The bedroom..

[jesse101]

mari8 (1 of 1) by photographyjjm, on Flickr


mari7 (1 of 1) by photographyjjm, on Flickr


mari9 (1 of 1) by photographyjjm, on Flickr

 

[Rick58]

Nope, I just checked. THE bedroom isn't MY bedroom. :waiting:

 

[amolitor]

I can't put my finger on it, but the first one strikes me as "boudoir" and the others as pretty well done but basically uninteresting snapshots. It might simply be that she's smiling in the last two, I don't know. Wiser heads than mine may weigh in here.

The first strikes me as truly sexy/erotic. I'm not in love with the desaturated colors, and I don't think she needs to pull the outfit down like that for the image (although it may contribute to it looking like it fits on her better!).

 

[jjparson]

Number one is definitely my favorite of the set as well. I like the pose and definitely get the sex appeal of it. I agree with Molitor that the other two are not really doing it for me. The only thing I do not care for about number one is the skin tones look a little grey to me.

 

[Vautrin]

I like the model but I feel the coloring is off. Do you maybe have a white balance problem?

 

[pixmedic1 1]

I like the model but I feel the coloring is off. Do you maybe have a white balance problem?

your the one critiquing..do YOU think the OP has a white balance problem?

for me, I agree the color is a little under saturated. It looks like the flash fired straight on. maybe try bouncing it off the ceiling. were any diffusers used? for portraits we use a few SB700's on stands with shoot through umbrellas. on camera hot shoe flash usually has a softbox on it, or is bounced.

 

[jesse101]

I did that "coloring" on purpose in the first image, its not called coloring btw. And the first image is suppose to look a bit grey, its the style the model wanted. The original has normal tones and so on, this was all done in post.

 

[pixmedic1 1]

I did that "coloring" on purpose in the first image, its not called coloring btw. And the first image is suppose to look a bit grey, its the style the model wanted. The original has normal tones and so on, this was all done in post.

when you do a specific edit in post like that, its helpful to put what you did in the post so people know that the "look" was done on purpose, and wasn't just a saturation mishap in post, or an exposure or WB issue. when we look at it, we assume you meant for the tone to look "normal" and therefor assume you were off somewhere either in camera or in post. since you stated this was a purposed look done in post, I think you pulled it off well.

 

[jesse101]

I can't put my finger on it, but the first one strikes me as "boudoir" and the others as pretty well done but basically uninteresting snapshots. It might simply be that she's smiling in the last two, I don't know. Wiser heads than mine may weigh in here.

The first strikes me as truly sexy/erotic. I'm not in love with the desaturated colors, and I don't think she needs to pull the outfit down like that for the image (although it may contribute to it looking like it fits on her better!).

Agreed! We have about 500 shots of "stolen" shots, and she def looked more appealing. I have both of the desaturated look and normal tones and so on, this was a look she specifically wanted, i liked it considering the shadows and pasty feel to it, kind of like my beach shot.

I personally like the natural skin tones and simplicity, so i can agree with your above comments and thank you for the critique.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

The technical elements of these are just fine, other than a total imbalance of ambient light / strobe.

However her posing pretty well ruins all three of them. In #1, her expression says boredom, not seduction. In #2-3, her smiling completely kills the mood. That's a jeans and T-shirt smile, not a "hey baby" smirk.

These are 80% a wonderful set though.

 

[jesse101]

I did that "coloring" on purpose in the first image, its not called coloring btw. And the first image is suppose to look a bit grey, its the style the model wanted. The original has normal tones and so on, this was all done in post.

when you do a specific edit in post like that, its helpful to put what you did in the post so people know that the "look" was done on purpose, and wasn't just a saturation mishap in post, or an exposure or WB issue. when we look at it, we assume you meant for the tone to look "normal" and therefor assume you were off somewhere either in camera or in post. since you stated this was a purposed look done in post, I think you pulled it off well.

Not trying to poke anybody in the eye, but if they arent sure what was done, then maybe they shouldnt provide a critique but more so ask the question and learn? I usually wont comment unless i know what the photographer was aiming for, and if i dont know, i will ask the question to try and educate myself prior to. Either way im not offended by any means and i appreciate any and all comments! So thank you.

 

[jesse101]

Nope, I just checked. THE bedroom isn't MY bedroom. :waiting:

LOL!! Yes it was in my bedroom, sorry man, will ask if she can attend yours lol

 

[pixmedic1 1]

I did that "coloring" on purpose in the first image, its not called coloring btw. And the first image is suppose to look a bit grey, its the style the model wanted. The original has normal tones and so on, this was all done in post.

when you do a specific edit in post like that, its helpful to put what you did in the post so people know that the "look" was done on purpose, and wasn't just a saturation mishap in post, or an exposure or WB issue. when we look at it, we assume you meant for the tone to look "normal" and therefor assume you were off somewhere either in camera or in post. since you stated this was a purposed look done in post, I think you pulled it off well.

Not trying to poke anybody in the eye, but if they arent sure what was done, then maybe they shouldnt provide a critique but more so ask the question and learn? I usually wont comment unless i know what the photographer was aiming for, and if i dont know, i will ask the question to try and educate myself prior to. Either way im not offended by any means and i appreciate any and all comments! So thank you.

how are we going to know what you were "aiming for" if you don't tell us? not many people will ask what you were trying to do, then wait for an answer, then critique. if you really don't comment until you "know" what the photographer was aiming for, you should have known to put it in your post so WE would know right away. as for not being sure what was done...its kinda hard to tell, especially with exposure and WB, what was done in camera, and what was done in post. and by how much. maybe you changed the exposure in PS or LR, or maybe you just had the shutterspeed or aperture wrong on the camera..I definitely liked the first shot, but would love to see the original.

 

[jesse101]

I hear you..the other pics arent suited for this forum, and per release i cannot post, only was able to with a limited number of photos that we both agreed upon (to include these). All other photos may only be used for port. purposes. I will dig up the non PP version when i get back home in a week or so for pic #1 and will try and post then.