"sex sells" - approved ?

btgc

btgc

Veteran
Local time
1:58 AM
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
4,745
View My Gallery
Statement - on flickr, frames showing woman with emphasized sexual attributes (nice legs or hey, even red boots work) easily fetch high number of views, while similar street shots without "catchers" go "normal route". So easy.

Well, I'm not doing this for "more views". That few shots of womans just have happened, not that they are somehow special or even worth publishing - definitely not shots I'd list as my good ones. But I decided to check..and yeah, reflexes do their job. OK, I don't blame anyone - it's human nature. In the end, I'm not better if I've raised camera to snap 'em.

Maybe I'm wrong, but seems that here on RFF viewers are more selective 😉 Again, I'm not trying to tell capturing or viewing pics of woman is bad taste, just plain speculation about human nature.
 
There's old photographic adage that every shot is better with a nude in it. Sunset, safari, street, macro, sports, Hubble space telescope capture, you name it: boobs in the frame improve its appreciation dramatically.

Even a nude shot can be improved by introducing another nude!
 
varjag said:
There's old photographic adage that every shot is better with a nude in it. Sunset, safari, street, macro, sports, Hubble space telescope capture, you name it: boobs in the frame improve its appreciation dramatically.

Even a nude shot can be improved by introducing another nude!
Click to expand...

The Holy grail of photography, a Hubble ultra deep field capture with boobs... :angel:
 
I don't see where the "speculation" gets in. Females are attractive to males by design. That's biology. I don't even have to add in the "heterosexual" qualifier, as most gay men also think women look great. There is no new insight in this. 🙂

Also not new is the reactionary attempt to criticize other people for their natural biological inclinations.
 
If I want to see a woman, I always prefer a picture in the style of Audrey Hepburn at Tiffany's or Juliette Binoche here but I guess I'm a perverted. 😀 😀

btgc said:
Maybe I'm wrong, but seems that here on RFF viewers are more selective.
Click to expand...

Do you think so? Try posting some pictures of boobs out of focus, and let's see what happens. 🙄 🙄
 
Many nudes in Fora receive great ratings by other photogs who also make...well nudes.
To make a good and interesting nude has become a big challenge again as many nudes (some days even 90%) posted -especially the BW ones-tend to look very uniform.
Stereotypic situations:
- Nude in front of some rocks :"this marvellous contrast between soft skin and hard...well rock!
- Low key nude in BW :very non erotic "pure" and increasingly dull. although low probability of being called a pornographer.
- Nude in the woods/ on a field. 60's paradise lost partially regained. Pics like that were even alowed in communist Germany that should give you something to think..
- nude in closed down factories: "this mervellous contrast between soft skin and hard machinery"
- Nude on a bed: simple recipe and deifinitely indecent
- Nude in a bath: all time classic. situation is a pefect excuse for nudity
Now I must stop posting as my latest nuede project awaits me a nude on a chair- something never seen before!
 
stereotypes are created by us.
The examples you mentioned are not necessarily coming from copies. These are easy ideas and anybody can come up with them, independent of others.
As long as you don't look at many nudes in the categories you mentioned, they won't be stereotypical for you 🙂😛
 
Just because a photo includes somebody naked and rock formations doesn't mean it's like every other photo of somebody naked that also included rock formations. Were all of Use the right choice of words and you can make anything sound trite and worn out by the time photography left glass plates, but that doesn't make it so. Are all landscapes basically alike because there's sun and mountains?
 
"Just because a photo includes somebody naked and rock formations doesn't mean it's like every other photo of somebody naked that also included rock formations."

It's about those nudes posted on Photofora whose photographers keep schmoozing each other. My post was meant as a tongue in cheek guide for making photographs for the sake of a good rating hence my comment about me ging to take a nude in a chair. So my post is about those nudes that contain rocks that look all the same whereas yours is about the fact that not all of these do so. (beacuse there still are photographers striving to find something new and original)
It's the phenomenon when the small path you are walking as a photographer gets broader and broader until you realize you are on a highway where many things are standardized....and look the same.

"Are all landscapes basically alike because there's sun and mountains?[/quote]"

Landscapes made by me would certainly look indistinguishable from thoase of others....The true masterpieces I've seen kept me from dabbling into that field.
In art you have often the fatrc that people who came out of the same schools oftem made paintings or pictures that look alike. But for my landscapes I guess I ahve to find the proper forum were people would schmooze me for my average results
 
Spider67 said:
Many nudes in Fora receive great ratings by other photogs who also make...well nudes.
To make a good and interesting nude has become a big challenge again as many nudes (some days even 90%) posted -especially the BW ones-tend to look very uniform.
Stereotypic situations:
- Nude in front of some rocks :"this marvellous contrast between soft skin and hard...well rock!
- Low key nude in BW :very non erotic "pure" and increasingly dull. although low probability of being called a pornographer.
- Nude in the woods/ on a field. 60's paradise lost partially regained. Pics like that were even alowed in communist Germany that should give you something to think..
- nude in closed down factories: "this mervellous contrast between soft skin and hard machinery"
- Nude on a bed: simple recipe and deifinitely indecent
- Nude in a bath: all time classic. situation is a pefect excuse for nudity
Click to expand...
Hey, you just posted contents of next BW Magazine issue!
 
I've always loved that song by Scissor Sisters with the repeating line ... "You can't see tits on the radio!" 🙄
 
Let's find out, shall we:

lot_kris_kus.jpg


These are the pics with the most hits in my portfolio... what a suprise...

anne_legs.jpg
 
As I said before: maybe it's popular, because the rest of the shots are nothing big deal🙂
Nothing personal, Roland - i don't know your portfolio - I just want to emphasize dat we, humans, tend to blame the community for our own weaknesses. Or, at least, I do!
 
Pherdinand said:
As I said before: maybe it's popular, because the rest of the shots are nothing big deal🙂
Nothing personal, Roland - i don't know your portfolio - I just want to emphasize dat we, humans, tend to blame the community for our own weaknesses. Or, at least, I do!
Click to expand...


I don't really get that 😉 The fact is that 'sex' sells. Even if there is not really sex in the images I posted. Yet they are very popular and I like them too.

Funny thing is that both pictures were not my idea, but the idea of the girls featured in them. I don't think too much of it or about it. Most of us straight guys like to look at nice women, and most nice women don't really mind being looked at, barring drooling and wolf whistles.
 
So I'm human, I'm male, and Sex sells, that's why!

Don't you luv when all pieces fell in place?!

oh! and I'm weak! YES!

Edite: Great light Ronald!
 
btgc said:
Maybe I'm wrong, but seems that here on RFF viewers are more selective 😉
Click to expand...
I doubt it. We RFFers are just as sensationalist & sexist as everybody else on the planet.

I have a somewhat small gallery with a very random selection of pictures . Here's the three pictures with the most hits:



Here's my hypothesis why people like these three the most. The first one is in the lead because it's somewhat gross (and because it was in Gallery Picks once and was on the front page for a couple of hours). The second one is there because there is obviously a woman in it and because of the title (Star F*ck, the name of the fashion event where it was shot). The third one is there because of the blonde. They are not particularly good photographs IMHO, except maybe for the bird which I like somewhat, but that's how gallery viewing works.

Philipp
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tunalegs
Using Kickstarter (my report)
Replies
7
Views
2K
zuiko85
Z
Z
Directions in Photography
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Poptart
P
Back
Top Bottom