Carolena, part III: Party Girl
Same girl. Same place. Same lighting. Different dress. Elevated makeup. Different girl... :wink
#1: IMG_0153.jpg
#2: IMG_0163.jpg
#3: IMG_0169.jpg
#4: IMG_0201.jpg
#5: IMG_0204.jpg
#6: IMG_0210.jpg
#7: IMG_0238.jpg
#8: IMG_0245.jpg
#9: IMG_0250.jpg
Enjoy! C&C welcome!
This post was made with the assistance of Star*Explorer
#1: IMG_0153.jpg
#2: IMG_0163.jpg
#3: IMG_0169.jpg
#4: IMG_0201.jpg
#5: IMG_0204.jpg
#6: IMG_0210.jpg
#7: IMG_0238.jpg
#8: IMG_0245.jpg
#9: IMG_0250.jpg
Enjoy! C&C welcome!
This post was made with the assistance of Star*Explorer
"May the f/stop be with you!"
0
Comments
Photographically these are great pics, Nik - the lighting is super, the HK looks to be a success (in so far as my novice eye can judge lighting yet - getting there, but still in the learning phases, as you know!). But the posing in this one just doesn't work for me - I find the contortions in 2, 3 and 6 kinda disturbing actually (the last two in particular, because her ribcage is so pronounced when she extends like that because she's so very slender)
That said, I like 1 and 9, and #7 would be PERFECT except that I find myself drawn to how her feet are rolling out instead of in thus breaking the line of her leg at the ankles (my guess is she needed either to put more weight on the inside of her foot and into the heel or just turned her toes out a little more to keep that visual straightline) - normally that kind of thing would be totally unimportant, but when her body line is such a focus of the shot, a tiny detail like that jumps out at me. Her feet are doing something funky in #5 as well which gives the impression of her being slightly pigeon-toed. Again, in "normal" life (or even a less "under the microscope" kind of picture) this kind of absurd tiny detail doesn't matter a tuppeny damn, but when the body line is exagggerated by the high contrast of the styling for this shoot... it jumps out at me.
Sorry not to rave about this batch as much as the others in the series (which I really enjoyed), I just don't find them quite as appealing even though the photographic technique in them looks great to my eye. Take it all with large grain of salt - you know the old adage about opinions and bellybuttons...
Specifically on:
2) It is a unique angle, but not overly flattering.
1) I love the pose
4) I don't like seeing her underwear, would rather lengthen the dress a tiny bit and leave the image more to the imagination, like number 5, which is fantastic!!!
Anyway, fantastic series!!!
Glass: >Sigma 17-35mm,f2.8-4 DG >Tamron 28-75mm,f2.8 >Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro >Canon 70-200mm,f2.8L IS >Canon 200mm,f2.8L
Flash: >550EX >Sigma EF-500 DG Super >studio strobes
Sites: Jim Mitte Photography - Livingston Sports Photos - Brighton Football Photos
Much appreciated!
Thanks for stopping by and commenting! Always good to hear some C&C!
Always great to see your work. I have been busy, I know.
Glass: >Sigma 17-35mm,f2.8-4 DG >Tamron 28-75mm,f2.8 >Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro >Canon 70-200mm,f2.8L IS >Canon 200mm,f2.8L
Flash: >550EX >Sigma EF-500 DG Super >studio strobes
Sites: Jim Mitte Photography - Livingston Sports Photos - Brighton Football Photos
I admit I was a bit waiting for more shots of this setup, and I think it was worth it! Good job!
Comments per request:
#1: I like this one for the nice angles and interesting way to emphasize her structure. Ah hem. I thought if anything, her head being back so much added a line from her Adam's apple area that's not perfect. Not sure how to correct that without loosing some of the nice effect on the rest of her that light provides. Maybe if the head weren't back quite so far? (Not sure how that would affect the overall image, though, might not be worth it.)
#2 is interesting, but a little disconcerting too. Was this a long enough lens? (I'm struggling a bit with how large her head seems. This could be because I'm not used to seeing people in this pose...
#3: others already said most of what I'd say, but I'd add this wasn't the best pose for her face for a "typical" model.
#4: I like this shot, but were the lights any different for this one than the others? The hairlight (prob got the wrong names here) on her back almost blends her back into the background too much. Same for the bright side of the forehead. Also, Mitte's comment on the panties was on, I think.
#5: is interesting, but I swear that dress is shorter than some of my daughter's T-shirts! (and she's 6!) Even a hair lower seems like it might work better for my point of view (not necessarily yours, of course!)
#6: nice because it shows off how thin she really is and adds a bit to it with the hairlights (what I called 'em before, wrongly or not). But what's up with the lump in the front of her dress at her thigh?
#8: (skipping one) I'm not big on this pose for her legs, it actually kinda makes even her thighs look a little big! (God help me if I had to pose like that, I know. Ya'll'd be more than a little scared. I think her thighs are as big around as my biceps.)
#9: Nicely done. You get more of an emphasis on her makeup with this one than some of the others. (which I'm not as much of a fan of as I thought I was.)
By far, I liked #1 the best. Very nice shot. I think I can get past any concerns about that lighting on her neck.
Yeah, I'd probably have yet more commentary if/when I spent/d more time looking at it.
Thanks again for posting!
(BTW Mitte: you gonna be at the next meeting?)
NTWPhotos.com
Member, Livingston County Photographers Group (http://livcophotographers.com)
If responding to a picture I've posted: please, provide constructive criticism. Destructive criticism can go take a flying leap.
If we don't know what could be improved or could have been done differently, we'll never know how to get better at what we're doing.