3 for C&C, Bikini & Nudes, (NSFW)

[TheUndisputed]

1.

2.

3.

Taken with the D60, at 1/8 shutter and 800ISO.

 

[Big Mike]

I think the first could be greatly improved by cropping off the empty space at the top.

The 2nd one has some great light but the motion blur isn't helping.

The 3rd one doesn't stand out much at all.

 

[Contegni]

I agree with above but I didn't really expect these pictures because of all of the fake thread titles around here recently...

 

[puyjapin]

2 is good, nice butt too!

 

[TheUndisputed]

Oh yes, forgot to add. #1 is the only image that has PP done to it. 2 and 3 are directly from the camera. I still have some cloning to do on number 2 to get some of the items out of the background.

 

[Mesoam]

sorry this just looks like porn

 

[SrBiscuit]

sorry this just looks like porn

don't good porn photos also have to be done technically well?

these certainly aren't hardcore porn...nor are they distasteful.
i would put these in the erotic category...and well shot erotic pics.

the stars on the first one are taking away from the image to me...and no im not just saying that to see her nipples...i know what nipples look like. i have 2 of them myself. wait...3...no wait...2

 

[TheUndisputed]

sorry this just looks like porn

Not starting a pissing match, but you obviously haven't ever watched porn, if you think those images define it.

por·nog·ra·phy - n. - Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

 

[Mesoam]

not to start a pissing match either but there isn't much artistic value...

don't ask for criticism if you don't want positive and negative feedback

 

[TheUndisputed]

not to start a pissing match either but there isn't much artistic value...

don't ask for criticism if you don't want positive and negative feedback

I don't mind critique at all, but to make a flawed observation is a bit different. If you took a picture of an apple I wouldn't call it an orange. You get my drift?

So, if you want to critique my photographs, critique them. However, do not draw an image for them that they do not draw for themselves.

 

[genie]

I agree with Mesoam. i would put them in the "erotic" category before I put them in the "artistic nudes" category. The quality isn't outstanding, and the b&w one just looks a little trashy.

Better lighting would have helped tremendously, as would a higher shutter speed so you wouldn't have that motion blur.

Lastly, she looks like a pretty girl, but her eye makeup in the first one does not do her justice.

 

[puyjapin]

definately not porn, well softish porn maybe lol, do you know her?! other than for taking photos of !

 

[TheUndisputed]

definately not porn, well softish porn maybe lol, do you know her?! other than for taking photos of !

Yes, She is a very close friend of mine. I met her though the night club I work for, and we have been really tight ever since.

 

[manaheim]

The B&W one seems kind of dark to me... don't think that's just a lighting issue so much as an expsure and/or adjustment choice.

I think everyone else has commented sufficiently on the other aspects.

 

[foned]

I agree with genie, theres no real artistic value too these (imo of course, it is sorta subjective) the lighting could be vastly improved and the blur doesn't do much for me. also the eye make up again like genie said isn't workin for her. As far as positive feedback, i like her face in #3 a nice expression, but the legs spread makes it more pornography than artistic nude to me, and in #2 better lighting, more color, less blur.