# Another of Jae... 5'11" and all legs (well almost)



## |)\/8 (Feb 10, 2010)

Jae 5' 11" barefooted, .


----------



## |)\/8 (Feb 12, 2010)

About 48 hours and 125 views and no criticism, it is nice to know that everything is perfect, .  Silence is golden.


----------



## Foxman (Feb 13, 2010)

ok, I am guilty of looking and not saying anything. She is beautiful and if her skirt were any shorter it would be a belt. (I heard that yesterday on TV)

The shot is perfectly lit and the angle of her body really shows off one of her best assets....those LONG legs.

Nice shot overall. :thumbup:


----------



## burnws6 (Feb 13, 2010)

Don't like the handle or whatever it is that lowers the stool. It's distracting. That's all.


----------



## Moe (Feb 13, 2010)

I cannot find anything to critique about the lighting (that's not saying much). However, the pose/model just don't go together with the office stool to me. I also don't really like the white background. I'm normally a fan of white BG's, but with this girl the way she is sitting it just doesn't work for me. I can't put my finger on it; maybe it's just too much of a contrast between her and her dress and the BG. Technically speaking, though, it looks really good to me.


----------



## frommrstomommy (Feb 13, 2010)

Maybe this is because I'm a female, but I can't seem to figure out why she paired orange and purple.. its a little wild to me and makes what could be a classier/sexier shot into a bit trashy for my taste buds.  She's a gorgeous girl, and the photo is nice aside from what I mentioned, have her tone it down.


----------



## burnws6 (Feb 13, 2010)

frommrstomommy said:


> Maybe this is because I'm a female, but I can't seem to figure out why she paired orange and purple.. its a little wild to me and makes what could be a classier/sexier shot into a bit trashy for my taste buds.  She's a gorgeous girl, and the photo is nice aside from what I mentioned, have her tone it down.



lol...just lol


----------



## DScience (Feb 13, 2010)

frommrstomommy said:


> Maybe this is because I'm a female, but I can't seem to figure out why she paired orange and purple.. its a little wild to me and makes what could be a classier/sexier shot into a bit trashy for my taste buds.  She's a gorgeous girl, and the photo is nice aside from what I mentioned, have her tone it down.



Um maybe it's cause your old and out of style. But, that outfit is ultra hot and super chic.


----------



## Dominantly (Feb 13, 2010)

DScience said:


> frommrstomommy said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe this is because I'm a female, but I can't seem to figure out why she paired orange and purple.. its a little wild to me and makes what could be a classier/sexier shot into a bit trashy for my taste buds.  She's a gorgeous girl, and the photo is nice aside from what I mentioned, have her tone it down.
> ...


:thumbup:


----------



## frommrstomommy (Feb 13, 2010)

Old and out of style? lol cute.. I'm 24 years old - hardly "old" and style is all a matter of preference so I guess to each their own.  It was an opinion, swallow it for what it is.


----------



## Early (Feb 13, 2010)

Ah, the Tina Turner look.

It's just my opinion, but I would have preferred a longer lens.  Me thinks you did the model an injustice by accentuating her legs so much.


----------



## gopal (Feb 13, 2010)

a perfect fashion shoot in every respect.


----------



## matfoster (Feb 13, 2010)

super image. maybe there is a tad more detail/texture to her hair (fringe, and the trianglular area between her left eye, her clavicle and left shoulder) that could be lifted out of the image.


----------



## transformed (Feb 13, 2010)

Lovely girl- beautiful shot. One thing I notice is that my eyes are drawn to her feet! They seem very large- I think the pose might accentuate them. Which... maybe isn't a bad thing if you have a foot fetish?


----------



## |)\/8 (Feb 13, 2010)

Early said:


> Ah, the Tina Turner look.
> 
> It's just my opinion, but I would have preferred a longer lens.  Me thinks you did the model an injustice by accentuating her legs so much.





transformed said:


> Lovely girl- beautiful shot. One thing I notice is that my eyes are drawn to her feet! They seem very large- I think the pose might accentuate them. Which... maybe isn't a bad thing if you have a foot fetish?



Thanks to all for the very kind comments.  I am also guilty of being more of a lurker, but I will try to improve.

As far as her legs and feet, the distortion was intentional, and I was actually hoping for a little more than what I ended up with.

Again thank you to all!


----------



## Derrel (Feb 13, 2010)

Glad your thread finally gained some traction. It even had some poster-to-poster keyboard-a-keyboard repartee....

I think you did ample elongation of her legs through good use of focal length and camera-to-subject distance; any more and it might have looked too obvious. She has great legs. I wish she were making eye contact with the viewer, of failing that, maybe looking within the frame. Her line of gaze is just the slightest bit distracting...that reptilian brain part of me keeps looking over to the side thinking--"what's over there? what's over there?"

I think one reason so many looks and no comments is that people are reluctant to comment on studio shots,or shots that look really well-executed. Not many people walk up to NFL QB's and make comments or critiques. "Say, Drew, you know on your three step drop when the D- is in a cover-2 and you make your first read? maybe you should..." just doesn't happen...same deal on shots like this one...


----------



## Augphoto (Feb 13, 2010)

The eyes don't bother me at all and you were perfect on showing off the long legs.  Of course the lighting is perfect.


----------



## cordellwillis (Feb 19, 2010)

As already mentioned the lighting is good. The exposure is good too.

However....

"As far as her legs and feet, the distortion was intentional, and I was actually hoping for a little more than what I ended up with."

If her legs are long and she is a tall woman I assume her feet are considered large for a woman. I think you did her an injustice by trying to empha"size" her legs and feet. Even if that was a good idea her foot is turned away from the viewer taking away what you were trying to show.

I've seen this type of image and it's cool when executed well. I don't think your's is bad, but maybe it's just the turned foot that takes away from it (for me).

BTW, I like her orange and purple color combo.


----------



## srinaldo86 (Feb 19, 2010)

Archer: Brooowwnnnn Suggaaaar!

Archer: A White Grannnulated Sugarr!


----------



## PackingMyBags (Feb 19, 2010)

Great shot. The only thing i dont like about the photo is the chair/stool. Its color/shape and feel just dont work for me in this one. Somehow it only makes her look like a giant. Find a new chair and it should be golden.


----------

