I dont think I like this image (NSFW)

[SoulfulRecover]

I like the tension of the upper body but the lower body seems lack luster. Seems boring and un interesting to me despite wanting to like it, if that makes sense. I dont know. What do you guys/gals think?


Untitled by Shutter_Inc., on Flickr


Id say re-shoot

 

[ronlane]

I'd agree. Maybe having the panty unzipped more would help. The caption that comes to my mind is, "Should I be doing this?"

 

[weepete]

Yep, I agree. Perhaps a crop might help? It's nicely shot otherwise.

What comes to mind for me is "I'm sure I forgot something this morning! I haven't left the stove on have I?"

 

[Gavjenks]

"Should I be doing this" is fine and all, but doesn't ring authentic to me in an obvious controlled studio set environment. You would want something more like a (highly bokeh-filtered) bedroom scene or whatever in the background.
Even better, have her standing right around the corner of the doorframe just out of sight of somebody out of focus but discernable on a bed (e.g. her in the entryway of a bathroom).
But people don't really tend to deeply question their emotional state and life choices while standing in featureless gray boxes.

Or "I forgot something / left the stove on" You should probably be wearing a shirt if you've already left the house..... and again, be at a bus stop or whatever.

Studios IMO are for portraits that aren't pretending to be anything other than a studio portrait. Like just headshots, family photos, or fine art studies of the tension of the body for its own sake, etc. Not vignettes about life situations that wouldn't happen there.

 

[Derrel]

I'd say crop off some of the pants, and make the slight V-shape of the unbuttoned waistband the bottom of the shot. It feels kind of bottom-heavy as shown.

I know what you mean...I'd like to like this shot, but it just does not quite resonate (not considering any titles or text, just based on the IMAGE content, it does not work all that well for me). I think *maybe* it's the unnatural hand and wrist position on her waist...that looks kind of weird...

I dunno what the deal is here...I mean we all should like a photo of an attractive woman in a bra and with her pants un-snapped, right? But for some reason, this just isn't coming together in a compelling manner. I dunno...maybe try lifting the black point up, so there's a bit more detail in the bra and the pants?

 

[JustJazzie]

What about a different crop?

 

[Parker219]

In my opinion, she is too hot to EVER be in a picture that I don't like.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

hahaha!

Ill give some different crops a try and play with the black points and see where it takes me

 

[vintagesnaps]

I think it's partly the pose/expression, she almost looks like she's got an excedrin headache. More seriously I think the proportion looks off, like the abdomen is too long or something; the v of the top of the pants almost makes it seem like her stomach's sticking out. The pants on her left side seem too low probably from arranging them to show the tattoo; the waistband is flipped down where the buttonhole is.

Did you ever take art classes and learn how to measure proportion? it's been awhile but I used to do that sketching, I wonder if the light and dark parts of the photo aren't quite in a balanced proportion.

 

[shaylou]

That angel of view is not flattering for her. The crop helps but imo she has nice hips so a different view point is a better option then the crop.

 

[bribrius]

There is a photo semi nude by Oscar Gustave Rejlander of a woman, back turned to the camera called Ariadne. This reminded me of that only because of the placement of the hand on the forehead. You might want to take a look at it. Perhaps it would do nothing for you but in my younger days nude shoots that was basically my style it and seemed to work. I get the feeling you are hiding, what you should be showing. And you are showing what is unnecessary and you should be hiding. Doing so correctly does a couple things.
1. leaves a unknown mystery and deceptive quality making the viewer curious.
2. what is shown adds the mood for the scene. And despite being semi nude the mood isn't always sexual in nature but often adds a unbridled realism.

you can take a very sexual photo , not showing any sexual body parts. And a very unsexual photo showing genitalia. For example: I have a photo I took of a woman years ago, kneeling on a floor looking over the edge of the bed. I left her lower body out of the frame and shot from her shoulder up. But you could tell she was kneeling on the floor because of the bed position. It is a extremely sexual photo, even though it shows nothing of her genitalia. The viewer assume she is wearing no clothes, looks at her expression, the edge of the bed, and the mind roars. Position in a next photo, same woman two feet higher, leaning onto the bed, showing her breasts, makes the photo look awkward as her position is awkward and she appears off balance and uncomfortable. IT loses sexuality showing more. Other thing is camera angle. Two feet higher brings her more in line with the camera, two feet lower puts the camera looking down on her at the edge of a bed. The backdrop is nolonger the edge of the bed.
Don't matter, im just trying to give you my two cents.
what is missing in your photo, is not only did it not pull off the sexual, but it didn't pull off any purpose or curiosity for the viewer. It would be better off a standard portrait photo if you aren't planning on doing more than this with it. Then at least it would make sense.

I am not criticizing too hard, so don't take it that way. I couldn't pull off this portrait either. OR any similar portrait. Not my thing. box portraits aren't my thing.

 

[Braineack]

The pose, facial expression, and unbuttoned pants suggests that she ate too much dinner more than anything alluring.

try again and dont forget to post...