It's taken me a long time to respond, because I couldn't believe how long this school-boyish thread has endured.
OF COURSE I have. I'm a child of the 60s (or of the universe -- much the same thing). No nude pix for several years now, though.
I'd have thought it was pretty weird for any photographer under about 60 (or since the invention of Polaroid, so make it 80) NOT to have done so. As Hugivza says, the weird thing is the implicit prudery in this thread.
And yes, that applies either way: photographer naked, model naked. Why the * in 'naked' and what's wrong with 'nude'? Part of the same prudery, I suppose...
Cheers,
R.
Roger, the phrasing of the OP was a bit of an invitation to "school-boyish" and I gather tongue in cheek replies.
My last two serious models were both from Prague, and neither were particularly prudes, both have since taken up photography, one rather seriously.
I have not found it to be a particularly easy subject, perhaps with more time and effort it might become so, and I posted one in the Gallery that I thought reflected some of what I see when I am around Petra, who is an interesting and only coincidentally very attractive young person.
All portraits, in the ideal, perhaps should either tell you something of the person, or at least make you feel as if you know something of them. From limited experience, I have to work with someone a few times to be comfortable.
The abstract treatment is another subset, with the form and light the essence.
I do not work with nudes much in the US, way too much cultural baggage, and while there are many things to admire about the US, there may be too much pop in the culture, at least by volume. I think the weird thing is the explicit prudery expressed, but I kind of expect it with the at large.
Regards, John
