Does this work?

divamum

This is a shot I've seen others do and love, but I've always struggled with it. This one is close (I think), but I've been looking at it for so long today that I can't tell any more. Thoughts?

Colour and a film-inspired B&W:

jmphotocraft

I think you executed the shot well, but to me it says boudoir. Poses like this speak to a man on a lower level. If she wanted the come-hither look, I think this is the closest to that. However looking at this and the other thread, I don't think the subject knows how to really flirt with the camera. She's pretty, but something's missing.

The b&w version draws my eye to some noise-like texture on her forehead and cheek, so I don't think it works as well. The color version shows off her eyes and I like how they are complimented by the dress.

Maybe add a little vignette?

Mitchell

Just a little too horizontal for me. I never really liked this pose which always seems to make me tilt my head to get a more natural perspective.

divamum

Mitchell, you've nailed exactly what I find frustrating with it. And yet some people seem to make it work... I just can't figure out HOW!!!

Here's one of a version of this pose that I think is just stupidly good - I think it's at more of a 45* angle and from a little further away, but even with that I just can't quite figure out where to stand, what eye-level to use or what lens length to use to achieve it. It's on my "must learn" list.

Jack, I don't have a problem with it being a bit boudoir - it's the kind of image I could imagine being one of many on a website, and if it throws a bit of "sexy" out there, that's ok. She hasn't seen it yet anyway and may not even choose it; rare I do this much work on a proof, but it's a shot I've been trying to get for a while, and this is the closest I've come.........

jmphotocraft

The biggest difference I see between your shot and the stupidly good one is purely in the subject's DNA. The other woman is just sexier. She has predator eyes. I think your shot is as good as that woman is going to get without her practicing in a mirror.

The next biggest difference is that the other woman's body is going up towards the upper left corner. That adds to the allure for some subconscious reason.

By the way, I'd love your input here.

D3Sshooter

It works for me, although I would possible try less DOF . Secondly , I would try to reduce the shoulder presence by either reducing it or darken it.
I notice veins on the forehead (close to the pillow). Most-likely because the model lays to horizontal, that will create those stress area's. I often have the sofa under a 45 degree angle, that way the model is pushing less on the surface and those aspects veins will not show. If you still want a horizontal picture , just rotate your camera. The same method applies to full body pictures (bikini etc..) laying down on a flat surface, instead a use an inclined plane at 45-60 degrees..... works great and far less deformations.
For what it is worth.

Qarik

the shot you linked to works because of the pose..the back arm. in your shot the pose is too "static"

thonsu

I echo the rest of the comments, but would like to say that the color shot is WAAAAY better than the B&W. Her eyes and dress and skin tone (which is perfect, btw) just pop a whole lot more.

divamum

Thanks Thonsu!!! And Qarik, I think you've nailed something with that back arm - next time I try this (glutton for punishment) I will try to figure out arm placement.... more difficult on a sofa because the back is in the way lol

PS Jack laughing at "the difference is DNA"

kdog

Sorry Diva, but I can't get past the bad exposure. My eye is drawn into the vast featureless blown-out area that used to be her chest.

divamum

Hmmm.... at my end it's bright, but not blown out. Is my calibration off?

kdog

Use the dropper tool in PS and look at the pixel values anywhere on her chest. For each pixel, all three colors read the same values, around 250. When all three channels are the same value, that is the definition of gray. There's no color in her chest at all. Technically a blown pixel has one or more channels at 255, so technically those pixels aren't blown. However, it looks like it was blown out and then brought back in PS with the recovery or highlights slider. So while the pixels are just under the "blown" threshold, you've still wiped out any semblance of skin tone. Looks at the CMYK magenta and yellow values. They read exactly zero. There's no color there at all. Honestly, this is the first thing I saw when I looked at this picture. Her chest is waaaay to bright and has no detail. I'm surprised nobody else mentioned this. But then again, I seem to march to a different drummer than most folks in People. :giggle

divamum

Hmmm... I didn't actually check it in PS - Lightroom doesn't show any blinkies at all, and I have my curves defaults in PS set to just under (247ish) so usually I'm in the clear.

I did virtually no ps to that part of the image (about the only part of it that didn't get hammered ). I'll recheck it - thanks!

kdog

Well, left-brain stuff aside, her chest is simply way brighter than her face. That's the biggy for me.

divamum

Troo' dat...