HOME | DD
MarcBergmann β
blinded by the light
[NSFW]
Published: 2013-10-13 10:15:34 +0000 UTC; Views: 67412; Favourites: 1696; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
also available in full resolutionRelated content
Comments: 97
Is this the same photo....www.deviantart.com/art/Legs-45β¦
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you so much! I just send a message to dA and I am sure this (probably male) member will be completely removed very soon!
π: 0 β©: 0
Beautiful work! Congratulations on the DD!
π: 0 β©: 0
I love lighting concept in this photo. It produces some nice soft tones and a gentle contrast that makes the model stand out.
You've also done a wonderful job in capturing the expression and the posing is justΒ exquisite. The angles really gives a sense
of a strong intimate setting that doesn't feel forced or limited. To me, I would have deepen the exposure just a little bit, maybe
just to see it as a silhouette lighting. Most times, shooting a model in front a door or window with the lighting being very harsh
I would have problems with because it washes out the subject. There are a few rare occasions where I see it work as a whole.
This is one of those times where it really works. Very lovely. Keep it up.
π: 0 β©: 0
I am commenting because this was posted in the Comment Month folder
Technically this photo was executed very well; visually it makes no sense! The pose is awkward and unflattering, her expression is completely disengaged, and the hand is posed literally like a molded plastic dollβs hand!
So much technique and resources were applied to this shot, and so much more could be achieved with those elements! When you are try trying to use male fantasy tropes, they must be of primary interest in the photo. The most compelling point of interest is the action of the model βstyling her hairβ, which is emphasized by the visual framing of the bent arm. The clichΓ© elements of lingerie, stockings and high heels are become quite secondary. Are we supposed to imagine this is a woman preparing for a night out? (Or even a night in?!) Β The fact that she must brace herself against a door frame to hold the pose makes the scenario absurd, while flattening her buttock in a most uncomplimentary way.
The lighting and the styling is reminiscent of the best of Playboy magazine in the 60βs. If you look back at that era, you might see something like this, but what would make it successful is that the model would smile at the camera in tacit conspiratorial amusement. That would make it sexy, even if the scenario was absurd.
There is much in your gallery to admire, but this is not up to your best work.
π: 0 β©: 0
Congratulations - a well deserved DD! The model is gorgeous 
The framing with the door frame is a really nice idea! Unfortunately the door reflects a lot of light, causing a white-out in the background. But it also reflects light to the model
Keep on the good work! Cheers
π: 0 β©: 0
I love how you shot this! Β It's perfectly in focus and composed wonderfully. Β I do wish that maybe the background was a little more bright, because I find whatever is behind her is a little distracting. Β Congrats on your DD!
π: 0 β©: 0
what is the name of the model in the picture? Thank you
π: 0 β©: 1
you find her here:
www.model-kartei.de/sedcards/mβ¦
but some pics may be restricted. She is from Germany.....
π: 0 β©: 1
you are welcome! If you need any help, just let me know!
π: 0 β©: 1
featured:
who we want to be
why me by =StefanBeutler _Kay Morgan II. by =Bloddroppe
It's in the trees by *AshtrayheartRomina deep, deep in the woods by ~chervona Never Never Land by *ElenaKalis
song of the forest by ~Makusheva 20091121 2719 by *metindemiralay The coldness of dreams by ~olivier-ramonteu
awakening by ~Makusheva anzhlk2 by ~afamjaowy she by ~Makusheva
human garden by ~ezorenier Alyssa by ~mrxthanh Victorian morning by ~FairyLady19007
Jessica II by *Donna-Lynn Valeria Close-Up by ~ShakilovNeel Elf by ~xXxfionaxXx
Wild Flower by *Spiegellicht road by ~MargotMi Anna II by *YuliaSpesivtseva
Passion Cut 04 by *Hart-Worx 4/100 by ~Foufinha blue by ~ozanb
field by =schnotte Marketa by ~MaryaS _Roses II. by =Bloddroppe
Flower Snake by `IllustratedEye blinded by the light by =MarcBergmann pin up II by ~xxbone
Luminescence by ~m-yang Dark Beauty 2 by ~Angelwhore-Wild Whisper by ~KimxRose
Vladislava II by *YuliaSpesivtseva Lifeless swan by *NataliaDrepina Macht Kaputt Was Euch Kaputt Macht by *TrizTaess
Ballerina Campaign - 1 by *Aisii _roses. by =Bloddroppe Adamantine by ~OlgaAthens
from the forest by *Ddenisee Meremennen by *RapidHeartMovement Your Sinful Muse by *kazarinakristina
:thumb4166915
π: 0 β©: 0
B E A UuuuuuTifulllllllll,, Superbbbbbbbbbbb work β₯
π: 0 β©: 0
this girl is real indeed
π: 0 β©: 0
Beautiful!
For a second I though she was a 3D model... so perfect!
May I use your photo as reference for one of my works as a tribute for your work? I'll add your credits...
Keep it like that!
π: 0 β©: 1
Sure, no problem
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you! I'll let you know as soon I complete it!
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, please do so...
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you for allowing me to use your photo... yuu really inspired me! hope you like it and thank you again
π: 0 β©: 1
I definitely like it! Well done and congrats to your talent.
Marc Bergmann
π: 0 β©: 1
I have to thank you for the inspiration!
hope I can find another photo that inspire me as much as this one...
Thank you again!
π: 0 β©: 0
yay another woman being reducet to sex appeal \o/
π: 0 β©: 1
Being reduced to sex appeal? I'm rather baffled by your comment. What do you mean? To me women can have sex appeal but are clearly still people. I'd like to think that I shouldn't dress in an ugly and retiring way to be a person instead of being "reduced to sex appeal".
π: 0 β©: 1
dressing ugly or pretty, provocative or not, has nothing to do with how this picture portrays women and the message it's sending the audience.[ and she's not wearing clothes so that is not the point at all]
i'm just talking about the picture. the absolute epidemic of pictures such as this keep reinforcing the already vastly accepted notion that women's worth lies in sex appeal. search for 'woman' or 'women' or any female name. you'll get naked women being sexy and only sexy. now type 'fine art'
π: 0 β©: 2
I agree with Saaally here. If you had a daughter or sister that was doing this, then it would still be art right? :/
π: 0 β©: 1
thank you for the support! Nowadays people seem to think everything is always fine no matter what, no matter how it affects other people, it seems like daring to say something may be harmful is the worst thing one could possibly do. and that notion is just absurd and scary. people feel the need to abide to everything now otherwise they're being, i dunno, prude or boring? bs :/
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm not sure I understand the comparison you make with typing "woman" or "fine art", because surely a woman being "reduced" to being a fine art object is no better?
I still don't understand though how this photo reinforces or in any way tells us that women's worth lies only in sex appeal. To me there is a woman in this photo, and she has sex appeal. I don't understand how one negates the other.
π: 0 β©: 1
I told you to search for those words because you'd only get women being sexualised as a result. this shows how society perceives women. as sex objects. i wish this was bullshit
π: 0 β©: 1
I think we're on two different wavelengths here. I get what you're saying about the culture of objectification but I have a specific question about this photo: to me yes this woman has sex appeal but there is also clearly a woman here. Does showing her to have sex appeal automatically mean she's no longer a person? Or is there something else here that to you makes her no longer a person?
π: 0 β©: 1
thanks for clarifying!
Answering your question: to me the picture only shows sex appeal. like, i don't see a meaningful expression in her face, not even her gesture, nothing can be said about her, what she's wearing has no personality either and only adds up to sex appeal, i can barely see her eyes, and she looks very photoshoped. that's why, to me, this is not very different from the zillions of pictures that portray women as objects [tough it's not as objectifying as it gets! don't get me wrong] it pisses me the hell off how people [not you but people in general] cannot for death of themselves manage to use a female in a photography for meaning and subject, without exploiting her body sexually.
π: 0 β©: 1
I can see how she isn't bringing to the table what you're asking for, but revealing her personality, and being a person, are two different things. I still don't really understand how her showing only her sex appeal, and not her personality, makes her stop being a human being. Her sex appeal is part of her. I'm curious - would you say any photo portraying somebody's sex appeal is okay?
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not a matter of her being a person or not, it's just a matter of a person being portrayed in a very shallow way that can be damaging to the image of women [since we do link women to sex faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar too damn often so every picture like that contributes to how we perceive females, get it?]
no, i don't think using sex appeal/sensuality in a picture is necessarily a bad thing. it's just very often used in a bad, superficial, misleading [= photoshop = body image issues; unrealistic expectations] and shallow way.
π: 0 β©: 1
I really don't understand the analogy you make there at all. Saying that to portray a woman's sex appeal damages a woman's image because we link women to sex far too often sounds to me similar in logic to telling women they should dress carefully otherwise they will be raped; i.e. it assumes that the viewers are automatically mindless animals in the face of beauty or sex appeal. In my opinion, the problem in scenarios like this is with the viewers.
The photoshop debate is a whole other topic.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't think it has anything to do with rapist apologies! How someone dresses has nothing to do with and is completely different from using perfect photoshoped [i think it's in the very same topic] models posing naked or almost naked as the default way to represent females. The audience [the viewers] are not to blame of how one portrays something! you link something to sex constantly, people will unconsciously start linking it to sex all the time, and they do. People [in general, i know there are exceptions] will always be influenced. Artists should have social responsibility, it's as simple as that. People who take these pictures and model like that are simply reinforcing the objectification of women that is already an issue in our society, you cannot do something and then be like "oh it's not my fault that this badly affects how people see things", you should be aware that the masses WILL always be influenced.
π: 0 β©: 1
But the same argument you make about using photoshopped women applies to using extremely beautiful women. It's completely unrealistic too. A lot of people have, for example, told me I look like my body's fake or is photoshopped because I'm pretty tiny. In other words, women who don't look like the average do exist, and are frequently used to "represent" the rest of women. We have to realise at some point that there is no single woman that can represent all women, because we're all different.
There is nothing wrong with linking something to sex, but I thought your point was that this woman stops being a woman with sex appeal but instead becomes simply an object? Because to me that's different. No photographer can remove the woman from the photo (for example, this photo) no matter what they try. Therefore the problem is with the viewer. Sure we, as viewers, will be influenced, but we are not mindless. Any idiot can see there is a woman here. Whether they choose to see her or not, that is ultimately their choice. If they don't have a choice in the matter, then they are animals and, again, the problem is with them.
π: 0 β©: 0
It's scary that I have to check the category to see whats real and whats CGI these days
π: 0 β©: 0
Omg, those legs, how long are they? And people say anime legs are unnatural long
Very pretty!
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>