A week ago I had a chance to practice doing some fitness photography. Jaakko kindly agreed to model for my exercise.
During this exercise I noticed again how the view point and shadow play defines our perception of the body form. Of how we see it and how we imagine what we can not see. Check the two images below: almost the same pose, but the angle and shadows are slightly different. In the first image the body looks much leaner and thinned, in the second though, the body looks more powerful due to the wider chest and waist. The first image could be of a swimmer, but the second is definitely of a body builder.
Now lets discuss another problem. The below image raised the old debate of "appropriate" and "not appropriate" again. So I want to shoot a nude body. Just as the nature made it. But how to pose the body that it would be Facebook-friendly, meaning no privates visible? But on the same time having nothing of this "implied nudity but still decent" crap? The pose showing just a leg, or ass, or a hand put conveniently over the genitals - it may look decent, but very artificial in my opinion. What to do?
I shot this image as a fitness image. Trying to show the body form and muscles. But yes, the genitals are visible. Does it automatically made it a "nude" picture and not "fitness"? Do I need to shoot fitness with underwear/pants/trousers/shorts only? Because in some case you just can not hide the "private" parts.
Note to myself: next time I definitely need to try to put light source right above the model.