The nerves in the nipple react to stimuli, both physical and psychological. So an arousing thought, change in temperature, or something as simple as the water of the shower brushing against your skin can cause one or both of your nipples to become erect, the purpose of the image is to imply that arousing sensation, I decided to take this shot in full color, this way I am able to capture the water streams navigating around the curves of her body.
From wikipedia: Erotic photography is a style of art, sexually suggestive or sexually provocative nature.
After the 1960s erotic photography began to be less commonly referred to as such, and to be increasingly described as glamour photography.
Erotic photography generally produces a composed image of a subject in a still position. Though the subjects of erotic photography are usually completely or mostly unclothed, that is not a requirement.
Erotic photography is often distinguished from nude photography, which contains nude subjects not necessarily in an erotic situation, never sexually explicit, anything sexually explicit is pornography and we are not inclined to that type of photography.
Erotic photographs are normally intended for commercial use, including mass-produced items such as decorative calendars, pinups and for men’s magazines, such as Penthouse and Playboy, but many art photographers have also dabbled in explicit or erotic imagery, sometimes erotic photographs are intended to be seen only by a subject’s partner.
2014 I read a good article written by Alex Coghe, it was about his experience with Erotic Photography and I learned a lot about it, I am going to share some key points of that article and of course the source if you decide to check it:
I have decided to offer to my readers a brief guide to erotic photography, from the point of view of an editor and photographer. This is clearly a guide where all advices and opinions expressed are inspired by personal experience, it is not clearly neither a Bible nor something that works for all erotic photographers. PLEASE NOTE: Post originally published on Fluffer magazine in Italian language and on my erotic photography blog An Erotic Photographer.
at some point in his article he says that Erotic photography is sex done with a camera, kind of disagree with this, my purpose there as a photographer is to capture the sensuality of a female through her posing.
He goes beyond asserting hat “If you as a photographer don’t understand this, and if the model doesn’t understand too, then you should not even pretend to do erotic photography”.
I respect people’s opinion but I don’t necessary agree with them, I guess my mindset as a phoptographer is The book approach is not erotic photography. And this is the most obvious problem for many people tending to confuse the two things. If you want to do modeling photos for your book, let me know and I will make you my price for the books because I need to be payed for this. Erotic photography is another thing. So leave your Cindy Crawford poses at home before coming to my studio if we have to do erotic photos.
I avoid models that charge for Erotic Photography
I do not use them and do not think I will ever use them when it comes to erotic photography. We all want to gain, and is a right thing, but let me say that putting money in front of eroticism simply does not work. Worse still put the condition: I do TFP / TFCD with lingerie, do naked only if you pay me. Fuck this idea. My models work for projects. In that case as a professional photographer and you as model are both involved in making something creative together which can also give us money: a contest, the creation of a book, the sale of prints … but the idea that I should pay the model is just not … I don’t do interchange, I propose projects. The models that agree to do certain types of shots just because you’re paying may be the only motivation for that and the result is bad, false, why did not believe it but just for the money received and this is good for advertising photography, not to a type of photography where the two sides are accomplished something that makes the experience both in front (model and photographer) are living in a more instinctive and spontaneous then.
Paintings and Nudity, specially painting with light.
More than any other Western painter, Rubens is identified with the women he depicted. Apart from being undressed, his female type is above all characterized by specific physical qualities, which tend to be summarized as ‘fleshy’ and ‘corpulent’. Four centuries after date, the ‘Rubensian’ is no longer limited to the artistic field only but has become a proverbial, though not always positive, qualification for voluptuous forms. The origins of this biased perception probably lie in the debate between the Poussinistes versus Rubénistes at the end of the seventeenth century. It found acceptance about a century later in the writings of scholars such as Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717- 1768) and Georg Forster (1754-1794). Scholarly literature of a more recent date seems to take Rubens’s reputation as the master of the female nude for granted. However, a comprehensive discussion of its genesis, characteristics and constituents is lacking. Well-researched observations tend to be marginal or fragmentary. An important aspect, which has received quite some attention since the 1960s is the remarkable colourfulness and liveliness of Rubens’s human bodies. In the wake of Hans Sedlmayr, especially German art historians have applied themselves to multifaceted analyses of the artist’s unique technique of painting skin and building up flesh colours.
Further comments have been given within the scope of iconographical and iconological studies. Both Fiona Healy and Kristin Belkin have brilliantly analyzed Rubens’s renderings of the female nude in his mythological paintings. Healy connects Rubens’s strong fascination for the female nude with his fancy for the Venus iconography. She reads Rubens’s Venus as the personification of physical love, and as such the ultimate image of his own Hélène. This fusion of Hélène Fourment and Venus becomes very palpable in Het Pelsken, the illustrious portrait historié of Rubens’s young wife as Venus, which was only recently brought into the spotlight again as the subject of two widely divergent approaches. While Margit Thøfner used this picture to discuss feminine spectatorship in confrontation with erotically charged pictures, Kristin Belkin drew attention to it in order to show how costume history could contribute to our understanding of Rubens’s portrayal of the nude. Deliberately challenging but surprisingly pertinent within the context of this paper is Svetlana Alpers’s approach. Throughout her controversial book The Making of Rubens she yields a new vision of Rubens’s art and defines his pictorial mode as feminine and highly sensorial – versus masculine and intellectual.