hi key nude. shot with the d2x

[bm bradley]

First off, I like it.

It's nothing serious, but it is nice to look at.

God and the Devil are both in the details, however. She's 26 and
rapidly approaching has-been status. Reminds me of the beautiful
androids in the old sci-fi movie Blade Runner, with their four year
life span. IIRC, the androids were a little bitter about that.
Models have about the same life span, at least at their peak. In 20
years you should still be doing images with ease, so long as you
want to. By then most of your pretty young models will be matrons
and grandmothers. Their time is indeed limited. It might be nice to
give them your best shot, lest they be bitter later, too.

yes, my one big joy in life!!! everyday I get little better and the models get little older. you can't imagine how happy that makes me. you would have to deal with these girls on a daily basis and their pimps . . . WHOOPS! . . their agents to really understand that one

But it's ok with me that it was a goof off shot, you saw it, you
took it. When I am "seeing" pictures, whether I even have a camera
in my hand or not, I am not thinking, either, I am just going with
the flow. If you have to stop to think about the technical details,
it can ruin the mood and the moment. But why settle for a goof off
shot when with just a teeny bit of effort you could have raised the
bar to good, great, or even gorgeous?

I agree. the good news is I'm learning and the bad news is I'm a slow learner

One thing you might have done is raise the right hand just a
little, so the right elbow came more behind her back. That would
have given her a more slender look by not hiding her waist line.

I'm very cautious about that one due to the broke back, pimp, chicken walk look the porno guys always stick the models into.

Anlother is to find something to kick a little light into her eyes
for a catch light and to raise the values in the face just a touch.
That would solve the "two pictures" problem mentioned earlier.

no time, I have all the junk, she was walking out the door and another model was comming in . .

When the next opportunity suddenly arrives and the shot presents
itself, you won't rise to the occasion, you will default to your
level of training. So the time to think about the technical
details, the time to think it through and practice is befoe the
shot--or shoot. That is also the time to get your gear together. If
you have your act together before the shoot, you won't have to
think about it during.

valid

You were prepared enough to have a camera, why not also always have
a reflector of some sort? Photoflex makes them in all sizes and
even one of the tiny ones that literally fit in your pocket would
have probably worked for this shot. That and a little Pony clamp to
stick it up with.

I have enough cr*p to fill a truck, no time for this shot

On the higher end of the scale, Jeff Black has a nifty reflector
available on his web site (I think Calumet may carry them, too.) It
carries small, sets up big, and works from a small light stand so
you don't need an assistant.

I wouldn't buy water at calumete if i was dying of thirst and they were the only vendor . .

And if you truly get stuck for a field expedient reflector, grab
some aluminum foil from the kitchen, fasten it to a piece of a
cardboard box with tape, rubber bands, or push pins.

you forgot the sunhields that also some in weird colors

So keep up the good work.

thanks . . . c-ya and ttfn, bmb

--

 

[Knox / streetkid]

though with that much PS editing, it could have been taken with a P&S
--
Knox
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
http://alleycatphotos.com

 

[dogwood]

Okay, I'm a sucker for that pose (model on belly and elbows, feet in the air) and it doesn't work with everyone. But I really like this shot. It's sexy but doesn't look forced-- looks very natural to me. You're right, there is a fine line between erotic and porn and I'll be damned if I can figure that line out myself. Sometimes it purely depends on the model-- her look and the way she carries herself. I've seen porn where you don't even notice the nakedness 'cause the model is so intense looking.

--
Pete Springer
http://www.dogwooddigital.net

 

[bm bradley]

show me . . .

though with that much PS editing, it could have been taken with a P&S
--
Knox
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
http://alleycatphotos.com

--

 

[Knox / streetkid]

it's no put down . .
and . . . "show you" what?

It just seems that which camera was used here, when so much editing is involved was not important.
--
Knox
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
http://alleycatphotos.com

 

[bm bradley]

. . . I choose to edit, I don't have to. would a PAS camera work? beats me. might work for all kinds of stuff. don't have one, never shot one so I couldn't really say . . . try it out and see for yerself would be my thoughts . . .

personally I don't think a 85 mm 1.4 prime lens would look the same as a PAS, which is why I use slr's in the first place. so too me it's more about glass than camera however I could be wrong.

it's no put down . .
and . . . "show you" what?

It just seems that which camera was used here, when so much editing
is involved was not important.
--
Knox
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
http://alleycatphotos.com

--

 

[Venturis Ventis]

Very nice indeed. Try removing the artfacts and isolating her from the blownup background. It's a winner for the mood

 

[bm bradley]

thank you . . . on to the next shoot though. .

Very nice indeed. Try removing the artfacts and isolating her from
the blownup background. It's a winner for the mood

--

 

[The Doctah]

I was distracted by the same thing.
--

'Burgundy makes you think of silly things; Bordeaux makes you talk about them, and Champagne makes you do them.' --Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin

 

[E1derful]

yeah I saw the line . . .

I like the fold!

 

[Knox / streetkid]

I have a little Olympus 5050 for walking around 'stuff'.
It's pretty good. Not a slr, but can do well.

personally I don't think a 85 mm 1.4 prime lens would look the same
as a PAS, which is why I use slr's in the first place. so too me
it's more about glass than camera however I could be wrong.

it's no put down . .
and . . . "show you" what?

It just seems that which camera was used here, when so much editing
is involved was not important.
--
Knox
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
http://alleycatphotos.com

--

--
Knox
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
http://alleycatphotos.com

 

[Andy Ly75136]

I find it amusing that you are posting your images for critique and when someone gives their negative opinion, you get offended and start giving smart-ass replies like.. "Yeah, like you can do it better", or "I'd like to see you try." If you are simply seeking praise, you should indicate that on your topic. "Hi-Key Nude, Positive Comments only"

And Hi Key? Not even close. Go do a search online on what Hi-Key is, because your image is of a subject that is underexposed on top of an overexposed background. Not by anyone's definition is that called Hi-Key, or High Key, or whatever you want to call. I call it: Stop stroking your ego and go learn something about photography.

Your backgrounds are overexposed and badly laid out. It is very obvious that the girl is standing in front of a sliding door curtain. Try using a real seamless background if you want the blown out effect.

And yes, it IS overly photoshopped. Gaussian blur is yesterday's trend. Try doing it right out of the camera, then you might not have to rely so heavily on photoshop to take your photograph.

 

[bm bradley]

someone p** in yer Cheerios this morning?

I find it amusing that you are posting your images for critique and
when someone gives their negative opinion, you get offended and
start giving smart-ass replies like.. "Yeah, like you can do it
better", or "I'd like to see you try." If you are simply seeking
praise, you should indicate that on your topic. "Hi-Key Nude,
Positive Comments only"

And Hi Key? Not even close. Go do a search online on what Hi-Key
is, because your image is of a subject that is underexposed on top
of an overexposed background. Not by anyone's definition is that
called Hi-Key, or High Key, or whatever you want to call. I call
it:

thanks for the hot tip . . . I learn very much here at this site.

Stop stroking your ego and go learn something about

photography.

Your backgrounds are overexposed and badly laid out. It is very
obvious that the girl is standing in front of a sliding door
curtain. Try using a real seamless background if you want the
blown out effect.

yes, next time a model is walking out the door when I have a camera in my hand I'll call a crew in and get things right.

And yes, it IS overly photoshopped. Gaussian blur is yesterday's
trend. Try doing it right out of the camera, then you might not
have to rely so heavily on photoshop to take your photograph.

I'm so ashamed, I wish I were dead . . . anything else?

--

 

[bm bradley]

I've never been able to figure out how to shoot a PAS although I see amazing stuff shot with them . .

personally I don't think a 85 mm 1.4 prime lens would look the same
as a PAS, which is why I use slr's in the first place. so too me
it's more about glass than camera however I could be wrong.

it's no put down . .
and . . . "show you" what?

It just seems that which camera was used here, when so much editing
is involved was not important.
--
Knox
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
http://alleycatphotos.com

--

--
Knox
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
http://alleycatphotos.com

--

 

[Andy Ly75136]

Just in case you didn't get my point.

I don't care if your photos are bad. Your attitude is worse. You admit that you are learning and don't have a team of assistants and makeup artists to help you. Yet every comment that is posted on how to "improve" your shot or what you should avoid, all you do is write those comments off with a smart-ass reply. So it 'does' seem like you are a seeking only praises.

I see a lot of other people on this site posting images in hopes of learning. They all get along very well, because they don't presume to be better or write off people suggestions.

I'll stop provoking you now, so you do what you will with the comments provided.

 

[bm bradley]

look Andy try and get a clue will ya? that is a one off shoot that will never, ever, happen again. do you understand now? is there any way I can make that more clear to you?

so telling me to fix this and fix that is a total waste of time. the shot is never, ever, ever gonna be re-shot. do you understand yet? boorish sarcasm will not get that re-shot, nor will boorish sarcasm elicit anything from me other an the type of reply you have already elicited. are you capable of understanding me so far? would you like me to repeat this in caps maybe? your thoughts about my motivations are groundless and completely self centered egotism on yer part.

yer comments are only to provide a platform to show this forum how wonderfully intelligent and insightful you are. if you'll re-read my replies with out an eye to wards being 'the man who knows it all and will kick you hard as he can to prove it' you'll see that I'm trying to encourage less experienced shooters to jump up and give it a whorl. anybody with any level of competence can shoot this and better . . . now are you getting my point?

bmb

Just in case you didn't get my point.

I don't care if your photos are bad. Your attitude is worse. You
admit that you are learning and don't have a team of assistants and
makeup artists to help you. Yet every comment that is posted on how
to "improve" your shot or what you should avoid, all you do is
write those comments off with a smart-ass reply. So it 'does' seem
like you are a seeking only praises.

I see a lot of other people on this site posting images in hopes of
learning. They all get along very well, because they don't presume
to be better or write off people suggestions.

I'll stop provoking you now, so you do what you will with the
comments provided.

--

 

[Knox / streetkid]

easy . . .point, then shoot!

I've never been able to figure out how to shoot a PAS although I
see amazing stuff shot with them . .

--
Knox
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
http://alleycatphotos.com

 

[bm bradley]

BTW what are artifacts? I've always thought artifacts are the 'jpg' breaking up? this is where I've seen the term used . . .

Very nice indeed. Try removing the artfacts and isolating her from
the blownup background. It's a winner for the mood

--

 

[bm bradley]

yer killin' with that one!! I learned to shoot with a handheld meter and prime lenses so I can't figure out out to let the camera do the 'thinking' the natural lite stuff I've been getting input on are my attempts to learn . . maybe I should get a little fuji s10 or whatever some day

. . .

I've never been able to figure out how to shoot a PAS although I
see amazing stuff shot with them . .

--
Knox
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
http://alleycatphotos.com

--

 

[muffins]

I see a lot of other people on this site posting images in hopes of
learning. They all get along very well, because they don't presume
to be better or write off people suggestions.

Without weighing in here too much, I don't see a problem with people sharing images they like sometimes rather than asking for feedback and I didn't notice the op saying 'how can I improve this shot' at any point :~