I don't really understand how photographing the female nude is artistic until you get to the most intimate, mysterious and powerful part of the female nude; then suddenly its not art. I think this image excellent. I love the way the light and shadow accentuates the curve of her mons. Great shot, and thanks to Veronika for sharing her most intimate beauty.
What I mean is that with the shadow across her middle (not the one across her bottom, that one works nicely), the image looks a bit more like just a photo of a girl's crotch, rather than as a more artistic shot. There are a lot of crotch-photos on the site that don't really seem artistic, rather using the "artistic nude" category as an excuse to post pictures of naked girls or vaginas.
I realize you seem to have wanted to do something here, but I think it'd work better either with no large lumpy shadow across her middle, or if her middle was all shadowed, so that it was uniform and less distracting... does that make sense?
Also, I'm sorry of it I was offensive with the previous comment, I wasn't trying to be.
I do see what you mean. The shadow is lumpy. I never saw it that way. I was hoping for more striping but I did not get that either. In the end, it ended up like another crotch shot. Also, I sometimes do not know where to categorize a shot. The image did not end up as artistic as a would have hoped. Thank you for clarifying. I did not find your previous comment offensive. So, thank you and please comment. It really helps me as a photographer. It gives me more to think about when setting up a shot.
So, what's so bad about crotch shots? If it was a picture of her hand or ear I doubt that anyone would raise an issue of "people posting gratuitous hand/ear shots rather than as a more artistic shot". If we start to look at breasts & vulvas as "just another body part" perhaps we can break the mentality that certain parts of the body are evil, or wicked.