Hot blonde without a neck

divamum

AAARGH!! This pretty, not-overweight young actress came for a session yesterday. She's adorable, but she looks WAY heavier than she is in a waist up shot, because she's got linebacker shoulders, is fairly well-endowed in the bosom, and her face gets round when she smiles. She doesn't really want wider shots, and without going full length - which she definitely didn't want - it was TOUGH trying to show that she's slim.

Tried all sorts of angles, but really struggled with this; feel like I fell short SOOC and am having to resort to creative cropping, and even twiddling the shoulder line in post to convey the impression she gives in real life rather than what the camera saw. Really frustrating, as she's very comfortable in front of the camera, and the expressions were otherwise great!!

What ARE good angles/poses for "no neck" people? It's tough enough when it's a guy, but you can kind of get away with it; with a gal, it really is unattractive. Would LOVE some techniques for dealing with this. :thumb

1.

2.

3. (SOOC) Trying to figure out what to do with this series. This top was BEAUTIFUL on her in real life and I loved it.... but I'm hating it in photos :-/ This was one of her better poses, btw - I DO like the way the bare arm helps to minimise her width up top.

divamum

Anybody???

Here's one that shows the problem more clearly - this photo probably adds 20lbs or more to her. I hate the way her head is kind of "sunk in" to those shoulders, like she's wearing football padding (This is an SOOC tosser of a shot, but shows the shoulder line that's bothering me, hence why I'm using it).

Gary752

Was she leaning forward? If she was, I would have her stand up straighter, and then push her chin forward a bit. This would make her neck look a bit longer. I think the chin forward is one of Sue Bryce's tips.

GaryB

jmphotocraft

I take it you're not concerned with the possibility of her or a friend finding this post, !

Personally I don't think these make her look fat or objectionably large. I wouldn't bother with the shoulder edit in 1, I don't think it's very effective and I don't see a problem with the before shot. Your crop in 2 is fine, but again the before shot is too. I don't think 4 is flattering no matter what you might do to it. The smirk isn't as cute as 1, and her left eye isn't as open as her right, and the shoulders are too square to the camera, which does make her look bigger. I think 1, 2, and 3 are good poses for her - chin out, looking up at the camera, shoulders at an angle. Maybe try some from the side or slightly behind her with her looking up over her shoulder? Or take some from even higher above?

She is who she is, I don't think you should be doing any pp surgery to change that. I like women with curves and some meat on their bones. Guys obsessed with stick-skinny waifs are not going to believe she is as slim as you say no matter what you do.

divamum

Yes, should have said - last shot isn't a keeper (quite the opposite), it just showed the shoulder issue. Major, MAJOR "elongate the neck with your chin forward and down" action going on throughout the session - it's my mantra Over the shoulder shots and from above shots didn't work well for her, IMO - we did quite a few, and they're only "ok". My favorites of the session are the series from 2 above; I think the neckline works better for her.

Jack, I'd love to ignore it, but what guys are obsessed with isn't the point here - it's about casting directors, casting trends, and fitting expectations for role types, so her impression of slimness in real life needs to come across in the shots. I'm sure she won't be the last person I shoot with this body type (classic inverted triangle), so looking for posing techniques to serve my clients the best I can and avoid the issue of "to PP or not" entirely

zoomer

If you hadn't talked about her neck I would not have noticed.
Shooting from above and up close makes it worse. Closest body part looks the biggest.
Shoot from slightly below, make sure she keeps her chin out (angle and chin out lengthens the neck) and shoot from further away with a long lens to thin her out.
Make sure she isn't slouching and she keeps her shoulders back, rounded shoulders makes it worse as well.

jmphotocraft

I'm certainly no posing expert, but I think you're going to be hard pressed to get casting directors looking for slim girls to see her that way. But maybe you can pull it off. Also I've heard this body type called "apple shaped", if that applies.

divamum

Thanks Zoomer. Looking at these again today I'm not as critical as I was after taking them; weird how sometimes it takes a day to readjust the eyes! These were taken at fairly long focal lengths but from closer than I'd like; space limitations.............. I definitely think I should have tried a lower angle; I thought about that while shooting, but didn't follow through on it. Shoulda woulda coulda...

Jack, while there are variants on the term, IME typically apple-shaped is heavy around the middle, with a large waist. Inverted triangle is wide shoulders and often big-busted, but slim from there down.

bmoreshooter

You are reducing the length of her neck by shooting downward at her. Sit her up nice and tall, turn her shoulders so that she is looking back at you a bit. Have her push her head toward the camera like a turtles head sticking out of her shell and tilt it a bit. This will lengthen the neck and show separation between the chin and neck.

Lost Token

If I may so boldly chime in. Change your camera angle and once you do that you'll be able to properly pose her (like bmoreshooter suggested). Shooting downward will cause the subjects forehead to be too prominent. You can quickly do an adjustment with the shoulders by having the model separate her upper arm from her body. I can see that you did this in some of the poses posted This often times is more flattering as well. Overall you know what I see? I see a subject having a very good time with the person photographing her. Her eyes are full of life and she is clearly enjoying the time she spent with you and for that I say "Bravo!"

divamum

Thanks, gentlemen. Shooting from slightly above is so consistently a flattering angle for most people that it's pretty much my go-to, but I can see that here it emphasised the "head sunk into her shoulders" problem. "Turtle neck" (vulture over and down/chin forward and down/forehead to the camera etc etc) is always part of my shoots, but here it just didn't seem to elongate her neck enough. Have to watch for that next time I get this body type

She loved the outdoor shot, btw - that was her pick as well as mine (even though there were some other great expressions from the session).

Thanks for the kind words, Lost Token - you've pretty much complimented the thing I want most from my shoots, so you couldn't have said anything nicer !!!!

Lost Token

Awwe - your welcome Divamum. I was hesitant of leaving any feedback because I get the impression that you are quite competent and merely posted more for example than for correction. Kind of a "Here is what to look out for" type of post. Great job! Please keep it up! - Kendell Linh

Brett1000

I guess this is why all the fashion shoots use photoshop to "slim down" the model

Lost Token

Brett1000 wrote: »

I guess this is why all the fashion shoots use photoshop to "slim down" the model

Not true - maybe the ones that get posted all over social media, but I work in the industry and I can tell you that most don't use photoshop to slim models down. The models work very hard so that the finishers don't have to do that. They tend to do it to celebrities, but not in the fashion industry.

D'Buggs

Her posture seems a tad weak with her shoulders rolled in and slouching...
From the photo's, I'd say shoulders back (HARD!) and down (also, HARD!!!) - A chicken thrust for the shoulders but opposite direction as her chin.

The farther *back* things can be placed from the front most part of the image, the less it becomes. A couple inches goes a long loooong way in the final draft.

puzzledpaul

divamum wrote: »

... Shooting from slightly above is so consistently a flattering angle for most people that it's pretty much my go-to ...

I've never really 'got' this ... in spite of the number of times I've seen it written / suggested here
When taken to extremes (not here, btw) it often strikes me as a pose being used to make a PS 'head swap' easier since it reduces pp work around the head / neck / shoulder joins ...

One response I often give to people if they query why I'm grovelling around in the mud for waterfowl shots is ' ... am getting down to the subject's eye level ... don't you do the same when taking pics of your kids ... or do you prefer pics of the tops of their heads?

pp

divamum

It's not good for kids. It IS good for flattering adults - particularly women. What's closest to the camera is bigger - instant slim down. It's also very flattering for the eyes to be looking up at the viewer slightly, and it stretches out the chin/neck area. One thing is that it's often better to raise yourself up only slightly, and then just tilt the camera slightly down. Taken from too far above is often just .... odd. I'll see if I can find examples where I've done both eye-level and from above in a series to demonstrate the difference. It can be startling how much better the slightly-above shot is sometimes.

puzzledpaul

I get 'why' it's being done (am familiar with geom and projections etc and ditto re tilted mirrors in changing rooms etc) ... just that IRL one is generally on roughly the same (eye) level as another and (to me) 'looking down' on someone / something has particular connotations

Btw, you don't have to waste time (on my account) looking for exs - have seen enough already here ...

pp