My wife on our bed

[IgsEMT]

My wife is 43, the mother of my three kids, and incredibly attractive to me. She is also patient, and knows a good session means I disappear to the basement to work on my image files, thus leaving her in peace to watch Mad Men or just be on Facebook

lol

 

[NateWagner]

My wife is 43, the mother of my three kids, and incredibly attractive to me. She is also patient, and knows a good session means I disappear to the basement to work on my image files, thus leaving her in peace to watch Mad Men or just be on Facebook

My wife was reading over my shoulder and cracked up laughing when she saw that. I guess she is in agreement.

 

[bhphotography]

very nice expression! Could use a little fill flash

 

[Cooler_King]

Vignetting doesn't work for me at all here. Pose and composition are lovely, triangles all throughout. The model is lovely as is the light, shadows give depth and shape to her face. Good exposure and love the soft back-lit background.

Very nice shot!

Couldn't say it better myself. This has easily become one of my fave images on here.

Beautiful wife btw. :thumbup:

 

[jennyjen]

The picture of your wife is cute.

I think its a nice picture

 

[fuglychick21]

Very nice! Your wife is a beautiful woman!

 

[Nikkor]

I love when husbands say great things about their wives. Good job boys! And the picture is adorable!

 

[randys]

There have been a lot of comments regarding the vignetting and how beautiful ur wife is...and yes she is! )))) I'm looking at it a little differently. I like phot0s where the background is intentionally blown out and with the exception of some faint view of the floor for example, the model is THE total focus. There is nothing to draw the eyes away. I think in this case there is an area beyond the vignette and that is what can pull the eye away. Usually the model has more light on her (more fill light?) It looks like there is a big contrast between the blown out background and the somewhat darker foreground.

What was ur DOF? Her face is detailed and sharp and her arm is already going out of focus. Was it intended to be strictly facial?

These aren't criticisms. I would like to know why things were decided for my own information.

Thanks for sharing and I wish i has someone who would pose for me.

 

[Iron Flatline]

It was a totally conscious choice to shoot very shallow. i don't remove EXIF, but don't have a way of looking into the file right now... I'm pretty sure it was a Canon 85mm f/1.2 L at f/1.4 or f/2... The lens is incredibly fast, so I don't think I shot totally wide open because the DOF would be too shallow - eyes in focus, tip of nose soft... that looks silly. But yes, the goal was to get the face, and let the rest be soft. It fits the mood, I wanted it to be dreamy, the morning after when you realize you still like each other... that kind of thing. The bed is obviously a soft texture, as are the curtains back-lit behind her, I could have theoretically shot with a greater Depth of Field, but it the goal truly was to lock the viewer into the eyes.

I pre-visualized this shots months ago (easy, it's my wife and our bedroom, I knoow the model and the location) so I knew exactly what I wanted, and how to shoot it. The silly off-color Lomo effect happened late at night over a glass of wine, and is not mission-critical to the image. The vignetting is pure noobism!

 

[Pugs]

It was a totally conscious choice to shoot very shallow. i don't remove EXIF, but don't have a way of looking into the file right now... I'm pretty sure it was a Canon 85mm f/1.2 L at f/1.4 or f/2... The lens is incredibly fast, so I don't think I shot totally wide open because the DOF would be too shallow - eyes in focus, tip of nose soft... that looks silly. But yes, the goal was to get the face, and let the rest be soft. It fits the mood, I wanted it to be dreamy, the morning after when you realize you still like each other... that kind of thing. The bed is obviously a soft texture, as are the curtains back-lit behind her, I could have theoretically shot with a greater Depth of Field, but it the goal truly was to lock the viewer into the eyes.

I pre-visualized this shots months ago (easy, it's my wife and our bedroom, I knoow the model and the location) so I knew exactly what I wanted, and how to shoot it. The silly off-color Lomo effect happened late at night over a glass of wine, and is not mission-critical to the image. The vignetting is pure noobism!

Here's your EXIF

[Image]
Make = Canon
Model = Canon EOS 5D
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 240
Y Resolution = 240
Resolution Unit = inch
Software = Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Date Time = 2009-11-21 18:28:59
Artist = Yoram Roth
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 228

[Camera]
Exposure Time = 1/1250"
F Number = F1.2
Exposure Program = Aperture priority
ISO Speed Ratings = 400
Exif Version = Version 2.21
Date Time Original = 2009-11-17 12:00:22
Date Time Digitized = 2009-11-17 12:00:22
Shutter Speed Value = 10.29 TV
Aperture Value = 0.53 AV
Exposure Bias Value = ±0EV
Max Aperture Value = F1.24
Metering Mode = Pattern
Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length = 85mm
Color Space = Uncalibrated
Exif Image Width = 900
Exif Image Height = 600
Focal Plane X Resolution = 3086.926
Focal Plane Y Resolution = 3091.295
Focal Plane Resolution Unit = inch
Custom Rendered = Normal process
Exposure Mode = Auto exposure
White Balance = Auto white balance
Scene Capture Type = Normal

 

[ddm1975]

You're wife is gorgeous! I do love the lighting, but would have liked to have seen a little bit more light on her face to see her eyes, maybe a tad fill light!

 

[Iron Flatline]

f/1.2 ? Woa I would have expected the DOF to be much much shallower :scratch:

LOL, me too...

You're wife is gorgeous! I do love the lighting, but would have liked to have seen a little bit more light on her face to see her eyes, maybe a tad fill light!

It's actually there, the Lomo effect ends up raising the contrast too much and making it too dark... but the eyes pop, which is what matters to me.