C&C please Woman in Bikini

[ababysean]

1.


2.
yes, I see the shadow on her face, but I like it, it looks like a lightening bolt!



3.



4.

[Ads]

[Geaux]

1,2: Pretty harsh lighting, and I'm gonna disagree with you on the shadow .. not a fan of it. BUT, her eyes on 2 are mesmorizing

3,4 have better lighting, but the poses/facial expressions are awkward. Any reason you cut her ankles/foot off in #3? It just seems like you went that far down her leg, why not just include her feet.

[misstwinklytoes]

1 is my fav, but in 1 and 2 her eyes look weird. Way overdone IMO.

2 I like everything about it but the eyes, but I can't overlook the eyes to the rest of the photo.

3 Her pose is weird no? With the arm straight up and looking like she's about to sit?

4 I really like this pose, but I wish her legs were there.

I'm still getting a lot of noise. I guess I'll have to get my husband to check my monitor or something..

[ababysean]

No, there is noise. I uploaded from facebook. I'm too lazy to upload anywhere else right now.

[ababysean]

and I did not do much to her eyes at all.
I did an eye pop but opacity at 20%. Her eyes were amazing in real life.

[SecondShot]

1) baby got back! Only thing i'd say is a reflector would've worked really well here to get rid of the shadow on her face.

2) beautiful eyes, but the shadow on the face kills it

3) Arms and upperbody works very well with the shot, and the trees, but the legs aren't selling the shot. I would have liked to see her legs on the same plane as her arms.

4) weird expression on her face - don't like this one.

[Texas Photo]

I have to tell you, interms of "art and "Unique", I like the shadow. Now for a glamor shot it won't work...Wrong Lens, Wrong technique, wrong lighting. Regardless, you went for something different and that is good. Not all attempts like this will work. Most glamor photos these days all look the same. It is nice to see someone at least trying to rise above everything else. Keep shooting! (Texas Photo Workshops |)

[ababysean]

These are for her hubby in Afghanistan

[ababysean]

[hartz]

The second set is much better. If for her hubby, and if you can get her to pose again, have her tilt her head down a fraction and look up at the camera in a "come home" kind of way...

[kundalini]

Your framing / cropping is very suspect for both series.

First series:
Avoid having the shoulder towards the camera. As the dominant body feature, this causes the head to look small in comparison.

The shadows..... I might could be okay with the body shadows, but because the facial shadow begins under her nose, that shadow looks like a mustache.

Scenery is out of context with model in swimsuit IMO.


Second series:
With exception of #1, context is much more inline.

Harsh lighting that was not handled all that well IMO.

Nose breaks opposite cheekline in #2.

Nice profile in #3. Camera position is possibly a bit too high.


Overall not that bad, just a few things to remember / consider for the next outing.

[DerekSalem]

Really like the PP. What about it? I like that it's not overdone like some people seem to crave lately. Her eyes don't look like they're about to go nuclear lol

As for the poses and whatnot: Get her to open her mouth lol. I don't do much portrait work at all so I can't say I'm a pro at all on poses...but speaking as someone who is very good at reading people I just always want to see more emotion. For her these pictures are probably really important because it's one of the only things she can do for her husband who is doing everything *he* can currently in Afghanistan. You have to remind her of that and make sure she shows that emotion.

Not saying she has to look "sexy" at all...not my point. But she's longing to see him and she wants him to think of her...so cracking a smile or even a bit of sadness can make these pictures a really great memory for him until he's back.


BTW I'm in the Air Force and I can speak for what he might be feeling on the other end. Any kind of emotion can really make the pictures memorable and make the gift an amazing thing.