To me, makeup is a wreck and almost ruins it...well, it does. You acknowlege it, yet pass it off saying it was her choice and she did it. Not meaning anything by it...just stating what's what so far.
So, my question is, as a pro or "hired amature", where is the line when we tell our clients something isn't going to work. Even to the point of not shooting? I know we want to give customers what they want...and usually the mindset is "thats what they wanted so thats what they got".
I guess, in my mind, I'd rather see my name on a quality product than my name on something icky with the disclaimer of "thats what they wanted".
I get that your intent isn't to derail the thread, so I'm not going to answer any more than to say "Don't make assumptions about this shoot." It seems as though you are assuming that the OP was paid to do this shoot and you're questioning releasing the final product. My assumption is the opposite, that the OP either paid this model or it was a trade shoot.
Hi... Im trying to take glamour pictures.... i want to know your opinion about lighting posing and post processing
The emphasis added was mine. My take is that this was likely a trade shoot and the OP got exactly what was wanted - a chance to practice
lighting,
posing, and
post processing. Those could have been practiced with a mannequin, or any person standing in; the fact that a model was available is a bonus, and the makeup on that model is irrelevant to those points. So to those points...
Lighting:
The problem I have with the lighting in the first shot is that you've allowed flare from the rim light - which suggests to the viewer that the only/most powerful light source is camera right - yet that side of her face is appreciably darker than the other side. I'd still think the lighting ratio is a little too large, but if you remove that flare the ratio wouldn't appear as obviously off. I agree with Kristal that you need more light in her eyes on that shot. The lighting in the second shot appears better. To me it looks a little hot on her right, and the ratio is still a little large. Glamour lighting tends to be fairly even. Side lighting and uneven ratios create shadows which accentuate rather than minimize imperfections. I personally like the lighting ratio in the second shot for other portraiture, but I think you want it more equal for glamour.
Posing:
I think you did well with the posing. The tilts to the head in each shot work well. You captured the side of her right hand rather than the broad back of it in the first shot, and it looks relaxed despite the severely bent wrist. Posing larger subjects in a flattering way is difficult, particularly women with their curves, and I think you did well here. The only suggestion I have would be to crop the first a bit. If you crop in from the right just enough to remove that bit of breast showing between her arms, and crop up from the bottom to just remove her lower hand, she'll appear even thinner. (And you'll remove the lighting flare I discussed above, IMO also improving the image.)
Post processing:
Honestly, it's always tough to critique someone's post processing without seeing the original image. I can tell you that I generally like what I see (good catch by Kristal about smoothing the neck, also look at her lower hand in the first shot if you don't crop it out). I think her skin looks appropriately smooth for a glamour shot, not too plastic.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/42/42040-7a66cabbeffd44783ea44a91ef4d0e70.jpg?1734176423)
