Been gone for a while.....Heres some of the latest work

Lmphotos · May 1, 2013

I have started glamour sessions as a service to some local women around. This wont be for everyone (cropped head, arms etc) but I recently took a Sue Bryce course and I have been embracing it

Tiller · May 1, 2013

I like the hair coming across at the top, but the bottom strand just looks out of place. I can't rally focus on anything else.

The eyes also look very over processed to me.

Tiller · May 1, 2013

Ok, after a second look, I don't like either of the strands.

Lmphotos · May 1, 2013

Here is the raw file eyes were minimally touched

TimothyJinx · May 1, 2013

Lmphotos said:
View attachment 43747 Here is the raw file eyes were minimally touched

That's funny - I posted a pic a couple months ago and people said the eyes were over processed and I barely touched them.

Anyway, nice shot - I like the hair crossing the face and how she is holding up a part of her dress/garment. It makes the photo look alive and unplanned. That's something I want to have the courage to do in my photos.

Lmphotos · May 2, 2013

Yes sometimes people just have light eyes

I can totally tell zombie eyes a mile away though......

sarah_19_nz · May 2, 2013

nice! I like it

amolitor · May 2, 2013

The light strikes me as somewhat flat, there's not a lot of modeling going on in her face. Given that she doesn't have a particularly dramatic bone structure to start with, I don't think this lighting does her any favors. Also, this sort of thing - straight on, fairly close in - is going to emphasize the heck out of any asymmetries in the model's face. Her eyes are distinctly different shapes, and it shows, and that's not particularly flattering.

She would be better served by a pose with her face turned, at least slightly, and by a more dramatic lighting ratio, I feel. Actually, just about ANYONE is better served by it, the point is that only bizarrely perfect people really look good in this sort of photograph, and while she's very very pretty, she's not a weirdly perfect person.

That said, there's a truth to this sort of thing. If you want to make a picture that acknowledges the asymmetry we all have, and yet still shows her as beautiful, this might be getting into the general area.

Lmphotos · May 2, 2013

amolitor said:
The light strikes me as somewhat flat, there's not a lot of modeling going on in her face. Given that she doesn't have a particularly dramatic bone structure to start with, I don't think this lighting does her any favors. Also, this sort of thing - straight on, fairly close in - is going to emphasize the heck out of any asymmetries in the model's face. Her eyes are distinctly different shapes, and it shows, and that's not particularly flattering.

She would be better served by a pose with her face turned, at least slightly, and by a more dramatic lighting ratio, I feel. Actually, just about ANYONE is better served by it, the point is that only bizarrely perfect people really look good in this sort of photograph, and while she's very very pretty, she's not a weirdly perfect person.

That said, there's a truth to this sort of thing. If you want to make a picture that acknowledges the asymmetry we all have, and yet still shows her as beautiful, this might be getting into the general area.

Yes it is flat it is inteded to be so. The sue bryce course I took is all about soft flat lighting I do agree the right side was a little to close but I had about 5-6 reflectors in the room trying to light up the rest of her. Like I said it will not be for everyone. But, I am enjoying her course and teachings.