# ***NSFW*** Not safe for Wife*** C&C GOOD, BAD, or UGLY?



## Trever1t (May 19, 2014)

Trying new things in my processing. 



_POR3535-Edit by WSG Photography, on Flickr

Re-touched with your suggestions!


_POR3535-Edit-2 by WSG Photography, on Flickr


----------



## Designer (May 19, 2014)

Not well educated on the processing, but I really like where you put your logo!


----------



## bribrius (May 19, 2014)

same here on lacking processing. I did notice im looking at her azz and Im wondering if he did that so I cant pick on her makeup. Not that im complaining...


edit: oh.. Good. I like the direction you are going here. Like the pose and background change.


----------



## astroNikon (May 19, 2014)

Trever1t said:


> Trying new things in my processing.



getting sexier models & poses doesn't quite count as "new things in your processing"


----------



## astroNikon (May 19, 2014)

this is one of those photos that can only get better if there's a chair in front of her, and she's bent over to the chair, glancing back to the camera licking her lips with bright red lip gloss on ...

wait ...
did I type that ?


----------



## bribrius (May 19, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Trying new things in my processing.
> ...


she has a wedgie. Isn't that at least something to do with a composition change? I don't think ALL his models had a wedgie.


----------



## Trever1t (May 19, 2014)

Guys, this is a photo forum and I asked for C&C not immature banter on my images. If you continue I will cease to post here due to the lack of consideration to me as artist and my model, who is a really nice young student who permitted me to photograph her.


----------



## IzzieK (May 19, 2014)

Here is a serious one from me -- I think her legs and arms are a bit overprocessed. It was the first thing I noticed in the shot. Is this a composite? Just asking...the arms and the legs are almost the same colour processed, smoothed out too much that it looks too unnatural to my taste. Beautiful body, beautiful lady, sharp, nice composition all that -- but it looks almost like those Pixar Studio skin look-alike. Just my honest opinion.


----------



## D-B-J (May 19, 2014)

For me, it seems like there's a halo or some softness around her edges, particularly around the edges of the socks.  And a large soft spot on her left arm near the top, but the hand/wrist seems to be in focus.  Could you post what a photo of how you used to process, so we can see what the new "changes" are?  

Cheers!
Jake


----------



## Trever1t (May 19, 2014)

Ya, there may be some artifacts from my brush work. I was going for an airbrushed look. Not a composite but I did selective light manipulations. There is another post down a bit in the General gallery of this same girl.


----------



## NikonO4K (May 19, 2014)

I am not a professional anything so take this with a grain of salt. The first thing I noticed and consequently the only thing that grabs my attention is the dark patch on her right shoulder. It just looks wrong.


----------



## wyogirl (May 19, 2014)

Its obvious that she is airbrushed but I think that style has a place in the type of photos that you take.  I like it.


----------



## runnah (May 19, 2014)

Skin processing is a bit plastic looking, maybe 10% less the what you have now. 

Other than that I think you have a well shot photo.


----------



## DarkShadow (May 19, 2014)

Gorgeous model as always. Some Niggles I have on this one.
1 I hate the high socks and actually think it would be better with no socks at all.
2  I wish she was a few steps to right to block some of that outside  beyond the arch.Green tree leaves etc.
3  Skin does look to smoothed over I think.
4  Not crazy for the location of the shoot.
5  I Like the pose with the hand on her head.
6  Love the placement of the water mark.
7  Nice lighting on her.


----------



## FITBMX (May 19, 2014)

Trever1t said:


> Guys, this is a photo forum and I asked for C&C not immature banter on my images. If you continue I will cease to post here due to the lack of consideration to me as artist and my model, who is a really nice young student who permitted me to photograph her.



Looks a little to animated for me, but everything else is great! But I'm new.

P.S.
never stop posting your photos! They are wonderful and inspiring!!!:hail:


----------



## JoeW (May 20, 2014)

Trever1t said:


> Guys, this is a photo forum and I asked for C&C not immature banter on my images. If you continue I will cease to post here due to the lack of consideration to me as artist and my model, who is a really nice young student who permitted me to photograph her.



Thanks for posting that.  I'm all for silliness and juvenile jokes (I'm still trying to think of how to integrate Monty Python into my funeral details).  But models (especially new ones) often want to see what comments people post or read critiques so I'm extremely sensitive to that kind of banter about a model.   I think it would be a good thing if all of us made it a point (even though it's intended as a joke) to refrain from those kinds of comments about models, especially when it's an amateur/new one.   And you specifically asked for C&C too. 

You said you are trying something new in processing...and that's my weak spot.  But what I can tell you is that right now, she (her skin, especially her legs) look artificial.  If you're intentionally going for an airbrushed look, you got it.  And I know that's popular with a lot of fashion work.  But to me, this is irritating b/c it seems inconsistent (it's evident on her skin but not the stockings or the wall so selective post-processing seems evident).  I think if that look was consistent throughout the photo, it would work better for me.  As it is, it suggests that she had a cellulite or acne issue or you had shadow mottling on her skin so you used a brush there...but nowhere else.  So a more consistent/uniform application would enhance the photo and processing effect in my opinion.   

Also, not a processing issue, but I visually feel some tension in the photo as if it's not level.  I know that by looking at the roofline it looks level.  But the floor line under the arch appears to slant down to the right--probably just an optical illusion but it bugs me.


----------



## Braineack (May 20, 2014)

Skin smoothing went too far.  Also don't like the tan marks on her rear; maybe even that out.


----------



## sscarmack (May 20, 2014)

Why do we look at photos like this??? Curves.

Curves are what make women look sexy. In this photo I really don't see any curves, especially to her hiney. 

Like others said, it looks airbrushed (which I hate) and looks fake. Sometimes less is more.


----------



## Trever1t (May 20, 2014)

Think I'll take it back into edit and tone it down, thank you for the honest critique all!


----------



## rexbobcat (May 20, 2014)

A little too much glistening. Tone it back about 40% and I'd like it, otherwise it kind of has that android sheen.


----------



## Trever1t (May 20, 2014)

Toned back 45%, left elbow and right shoulder dark spot delete. 



_POR3535-Edit-2 by WSG Photography, on Flickr


----------



## D-B-J (May 20, 2014)

For me, that looks a lot better. Clearly there is still airbrushing, but now it doesn't overpower the image. I do agree that the tan lines on her behind are a little distracting, as they don't make sense with her current outfit. I did forget to mention that I really like the pose. It doesn't make her "faceless" like I feel most poses of this nature tend to do. 


Cheers!
Jake 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

