Your judgement please

[2framesbelowzero]

today, i agree with you...maybe its the flares. it look s great tight on the
thigh but .. i dont like the boot-cut.

other feet positions might be good, but I disagree with the footwear idea. footwear almost never works in these type of situations, and would end up being distracting. I think the 'natural' look is much better.

 

[Rob]

I really like it... great impact, flattering on the model. I am obsessed with eyes, so I'd be aiming to get catchlights as an improvement, but still I reckon the lighting really works.

Rob

 

[DocFrankenstein]

did you use lights for this or was it natural lighting?

I used a vivitar off camera. She'd be a silhouette if I didn't. After this shoot, I want a 300WS light so that I can shoot outside with a softbox.

 

[newrmdmike]

i agree with daniel in that looking down usually isn't flattering; however not many people attempt it, which in my opinion gives you all the more reason to explore lighting her face in a more favorable manner. the lighting gave a great shape to her face, but the shadows around the eyes and line on the cheek are not desirable. i am sure you can find a way to fix this though. ANYTHING TO SET YOU APART FROM THE REST OF US IS A GOOD THING. where many of us may have just selected a different pose or had her move her head some carefull lighting may give you somthing hard for others to follow.

 

[thebeginning]

I used a vivitar off camera. She'd be a silhouette if I didn't. After this shoot, I want a 300WS light so that I can shoot outside with a softbox.

yeah i figured it was a single light off-camera somewhere. it worked well IMO, i like the harsh lighting.

 

[Luke]

obviously quite good shot, you know what you're doing in terms of lighting.
only thing i think is "does he have any of this scene that arent taken from below?".
taking a shot from below often makes peoples faces look a lil blergh, obviously not so much here, but i wonder what it wouldve looked like from different angles.

 

[Digital Matt]

As mentioned, a nice fill light would have been nice, but other than that, I think it's great.

 

['Daniel']

I personally think the lighting is the main problem.

The sky is dark but doesn't follow the colours of a darkening sky. Skys that are darkening don't stay vivid blue. the the light on the model is (looks) white and doesn't really agree with the suggestion of the sky. The model and fence almost looks like they are superimposed onto the background. I am a fan of natural looking light in outdoor scenarios when it's light. To me it looks like artificial flash light to me.

 

[thebeginning]

I personally think the lighting is the main problem.

The sky is dark but doesn't follow the colours of a darkening sky. Skys that are darkening don't stay vivid blue. the the light on the model is (looks) white and doesn't really agree with the suggestion of the sky. The model and fence almost looks like they are superimposed onto the background. I am a fan of natural looking light in outdoor scenarios when it's light. To me it looks like artificial flash light to me.

I think that's more or less the point in this image. That 'fill flash with underexposed surroundings' thing is actually really popular right now i'd say.

 

[ShutteredEye]

The sky is dark but doesn't follow the colours of a darkening sky. Skys that are darkening don't stay vivid blue.

I'd have to disagree here. I have unmanipulated shots of the Dallas skyline proving that just isn't true.

 

[JTHphoto]

The light on her face is on the harsh side, or perhaps its a little too contrasty for my taste. I agree with Danalec, having her look into the light source would get rid of some of the "raccoon effect." I think. Also, I don't think it would be bad to have her looking wistfully off into the horizon.

I think it's creative, and fresh. I'm not sure that many photogs out there would have come up with this shot. I think you're really onto something here.

LOVE the angle!

this is kind of what i was thinking. i really like the shot, i think you did very well by keeping the yellow behind the jeans... that would have been a problem otherwise, and you framed just enough with the tree on the left so it didn't interfere with her hair... overall well done... i have never seen anything like it before.

 

['Daniel']

I'd have to disagree here. I have unmanipulated shots of the Dallas skyline proving that just isn't true.

Well I have eyes and have never seen it. Maybe under certain circumstances it happens but it certainly looks unnatural to me.

Someone else said that it was the point of the shot, well if it is then I don't really think the point is very succesful from an aesthetic point of view. With concerns to it being popular that has no weight in my eyes.

In terms of the model I like the pose except where the feet are. I think they should maybe be together or parallel to the line of the spine and at different angles. I think the jeans excentuate the problem for me. they ggive it an amateur wardrobe look.

 

[ShutteredEye]

Well I have eyes and have never seen it. Maybe under certain circumstances it happens but it certainly looks unnatural to me.

I still haven't made it over to France yet to see the Eiffel Tower with my own eyes. Does that mean it doesn't exist?

 

[thebeginning]

I still haven't made it over to France yet to see the Eiffel Tower with my own eyes. Does that mean it doesn't exist?

not totally relevant, but still, BURNED.


like I said before, i think that 'un-natural' look was intentional. I actually think it adds to the image, gives it a more modern look. It might not fit with everyone else's style, but for what it is, it does well IMO.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Well I have eyes and have never seen it. Maybe under certain circumstances it happens but it certainly looks unnatural to me.

Well... I did bump the saturation slightly, but on the whole image.

If you meter blue sky one stop underexposed, it will come out a very saturated blue. Also my vivitar is old and yellow, which lowers it's temperature and the model is yellower and the sky is bluer.