dudler

Striking, yes, but not the greatest of your shots of Cherry. Many of yoru shots make me unsure of my judgment: this is not one that confuses me. I apologise if what follows seems harsh - I feel I need to work out what doesn't work.

The pose looks awkward (and possibly uncomfortable) with her leg out at that angle: and it's compositionally not contributing much. It would look far better, I reckon, if the leg was down, and reasonably straight at the knee.

Also, given that you process your shots extensively, I'm quite surprised that you've left the creases above her waist in the finished picture. She's a very slender lass, and (while everyone suffers those creases, slim or not) this just doesn't flatter a lovely and uninhibited model, or do your careful craftsmanship justice.

Again, sorry if this comes across as very critical - it's jsut that you set yourself a high bar!

Mixed feeligns about this.

Great lighting and skin tones. Very sexy lady (I wonder who she is...) turning a soulful eye on the camera. Maybe, ideally, a little more light on her face?

It's the chair and the model's left knee that distract me. I think the camera is slightly tilted, and a degree or so of rotation to the right would make it seem right.

And the model has her knee locked back: perhaps a fraction of bend, and the foot a couple of inches back from the chair would resolve things for me. It would also make a very neat pose a little dynamic, without spoiling the "explicit if you move a few inches" look.

But I keep looking at her again...

Having disagreed with Goggz on someone else's picture, I entirely agree here.

Lovely model. But the processing detracts enormously, for me, from the final images. This may just be my taste (I still, proudly, use film myself), but most of the further-out processes work perfectly for one image in a thousand.

These four shots are not among the real successes (for me: you may have achieved exactly what you wanted to, or you may have been seeing how far you can take it...)

Best wishes for 2012!

John

I love the styling, the lighting, and Siobhan herself.

The only thing is that (for my taste, anyway) the digital processing is far too heavy. She's a real girl, not a CGI creation, but she's not looking it.

I'd love to see a less-processed version!

This is lovely, and well worth a vote.

And...

I can't actually see a plane of real sharpness - is it between the face and dress, or is digital processing overwhelming inherent sharpness?

It would feel more ocmplete if the crop at the top didn't graze Claire's knuckles, as well.

Fun picture, but this seems to have had a lot of Photoshopping. I don't think it mneeded it... The idea stands on its own.

Nice light - such directional lighting has plus and minus points, and it makes your models breasts and nipples incredibly sexy.

Turning her head slightly to her left would, I think, have made the shot even better, as would tilting her head back very slightly.

And compliments to the model, for baring her body, and to you for persuading her to do it. Great result!

I'd like to see this slightly more exposed - perhaps plus one stop - to lift the shadows and skin tones.

Increasing brightness and contrast helps (I've just tried) but more exposure in-camera would be best, to avoid losing detail in the shadows.

And Danni is SO CUTE!

After commenting on the shot of Jay, this one works better, because there are no parts of the model sticking outside the frame, and Mary is quite unabashed about the explicit view of her.

Ideally, again, the background would have less detail in it - a slightly different angle, to get rid of the roof, or strong use of differential focus? I suspect the former is more of a goer, as you've shot with a compact camera which will offer little option for wide apertures and defocusing the background.

And, again, a lovely and natural shot of a beautiful lady who does not mind being nude at all!

This is a lovely and very unusual shot. A very natural, just-awake look...

part of me wonders if the light is just a tad on the cold side: but that may be a result of me thinking of sunny early mornings. I'd be tempted to warm it up a bit, myself.

Interesting that the model's pupils are quite contracted: what you'd expect looking onto the sun - but (realistic as it is) it runs against the mood of the shot a little.

This is a lovely portrait shot of a beautiful young lady.

However, the very prominent logo looks like it's the subject of her gaze... Emily looks up, nad there it is: Find us on Facebook. I'm afraid that adding a logo always diminishes a shot. David Bailey doesn't do it, so there's no reason why the rest of us should.

The other thing - also involving the logo - is that it's the sharpest thing in the shot. Now, i suspect that this is because of some neat digital work to soften the image, because when I look closely, I can see individual eyelashes. But having something that is truly and completely sharp spoils the diffusion effect, I think.

I love soft focus, and my favourite accessory is a Zeiss Softar filter - but I think that the comparison the logo offers really upsets the effect.

Despite this (and it feels like a lot of criticism), this gets my vote for the underlying image. I'd love to see a repost or a variation without that logo!

John

Hi -

Your profile says you'd welcome ideas on improving your shots. Here goes, as this picture suffers from a bad case of overdirect lighting: on-camera flash, no?

You can light with a desklamp and get better results than built-in flash usually gives: see my shot of Clover at http://www.ephotozine.com/user/dudler-11864/gallery/photo/oh--my-goodness----136...

Direct flash gives harsh shadows and glaring highlights - visible here on the clock behind your lovely model.

So my suggestion is whack up the ISO setting, and use natural or directed room light. If you are happy to spend a little money, get yourself a 50mm fixed focal length lens: ideal for portraits on your camera, and allowing wide apertures and outstanding quality.

Very best wishes,

John

Excellent work. Having experimented with candle-light quite a lot, I know the results can vary a lot: many lovely effects are possible, but they can be hard to control...

This is aiming for much higher quality than I tend to go for - I like the raw feel of extended speeds, and let the grain rip. Your approach increases the tensions and problems a lot, I suspect, in terms of needing the model to stay VERY still, and to put the camera on a tripod!

John

I think the light works pretty well as it is.

To advise on alternatives, I'd need to know more about where it is - if it's in a church, for instance, your options might be very limited. However, if you have free access and a power supply, a light tent could be worth trying - just put something white and translucent all around the camera and the subject, and light this from outside - think of a wigwam with the camera at the top, and the subject on the floor. Then shine a light or two on the outside. This will give soft and even illumination, and it's what pros often do with product shots. Tracing paper, net curtains, muslin - anything like that - and reasonably strong light. Though, for a close-up, a decent reading lamp or two might be all you need!

And the subject is indeed beautiful!

John

Hmmm...

I wonder if showing more of the face would make this a more effective shot? It's often the eyes that really convey emotion strongly.

However, it's a good graphic design, with tight cropping at the top that suggests the sort of constricted feeling you're portraying.

I'm not sure if the whole figure adds anything to the head and shoulders - the perspective is interesting, though.

It might be interesting to try a black-and-white version, and high contrast.

Best wishes,

John

A lovely and eye-catching picture.

I'd like to see two minor changes: keeping her feet inside the frame, and dropping her head just a couple of millimetres below the tree line.

The line of the path and the mix of colours are wonderful!

John

Interesting and unusual design.

I'm not sure if it's intentional, but there's a slight visual distraction which keeps drawing my eyes... The image would be stronger, I think, if they didn't keep drifting to the area between her legs. Loathe as I am to suggest PS work on any image, a small cloning edit would make the image better, I think. This isn't prudishness (I hope) - merely acknowledgement that a design shot needs a complete absence of distractions...

And it is a lovely idea, and nicely executed!

John

I think this is a lovely idea, and it works pretty well. However, it's fair comment that it's a bit dark: a tiny tweak to increase contrast and brightness a little makes it far easier to appreciate Laurie's loveliness.

There are two other things that catch my eye: one is that the focus seems to be on the stockings, rather than Laurie's eyes: which is why almost everyone I have talked to sets a single focus point on the camera for working in the studio. One sets a point on one of the thirds: most use centre focus and recompose.

The other thing (and it's carping, I know) is that Laurie's left arm looks quite broad: if I'd spotted this when taking the shot, I might have had the presence of mind to ask her to move it closer to her body, so that the part just above the elbow looks as slim and elegant as her upper arm.

But I know I probably wouldn't have spotted it!

Well worth the taking!

I agree, on both counts: Laurie does look great in the bin liner - and a tweak to the brightness would be a plus: I don't believe in a full tonal range every time, but in this case, it would show Laurie at her very best...

John

A lovely wintry image! It makes me wish i was there (though not for too long.)

The way you've used the 10-20 (at 10? That's where mine usually stays) gives lovely perspective, and there's not much that could be better.

For my taste, there's slightly too much of a "digital" look, but others prefer more distance from reality. And I wonder whether the composition would work even better with a viewpoint a couple of inches higher, to get a little separation between the bench and the tree. (Or it may be deliberate, or hiding an unaesthetic detail of the landscape...)

Clickworthy.

John