veracity of the quote, but Iíve never doubted it either

Peter
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: JOhnGw on March 25, 2018, 08:40:05 PM
I read many years ago that when the first early Victorian costume-adorned bather went into the sea at Brighton there was a rush to save them as onlookers believed they were committing suicide; up till them all sea an£ river bathing had been naked. Canít quote the source or the veracity of the quote, but Iíve never doubted it either

Peter
I remember reading in several places that it was the habit of ladies in the early 19th century to gather along the promenade to watch the naked male bathers emerge from the sea.
Legend has it that the shrunken genitals which result from immersion in the cold water of the English Channel were associated with many a female trauma on wedding nights.
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: John P on March 26, 2018, 05:35:11 AM
By the time outdoor photography became possible, men were required to wear clothing when bathing, at least in towns. Look at the Brighton Swimming Club (all male, of course) in the early 1860s. Maybe when they were told that the clothes had to be there, they decided hats were needed too :
(http://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk/TopHatBTNSwimClub1860s.jpg)
A couple of decades later, the costumes had become bigger, and a policeman was present to ensure that the men were covered, both top and bottom:
(http://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk/TopBTNSwimClubMarch1881.jpg)

(I made up that bit about the policeman. But he is there.)
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: Bob Knows on March 26, 2018, 05:41:30 PM
The 1860 photo looks like underwear, not specially made swim suits.  The men don't appear to be all that happy about it.
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: jbeegoode on March 27, 2018, 04:03:24 AM
Them don't look like hats, them looks like targets!
Jbee
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: John P on March 28, 2018, 10:26:37 AM
Here's an extract from the diary of the Reverend Francis Kilvert, written around 1870. It was evidently the period when men (not women, one thinks) might swim nude in an isolated area, but generally towns were insisting on clothing--at least "drawers"--being worn. Reading his experience here, it might be that one reason for the one-piece swimsuits with a top was that the garment would actually stay on!

Kilvert was an interesting character, doomed to die young, and his diary was largely destroyed by a relative after his death. But his lucid and lyrical descriptions of the countryside and country people are interesting enough that there's a Francis Kilvert Society in England.

Friday, 12 June

Bathing yesterday and to-day. Yesterday the sea was very calm,
but the wind has changed to the East and this morning a rough
and troublesome [sea] came tumbling into the bay and plunging
in foam upon the shore. The bay was full of white horses. At
Shanklin one has to adopt the detestable custom of bathing in
drawers. If ladies don't like to see men naked why don't they keep
away from the sight? To-day I had a pair of drawers given me which
I could not keep on. The rough waves stripped them off and tore
them down round my ancles. While thus fettered I was seized and
flung down by a heavy sea which retreating suddenly left me lying
naked on the sharp shingle from which I rose streaming with blood.
After this I took the wretched and dangerous rag off and of course
there were some ladies looking on as I came up out of the water.
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: eyesup on March 28, 2018, 11:21:08 PM
What an odd photo.  ???

When movies were invented and the photographers would go out with their cameras, they would tell people to move around, because it was a Ďmoveíeee. People didnít know what they were supposed to do, so a lot of early film clips are of folks just fidgeting and looking for something to so with their hands.

This is an early still photo and has a similar feel to it.
Hats? Taking a picture? Guess we need to put our hats on.

Two policemen, JohnP! Maybe they were a rowdy bunch. In each about 50% have their arms crossed. No place to put your hands.  ;D

Duane
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: eyesup on March 28, 2018, 11:22:47 PM
Quote from: JohnP
. . an interesting character, doomed to die young, and his diary was largely destroyed by a relative after his death.
Odd that the diary of a clergyman would be destroyed.
Some times I believe we have more to fear from kin than from strangers.
Which reminds me of Bix Beiderbecke.

His parents didnít want him to be a musician much less a jazzman and disapproved of his career. He sent them a copy of every recording he was on. They never opened them up, much less listened to them. Iíve heard they destroyed them all after his death at 28 yo. in 1931. Stunning ignorance! But it came from family.

Duane
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: BlueTrain on March 29, 2018, 01:00:12 PM
In the photos, both of them, I think the posing with the arms crossed was a typical strongman pose of the day. Even then, there were men who made a big deal of being strong, although not in the same way bodybuilders of today are but closer to weightlifters.
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: nuduke on April 01, 2018, 11:35:44 PM

I think, Duane that 1860 was not a long while after the introduction of photography (I believe wet plate processes came in in the 1850s) so the top hatted brigade may have had to stand there for quite a few seconds or minutes whilst the photo was exposed, hence the serious faces.  Everyone had to keep their face very still in those days.  What is hilarious is the top hats.  Knowing the average weather on Brighton beach, one would have to have someone hold your hat to avoid it being blown away!  I wonder if the swam in the hats! :D
John
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: eyesup on April 02, 2018, 03:29:57 AM
I remember that about the early photo plates. You had to stand stock still. That was the reason people had to break the habit of NOT MOVING in front of a camera.

If you put a chin strap on the hats they could be flotation devices.  ;D ;)

Duane
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: jbeegoode on April 02, 2018, 05:49:28 AM
Best use would be for storage...extra bunnies that you might have sitting around and such.
Jbee
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: BlueTrain on April 06, 2018, 01:06:28 PM
Regarding old things, my wife and I are both retired now (finally) and we have been turning our attention to all the accumulated clutter we have. Some of it is quite old, too. My wife inherited some things from a house where someone lived as an old maid, or as is said in other places, spinster. They were fairly well off and the house was a virtual time capsule from before WWI. It was a family that had eight or ten children, none of whom have any living descendants. What do you do with things like that when no one wants them?

I'm also reminded of a former editor of Field and Stream (or Outdoor Life, whichever it was) who proudly displayed in his book about camping his collection of "patent" cooking gear. That was from around 1920. I ran across an interview with his son who mentioned that all his old things just got thrown away. One person's treasures are another person's trash. 
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: eyesup on April 06, 2018, 05:19:58 PM
Quote
What do you do with things like that when no one wants them?

If they were longtime members of the community, they may have history there others my be familiar with. You could contact a local Heritage Society or museum to see if they want any donated items.

There is a museum here, the Las Vegas Heritage Museum (http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/parks/Pages/clark-county-museum.aspx), that has entire homes or buildings donated and moved to a reconstructed neighborhood street so you can see how people lived 80-100 yrs. ago.

An organization like that might be interested.

Duane
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: jbeegoode on April 06, 2018, 06:40:00 PM
Pickers, ebay, or they are the definition of midwestern antiques. Craig's list. People actually want those things. Sometimes they remind them of someone else, or something when they were young, or they think them cool, or fun. It is an anachronism and generally somebody will go nuts for the stuff. Is it knickknacks, or furniture? If it is clothing, even the plain stuff is popular with the young, but probably best not to mention that here. Some of us might find offense, or immoral to distribute clothing.... :o ;D
Jbee
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: eyesup on April 10, 2018, 07:40:36 PM
Remembrances or nostalgia. Sometimes we keep a thing for no rational reason. Itís just a touchstone. Iíll run across a thing from my past or of my parentís and it will bring a smile. It can be anything.

Clothes! How shocking!  ;D
A thing to do for fun, Jbee. I seem to remember you mentioning dressing up in ancient outfits for something. We do things for the fun and it doesnít hurt to keep the past at hand as a guide.

Duane
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: jbeegoode on April 11, 2018, 05:28:39 AM
I have one box with a piece of the Berlin Wall, a chunk of concrete and three inches of barbed wire, that I grabbed during my visit in 1965. The border patrol had their rifles drawn as they watched the hands messing with the wall. Next to that, lies my ticket to the Beatles in Paris March 10th, 1965. Then there is an old plastic model of a BSA motorcycle. I see these things every decade or so and still they are cool and memories, even the toy is still very neat, to me. I take it out and the wheels still turn, I stack the barbed wire over the block as a miniature and read the ticket. What insanity have I? I need a miniature Steve McQueen to jump the wall on the bike. How many times have I watched him do that great escape?

Tip of the iceberg.
Jbee
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: BlueTrain on April 11, 2018, 11:34:00 AM
I was in Berlin when I was in the army, I think in 1966 or 1967. I still have my flag orders somewhere. It was an impressive barrier, yet people still got through.

Regarding "naked nudity," I wonder if posing as a nude model for a roomful of artists (and would-be artists) might be an example of naked nudity. It would not necessarily be embarrassing but being the only one naked would have to be different.

There are also all those people who, on special occasions, go about wearing nothing but body paint. It's cheating in a way but merely an exaggerated form of makeup which washes off. I have problems with people who have all-over body tattoos (because I know they won't wash off). But they're not as bad as pierced eyebrows and lips. My problem, not yours or theirs.
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: eyesup on April 12, 2018, 06:32:03 AM
I've read articles by people that did the nude model thing for extra cash. The comments were always along the line of being a little uneasy but at the same time that they knew that it was just people focusing on a sketch or painting.

There was no judgement going on, but definitely an odd experience.

Duane
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: nudewalker on April 12, 2018, 04:15:23 PM
Back in my college days, when I was in shape, an art student once asked if she could sketch me.  I agreed and she did a few sketches of me in my soccer uniform for her class. Later in the semester she approached me, rather shyly to ask if I would consider posing nude for her.  Before I had the chance to answer she added  no face just body. Like I wouldn't have agreed anyway.
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: eyesup on April 16, 2018, 11:49:40 PM
So, nudewalker, should we expect to see a sketch of you in a retrospective of an artist at some point?
 ;) :D

Duane
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: nudewalker on April 17, 2018, 04:24:23 AM
Considering that it was almost fifty years ago if the artist does get her work out there good for her. I'd recognize it only from seeing it when she was done but I doubt at this time anyone would identify me as the subject.
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: nuduke on April 18, 2018, 09:35:04 PM

Quote from: Blue Train
I wonder if posing as a nude model for a roomful of artists (and would-be artists) might be an example of naked nudity. It would not necessarily be embarrassing but being the only one naked would have to be different.
It would, I think, BT.
Being a bit of an amateur artist ('bit' being the operative word), I recently joined a life class to try and get my ability to represent the human form from abysmal up to awful and thence to terrible with a target of reaching inept within a decade.  But seriously, although I have done but one class so far (they are monthly) this gave me a bit of an insight into the very matter you raise.  Never having done a life class before, but having heard about them from someone I know who has run them for local authority-run art and craft courses, my expectation was for an overweight bloke or a portly mature woman to be the model.  Judge of my surprise when the model turned out to be a very attractive young woman in her late 20s with a voluptuous figure and long dark hair.  (Random Though; Have I related this happening already?  If so apologies).
Any way, the 9 artists were seated around the front room of a house which was of the order of 12ft x 16ft, thus not much room to swing the proverbial cat and in relatively close association with the model.  In a naturist sense, I was most impressed by the model.  She was a professional art model and seemed very relaxed in her skin.  She was naked, no draped sheets or other cover up and she took up a number of poses across the 3 hour session (break for coffee) and complied with the class leader's request for poses irrespective of whether they were sitting kneeling, lying or that exposed her genitals.  Between sessions she didn't don a robe but did come over and look at the work, sit or stand and discuss it with several of the artists.  Very relaxed naturist in my opinion.  In the break she donned a light bath robe.
The point being, you don't get more exposed that that, really, in front of a bunch of strangers whose job is to look intently at you.  So yes, it was naked nude, nowhere to hide and in this case admirably comfortable with herself.
One of the other artists noted in conversation with me after the class that not all models are so self assured.  Some are evidently rather self conscious and this also tends to make the artists a little nervous.  I also found the class very tiring as the sessions are timed to 15 or 20 mins (so the model doesn't get tired or too stiff) and the level of concentration of the artists was palpable.
Roll on class 2!
John
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: BlueTrain on April 18, 2018, 10:44:25 PM
From abysmal to inept within a decade? I'm sure you'll make it.

Although the nude figure, both male and female, adult and child, have been almost standard art subjects for centuries, more in some centuries than others, your comments made me think of something. Even nude, people somehow manage to reflect the period in which they lived, or more correct, the period in which the artist is working. A hundred and twenty-five years ago, the typical adult male and female looked different from the same today, to a greater or lesser degree, I believe. The differences might have been most apparent in the hair and I'm not sure if that should be considered superficial or not. But given how much attention is devoted to one's hair (our remaining plumage, so to say), it's probably anything but superficial. An exception might be when the artist is doing a work in another era, which is certainly common enough. You may have noted that Michelangelo's David may or may not have a historically accurate hairdo but it doesn't seem likely that the model for the statue was Jewish.

Anyway, nude artwork more often than not, I think, reflects prevailing fashion for what bodies ought to look like and for the most part, really did. Ancient Greek statues certainly did. So, some representation I saw of a nude couple in around 1880 or 1890 depicted the man with a full mustache and the woman with what you might call a Gibson Girl hairdo. But the male figure in the Pioneer plaque (1972 and 1973) has a decidedly early 70s hair style but is clean shaven--all over. It's probably not a good idea to read too much into such things, though. There are also artistic conventions that are followed but sometimes consciously ignored. And besides, you can't put everything into one piece of artwork.

I don't know what you say to struggling artists but in theater, it's "break a leg."
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: eyesup on April 19, 2018, 05:54:49 PM
Well unless Michelangelo was more talented and inventive than Leonardo or as history tells us, he didnít have any images of the favored hair styles of the golden age of the Hebrews. Artists work in their own knowledge so we usually see a stylised rendering.

Quote from: BlurTrain
I don't know what you say to struggling artists but in theater, it's "break a leg."
Check please! :D Our daughter is a cellist, so we use this one occasionally.

Duane
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: eyesup on April 19, 2018, 06:00:31 PM
Iíve tried before, not as diligently as you John, to draw the human form. I have yet to do a good job. Maybe it requires more practice. I am a draftsman (UK draughtsman) by training, over 30 yrs., and can draw practically anything inanimate.

Not so skilled at the animated objects.

Duane
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: nuduke on April 26, 2018, 09:26:33 PM

Interesting and entirely true observation there, Blue Train.  Not only hairstyles but preferences in body shape, particularly of the female form do change through the ages.  Just google the subject and loads of stuff falls out from anthropology to pornography.  It's interesting to note what features were preferred in both genders across time - for instance around the 1850s being plump was thought becoming for a man as it indicated wealth correlating with over indulgence in food and drink and lack of excercise.  Times do change!


Duane, I also succeed in reproducing plants, landscapes and inanimate objects much more successfully than humans or animals.  I think it's because our brains are so powerfully imprinted with some sort of model of what we think a human looks like that it guides our hand wrongly when we try to respoduce the actuality in front of us.  In reality we just don't really know where our noses are!  Most fiendish of all is drawing hands and feet.  I have agonies trying to do these!


John
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: jbeegoode on April 26, 2018, 10:51:24 PM
It just takes more patience, concentration and focus to take a body and draw it rendered as it is. They can be set appropriately into correct proportions using a ruler and stick figures, then lay on to that to lighting of the reality. Yea, a face at 45 degrees takes time.
Jbee
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: eyesup on April 27, 2018, 09:28:45 PM
You are probably right, John about the preconceptions of the human form. I also tend to suspect that the prospect of trying to do that is intimidating knowing the end result is going to look like lab sketches by Herr Frankenstein.  :D

Duane
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: BlueTrain on December 13, 2018, 12:46:05 PM
Reading over the posts in this thread again, because I've nothing better to do,  made me think of a couple of things, which I hope I remember long enough to make this post.

Regarding photography, digital and otherwise, some early photographs were very high resolution, though in black & white. I imagine that the large negative and the long exposure for studio portraits had something to do with it. I worked in photofinishing labs for about twenty years. The salesman for one of our vendors had a collection of glass plates and our plant manager made a print, maybe 15" by 20" or thereabouts (this was over 20 years ago) and the resolution and detail was astonishing. It was a post-war photo of Lee. Although that print was remarkable, I couldn't say if it was typical or not, mainly because I haven't seen another photo that size and one shouldn't judge the original by looking at a photo in a book. That's even more true of paintings. There was an exhibit of photos taken by Victoria and Albert somewhere several years ago but the photos on display were mostly of snapshot size, quite small. Don't remember where I saw them, either, maybe in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.

Now, regarding "naked nudity," sometimes it feels like I am more than naked when I am nude except for something on my feet and the bigger the shoes, the more naked I feel. In other words, wearing boots makes me feel more naked than just a pair of sneakers. Totally ridiculous, I know, and it's all in the mind. There is no legal distinction of course, and the legal distinctions turn on the word "exposure," as well as what is being exposed. I suppose that in a sense, that's all in the mind, too, at least of those who write the laws.
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: Peter S on December 13, 2018, 01:33:47 PM
A lot of the early cameras captured extremely high resolutions, because they were expensive and limited edition pieces of apparatus, aiming for quality. Reducing size and improving portability led to lower quality in return for mass production and availability (and relative cheapness). Itís taken decades for high levels of quality to creep through into mass production, affordable levels. I used to work with a photographer who highlighted another issue, that lens technology and film technology advanced at different rates, so even if a lens could capture high the film couldnít cope, and vice versa.

The advance to digital has changed all that, of course, and most photographs, if viewed at all, are only viewed on a smartphone-sized screen.
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: BlueTrain on December 13, 2018, 03:14:46 PM
We had a presumably cheap camera (it was mostly cardboard) that produced relatively good photos. The thing that counted most was the size of the film. That's why press cameras used large format single-image film. "Art" photographers used the same sort of cameras. I think the gatefold photos in Playboy were taken with cameras like that. The so-called pocket cameras using 110 film took poor quality photos because the film was small. Expensive cameras had better lenses that were adjustable.

Don't believe everything you see, though.
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: jbeegoode on December 13, 2018, 06:34:53 PM
I think that the sense of exposure with more covering in less inhibited areas is common. The extra footwear connotes clothing, with the clothing missing, it is more incongruous, more naked looking. Cowboy boots and naked look funny, for example. It has to do with what we perceive as normal. Like someone in a suit, but missing pants. The eyes are looking back at oneself, rather than looking out, as persona, and naked. Like underwear that covers up more that a bikini, but is more naked to be in underwear.

Something like that....
Jbee
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: nuduke on December 13, 2018, 09:54:00 PM

Just theorising...
Since film uses very fine crystals spread on a support medium there is a limit to the resolution as presumably determined by a limit to crystal size that can be generated and spread on a backing.  In the 19th and early 20th century the picture area was relatively large.  Old wet process glass plate cameras were, like 10in x 8in or 13in x 10in or larger.  So called full plate paper film was
6Ĺ ◊ 8Ĺ. 
This means the picture was spread over a larger number and area of crystals so that each crystal recorded a very small area of picture giving hi res.  Compare with a 35mm camera where the same picture might be recorded on a much smaller area over 50 times smaller for the 10 x 8  example.  However good the advances in getting tinier crystals, that must explain some of the high resolution of pictures in the early days of photography but lower res in more modern times.  In more recent decades when a photographer wanted great resolution he would use a very big plate camera and film size.   


I assume digital cameras today, although they take a very small picture area on the ccd chip, vastly exceed the resolution of the old time silver halide cameras.  Although do they?  I had a quick google and couldn't find a clear answer to that but what I did discover is that there is no 'standard' pixel density.  If you have a big old ornery digital reflex camera with say 12 MPxel resolution the ccd is large say 40mm wide and the pixel size might be 3-5microns but in a smartphone you may also have a 12 megapixel camera but around 5mm wide with pixels at 1 micron or thereabouts.  So hi res cameras today have big pixels and big ccds but a relatively hi res picture can be achieved with small pixels on a small ccd.  Confusing or what?


JMF can you shed any light and help our understanding?


John
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: BlueTrain on December 14, 2018, 01:35:50 AM
In the old pre-Kodak days, the high resolution was only possible under controlled circumstances, such as when in the studio. Although there were many outdoor photos taken, any movement would spoil the photo. But otherwise, the process was the same, indoors or out. It is interesting to note that nudes were the subjects of photographers early on, including children. I think it has also been said that photography brought an end to highly detailed, photo-like painting but I don't believe that's true.

It might be said that we're in the post-Kodak era.
Title: Re: Naked Nudity
Post by: jmf on December 14, 2018, 05:48:34 PM

Just theorising...
Since film uses very fine crystals spread on a support medium there is a limit to the resolution as presumably determined by a limit to crystal size that can be generated and spread on a backing.  In the 19th and early 20th century the picture area was relatively large.  Old wet process glass plate cameras were, like 10in x 8in or 13in x 10in or larger.  So called full plate paper film was
6Ĺ ◊ 8Ĺ. 
This means the picture was spread over a larger number and area of crystals so that each crystal recorded a very small area of picture giving hi res.  Compare with a 35mm camera where the same picture might be recorded on a much smaller area over 50 times smaller for the 10 x 8  example.  However good the advances in getting tinier crystals, that must explain some of the high resolution of pictures in the early days of photography but lower res in more modern times.  In more recent decades when a photographer wanted great resolution he would use a very big plate camera and film size.   


I assume digital cameras today, although they take a very small picture area on the ccd chip, vastly exceed the resolution of the old time silver halide cameras.  Although do they?  I had a quick google and couldn't find a clear answer to that but what I did discover is that there is no 'standard' pixel density.  If you have a big old ornery digital reflex camera with say 12 MPxel resolution the ccd is large say 40mm wide and the pixel size might be 3-5microns but in a smartphone you may also have a 12 megapixel camera but around 5mm wide with pixels at 1 micron or thereabouts.  So hi res cameras today have big pixels and big ccds but a relatively hi res picture can be achieved with small pixels on a small ccd.  Confusing or what?


JMF can you shed any light and help our understanding?


John

Well, I'm a practitioner, not a technician. What you're saying is correct: there may be the same number of photosites, (pixels) on a large or small sensor. But the size of each of these photosites will be different. The larger they are, the more they will bring quality to the image, including less parasitic noise in low light. But the quality of the computer processing that transforms the electrical pulses into images inside the camera, and also the quality of the optics, all of this of course affects the final quality of the image. By looking at it at the real dimension and not in a very small way on a screen.  The quality of an image can be judged mainly by its magnification or printing.