Sapphire II

cambler · May 30, 2006

Sapphire's set went up on Hot Shots today. Here's my favorite worksafe shot from her set (fully-covered, nothing you wouldn't see at the beach).

Sapphire-051606-095.photo

System · May 30, 2006

cambler-

I'm sorry, but I am incapacitated as far as commenting on the technical aspects of this photograph-

I am able to observe, though, that she is a very pretty model-

george

luckydog · May 30, 2006

your work is, as always, very good

Skin tones (of which there is ample) are great.
Love your work!!!

BTW, what is this "HotShots" that you shoot these models for?

ScottMcLeod · May 30, 2006

cambler wrote:

Sapphire's set went up on Hot Shots today. Here's my favorite worksafe shot from her set (fully-covered, nothing you wouldn't see at the beach).

Awesome. Watch the shadow on her bra though. Maybe a secondary light, or a reflector to fill in the shadow?

cambler · May 31, 2006

ScottMcLeod wrote:

Awesome. Watch the shadow on her bra though. Maybe a secondary light, or a reflector to fill in the shadow?

Yeah, the shadow came from the secondary, actually, not the key, and I totally missed it. I like the shot enough to still call it my favorite, but next time I'll pump the hair light up a little or, better, insure that the model's top is fitting a little better!

arroyoshark · May 31, 2006

How is it that models always have names like Sapphire or Brandi?

cambler · May 31, 2006

arroyoshark wrote:

How is it that models always have names like Sapphire or Brandi?

Well, often, they choose a "stage name" because of the number of drooling idiots who see their sets on the radio station's site and decide that they'd be the perfect guy, you know?

In this case, however, Sapphire's mom was, she tells me, quite the hippy :-)

Forehead · May 31, 2006

Because those names are better than Dopey or Sleepy!

arroyoshark wrote:

How is it that models always have names like Sapphire or Brandi?

Antonio Correia · June 1, 2006

Allow me to suggest a softer use of the flash and all other lights involved in the pic.
I think I would like it better if the lights used were not so present.
Wouldn't it result more according with the quality of the models ?

:
Tender, soft ...

It is easy to say something is not well done or not so good.
I have never tryied this kind of pics.
Mean no offense whatsoever.

:

ziggy53 · June 1, 2006

Ddddddang!

cambler wrote:

Yeah, the shadow came from the secondary, actually, not the key, and I totally missed it. I like the shot enough to still call it my favorite, but next time I'll pump the hair light up a little or, better, insure that the model's top is fitting a little better!

I'll help! Pick me!

cambler wrote:

Well, often, they choose a "stage name" because of the number of drooling idiots who see their sets on the radio station's site and decide that they'd be the perfect guy, you know? ...

They can't be the right guy, 'cause I'm the right guy!

Ddddddang! :uhoh

zzzzzziggy53

Phil U. · June 1, 2006

Beautiful model and overall not a bad shot. I'd prefer the background to be just a tad more blurred. The lighting does look a little harsh for my taste. The bra shadow and the shadow on the neck are not very flattering.

What the hell do I know - I really don't do portraits and I wanted to say something more intelligent than, "Wow, she's hot!"

cambler · June 1, 2006

Phil U. wrote:

What the hell do I know - I really don't do portraits and I wanted to say something more intelligent than, "Wow, she's hot!"

Fair enough

Yes, the lighting is high - that's on purpose, actually, since the client for these shots is a radio station that's putting them up on their web site. They're supposed to get the attention of the listeners, who generally wouldn't know a well-lit shot if it bit them on the leg.

I do a lot more artistic stuff with these models for my own portfolio and books, but they're often inappropriate for posting here. The shots for the radio station are, by mandate, Maxim-style at most. No nudity allowed.

Phil U. · June 1, 2006

cambler wrote:

Yes, the lighting is high - that's on purpose, actually, since the client for these shots is a radio station that's putting them up on their web site. They're supposed to get the attention of the listeners, who generally wouldn't know a well-lit shot if it bit them on the leg.

Yea - gotta satisfy the client I guess...

I do a lot more artistic stuff with these models for my own portfolio and books, but they're often inappropriate for posting here. The shots for the radio station are, by mandate, Maxim-style at most. No nudity allowed.

Took a look through your galleries. Good stuff to be found in there.

waveneyman · June 1, 2006

Antonio Correia wrote:

Allow me to suggest a softer use of the flash and all other lights involved in the pic.
I think I would like it better if the lights used were not so present.
Wouldn't it result more according with the quality of the models ? :
Tender, soft ...

I have to agree, pretty girl but over-lighting has created a flatter effect than I personally prefer. Softer light would also reduce the shadows on the kneck too in addition to the bra. Sorry but she also looks to be straddling a wire frame too:heh :heh

mark

ziggy53 · June 1, 2006

cambler wrote:

Fair enough

Yes, the lighting is high - that's on purpose, actually, since the client for these shots is a radio station that's putting them up on their web site. They're supposed to get the attention of the listeners, who generally wouldn't know a well-lit shot if it bit them on the leg.

I do a lot more artistic stuff with these models for my own portfolio and books, but they're often inappropriate for posting here. The shots for the radio station are, by mandate, Maxim-style at most. No nudity allowed.

Lemmee get this straight; Photographs ... for Radio!

My mother always said I have a face for radio!

OK, I settled down now and can form complex sentences again. Whew!

A most amazingly beautiful young lady. Nicely posed and lighted. The others have noted the few problems, and I agree. It is hard to notice details on the model when you are trying to concentrate on the details of lighting and cropping/composition and ... the myriad other things that get in the way of the "perfect" shot.

BTW, I liked #2 in her set better than this one.

Is this lit using a bare bowl reflector for the strobes?

ziggy53

cambler · June 1, 2006

ziggy53 wrote:

Lemmee get this straight; Photographs ... for Radio!

Is this lit using a bare bowl reflector for the strobes?

Photographs for the web site of a radio station :-)

This shot had a softbox on the key, and reflected white umbrella on the secondary. But yes, I did light it pretty hot.

ziggy53 · June 2, 2006

You might be interrested in, heck you might even know, a photographer named "Mike Brochu". He is fairly well known for his glamour photos.

... and here are some of the setups,

attachment.php?attachmentid=487&d=1105980558

attachment.php?attachmentid=488&d=1105980558

attachment.php?attachmentid=489&d=1105980558

Note the simple reflector used in front at fairly high power and then 'brellas and 'boxes on the sides.

ziggy53

Antonio Correia · June 2, 2006

Ziggy.
Let me tell you that the photo you posted has at least 4 qualities:
1. The model is a nice girl, georgeous.
2. The position is a disaster and so is the composition.
3. The light is too strong for my taste.
4. The shoes she is wearing are ...
Well, she is young and nice.

But this photo remindes me of a link I posted here some time ago and you considered as NSFW (Not Suitable For The Web, so I read) because it contained nudity, artistic nudity under my point of view ...
Andy erased the link ! ... He must be concensual and please everybody ... He did well.
And now you post a picture with no such qualities ...
I could not retain myself writting this ... because then, as now, I was mad at you.
I post here a photo by Mike Brochu. Do you think this is artistic ? And SFW in Digital Grin ?

Regards and have a nice week end.

ziggy53 · June 2, 2006

Antonio Correia wrote:

Ziggy.
Let me tell you that the photo you posted has at least 4 qualities:
1. The model is a nice girl, georgeous.
2. The position is a disaster and so is the composition.
3. The light is too strong for my taste.
4. The shoes she is wearing are ...
Well, she is young and nice.

But this photo remindes me of a link I posted here some time ago and you considered as NSFW (Not Suitable For The Web, so I read) because it contained nudity, artistic nudity under my point of view ...
Andy erased the link ! ... He must be concensual and please everybody ... He did well.
And now you post a picture with no such qualities ...
I could not retain myself writting this ... because then, as now, I was mad at you.
I post here a photo by Mike Brochu. Do you think this is artistic ? And SFW in Digital Grin ?

Regards and have a nice week end.

Antonio,

Please don't be mad.

The link you previously posted had frontal nudity and slammed my machine with a lot of nasty code that brought my machine down with AdWare and worms and other malware.

The nudity didn't bother me personally, but it does bother some folks and I posted a warning about it. Posting a link to a site that includes nudity should include a caution that it, the site, includes nudity.

The code that loaded onto my machine was potentially very serious and I did report the site to Internet authorities. I spent around a day and a half recovering from the stuff that loaded on my machine. I believe that is why the thread was deleted, not because of the nudity.

I did not then, and do not now, blame you for anything. You were trying to do this community a service. It was not your fault that the site and link were bad news.

Please don't think I meant anything personal by my actions, I was simply trying to protect people here from the bad effects I encountered. I enjoy you as a photographer, I love much of your work and I would like to continue to include you as one of my Internet friends.

Best,

ziggy53

Antonio Correia · June 2, 2006

ziggy53 wrote:

Antonio,

Please don't be mad.

The link you previously posted had frontal nudity and slammed my machine with a lot of nasty code that brought my machine down with AdWare and worms and other malware.

The nudity didn't bother me personally, but it does bother some folks and I posted a warning about it. Posting a link to a site that includes nudity should include a caution that it, the site, includes nudity.

The code that loaded onto my machine was potentially very serious and I did report the site to Internet authorities. I spent around a day and a half recovering from the stuff that loaded on my machine. I believe that is why the thread was deleted, not because of the nudity.

I did not then, and do not now, blame you for anything. You were trying to do this community a service. It was not your fault that the site and link were bad news.

Please don't think I meant anything personal by my actions, I was simply trying to protect people here from the bad effects I encountered. I enjoy you as a photographer, I love much of your work and I would like to continue to include you as one of my Internet friends.

Best,

ziggy53

Ziggy
Thank you for your nice explanation.
I propose: let's forget about it !
After all, we do like to take pictures and enjoy doing it.
(The site we are talking about did nothing to my computer)

Have a nice weekend.
Regards.

SpeshulEd · June 2, 2006

Antonio Correia wrote:

considered as NSFW (Not Suitable For The Web, so I read) because it contained nudity, artistic nudity under my point of view

NSFW = Not Safe For Work (although to be quite honest, if I were at work I don't think I'd click on any picture in the people forum titled 'Sapphire II' ...just to be safe)

nudity is definitely suitable for the web, if it wasn't, somebody had better warn the 500 billion sites with naked people on them.

cambler · June 3, 2006

SpeshulEd wrote:

nudity is definitely suitable for the web, if it wasn't, somebody had better warn the 500 billion sites with naked people on them.

If they eliminated all the porn from the web, there'd be ONE WEB SITE LEFT, and it would be called, "Bring back the damned porn!"

Sapphire II

Comments