Talk:Nude photography

Added a nude photograph
I added one that was done in the new millennium. If you feel it doesn't fit, please at least comment here? CurtisNeeley (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge
There's a proposal to merge into this article into Depictions of nudity. Since Nude photography is a type of Fine art photography, I think it should remain a separate article. Other photographic genres have their own articles (for example, Still life photography has its own article, distinct from the Still life article), and I see no reason why nude photography should be any different. Klausness (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge
There's a proposal to merge into this article into Depictions of nudity. I feel that Depictions of nudity is not encyclopedia material and trying to become so by the merge. Perhaps it could be referenced in a list of types of depictions of nudity? Perhaps similar to painting styles? --CurtisNeeley (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed the merge suggestion and corrected a spelling error CurtisNeeley (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Types of nude photography
Categorization from a blog: --AdBo (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

gallery
it really sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.212.116 (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

New Article
There was almost nothing here, so I did a complete re-write.FigureArtist (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering about
the copyright status of File:Nude (1936) - Edward Weston.jpg in this article? There is a fair use claim made for the article about Charis Wilson but that is, I believe, only good for that article.. If at all. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The notice claims fair use for the Genre as well as the artist commentary. Seemed ok, since it is about as small/low res as could be and still be of any use.FigureArtist (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think its use in this article passes WP:NFCC #1. There are plenty of free nude photos we could use without having to resort to using a copyrighted one.  And even if we were going to use it in this article, it would need its own rationale on the image description page; the one for Charis Wilson doesn't suffice.   Powers T 01:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are any free images by actual fine art photographers, I have not found them. A Weston image is iconic for this genre, and a case could certainly be made for its use on this page, but I do not know how to do that on WP.FigureArtist (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a fair use rationale for the photo, although I have not restored it to the article.FigureArtist (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are happy with the rational then I am happy with it and suggest that you restore the picture. I would but have to go vote before work.  After work - election night and then who knows? Carptrash (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if you can make an argument that it doesn't fail NFCC #1, it still fails #8; there's no contextual significance here. The image's absence would not significantly detract from the educational value of the article.  Powers T 19:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is photography, but the work of the photographers discussed are not significant? I could find no free images by any of those cited except Stieglitz, and that one is a poor, early example. The other two photos in the gallery are only there because I could not find better; only the Weston is illustrative of the subject.FigureArtist (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there's also this, from WP:NFC: "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)". Nude (Charis, Santa Monica) is an article about the photo, so it seems like that's the only article that should display the image.  Nonetheless, I've opened a non-free content review discussion here.  Powers T 16:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

TOC
I have read the guideline on floating the TOC, and being a web programmer I do so to eliminate the white space unless it causes a problem, which it rarely does.FigureArtist (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Are the Nudity links needed here?
Is the subject of a work of art relevant to all articles about that art? Is there a navbox for European royalty attached to every article with a royal portrait, or on forestry or oceanography for every landscape? But when the subject is the nude, it needs to link to every article on nakedness? It may work the other way, a very general article on nudity may want to link to artistic depictions. Also, the Nudity Project is flagged as dormant, so the information is not likely to be current or well-maintained. I am writing a navbox on the Human Figure in Art, which is currently on my main user page. When it is complete, I will likely place it in the relevant articles. FigureArtist (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed link to Commons:Nude photography because none of the images are artistic. They are medical, historical, but mainly soft-core porn uploaded by people who want to show their genitals on the internet.FigureArtist (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clean-up. Carptrash (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Male nudes
Recent additions have been a male nude which was current, contributed by owner, which was not bad. It was replaced by another editor with an historic image, which is inappropriate. There is a need for a male nude to balance the article, but neither of these are a from a recognized fine art photographer.FigureArtist (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I find that the "In the Shadows" photo is of poor quality. I've replaced it with another, contemporary male nude.  If we can find one by a recognized fine art photographer, we can update it then.  TheMindsEye (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The new image is not fine art, but a snapshot that I recognize from the Model (art) article, where I also removed it. It is obviously intended as an example of a model posing for a drawing class, but has no composition and poor lighting. I have much experience dealing with open forums attempting discuss the nude in art; and this appears to be typical of the amateur attempts to force others to look at a penis. The "Shadows" image may be trying to so the same, but the lighting and composition are more interesting.FigureArtist (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Search of Commons for "male nude photograph" yielded no better images. The problem is that few photos in the public domain qualify, and I already had a brief struggle to include the Claris Weston photo at the top under fair use. If anyone wants to do the same for a male nude by Imogen Cunningham, Mapplethorpe, or Sally Mann, I would support that.FigureArtist (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I will have some time once the library (where I work) closes for the holidays. I'll search my photobooks for a pre-1923 make nude and am 51% sure that I can come up with something. Carptrash (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-Free Image deletion
(See "I am wondering about" discussion above) The subject of this article is fine art nude photography, something not established until the 1930's. The only true illustration of the subject was an Edward Weston photo currently displayed in other articles but the identical fair use rationale was disputed for this article. Its deletion means that there are now only historical images from the turn of the century until 1923, plus a modern donated image. Efforts have been made to use other, public domain images as being "just as good" although they have neither the artistic or historical significance of the Weston photo. I see this as a conflict between a strict interpretation of copyrights wp:nfcc, but I am not unfamiliar with copyrights and read the requirement differently. The image is so well-known that it serves the purpose of immediately establishing that we are talking about something one would see in a major museum, not something from popular culture.FigureArtist (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding Images
I appeal to all editors to stop adding random nude photos. A proper illustration of the article should only be a work by one of the photographers mentioned in the text, or one of equal historical or artistic stature. Such images have been disallowed as not passing the WP:NFCC criteria, but no images are better than non-artistic ones. If the difference is unclear, use the test in the article: Fine Art photos have been displayed in a fine art gallery or museum; which excludes photos shot to publish in a magazine, post on the internet, or other commercial use. It certainly excludes amateur photos placed in the public domain for self-promotion or other personal reasons.

Basically this is applying the criteria that would be applied to textual additions to an article. Is it opinion or is there a source? Adding an amateur photo means that the editor does not understand the subject of the article, which is professional, fine art photography. Adding any other photo is the same as a statement "this is fine art", which is a personal opinion unless supported by a citation. WP:NOR

The three images in the gallery illustrate the historic section of the article, Alfred Stieglitz being one of the founders of the genre.FigureArtist (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have a problem with you WP:OWNing this article. You cannot appeal to all editors to stop adding anything. In point of fact, if they're adding something, it's because, most likely, they are trying to enhance the article in some way.
 * At the top of the main discussion (Non-free Image deletion), you write that the "subject of this article is 'fine art nude photography'." Fine. But as I'm sure you're completely aware, the article is titled Nude photography, which is described in the very first sentence as a genre of art photography. The second sentence of this article, apparently and hopefully sourced in its entirety, says the "fine arts are concerned with aesthetic qualities" (emph mine, obviously). The image I had added fits this criteria.
 * "The only true illustration of the subject [fine art nude photography] was an Edward Weston photo" — this is not an article on one man or his one photograph.
 * You go on about WP:NFCC and copyrights... I don't think you have a clue as to what you're talking about. The image I added is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, was uploaded and approved over at the Wikimedia Commons, and can be used freely in any English Wikipedia article where the image itself adds to the article. You have absolutely zero argument here in regards to my image.
 * "It certainly excludes amateur photos placed in the public domain for self-promotion or other personal reasons" Again, this has no bearing on my image, which is neither public domain, nor used for self-promotion, however much you would like to think it. The photograph I added is not amateur, it is a work by a studio photographer who shoots models and has been published in magazines. Yes, the images in your gallery illustrate the historic section of the article, but you will note there is a not-so-subtle lack of images for the contemporary and modern sections. I have noticed that some discussions on this talk board pertain to the lack of these modern images as well. It was my intent to add an example that is neither amateurish nor one that could be used on the sister article, glamour photography.
 * You request that examples be limited to the photographers named only, and this would be a strict guideline for fair use images only. First of all, this article would have to pull off the impossible feat of naming every single nude photographer in order for this to be a "rule". Secondly, for free images, this (named photographers only) does not apply. In fact, my image worked extremely well with this (unsourced, I might add) sentence: "Although largely working within the established forms that show bodies as sculptural abstractions, some photographers such as Robert Mapplethorpe have works that deliberately blurred the boundaries between erotic and artistic." The phrase "some photographers" includes my image's photographer, and the image itself is very nearly a sculptural abstraction, and looking at examples of Mapplethorpe's work, I find my example to be more abstract than his.
 * I am re-adding my photograph because that is what editors with good and fair intentions do. If you feel the image does not fit this article for any other reason than those that you have made above, then this will require the input of other editors and you can either wait for input from them, or take this to a third opinion page. I will be happy to add a caption that integrates the image better into the article. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that my intentions were unclear. I am not not claiming ownership, merely stating a hope that editors will observe a WP principle, No Original Research. For this article that means no images added because of the editor's opinion that they are appropriate additions. I did not say the the article was limited to Weston or any of the artist already mentioned, but a citation is needed establishing that the photo or the photographer has exhibited in an art gallery or museum. Being published in a magazine would make them commercial, not art photographers. This is merely to protect the article, which is entitled nude photography for brevity, but defined as the fine art sub-genre.
 * Note that the Edward Weston photo was deleted by a single editor based upon his opinion regarding non-free image usage. FigureArtist (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is about nude photography, not photographs displayed or currently hanging in museums. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 01:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK the article is now about pictures of naked people. I will deleted all the highbrow nonsense about art that I have contributed over the past months.FigureArtist (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Mass deletion of information
Let's keep the discussion on the talk page. These edits are a form of vandalism, even if you're removing your own work. Why would you let the addition of an image drive you to such drastic measures? Your article inspired me to go searching for a more modern example to include in this article. I'm not here to change anything else, and if other editors agree my image is inappropriate here, then I am happy to concede to consensus. Otherwise, there is no reason for inappropriate and somewhat immature behavior. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 04:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you do not understand that your addition of a non-art image makes all of my edits meaningless. It is the same as someone working on an article about great paintings being told that some hack painter with no outside recognition has work that is "just as good". In whose opinion? That is all that I asked, substantiate that it is not just you personally. FigureArtist (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the photographer's work on Flickr. His is perfectly good commercial photographer, but not an artist. I do not understand how this is available for use on WP.FigureArtist (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:DR there is clearly a dispute here, and it needs resolution. perhaps post at the dispute noticeboard. this edit warring is disruptive. Aunva6 (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be jumping the gun to call two exchanges an edit war. It does not matter, since I have decided to abandon this article as a lost cause and make no more contributions. I have better things to do.FigureArtist (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would rather someone do a fine job of article upkeep than to lose them simply because of an image. If I come across an image in the future that is more "artistic" (I guess?), I'll run it by you. I was just practicing my rights as an editor, but I never meant to literally drive someone away from their work. I've removed the image, and voluntarily, and happily so, and there is absolutely no agenda for having done so. I would rather work with someone than work against them, sincerely. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 04:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yours was not the only non-art addition, and there is also the deletion, which is discussed here.FigureArtist (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Original images as opinions of value
The policy on original images states: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy".

This would generally exclude uploaded images as illustrations for visual art articles, since claiming the status of art would be original research unless supported by a citation that the image has passed some test, such as being in an art museum. The test I propose for this article is that the image or the photographer has their own article in WP which substantiates their status. All of the photographers mentioned in this article have their own biographical articles. If anyone knows of a free image of a nude photograph by any photographer currently in WP as an art photographer (not fashion, glamour, porn, or other commercial work), then it would pass the test. (It would appear that the NFCC policy is being strictly enforced for biographies of photographers since their articles rarely have any of the artist's own work).FigureArtist (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Added an image from a photographer who has had gallery exhibits and awards. My opinion is that it is not a good image, but it meets the criteria.FigureArtist (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I nominated the article on the photographer Jiří Růžek for deletion, and it was, so I have also deleted the photo by him.

Just two words?
I wonder if we're trying to make too much of these two words. "Nude photography" is not necessarily distinct from glamour or pornography. Sometimes it is art and sometimes it is not. In pornography, there are nudes. The article seems to imply that if something is pornographic there is no nudity or it is not photography. I think most people know what "nude" and "photography" mean. The purpose of the entry for "nude photography" seems to be to pay homage to a particular subset of artistic nude photography. Is a wikipedia definition the right place?

Aknicholas (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since glamour and porn have their own articles, I am trying to make this an article about Fine Art Nude Photography which I make clear in the opening section. Does the title need to be changed to make that clear to everyone else? FigureArtist (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, yes. Aknicholas brings up a good point. Nude photography, is literally speaking just a photo of a nude individual, so theoretically this article could conceivably cover everything from anatomical photos to pornography as well as fine art. —Nicoli Maege (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The article Depictions of nudity covers everything: science, pop culture, art. Fine art deserves its own article. Perhaps there needs to be a disambiguation page. FigureArtist (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Concur with "which appears to have reached a consensus that it will not happen". Apteva (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nude photography → Fine art nude photography – Per recent talk comments, the title needs to be an unambiguous indication of the content of the article. FigureArtist (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose MOS:CAPS -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, so it has to be Fine art nude photography. The proposed change was about semantic content, not WP formatting. FigureArtist (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Splitting hairs on the title here and inherently not a NPOV to try and move it to 'fine art', while fine art tags currently balance the page the subjective decision on what is and what is not pornography is of importance to this article, by moving it to 'fine art nude photography' you push a POV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is a broad context article covering all the different forms of nude photography. If a fine art nude photography can be sustained by seconardy sources then create it, but we need a general article to introduce the topic and link to the specific forms. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the spirit of your comment, but in practice I think FigureArtist is correct that the article currently reflects the singular (fine art) rather than the general. I do agree that there should be an article that covers a broad context. So maybe a split is needed rather than an actual move? —Nicoli Maege (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not currently a broad context article, only the title is broad. Trying to maintain the topic as defined in the opening section is pushing a POV?FigureArtist (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Regardless of the article's current scope, the move is warranted only if there is a particular reason to exclude discussion of non-fine art photography from the article, and I don't see one. Apart from the obvious (erotica/pornography), there is e.g. medical photography, but just because a person happens to be nude in a medical photograph doesn't make it a nude photograph in this sense. I don't think this angle is going to be covered in the article, and I doubt anyone would actually expect that given the current title. GregorB (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All I want to accomplish is having an article with a topic I want to edit, since I have no interest in the broad topic, only fine art. Rename, split, or whatever; that does not matter to me. Renaming is really a move with a redirect, but that is not the proper thing to do in this case. Nude photography needs to remain a separate article with the relevant parts of the porn, glamour, and depictions of nudity articles copied into it to become the broad topic the title indicates.FigureArtist (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is not a matter of POV; it's a matter of scope. FigureArtist's proposal reflects a desire to name the article in a way that reflects a desired scope, and it's highly improper to regard this as an issue of neutrality. That said, I'm not necessarily supporting the move. However, fine art photography and "pornography" not only have different purposes, but are also likely to have different kinds of RS that take unrelated and at time incompatible approaches. I would find a section on the always-difficult subject of how to tell art from porn to be an interesting addition—if it's based on sources. No images should be included in the article unless they've been the subject of RS. That removes the element of an editor's subjectivity. Fans of porn can't just pull nekkid pitchers from Commons and stick them in here; they have to be chosen to illustrate the sources used to compile the text. As long as both the text and images are based on RS, perhaps we can stick with the current name. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The test I have used to keep random naked photos off this page is WP:RS with regard to the fine arts: is the image or photographer represented in fine art collections, or merely published in popular media? This is the same test that keeps amateur work off the page about painting. No need to define porn, collectors and curators are doing that by selecting their purchases. FigureArtist (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the burden on those who wish to include porn is to provide sources of equal quality. Having done some non-Wikipedia work regarding the art collections of the Kinsey Institute, I can say that such things exist, but the pro-porn faction needs to put up or shut up in terms of offering content based on good-quality sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If a sexually explicit photo is in a reputable fine art collection (e.g. Mapplethorpe) it is not porn, it is erotic art by the legal test of redeeming social value. I would love to add a Mapplethorpe, but cannot due to NONFREE.FigureArtist (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion point - Robert Mapplethorpe anyone? I'm sure one can be included under NFCC rational to highlight the type of the work. And Non-free has to be used with very specific (shall I say, explicit) intent on a very narrow use. Its to illustrate the matter and I can think of few better and more unique photographers that pit erotic elements like BDSM into nude photography. It meets both FigureArtist's fine art segment while qualifying as erotic and by many accounts, pornographic without depicting sexual acts. My previous note is that the national archives and sole national library of places like Japan even have gravure idols within their collections. The type of work may be objectable, but Europe has open ideas as well. This article ideally needs to present a world-view, but there are dozens of notable examples for just about any situation FigureArtist wants to try an impose. While the work done is very good, trying to repin this as 'fine art' because nude photography is not pornographic is way off base. I think Mapplethorpe alone proves fine art and erotic elements CAN be celebrated and worthy of numerous exhibitions, with the backing from United States National Endowment for the Arts for a traveling exhibition. Why did I pick Mapplethorpe? First result on google. Though I see that Kinsey even notes Herbert Ascherman Jr., as another notable example. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggested Mapplethorpe, so why the accusation of trying to impose anything? I have already stated that an article with the title Nude photography that has the broad scope the title implies is fine, which is why I want to move/rename/split off the fine art material into the separate article it deserves. The reason there is no erotic art already is that the image police already disallowed the image of Charis Wilson when I had the same fair use rationale as that page. I was not going to get into that again by uploading a Mapplethorpe.FigureArtist (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is a more substantial article at Nude (art). This article should be formatted as a subarticle. I suggest putting the main article at The nude, and this article at The nude (photography). Kauffner (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am the major contributor to Nude (art) also. WP title conventions restrict the use of "the", so its use is not an option. Nude (photography) is not an unambiguous indicator of the narrow scope of the topic. Also, paired with Nude (art) it implies that photography is distinct from art rather than being a subset. FigureArtist (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with creating a new article. There was a particular vision that started this article.  Now the original intent has been diverted by the wikipedia process and I feel that it is time to return to that vision and allow it to unfold in another venue. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, a new article is what is needed and perhaps what I should have done rather than requesting a move. I thought that going through an official process would mean getting help from more experienced Wikipedians who would see the mismatch between the title and the content and help find a solution, which some have but others appear to assume bad faith. If I had cut and pasted the current content into a new page and re-edited, would someone have called foul? Try to remember that I have only been editing for 7 months. FigureArtist (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 7 busy months. I say remove what you want from here and use it as the seed for a new article that will be, to begin with, carefully named.  Be bold. Carptrash (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't remove content and strip it down, go by WP:SS and summarize, twice the lede of the article you wish to build, or about that. Its not duplication and if you really have enough to add, then do so. And watch the accusations of bad faith; that is not helpful. Content disputes exist, and nothing is perfect, but refactoring an existing broad scope page into another is not always a good idea. Seems perfect to split for me, more detailed coverage the better. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done - This always has been a narrowly scoped page, as I keep repeating, only the title is broad. I will create a new page and leave this one to its fate. If anyone wonders why there is a lack of editors in the arts, they should not. FigureArtist (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just prodded Pet photography and someone removed the tag. Any ideas which article we should merge it to? The photography projects are rather quiet so I thought I would ask here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm. The pets are nude, right?  And these are photographs, right?  Hmmmmm   Carptrash (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. We could create a nude pet photography section here and a clothed pet photography section at photography. We could include a 'for nude pet photography' see section in nude photography. Just kidding. I have resolved this and did a merge/redirect to photography from pet photography.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title of new article
I am planning to use Nude photography (art) which matches Nude (art) and Model (art) that I also edit.FigureArtist (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't we are allowed to bring up a new re-name while another is still open. I could be wrong though. Either way we should have admin close the first before we discuss the second.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, an admin will have to close the rename request, which appears to have reached a consensus that it will not happen. I am not discussing a another rename of this article, but the name of a new page.FigureArtist (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You should read Splitting then. My biggest fear is that someone will just move to merge them again. As soon as you create it someone may tag it AfD to merge back into this one. Wikipedia:Splitting is where most of the merge agruments will come from. Machinima and Machinima: Virtual Filmmaking are possibly two articles where one should never have been created. They repeat the same material for the most part but they are such an elephant in the room that nobody wants to discuss merging them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am already drafting content that is a major revision to this one remaining focused on art photos only. So the two articles will start out substantially different, and become more so as others add the content that will make Nude photography the broad topic article all those responding to the rename insist it must be. If the latter does not happen, I hope I am not faced with the dilemma: cannot rename, cannot split? FigureArtist (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as the content is different you should be okay. Cloudscape photography seems to have survived below the radar without sources or notability so your article will probably survive as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added some of the topics that everyone above insists must be here.FigureArtist (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The rename being closed, Nude photography (art) has been created.FigureArtist (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Grammar query concerning the definition in the first sentence
I notice that the definition given in the first sentence of this article is:"Nude photography is any photograph which contains an image of a nude or semi-nude person, or an image suggestive of nudity." Grammatically this equates the abstract noun of the title with a common noun. The photography article begins with the definition:"Photography is the science, art, application and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film." I suggest that we add the three words "the creation of" to the definition given here so that we begin this article with the words:"Nude photography is the creation of any photograph which contains an image of a nude or semi-nude person, or an image suggestive of nudity."

Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

✅ as no objections raised. --Polly Tunnel (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I recently deleted
three photographs from the Contemporary section because there is nothing notable about these pictures and we run the risk of getting inundated with stuff like this. I deleted maybe a dozen a week or so ago. Anyway, someone restored them and I guess I would be interested in their and anyone else's thoughts about this. Carptrash (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC) ````
 * Three photographs is hardly "being inundated". There may not be anything especially notable about the pictures themselves, but they should remain as examples of contemporary nude photography. --TBM10 (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * We probably ought to include the three images here so that it's clear what we're talking about:
 * The article currently includes 14 pictures (including these three). That's quite a lot for an article of this length, though as the article is about photography it probably helps to illustrate it. As the pictures are supposed to be an "illustrative aid to understanding" and "too many can be distracting" (MOS:PERTINENCE) it would be useful if we could have a single image illustrating each section. As it is we have four illustrating "Erotic", three for "History", three for "19th century", one for "Modern" and three for "Contemporary". We probably only need one in each of these, though the Durieu/Delacroix pair would probably count as one for this purpose. More significantly, we have no pictures for the "Educational", "Glamour", "Advertising", "Entertainment" and "Music Album" sections. It recommends in MOS:PERTINENCE that we "strive for variety" in choosing images and we do not appear to be doing so. I personally would be in favour of pruning the existing sets down to a single image each and contemplating adding one image to each of the unillustrated sections (the links in those sections lead to a variety of possible candidates). - Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article currently includes 14 pictures (including these three). That's quite a lot for an article of this length, though as the article is about photography it probably helps to illustrate it. As the pictures are supposed to be an "illustrative aid to understanding" and "too many can be distracting" (MOS:PERTINENCE) it would be useful if we could have a single image illustrating each section. As it is we have four illustrating "Erotic", three for "History", three for "19th century", one for "Modern" and three for "Contemporary". We probably only need one in each of these, though the Durieu/Delacroix pair would probably count as one for this purpose. More significantly, we have no pictures for the "Educational", "Glamour", "Advertising", "Entertainment" and "Music Album" sections. It recommends in MOS:PERTINENCE that we "strive for variety" in choosing images and we do not appear to be doing so. I personally would be in favour of pruning the existing sets down to a single image each and contemplating adding one image to each of the unillustrated sections (the links in those sections lead to a variety of possible candidates). - Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nude photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2013/Nudity/Nudity_Virtue_or_Vice.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725011346/http://ccp.uair.arizona.edu/item/234 to http://ccp.uair.arizona.edu/item/234

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Collateral
A new subsection titled "Collateral" has been added to describe a news report concerning nude photographs being used as collateral by loan sharks in China. The other subsections in the "Commercial" section concentrate on ways in which professional photographers sell their work. The content of the "Collateral" subsection describes the way in which what appear to be no more than amateur selfies ("shot during the day and in good night") are used to exploit some women in China. This appears to be WP:UNDUE in the context of this section. If we are to cover subjects such as nude selfies, revenge porn and so forth in this article, this should presumably all be done comprehensively in a separate section. In the meantime I propose removing the "Collateral" subsection. -- Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would not object to that subsection being deleted. It's relevance is, at the least, questionable. The idea of a separate section for this and other related items is worth thinking about. --Roly (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Subsection removed as no objections raised. -- Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand the concern here, but I wouldn't mind if the "collateral" material were to become part of a new section, or even a new article, on social issues connected with personal nude photography, which might deal also with sexting, doxing with nude photos, personal home nude photography, voyeuristic nude photography, political usage of nude photography etc. The blackmail value of nude photos has existed, I assume, since there's been photography, but the volume of nude photography out there in the Internet age has changed the landscape considerably. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Bodyscapes
Are a type of nude photograph. They have a similar chance of being art, and fine, as other sorts of photographs. Midgley (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)