Girlfriend pics with natural light C&C please

[shortpballer]

I normally use a bunch of lighting and haven't shot natural light since I first bought my camera. I think they came out pretty well. C&C appreciated!

1.

2.

3.

 

[sinjans]

I like them all. She's georgous BTW. #3 is my fav as the eyes pop nicely and her skin is perfectly exposed. I think the light used in #1 could have used some diffusion as it seems a bit harsh. Take my ccomments with a pinch of salt as I am not a pro. Good job.

 

[7/24]

You're a very lucky man. #'s 1 & 3 are my favorites for different reasons. #1 for the hard back light on her hair and the railing she's holding. Personally I would have liked to see her right eye but that's just me. #3 has great exposure and just a tiny bit of contrast on the left side. Great shots.

 

[...take the shot!]

#1 is awesome.
#2 seems overexposed. But I like how her face is in focus an the rest of her body is out of focus. Kinda wondering how you did that?
#3 Screen door seems a bit distracting (open it) aslo with her hand up (put it down).

Im not a pro.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[PerfectlyFlawed]

Shes gorgeous! great model.

I love the second shot. Her hair, complexion and lighting, are all damn near perfect. Nice bokah, and very natural pose. :thumbup:

#1 and #3 LOVE her eyes!
...as for #3 , the door is VERY distracting... but it doesnt ruin the picture.

very nice shots!

 

[aliciaqw]

I agree the screen door in #3 is a nuisance but not too terrible.

I love #1 but I too would like to see the other eye, and the overexposed look of #2 works for me. Was that from PP?

She is absolutely BEAUTIFUL!

 

[iBats]

the pose in 1 seems a little bit unnatural but the rest are very nicely lite. How much PP do you do cause these seem very soft and almost have a surreal smoothness to them

 

[JenLavazza]

These are great!! Your girlfriend is gorgeous!! Wish I could look half as natural when I try to model.

 

[shortpballer]

These were all natural light. So they shouldn't be super soft... no softboxes or anything. But in photoshop, I don't do much besides toning down the redness in skin tones. Thus making them more flat, with a black and white layer. This might be what you are referring to. I got the technique from the Dolce & Gabbana photographer. He does it in every ad he makes.

the pose in 1 seems a little bit unnatural but the rest are very nicely lite. How much PP do you do cause these seem very soft and almost have a surreal smoothness to them

And the second picture I over-exposed on purpose to give it that vogue-look.. That picture was almost straight out of camera with the exception of some blemish fixing. I NEVER blurr my photos anymore...

And for the person that asked about the depth of field. I shot it at f2.8 I believe and almost 200mm with a 70-200 2.8G VR II. The large aperture in combo with the telephoto gives you a small depth of field.

 

[Alter_Ego]

Dude your girlfriend is smoking hot.

 

[eric-holmes]

These were all natural light. So they shouldn't be super soft... no softboxes or anything. But in photoshop, I don't do much besides toning down the redness in skin tones. Thus making them more flat, with a black and white layer. This might be what you are referring to. I got the technique from the Dolce & Gabbana photographer. He does it in every ad he makes.

Would it be possible for you to elaborate about this technique a little more? I really love this pictures. I use elements so I don't exactly know if I can do that black and white layer you are talking about. Or I just don't understand.

 

[Phranquey]

Dude your girlfriend is smoking hot.

Just remember....

It doesn't matter how beautiful a woman is. Somewhere, somebody is tired of putting up with her sh!t.

Nice shots, BTW.

 

[Alter_Ego]

Dude your girlfriend is smoking hot.

Just remember....

It doesn't matter how beautiful a woman is. Somewhere, somebody is tired of putting up with her sh!t.

Nice shots, BTW.

Haha good one. But who needs good shots with a babe like that.