# Somewhat NSFW, which do you prefer?



## DGMPhotography (Aug 20, 2014)

So I'm wondering what your thoughts may be on these two photos. Which one is better, technically? And then which one do you think I should use?

The first one I think has a much better pose, but one the second one I have her farther from the wall, and the walls create a sort of natural frame.. Appreciate your comments!

1. 

2. 

Thanks!


----------



## SnappingShark (Aug 20, 2014)

#2 is too high of an angle IMO

Go with #1 - just looks better to me. The foot on the wall works.


----------



## ronlane (Aug 20, 2014)

Honestly, neither. I'd file them where they couldn't be held against me ever again.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 20, 2014)

I prefer her facial angle to the camera, and expression, in the first shot. I'm not really enthusiastic about either frame though...that upper arm needs some warping done on the left edge of it to correct for the too-close camera, and her giant head...well...that'll be tough to warp...


----------



## DGMPhotography (Aug 20, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I prefer her facial angle to the camera, and expression, in the first shot. I'm not really enthusiastic about either frame though...that upper arm needs some warping done on the left edge of it to correct for the too-close camera, and her giant head...well...that'll be tough to warp...



Lol.. you mean her left* arm? I just realized how tiny it looks!

*edit: I meant right


----------



## ronlane (Aug 20, 2014)

DGMPhotography said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer her facial angle to the camera, and expression, in the first shot. I'm not really enthusiastic about either frame though...that upper arm needs some warping done on the left edge of it to correct for the too-close camera, and her giant head...well...that'll be tough to warp...
> ...



No, her right arm, tricep. It is what makes the other arm look small.


----------



## runnah (Aug 20, 2014)

ronlane said:


> Honestly, neither. I'd file them where they couldn't be held against me ever again.



Bingo.


----------



## KmH (Aug 20, 2014)

The light direction, quality is less than flattering to her, but is flattering to the floor and the walls.

IMO, having her  in the corner and the dutch tilt don't work.
I would suggest that the angled lines of the brown baseboards would tend to keep the viewers eye away from her.
Diagonal lines convey a sense of movement that in these photos is inconsistent with the pose of subject.


----------



## mmaria (Aug 20, 2014)

ronlane said:


> Honestly, neither. I'd file them where they couldn't be held against me ever again.


You're cruel! I could learn something from you


----------



## ronlane (Aug 20, 2014)

mmaria said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, neither. I'd file them where they couldn't be held against me ever again.
> ...



Being cruel wasn't my intent, being honest about what I would do was. Spending time trying to "fix" a photo that's going to be okay, at best, isn't productive. One lesson that I learned in my first year was to be VERY Selective about the photos you want to edit. It seems now that I spend as much time culling my photos down to the selects as I do on the edits of those photos.


----------



## mmaria (Aug 20, 2014)

I know I know...


----------



## DGMPhotography (Aug 20, 2014)

ronlane said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



Lol, whoops. That was a typo - I did mean to refer to the right arm. You are right.

And thanks for the advice, y'all. Now that you've pointed it out, I can see these probably aren't worth keeping. 

For future reference if I want to do any pinup/boudoir type stuff one day, anyone with experience want to share some advice, or reading links?

Thanks!


----------



## JoeW (Aug 20, 2014)

DGMPhotography said:


> So I'm wondering what your thoughts may be on these two photos. Which one is better, technically? And then which one do you think I should use?
> 
> The first one I think has a much better pose, but one the second one I have her farther from the wall, and the walls create a sort of natural frame.. Appreciate your comments!
> 
> ...



On #1, I don't like gigantic right tricep--it's distracting and unflattering.
On #2, I don't like the fingers growing out of her shoulder.


----------



## chuasam (Aug 20, 2014)

Neither are good technically. You wanna shoot from lower down and leave more space for background or crop more severely.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 20, 2014)

Before you even worry about what your model is doing, worry about the background. I don't even pull the camera up to my face to take a portrait unless I'm okay with what the background will look like.


----------



## JacaRanda (Aug 20, 2014)

Keep looking back at this thread.  She has the teacher glasses and tight jean shorts, fishnet, heels thing going on.  Some fun playful shots on or behind a desk or at a chalkboard come to mind.

Are you okay with saying what you plan on using these for?  What is or was the original idea?


----------



## limr (Aug 20, 2014)

Majeed Badizadegan said:


> Before you even worry about what your model is doing, worry about the background. I don't even pull the camera up to my face to take a portrait unless I'm okay with what the background will look like.



^^This. The carpet looks institutional and the walls are boring - there's nothing of interest in the background, and yet it is still distracting. Distractingly bland. As for her pose, I can't understand why she wouldn't be sitting with her back against the wall. It would at least look more relaxed. These poses, the outfit, the glasses...they all look forced.

Overall, these look quite amateurish and I've seen much better from you.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Aug 20, 2014)

limr said:


> Majeed Badizadegan said:
> 
> 
> > Before you even worry about what your model is doing, worry about the background. I don't even pull the camera up to my face to take a portrait unless I'm okay with what the background will look like.
> ...




Indeed. Against the wall would have made much more sense. Even the best photographers take bad shots _sometimes. _Although they're probably smart enough not to post them, but I was too curious not to.

Maybe I can redeem myself with these:


----------



## unpopular (Aug 20, 2014)

I prefer extremely NSFW ...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 20, 2014)

Yes, way better, especially #2.


----------



## limr (Aug 20, 2014)

Yup, those are better, and I also agree that #2 is the stronger shot.

In #1, the background is definitely better, pose is fine - but there's something bothering me just a bit about the outfit. You've got the nerdy glasses, but then the tight cami and leather jacket. Then you've got the provocative look of textured tights with denim shorts, and yet the shorts are longer than you'd expect for someone who wears them with tights, and she's got flats on. It's like she kinda sorta wants to be a bad girl but is afraid of committing to the look. It's an outfit that looks like something she might wear to class, but it doesn't look like a styled outfit for a photo shoot, if that makes sense.

The obvious choice would be to put her in heels and short shorts and then ditch the glasses, but quite frankly, I'm tired of that cliched vision of sexuality. And the setting suggests you were going more for the sexy but nerdy look? Lose the tights and the shoes, keep the shorts and the cami and glasses and maybe replace the jacket with a loose-knit cardigan that's sort of falling off one shoulder or something? 

Anyway. It's late and I need to go to bed so who knows how much sense I'm making anymore


----------



## DGMPhotography (Aug 21, 2014)

limr said:


> Yup, those are better, and I also agree that #2 is the stronger shot.
> 
> In #1, the background is definitely better, pose is fine - but there's something bothering me just a bit about the outfit. You've got the nerdy glasses, but then the tight cami and leather jacket. Then you've got the provocative look of textured tights with denim shorts, and yet the shorts are longer than you'd expect for someone who wears them with tights, and she's got flats on. It's like she kinda sorta wants to be a bad girl but is afraid of committing to the look. It's an outfit that looks like something she might wear to class, but it doesn't look like a styled outfit for a photo shoot, if that makes sense.
> 
> ...



I must admit fashion is not one of my strong suits, but I want to avoid directly copying outfits too... sigh.. le dilema.

Thanks for the comments, all


----------



## limr (Aug 21, 2014)

Hey, you're trying to be original. I respect that


----------



## chuasam (Aug 21, 2014)

DGMPhotography said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Majeed Badizadegan said:
> ...


Image 1
Legs crossed awkwardly, slight slouch. Reflection on glasses, left arm extended in an uncomfortable manner. 
Could be improved by lowering the camera. Photo doesn't really tell anything. 

Image 2
Hair messy, shirt kinda "opens" - shoot women from otherside because of way the shirt opens, expression kinda non committal and blank.

Keep on trying and don't give up  You'll get there.
Create a picture that tells a story rather than one you have to defend.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 21, 2014)

why is your D5100 always so noisy at even just 400iso?  I notice this all the time with your shots.  That library shot above?  at 400iso it looks worse than I remember my D5100 shooting at 6,400iso.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Aug 21, 2014)

Braineack said:


> why is your D5100 always so noisy at even just 400iso?  I notice this all the time with your shots.  That library shot above?  at 400iso it looks worse than I remember my D5100 shooting at 6,400iso.



You know, I'd like to know the same thing lol


----------



## Braineack (Aug 21, 2014)

.

Time for the D810.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Aug 21, 2014)

Braineack said:


> .
> 
> Time for the D810.



One day, my friend!


----------



## kathyt (Aug 21, 2014)

Neither. They look like iPhone snapshots to me. Sorry, but trying to keep it real. It looks like no attention was placed on any of the details or location.


----------



## kathyt (Aug 21, 2014)

Majeed Badizadegan said:


> Yes, way better, especially #2.


Oh R.....Really #2? There s no connection between the subject and the camera. She is chopped right where she should not be. Her face has zero expression. The lighting is blah. One slight change of her just slightly looking in your direction could have made this image  somewhat decent.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 21, 2014)

kathyt said:


> Majeed Badizadegan said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, way better, especially #2.
> ...



YES RLLY!


----------



## unpopular (Aug 21, 2014)

Personally I think "connection with the camera" is a non-critique and instead reflects your own personal ideology of portraiture. Its a bigoted comment that has nothing to do with the image, and everything to do with personal taste that is not far off in these terms to "boring subject". I don't think she is flat and without expression, only that its not a 'kapow' kind of expression that, when juxtaposed with sexy librarian leaves us feel a little underwhelmed. But, there is nothing wrong with subtlety, and frankly I wish that there was more emphasis on the merit of subtlety in the pages of Popular Photography.

that said, I do think its very easy to get an introspective feel from this pose, leaving the image feel a little amateurish, the rest of Kathy's points are certainly valid.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 21, 2014)

The second two aren't bad.
The shot with her by the tree is actually pretty decent. I might have pulled a little more to the right,  but i find that with her looking off Into the background space, it actually works fairly well. The lighting IS a little flat, but really, not EVERY shot has to have crazy dynamic lighting to be good.  At least you didn't totally ruin the shot with sun flare or desaturation.


----------



## kathyt (Aug 21, 2014)

unpopular said:


> Personally I think "connection with the camera" is a non-critique and instead reflects your own personal ideology of portraiture. Its a bigoted comment that has nothing to do with the image, and everything to do with personal taste that is not far off in these terms to "boring subject". I don't think she is flat and without expression, only that its not a 'kapow' kind of expression that, when juxtaposed with sexy librarian leaves us feel a little underwhelmed. But, there is nothing wrong with subtlety, and frankly I wish that there was more emphasis on the merit of subtlety in the pages of Popular Photography.
> 
> that said, I do think its very easy to get an introspective feel from this pose, leaving the image feel a little amateurish, the rest of Kathy's points are certainly valid.


Thanks for your critique of my critique. I am pretty sure I was critiquing the image on page 2 of this thread, but I am sure you know me better than I!


----------



## unpopular (Aug 21, 2014)

I know you were talking about the second image on page 2.

And yep, I have *NO PROBLEM* people critiquing lousy critiques.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Aug 21, 2014)

:smileys::smileys::smileys::smileys::smileys::smileys:


----------

