A pair of Nudes (WARNING - NUDITY)

[Efergoh]

I shot these for an school project. Any thoughts?
Pardon the lousy scanns.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y151/gunnfixr/photography/jen121.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y151/gunnfixr/photography/jen122.jpg

 

[bitteraspects]

looks like the focus was off a little.

 

[Efergoh]

That is partly the scan, and partly photobuckets reduction of the image. The actual prints a quite a bit sharper. I did pull the focus a tiny bit to soften the image. Do you think I missed the mark?

 

[bitteraspects]

i personally think it could do to be a little sharper. i do like a soft focus for nudes, but i think this one was borderline blurry

 

[Efergoh]

Again, a lot of that is in the scan. I do need a better scanner.
I may take the negs down and have them scanned, but this print was seriously burned to blacken the background.

The backdrop is a black linen bedsheet, and she is sitting on a black satin bedsheet. Dark, yes, but I wanted it darker so the model popped off the image a little more. Don't think I can do that with a scanned neg.

 

[bitteraspects]

mind if i give it a shot?

 

[Sir Peechizworth]

I prefer these kind of shots to have a bit more contrast. Her skin tones are a little flat and boring in 2. In 1 the most lit part of her is her foot, which is a little odd. So her foot is blown out and the rest of her looks grey.

I know that having better lighting comes down to the kind of equipment you have available, but i wonder if you could experiment with bouncing the light around a little better.

 

[Efergoh]

mind if i give it a shot?

Give what a shot?

 

[bitteraspects]

Give what a shot?

a quick adjustment

 

[Efergoh]

Help yourself.

 

[bitteraspects]

just a quick sharpness adjustment. but kept the soft focus

 

[Efergoh]

Looks good, but lost a bit of detail in the hair, though.

Mind you any editing I do will be done in an enlarger, not a computer. These are film prints, not digital photos.

FYI - you might wanna edit your post to show just the link. Froum rules dictate that any nude photos not be directly displayed.

Thanks for the edit, how did you do it?

 

[bitteraspects]

it was selective sharpening. (actually, sharpening, and then selective re-softening.) i chose not to do the hair, but i did think twice about it. i guess i should have gone with my instinct to do the hair too. lol
oh, and im aware it was film, but theres always ways of doing it. easier then reshooting imo.

 

[Efergoh]

Well, I do soften in the enlarger a lot with photos of women. I'll use an empty negative carrier, and move it around over the paper in the enlarger like I was burning for the last couple seconds of the exposure. It works to soften lines and wrinkles on more seasoned women, but I didn't feel the need to do so with a 23 year old model.

As for the feet of the first photo (opps, that was one part of the shot that didn't get the burn as much as the rest of the photo). I'll have to make a straight print tomorrow an show you all what it looks like before I started to monkey with it.

 

[Efergoh]

I prefer these kind of shots to have a bit more contrast. Her skin tones are a little flat and boring in 2.

I took this advice when I printed more shots from this and other nude sets.
I can't post them as yet because for one, I need the model's permission before I post online, and two I printed them on Fiber Paper and had to leave them to dry at the school. I'll post them on Sunday when the campus reopens from the holiday.

FYI - you were right. The higher contrast makes all the difference. The shots posted here were a 2 and a 2 1/2 filter, the others that I printed were a 3 minimum. I guess I'm just afraid of losing soft details with the higher filters.