1st Model shoot

[keith foster]

I just started shooting people a few months ago and have been practicing nearly everyday.
I was able to hook up with this young lady, Lisa Marie, who is an aspiring model and was willing to give up a few hours of her time so I could so what I could do this past weekend
I am not thrilled with the shots. I almost didn't post anything here because I know these aren't great but.... I can't get better if I don't know what I need to do.
I have posted some pretty awful stuff in the past. Hopefully this is better.

I am not trying to become a pro but I want to be a competent amateur. I would appreciate your input. What would you do differently? I need help with lights, posing, and pp.

This is the shot I consider the best in the set. Hit me, I can take it.

 

[gdogg16]

Invest in some seamless white paper.

 

[keith foster]

Thanks Greg. Good suggestion. Is 9 ft the widest it comes in?

 

[transformed]

Ok- so before everyone starts hammering on how horrible an edit this is.. It's JUST a quick and dirty illustration to show that if there was slightly less exposure in the background, the eye would be drawn more to the subject.

 

[Iron Flatline]

I think it's an interesting image, but the white-on-white is a bit of a problem. Oh, and I think transformed is right about the bg color.

 

[keith foster]

Thanks Iron and Transformed.
I really am new to this kind of photography so I need all the input I can get.
It sounds like I need to quit worrying about lighting the background and more on how I light the person.
I honestly do want to hear all the c&c everyone may have for me. I will not defend myself because I admit I don't know enough about it to argue.

 

[mikemicki]

Here's a quick edit:

 

[keith foster]

Wow!
I obviously don't know squat about editing. I wouldn't have thought of the edits you guys did. I used LR 3 but obviously what you guys did (Mike and Transformed) is beyond what I can do there.
Transformed yours makes the photo seem more elegant and fits the clothing and the look so well.
Mike yours takes the image to a different place and feel entirely and I love it!
What software did you guys use? I have PSE 8 but am not very proficient at it.

 

[srinaldo86]

I think the white on white could have been cool but it wasn't quite what you were going for was it?

 

[keith foster]

I was actually hoping to blowout the white background and get the white on white look without a lot of pp. I guess I didn't hit the backdrop with enough light to get that though. When I began to push up the exposure in LR it blew out the background and her face and arm.

I guess I am naive about pp and about lighting.

I posed her about 8 ft from the backdrop hoping the separation would help me with dof and reduce the visibility of the backdrop.

The young lady liked the shot as I posted it but I am just learning so I am open to all ideas.

 

[TrollMongo]

I like the edit with the red curtain...I'm curious though, when I shoot women it's ALWAYS glamour or nudes, I don't quite understand why she is completly covered except for her face and arms. Not saying it would have to be showing a lot, just enough to make her a bit more feminine.

 

[TrollMongo]

when I shoot women it's ALWAYS glamour or nudes, I don't quite understand why she is completly covered except for her face and arms. Not saying it would have to be showing a lot, just enough to make her a bit more feminine.

Translation: "Women are objects. They are not to be photographed with their dignity in tact or in a modest fashion."

My My, it seems I've made a friend......you've been following me around since my first post here...I'd be really flattered if you were better looking...

Perhaps your looks or personality just don't fit with the genre...

 

[keith foster]

Well Troll, I guess to answer your question about glamour, at least for me I see photography as having a lot of different categories when it comes to shooting people.
I won't list them all and I don't say that the lines dividing the categories are absolute but I see it this way.
1. portrait
2 portrait with a purpose
3 sexy portaits
4 glamour
5 implied nude
6 artistic nude

I think each step keeps going until you get down 5 or so more steps to pornography and then their are several levels beyond that to which some people take their photography.

I was trying for a sexy portrait that had promise of making it to glamour with some work and changes.

So I guess the short answer is this photo probably wasn't aimed at making you like it since your tastes are different.
But I appreciate your feedback.

 

[fokker]

Keith, I like the shot. It's not perfect in the lighting department, but not bad either. The pose looks good, and the model looks beautiful, her eyes are very alluring and getting the eyes to look good is priority number 1.

I like the edit with the red curtain...I'm curious though, when I shoot women it's ALWAYS glamour or nudes, I don't quite understand why she is completly covered except for her face and arms. Not saying it would have to be showing a lot, just enough to make her a bit more feminine.

Mate, you have no business being here and commenting on people's work who actually put time and effort into their photographs. Your idea of shooting glamour is taking un-thought-out snapshots of your wife wearing slutty clothes, using the popup flash for lighting in locations such as a cluttered floor with random junk scattered around. Your photos are terrible, you are not a photographer. Please refrain from giving advise, unless it pertains to how to order a bride.

 

[Misfitlimp]

Dont listen to troll hun I think you are cute Erose