| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/16/2006 02:29:54 AM · #1 |
thank you for visiting
-CW-
Message edited by author 2006-02-08 18:58:37.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2006 02:42:14 AM · #2 |
Not that I know anything about glamour or advertising, but the first three do nothing for me. The last is pretty good. It would be better IMHO if she were actually holding the product.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2006 02:46:16 AM · #3 |
A little heavy on the NI or Smart Blur or whatever you used. As for the poses, I think I would be more receptive if she had less on.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2006 02:47:44 AM · #4 |
Nice collection of images, glamour photography isnt easy, but i think you have had a good go at it, prefer the last 2 more than the first two, all images are well exposed etc, but the first two make me feel you just tilted the camera and hoped for the best, the last 2 show some good composition.
Hope this helps |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 02:49:53 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
As for the poses, I think I would be more receptive if she had less on.
|
:true story:
Message edited by author 2006-01-16 02:50:27.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2006 03:14:39 AM · #6 |
Nice model and lighting.
Wish you had've given the backdrop a blur.
bazz. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 04:20:47 AM · #7 |
I do a good deal of model work... and it took me a few minitues to figure what I didn't like about all of these...I get no connection to the model... a get angles but no energy... she looks distracted...
The airbrush effect is overdone to me...not my much but overdone imho
dave
Message edited by author 2006-01-16 04:21:14. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 05:53:26 AM · #8 |
| The last one definately has the most vitality and energy, so it keeps interest longer. Perhaps you could play with shadows a little more to make the model have greater dynamism. It seems as though you were more confident with your camera angles by the later shots. Perhaps play with the composition a little more? |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 08:00:15 AM · #9 |
The model has no connection with the viewer, she never even looks towards the camera - they are more candid portraits than intimate glamour shots. The neatimage just looks like very heavy jpeg compression. The wrinkles in your highly saturated purple background are quite distracting - especially in the first tilted one, where the tilt is accentuated by the model standing perfectly straight, making the whole effect rather artificial.
My favourite is probably the third, as it is the nearest to being an exploration of form. The others seem to want to be more about the model than what she is wearing, but fail to make that connection, and the sloppy lighting on her face makes them look more snapshotty.
You might want to read this very useful article on the elements of glamour photography. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 07:14:09 PM · #10 |
Thanks for the link riot, great article and resource.
And thank you all for you comments, very helpfull.
I do my post-processing on an ibook so i dont have the benefit of a great monitor to see the full effects of the final results :( anyone want to donate a good monitor? - so i agree, the sking texture (my own workflow) may be overdone a bit.
I have a lot to work on, especially posing the model and making them comfortable and relaxed.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2006 07:20:19 PM · #11 |
I have to agree with this. She seems to be connecting with someone to her left and is ignoring the camera. If you had moved whomever she was lookign at to under or next to the cameera these would be a lot better.
Originally posted by nomad469:
I do a good deal of model work... and it took me a few minitues to figure what I didn't like about all of these...I get no connection to the model... a get angles but no energy... she looks distracted...
The airbrush effect is overdone to me...not my much but overdone imho
dave |
|
|
|
|
01/16/2006 07:23:31 PM · #12 |
I mostly agree with riot - with the exception about the purple background which I didn't even notice :-)
The last shot is great IMO particularly if it was mixed with some more of her eyes looking at the camera; although I like the second last as well. I agree the NI is a little too far and I would back that off a little.
riot - Thanks for the link, I had not seen that before. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 07:36:26 PM · #13 |
| This may be a crazy idea.....but if the photos are for a guitar promotion, why not have her holding the guitar? She needs to be looking at the camera, IMO. If the guitar isn't present in the photo, how will I remember it when I want to buy one? A girl in her panties is fine for a promotion, it is sexy and fun (for a guy) but I would not even think twice about that brand of guitar from those photos. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 08:02:08 PM · #14 |
I disagree; I think the sexy chick playing air guitar has potential as an ad campaign. I don't think you reached that potential here, mostly for the reasons listed. The last is also my favorite, but her hand seems to be strumming classical guitar, which I don't imagine is your target audience.
I would move her further from the backdrop too, so the wrinkles will blur out. Might wanna toss it in the dryer first too - they're pretty sharp wrinkles.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2006 08:04:15 PM · #15 |
| I'm not sure what you're trying to sell here, but the impression that these photos leave me with is that of being a voyeur in a woman's dressing room. I agree that the background should have been more blurred to get rid of the distracting folds, and that the last picture is the best. I also don't like the platicy look of her skin. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 08:22:06 PM · #16 |
I think everyone else has covered my observations. If you reshoot, you might have her practice with a real guitar. I didn't get the air guitar thing 'cuz the fret hand seems out of whack. I thought it was a flamenco pose, or something.
She's got a great body, but that garb isn't very flattering, and neither are her poses. I don't think it's so much a matter of less clothing as what the clothing looks like. Also, her hands are clenched in some unattractive poses in the non-air guitar shots.
You might benefit by asking her to practice using good examples of the type of shots you are striving for. That's easier said than done; and this is why I photograph things that aren't people. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 08:49:29 PM · #17 |
| I wasn't fond of the glamour shoot, but Thanks to Mozilla and Linky I view a bunch of your other work which is quite inspiring. |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 12:24:23 PM · #18 |
Well, I took the advice (and hopefully applied it). Please try this on for size, did I do better?
//www.pbase.com/charleswilliam3/jaclynnjoseph
Message edited by author 2006-01-21 12:24:44.
|
|
|
|
01/21/2006 12:26:17 PM · #19 |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 12:38:22 PM · #20 |
Second set is a whole lot better....noice
|
|
|
|
01/21/2006 12:46:23 PM · #21 |
I wou dlike to see the models connect better with the camera. The first girl is looking at someone off the set, it looks like... The second one looks bored..or just plain old does not care or isnt thrilled shes stuck modeling.
The photos are better tho in the second set. |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 01:00:54 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Di:
I wou dlike to see the models connect better with the camera. The first girl is looking at someone off the set, it looks like... The second one looks bored..or just plain old does not care or isnt thrilled shes stuck modeling.
The photos are better tho in the second set. |
What she said! :-) |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 02:13:48 PM · #23 |
| Yes the second set is definetly better. THe first set did nothing for me. Well done on the second set though! |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 06:38:02 PM · #24 |
| Wow - the second set are fab, what a difference it makes to have the model engaged with the camera. The only ones I liked in the first set were the two where she was playing air guitar - at least that provided some interest. The second batch are all great! |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 08:03:52 PM · #25 |
| I really like the first photo in this second set, great concept and very well shot. Photo #2 is pretty good too, but the model's disinterested look doesn't work for me in the other photos. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/17/2025 04:53:54 PM EDT.
