|
Forums >
Photography >
Pubic Hair Yes or No
I am sure this has been discussed many times but I could not find any conversations
If you are going for a more natural look rather than a 'model' look should the bikini area be shaved, trimmed, or natural? Thanks Steve Simmons Jun 08 25 05:50 pm Link That's something I let the model decide. Jun 08 25 06:21 pm Link Someone else's body hair is none of my business Jun 08 25 06:45 pm Link There is no one answer to that. Models have their own reasons to trim or shave pubic hair, vs, leaving it natural, and new models don't even know it is an issue, because it never occurred to them, it could be an issue.
I prefer to bring the issue up only when interviewing a model or booking a model for glamour or nudes. Then If the model has no objections, I usually suggest trimming from the clit down, and trimming the abdomen top and sides, as well as the length to no more than 1.5 inches, enough to insure a G-string will cover the pubic hair when worn. I don't really like images to have public hair showing outside the edges of panties. Makes the look less tasteful for me. Since pubic hair varies a lot, though, from person to person, it may not be any problem for some models at all, while others may be way too bushy, for the look you prefer to get. I think totally shaved pubic hair is more of an unnatural look, so trimming is the way to retain more of a natural look, but in a controlled way. That of course has to be maintained, once begun. This can matter with some swimwear also, as some swimwear has gotten very brief, also. However, if the model prefers to remain natural, then that affects what type of panty I will use for looks that show a panty being worn. Once you remove the panty, the issue no longer exists, it then, is just all pubic hair. Jun 10 25 08:33 am Link steve simmons wrote: That depends on the look that you and the model are going for.
Jun 10 25 11:33 am Link Audrey Rinehart wrote: Actually, if you are paying the model or even booking them for a TFP shoot, it's 100% your business. It's an alteration of their look, If their portfolio shows them with lots of hair "down there" and she shows up shaved, that's a misrepresentation of why you booked her. It's no different than if her portfolio shows her as a brunette in all her photos and she shows up and she's blonde.
Jun 11 25 09:22 am Link If I'm doing a nude photoshoot, the model won't have any public hair. I make sure it's in writing now, just so we're on the same page. I pay for photoshoots, and make sure to agree to terms before the session. Jun 14 25 03:29 pm Link I think neatly trimmed is they way to go. completely shaved gives off more of a porn look. Jun 15 25 06:51 am Link While it is her body her choice, my personal preference is neatly trimmed an groomed. Jun 16 25 10:40 am Link Correct, is model choice, but I would strongly encourage to be completely removed, even if that part will not be fully visible in the images Jun 17 25 12:08 am Link every form and choice is self-freedom. our bodies are not based on narrow standards because every choice is self-beauty Jun 19 25 06:36 am Link steve simmons wrote: Steve
Jun 21 25 08:30 am Link If I'm shooting swimsuit, it will have to be covered and not puffed out, so bare or trimmed short. Nude, trimmed or bare. A monster bush doesn't sell well in my market, though there are markets for it. Jun 26 25 12:23 pm Link I recently did a glamour shoot with a model who wore a sheer one piece in which you could see the pubic area and it was neatly trimmed. Jun 28 25 12:27 pm Link Long hair
Short hair Hair color Freckles Tall Short Large breasts Small breasts Eye color Tattoos Piercings No wonder so many photographers are quitting out of frustration. Aug 14 25 08:32 am Link I can remember a long time ago when I visited places like the Chicago Art Institute, National Gallery of Art, and the Louvre. Ancient Greek statues of female nudes were without public hair while males had public hair. In paintings of female nudes pre 1900, public hair was generally minimalized or not there. That's the history of art I was exposed to. And over decades of photography I find minimalized public hair more to my liking. But public hair, yes or no, is strictly the model's choice.
BTW - at the Louvre in 1970, I took a great close up no flash shot of Mona Lisa. There were around a dozen other visitors there. And less than a 5 minute wait for the Eifel Tower elevator. Ah, the old travel days. Aug 14 25 10:12 am Link Sometimes hair, Sometimes No.
One or the other or Both can work or No in a given model. Nov 04 25 02:59 pm Link Shaved, trimmed, and natural all have their place. It depends on the shoot and the model. I have given suggestions to the model, and I've talked to models about ideas (in context of bikini shoots and sheer shoots), but I feel like it's something that the model and photog should agree upon. Nov 22 25 06:40 pm Link Jay Pegg wrote: Audrey Rinehart wrote: these responses are performative inclusion, for reference
Nov 24 25 10:56 pm Link Fully shaved pubic areas are so ubiquitous now that I think there's quite an underserved demand for models with at least a bikini-shaped bush. A model willing to maintain one will find photographers who will be happy to shoot with her. Today's swimwear just exposes so much more of the groin that a 1970s style bush just isn't workable for any beachgoer (other than a dedicated nudist) Feb 07 26 07:23 am Link Jay Pegg wrote: Audrey Rinehart wrote: Roaring 20s wrote: "Performative inclusion"? Is that another way to say "virtue signaling"?
Mar 31 26 06:00 am Link Their body, their choice. Doesn't worry me either way. Mar 31 26 05:20 pm Link Pubic hair is normal/natural and serves a purpose. Whether to groom or let it grow is YOUR choice—no one else’s. Apr 01 26 03:40 am Link What do you all think of the philosophy that wanting women shaved is pandering to paedophilic fantasies? Apr 11 26 09:23 am Link in shooting (sexy or sexy-ish). and personally in real life. i don't care.
though huge bushes do look "strange" in the current playground. like all fashions; cycles. tastes, so to speak, will change over time. Apr 14 26 12:52 pm Link O.K this is my 2 cents worth. And since the penny is no loger minted ....well.
I pay models and I pay well. I want a certain look. Hairy is scary to me. However no model has to shave if she chooses not too. No law says I have to hire them and no law states she has to drop her linens in front of my camera. It's a simple business decision on both parties. If I go to a steakhouse and am paying top dollar for a ribeye and want it rare,then that is how I should get it. If they can't or won't then I will spend my money some place else. (Trolls and haters feel free to try and pick this apart) Apr 14 26 01:07 pm Link Shot By Adam wrote: 100% correct. It is the photographer's business if the photographer has a vested interest in the photoshoot.
Apr 15 26 05:26 am Link Dario Western wrote: I'd say that very little philosophical reasoning going on and more along the lines of a silly opinion. In my photography I generally (depends on a number of factors including outfit) prefer models to be naturally hairy, but there's many situations where shaven looks better on some people. Nothing wrong with people simply having a personal or professional aesthetic preference. Apr 15 26 05:30 am Link Getting down to brass tacks, barring preferences: You asked I reply.
If there is a lot of Roast Beef; then a bush is welcome as I hate retouching anything. A shaved Vulva is undecidedly more asthetic and artfully appealing as the lines converge to make a V shape for thighs contour. Try the Abstract Backlit image (of which there are 1000’s) to highlite shape and shadows. Apr 18 26 02:29 pm Link |
