# Lindsey~  Boudoir-ish [NSFW]



## DanOstergren (Sep 4, 2013)

I'm not sure if these would be classified as boudoir or not as I've never done boudoir, but it's the word that comes to mind. This girl is a really talented photographer and friend of mine, and she hired me to do these. All of this series [more can be seen in the Artistic Nude sub-forum] were shot in all natural available light.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Sep 4, 2013)

Very nice.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 4, 2013)

I like the framing device of the door, and wish it were more prominent in the first one.

For this sort of thing, she's going to look best when she's twisted and taut. It's insane how uncomfortably she has to be to really get a sexy look for the camera, unfortunately. These are quite nice, but she strikes as sort of.. droopy? limp? slouched? I don't have a good word. I know that she is not, particularly, but it's just a manifestation of how thoroughly engaged and torqued and twisted her whole body has to be to make her look NOT that way.

Make any sense?

As always, I like your light. It's not traditional, but it's bold and real.


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 4, 2013)

My first impression: Setting is great, light is awesome, she's gorgeous but not quite lit or posed as well as she could be. 3/5 stars on the BAS rating system


----------



## DanOstergren (Sep 4, 2013)

Perhaps boudoir is the wrong term; like I said I'm unfamiliar with the genre. Sexy wasn't exactly what we were going for. Casual and comfortable around the house is perhaps a better way of putting it. Thank you for the great feedback though; lots to consider for the next shoot.


----------



## ChaseH (Sep 4, 2013)

I think they're really well constructed but maybe a bit of fill on her?  The lighting in the room conveys a mood, but her own features are too dim.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 4, 2013)

> Casual and comfortable around the house is perhaps a better way of putting it.


Uh, I don't know many people who lounge around in negligee staring flirtaciously at people in doorways on a regular casual day around the house.  Tone is very clearly sexy/boudoir. So if she doesn't look like she's trying to be sexy, it seems odd / mismatched. The first one is better than the second in this regard, but as Amolitor suggests, more taut / stretched types of poses would work better, as if she was actively showing off for a partner entering the room or something.  That would match the clothing and setting and gaze.

If you want a casual, vulnerable, comfortable at home sort of look, I'd suggest less obviously sexy clothes, even if you want it to be a little sexy or show off the model's form (for example a towel and damp hair would seem more normal and casual, but can still be adjusted to be as revealing as desired), or just nude, and not looking at the camera / acknowledging the photographer. Probably also not the voyeurish angle (otherwise it seems creepy if not looking at the camera and the view is through a doorway).

I also agree you needed more lighting. A fill light doesn't have to LOOK like a fill light. It could be as simple as a big white sheet hung just out of view between the top of that door and a thumbtack on the wall near her, to reflect light back at her shadowy side. Or a single flash and diffuser on a stand at very low power and possibly gelled to match the window light if needed. Or even just hanging sheer curtains on the window and exposing higher would reduce the lighting ratio and make it look better filled.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 4, 2013)

Look at the Esquire feature "Me in My Place"... it's basically the same stuff...attractive nubiles lounging around in their scanties...

Me in My Place - Esquire Presents Me in My Place - Esquire

I like the general idea of both these shots, but think that her face is simply too dark in both shots. And she does appear a bit less-than-taut, a wee bit slump-ish, in the second shot. It's weird how a person needs some not-everyday-kinda-tensiuon or weight distribution to look his or her best on-film...kinda weird...like in the second shot, her posture "reads" as if she is slumping...no matter how lovely she is...and her near thigh reads as oddly rounded and humped-up in a most odd way. The thigh issue is subtle, but it's noticeable. Her near shoulder though in the second shot is just...inexcusably drooped and weird-looking...I mean--how was she able to get that shoulder so drooped?

I think this is a new form of casual boudoir, and the Esquire feature sort of exemplifies how it looks when done well, with very popular, of-the-moment ladies.


----------



## weepete (Sep 4, 2013)

I like these, particularly number 2. I agree with the guys about the fill though, your model is just a bit too dark .The first one I kinda want framed like the 2nd, I think that look is kinda boudoir but she's a bit too small in the frame.

I really like the poses, they seem natural to me and comfortable and real.

I think the second is quite voyueristic, but not uncomfortably so. I also think that you have struck a good balance between portraying her as a subject but not an object, though the hand on the breast in 2 does not go along with the comfortable vibe you were trying to portray. It comes across more to me as a stolen glance, but the open door implies some kind of openess, a bit like a sly glance at the beginning of a relationship.

Maybe not quite what you were going for here but good images, well framed and a strong but different concept for me anyway.


----------



## IByte (Sep 4, 2013)

Nice, 

I'm liking both because of the feel and mood.  I mean, who wouldn't want to come home only to open the bedroom door waiting for a nice surprise.  My only nip pick is wished she could had have given a light smile, devilish smirk; but who am I to judge. 3.5 stars


----------



## Derrel (Sep 4, 2013)

IByte said:


> Nice,
> 
> I'm liking both because of the feel and mood.  I mean, who wouldn't want to come home only to open the bedroom door waiting for a nice surprise.  My only *nip pick* is wished she could had have given a light smile, devilish smirk; but who am I to judge. 3.5 stars



Is that a Freudian slip...*nip* pick?????


----------



## kathyt (Sep 4, 2013)

I like the mood of these shots, but I think the poses and lighting need some work. Working with female posing, especially when they are lacking clothing, is very difficult to flatter without using the light to your advantage. The shadows are working against her figure here, and she has a killer body. Use the light to sculpt her.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Sep 4, 2013)

I am a fan the way it is.  It would also be nice if she wasnt looking at the camera.


----------



## IByte (Sep 4, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Is that a Freudian slip...nip pick?????



A well-induced pun intended


----------



## DanOstergren (Sep 5, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> I am a fan the way it is.  It would also be nice if she wasnt looking at the camera.


I like the lighting as well and personally don't feel that having her face perfectly lit is necessary for a good image; to me the mood and natural feeling are what's important. I do agree that she could have looked away from the camera to make an interesting shot, but the eye contact has a mood that I enjoy. As an artist I am happy with these images, and the client is elated; according to her we got the exact mood, feeling and light that she was hoping for.


----------



## limr (Sep 5, 2013)

I liked them as they are. I despise the idea that a woman has to be contorted and "taut" to be considered sexy. The poses, the lighting, the angles, the rumpled bed all point to a very naturally sensual atmosphere, which I think is sexier than any studio-lit porno-esque set-up.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 5, 2013)

limr said:


> I liked them as they are. I despise the idea that a woman has to be contorted and "taut" to be considered sexy. The poses, the lighting, the angles, the rumpled bed all point to a very naturally sensual atmosphere, which I think is sexier than any studio-lit porno-esque set-up.


I don't think it's demeaning or anything.

I think it's just a natural pressure arising from the fact that photographs are not the same things as 3-dimensional scenes. Your pupils can't change the lighting as you look at a photo, you don't get 3d information (which is the main reason normal poses can look odd), there's no motion, you don't have the same context as in real life (for instance, if you were this woman's lover and were coming home to find her like this, you would know her, love her already, be aware of what's normal for her versus provocative, what she's trying to communicate with you, etc. which will all affect how you interpret the mood of the scene).

When you don't have 3-d info, then strange poses are needed to avoid collinear body parts looking strange that wouldn't have looked strange if you could tell that one was way behind the other. And when you don't have motion, you can't always tell what things are strangely lined up parts for just an instant or a squashed leg muscle that will soon shift, versus permanent body fat or body shape or proportions. Thus, rigging the scene to communicate information with the specific knowledge already in mind that this will be 2-d is perfectly reasonable.

And "tension" doesn't necessarily mean "arched into a pretzel with nothing but boobs and legs visible while licking your lips..."  There are plenty of tasteful, yet more taut poses. The goal is to avoid squishing muscles and such from folded up limbs and tight, unstretched poses.  That and angling everything to not unfortunately line up in bad ways.

You can do all of that and still make it look as tasteful and formal and respectful as a presidential office scene if you want. Or you can make it a porno looking thing.  Neither is inherent to the suggestion to care about pose and tension.


----------



## kathyt (Sep 5, 2013)

limr said:


> I liked them as they are. I despise the idea that a woman has to be contorted and "taut" to be considered sexy. The poses, the lighting, the angles, the rumpled bed all point to a very naturally sensual atmosphere, which I think is sexier than any studio-lit porno-esque set-up.


Minor changes here. I wasn't talking about adding lava lamps and whips. Just even changing her position, tweaking the lighting a small amount can make a huge difference. You don't want to add inches to someone,  because of the lack of lighting  and heavy shadowing.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 5, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > I am a fan the way it is.  It would also be nice if she wasnt looking at the camera.
> ...



I find it amusing that your sig file carries a link to "the Art of Constructive Critique" The Art of Constructive Critique: A Crash Course in The Art of Constructive Critique

and that despite multiple posters suggesting that the lighting in this is not helping advance the photos, you basically tell everybody they're full of $hi+ for mentioning that the lighting is not all it could be, and that you "like the lighting" and furthermore your subject stated, "we got the exact mood, feeling and light that she was hoping for". 

Your response seems like yet another variation of the old, "But I LIKE IT THIS WAY!" reply to C&C.


----------



## kathyt (Sep 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Robin_Usagani said:
> ...


I never in my life thought I would say this but............I agree with Derrel. If you are happy with your shoot and it is the best you could possibly do for your portfolio, not just your present client, then carry on.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 5, 2013)

kathythorson said:
			
		

> I never in my life thought I would say this but............I agree with Derrel. If you are happy with your shoot and it is the best you could possible do for your portfolio, not just your client, then carry on.



I KNEW this would happen today, 'cause this morning I made toast and...there was the image of Kay Thor on my toast slice!!!!!


----------



## DanOstergren (Sep 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Robin_Usagani said:
> ...


You're right! I do like it this way! I can disagree with a critique brother. I never once stated that everyone who disagrees with me is full of ****, nor am I the only one who feels that they are good as they are. I'm not saying that they are perfect or couldn't use improvement or that yours or others critique is wrong, so you don't have to act like I'm telling everyone that they are full of **** simply for having a different opinion. Bringing up my signature link and throwing it in my face like it's ironic makes no sense because not once did I call anyone wrong. I simply disagreed.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Sep 5, 2013)

Even with just JPEG you can easily edit it.  OP can pretty much edit it however especially with adjustment brush.


----------



## DanOstergren (Sep 5, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Even with just JPEG you can easily edit it.  OP can pretty much edit it however especially with adjustment brush.View attachment 54889


That looks gorgeous!


----------



## DanOstergren (Sep 6, 2013)

A couple more. The first is an experiment that I plan to use for my facebook page profile photo. 






And I know that this shot has blown out highlights that are distracting to the eye, but I like what it does for the image.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 6, 2013)

Last 3:

1) Awesome. For a splash ad / profile pic, it balances your business name and the model very well. Also just very well lit, nice expression, etc.
2) Bleh. My eye goes literally everywhere except the model.  If your goal is to do a study on curtains, then this is a good photo. If you're intending it to be a portrait, then it does not work.  Same issue as with the original photos posted in this thread, but 3x more extreme fill light problem.  The highest contrast and detail and everything should be on the focal point of your image. In other words, all the light information.  That's why it's "photography" (light writing)!
3) Also awesome.  You're using the light to highlight the intended subject, to sculpt her body brilliantly, and my eye stays on the girl 100%, like it should.  Really nice portrait.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 6, 2013)

There seem to be two kinds of comments about lighting on TPF.

Far and away the most common sort boils down to "I don't light things that way, therefore you are wrong"

The second, rare, kind is "I think I see what you are trying to do, and I think that different lighting would accomplish that better"

There's no such thing as "correct" lighting divorced from the goal of the picture. The knee-jerk "Needs fill" in response to not being able to see her eyes clearly is, while not quite worthless, certainly not the most valuable comment ever. Sometimes, I dare say, the commenter really means "I think I see what you want here, and to accomplish that goal more effectively you need to see her eyes more clearly, and to do that you need fill" which gets boiled down to "needs fill". More often, though, it's simply that the commenter thinks that the eyes need to be clearly visible in any picture of a person. Which is a commonly held belief which is wrong.

Now, I didn't get a strong sense of what Dan's going for here, to be honest. The title suggests boudoir, the pictures themselves are a touch ambiguous, and his later comments speak contrary to the boudoir thing. So, it's not at all clear what the hell he was even going for. That just means that comments need to be made more carefully, and ideally start with "well, if you want a traditional blah blah look then blah blah blah", if you really want to be helpful.

The point about tautness in the body isn't some objectification thing. The fact is that a static image makes our bodies look droppier and slumpier than they are, so you have to compensate -- if you want to avoid that look. This girl would look incredible just walking around, in a video. To get that same awesome physicality in a static picture, she's got to tense up and twist a bit. To convey her own reality across the barrier of a 2D static picture, she needs to act unreal. That's how it is.

Ask any competent actor if you can convey a naturalistic performance on stage by simply acting natural.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 6, 2013)

> The knee-jerk "Needs fill" in response to not being able to see her eyes clearly


It's not that. 

It's that the model has ALL of the detail in this photo. A really intricate knitted top, the necklace, face, hair, everything I might care about in terms of interesting stuff in a photo (since otherwise it is very standard)

But ALL of that detail is completely flatly lit and dark, so my eye doesn't go to any of it.  My eyes spend their entire time in the featureless, boring curtains, until I get tired of curtains (which is very quickly), then I move on from the photo entirely and do something else.

Like I said, if his goal is to show off the curtains, then it's great.  Otherwise, I can't really think of any goal the photographer might have had that this photo would accomplish it, in terms of "I think I see what you are trying to do."  I think what he is trying to do is to take a standard portrait picture of a girl with a nondistracting background and plenty of detail in the girl to keep us interested.  *That's* what it looks like he is trying to do.  And that's the opposite of what the lighting achieves.




By contrast, the photo in this thread here has super dark parts of the model, and you can't see her eyes at all, but I think it is extremely successful, and said so (I didn't suggest fill light there): http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/black-white-gallery/338379-black-n-white-story.html

The difference is that the B&W photo clearly seems to be trying to go for form and pose study and mystery, and the lack of fill accomplishes those goals (the outline and lit portions are enough to see pose and form).  Whereas this photo does not have any air of mystery at all really, nor any particularly unique pose. Just a girl sitting in a window.  The interesting part of it is therefore not the overall blunt shapes (which you can see, but aren't terribly interesting), but instead the details are what's interesting here.  And those are lost in poor fill.

So yeah, I considered what it looked like he was trying to do. And that's what he does *not *seem to be doing in that photo.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 6, 2013)

One of us is lost here, I don't see any pictures here with either curtains or flat lighting? Do you mean the second one of the second set? I don't think anyone said that it needs fill, so. That one's definitely the weakest of the lot, mainly because the brightest areas and the highest contrasts are in uninteresting places.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> One of us is lost here, I don't see any pictures here with either curtains or flat lighting? Do you mean the second one of the second set? I don't think anyone said that it needs fill, so. That one's definitely the weakest of the lot, mainly because the brightest areas and the highest contrasts are in uninteresting places.



Yes the second one in the second set.

Sorry, I guess they're not curtains.  Those are just the ridges in the window frame molding I was misinterpreting as curtain folds.

And I said it needs fill, in the post immediately preceding yours.  Fill would make it so that, as you say, the brightest and contrastiest areas would no longer be in uninteresting places.


----------



## DanOstergren (Sep 6, 2013)

Thanks for the comments.


----------



## Samerr9 (Sep 7, 2013)

Love no.2 very strong image


----------



## Samerr9 (Sep 7, 2013)

I am looking at the images again and again.. really great work.. 

I love the expression, if you don't mind what do you tell your model to do or think to get this look?


----------

