HOT Water

nikon90s · Aug 23, 2007

I worked on this old shot alittle now that I have Photoshop
What do you think

Edited

The Phototron · Aug 23, 2007

erm...boobies? Sorry that's the only thing I can think of when looking at that pic.

And her left leg looks weird.

rylos · Aug 23, 2007

And her left leg looks weird.

I think that that's the bottom of her boobie. And it grew a foot!

Royster · Aug 24, 2007

oh dear...I thought this was going to be a picture of a kettle. Not that I'm complaining.

nikon90s · Aug 26, 2007

I guess some of you guys don't have legs, but I am only guessing

Jenna · Aug 28, 2007

I like this shot, but I agree with others. She needs to cover up, since you can see like well... everything! :hail:

abraxas · Aug 29, 2007

looks good. shows some creativity.

Sultan AlZaabi · Aug 30, 2007

Awesome Picture, and the edited is something else, and the emotions in the picture is good enough to let all the guys only thinking about the boobies .. eheh

i can just pot small comment, the leg in the bottom you cut it and it's looks you are missing something on the subject

i edited the leg in the bottom

wildmaven · Aug 30, 2007

Her right cheek/jaw area seems to be over processed. Did you do some smoothing in this area? I like the composition. The only thing I would've done was to tighten her bikini top a bit. Yes, it's sexy, but a bit distracting from the other wonderful aspects of the photo, especially the hands.

midnitejam · Aug 30, 2007

Jenna said:
I like this shot, but I agree with others. She needs to cover up, since you can see like well... everything! :hail:

:blushing: You'all make good points but I must be lookin at a different picture than you are. Or maybe my monitor is going on the blitz. I only see a suggestion of breasts. Don't see nipples nor pubies. I so don't see everything.

Actually, I find the shot to be quite tame. I'd even ok it for General Audience.

All kidding aside, the focal length appears to be too short and is not suited for the chosen camera-to-model distance. It causes the model to appear disproportionate. Clone out both legs and feet and you'll have a much improved shot.

I don't object to the overall image being too soft. Historically, a little softness in portraits have always been accepted.

nikon90s · Aug 31, 2007

Ok I posted a copy with her legs edited out and put it in my first post so you can see both side by side. Thanks for the feed back!!

Jason

wildmaven · Aug 31, 2007

nikon90s said:
Ok I posted a copy with her legs edited out and put it in my first post so you can see both side by side. Thanks for the feed back!!

Jason

Much better!!

It really keeps the focus from travelling away from the main impact of the picture.

midnitejam · Aug 31, 2007

The edit isn't quite what I expected, but still, I prefer it over the original. You did good with the cloning.

Sideburns · Aug 31, 2007

Love the shot...but I don't like her tribal. May as well get 49.95 tattooed on her....lol.

Oh well...that's the only complaint I have. I like the original....but only cause you shouldn't have edited out her left leg. Edit out her right leg and I think it'd look better...cause her right leg is kinda awkward.

Tomeboy69 · Aug 31, 2007

Great shot! (sorry I don't agree with most that she should be covered up - should she be standing in water wrapped in a bedsheet?) The edited version makes me look for legs. Although I agree with Sideburns that the right leg looks funny, I think editing it out may look strange. Personally, I think the original is great.