My approach has always been this when photographing people, especially nude photography. Sure, beautiful locations can add eye appeal to a photo….and if I have the opportunity to use a sweet location like a pristine beach or a fancy mansion, I’d take it….but it’s inevitable, my approach wouldn’t change much, as far as how I capture the subject. Sure, the mansions used in Playboy are nice. That costs a shit ton of money, and as nice as they are, they aren’t needed to make a beautiful photograph. In some ways, in cases like that, the location competes with the allure of the subject.
Have you seen the Hangover movies in Bangkok? The sequel I watched with friends when they were over for Thanksgiving or Christmas, I forget which. Most people would think I’m weird for this, but the eye of an artist would understand why I feel this way….the old run down, sweaty, dirty apartment building where they stayed would be my choice of photoshoot location, over that fancy hotel that was shown later in the movie. I saw character and textures that could be used.
My usual approach when shooting artistic nudes of a female subject, is to use shadow and shallow depth of field to bring the focal point of the image to the subject, and make the background and location more subtle….as well as less recognizable. I like how simple gets it done…that way, the lighting, and the features of the model stand out more, if the models don’t have to compete with the shooting area. Every curve and detail of the female body is beautiful….that’s what I want my viewers to notice about my photos first, which is one reason I feel more drawn to that approach. Not saying real artists don’t use beautiful locations….but to me it challenges me as an artist to make a beautiful photo with just the subject and a simple, or imperfect location. In fact, my goal when capturing them, is for often the locations not even to be identifiable. Like these, shot in an apartment, using window light only…. nothing fancy, but she shines like a new penny 🙂