# Model shot/portrait



## 53cent (Aug 13, 2012)

I took this one for a magazine that will be out around october. What do you think?




Portrait by Ismar Basic, on Flickr


----------



## amolitor (Aug 13, 2012)

It looks like a workmanlike photograph of a modestly attractive model, which someone did a fairly bad job of cutting out and pasting on a new background.

Some interesting choices: Styling her hair unkempt, failing to cover up or photoshop out the moles. The lighting setup (looks like one on each side, very high, and the a catchlight camera-right, and god knows what you did on the background, since it's been 'shopped out?) is unusual and normally unflattering, but since her eye sockets are so shallow this may well have been an excellent choice to give her some depth there.

The dress is rendered quite nicely, which makes it a pity that nobody brushed it off better before the shot. There appears to be a fair bit of tiny bits of dust and lint on it.

More of an exotic looking model than an attractive one, and some interesting less-flattering choices here.

Not a high-end shoot here, I don't think. If it was a big dollar shoot, it would either be cleaner, or more obviously dirtied up.

Do I like it? Apart from the background, I kind of do. I'm not that in to fashion or photographs of models, though, in general.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 13, 2012)

I like it


----------



## 53cent (Aug 13, 2012)

amolitor said:


> It looks like a workmanlike photograph of a modestly attractive model, which someone did a fairly bad job of cutting out and pasting on a new background.
> 
> Some interesting choices: Styling her hair unkempt, failing to cover up or photoshop out the moles. The lighting setup (looks like one on each side, very high, and the a catchlight camera-right, and god knows what you did on the background, since it's been 'shopped out?) is unusual and normally unflattering, but since her eye sockets are so shallow this may well have been an excellent choice to give her some depth there.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the comment.
First the background, all I did was remove the vertical lines of the big container which is/was the background. I intentionally let alot of the roughness in the background, because that's what I wanted.
Moles are there because I wanted them to be there. There is no lightning setup. It's natural light with no reflectors.

And no, it's not high-end. They asked me to participate as a beginner with a couple of my best shots. 

Thanks again.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 13, 2012)

The bad cutting is evident in her hair. Since her hair isn't perfect and sleek, it's INSANELY hard to do much of anything to the background without it looking like crap.

Well done getting this with just the sun! I swear it looks like at least three lights. Did you use reflectors? (improvised or otherwise)?


----------



## LShooter (Aug 13, 2012)

I think she needs to eat a hamburger


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 13, 2012)

I like it at first glance. Quick glance. 
There is something really wrong with the photoshop work on her chest and the dress there and on the shoulder. The shoulder to our right is flat and much wider than the other. In full size it doesn't look so much like a cut paste muck up, but I can see your work on the background in spots and around her hair. Your cloning work you have not added appropriate amount of noise to and it's fake smooth looking against the actual image parts. 

Even in the largest size the eyes look fake and incredibly over sharpened.


----------



## CCericola (Aug 13, 2012)

It needs some post work, but it isn't horrible. It also looks a bit too sharp. The lighting set up and hair position creates a diagonal shadow over part of her face that is distracting. Can you re-shoot?


----------



## 53cent (Aug 13, 2012)

amolitor said:


> The bad cutting is evident in her hair. Since  her hair isn't perfect and sleek, it's INSANELY hard to do much of  anything to the background without it looking like crap.
> 
> Well done getting this with just the sun! I swear it looks like at least  three lights. Did you use reflectors? (improvised or  otherwise)?



There is some smudging left in the hair,  because nothing was cut and yes it is quite difficult to do well. It  didn't bother me that much, which is probably why I'm not high-end hehe. And no reflectors.



MLeeK said:


> I like it at first glance. Quick glance.
> There is something really wrong with the photoshop work on her chest and the dress there and on the shoulder. The shoulder to our right is flat and much wider than the other. In full size it doesn't look so much like a cut paste muck up, but I can see your work on the background in spots and around her hair. Your cloning work you have not added appropriate amount of noise to and it's fake smooth looking against the actual image parts.
> 
> Even in the largest size the eyes look fake and incredibly over sharpened.



I'd really love to give an explanation, but it's just her pose I guess. She's standing quite leaned on one side. On the background, I stopped smoothing when it looked OK to me. But yes, you can indeed see some of the smudging around her hair.
Thanks for the comment.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 13, 2012)

LShooter said:


> I think she needs to eat a hamburger




Hmm... another one of those comments again... sigh.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 13, 2012)

Her eyes look wayyy overcooked. Like maybe she's on bath salts!!! And, uh...wazzup with her breasts??? Can there actually *be* that much space between her shoulder line and her breasts?? I mean, it looks like she was "stretched" in post...'cause *the girls *appear to be riding mighty,mighty low...


----------



## 53cent (Aug 13, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Her eyes look wayyy overcooked. Like maybe she's on bath salts!!! And, uh...wazzup with her breasts??? Can there actually *be* that much space between her shoulder line and her breasts?? I mean, it looks like she was "stretched" in post...'cause *the girls *appear to be riding mighty,mighty low...



I'll make sure she gets to read that, very helpful comment about her breasts for future shots.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 13, 2012)

53cent said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > The bad cutting is evident in her hair. Since  her hair isn't perfect and sleek, it's INSANELY hard to do much of  anything to the background without it looking like crap.
> ...


I can see a LOT more than that in your background.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 13, 2012)

Derrel likes the girls with the titties way up high, way up firm an' high oh yeah workin on our.. uh sorry.


----------



## MWC2 (Aug 13, 2012)

While a nice image, something about it disturbs me and holds my attention.  Which might just what makes this image work in some way.  

My eyes are drawn to her chest area, mostly because it's the area of the image with the greatest amount of lightness (her chest is brighter than her face), her pale skin framed by the dark blue of the dress is distracting, then add to the fact the large space between her breasts, and the lack of shadow/detail under the breast, it's just over powering.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 13, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Derrel likes the girls with the titties way up high, way up firm an' high oh yeah workin on our.. uh sorry.



Bob Seger's Night Moves...ahhh...I remember that song...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 13, 2012)

53cent said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Her eyes look wayyy overcooked. Like maybe she's on bath salts!!! And, uh...wazzup with her breasts??? Can there actually *be* that much space between her shoulder line and her breasts?? I mean, it looks like she was "stretched" in post...'cause *the girls *appear to be riding mighty,mighty low...
> ...



Easy....I suspect they appear to be on her knees because of post, not because she really looks like that


----------



## 53cent (Aug 13, 2012)

One more:




Portrait by Ismar Basic, on Flickr


----------



## amolitor (Aug 13, 2012)

Geez, her tits are right where they should be. Her shoulders are very narrow, and she's not wearing a bra. Look at her head, see how big it is? Now go look at some girls.

Her belly button is lower than you think it is, probably right around the BOTTOM edge of that horizontal sash/belt thing on the dress.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 13, 2012)

They where where they were supposed to be ON HER in the 1st pic too, they just appear slightly  low in the image


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 13, 2012)

LShooter said:


> I think she needs to eat a hamburger



I think she is perfect! I really dislike this bias against skinny / slender people that the US is developing just because the new norm seems to be overweight to obese! Do you prefer BIG BEAUTIFUL WOMEN?  I don't think there is such a thing... it is a contradiction in terms!  

Of course, if you were just trying to be funny, then ignore my statement above!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 13, 2012)

53cent said:


> One more:
> 
> 
> Portrait by Ismar Basic, on Flickr



Me LIKE!


----------



## Derrel (Aug 13, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Geez, her tits are right where they should be. Her shoulders are very narrow, and she's not wearing a bra. Look at her head, see how big it is? Now go look at some girls.
> 
> Her belly button is lower than you think it is, probably right around the BOTTOM edge of that horizontal sash/belt thing on the dress.



Pure genius.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 13, 2012)

53cent said:


> One more:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


MUCH BETTER. That one looks real, realistic, natural except for the extremely bright whites in her eyes/over sharpening. Gorgeous


----------



## Designer (Aug 13, 2012)

LShooter said:


> I think she needs to eat a hamburger



Yea, I was wondering what kind of magazine would put this on the cover.  "Anorexia Fashion"?


----------



## Haya.H (Aug 13, 2012)

Designer said:


> LShooter said:
> 
> 
> > I think she needs to eat a hamburger
> ...



I really hope your joking.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 13, 2012)

I think she's attractive, but I'm curious about her breasts as well. I know that on some male models they move their nipples to a more ideal (???) area, but I'm not sure about her breasts. They seem like they're in the middle of her torso. She might just be very tall and have that sort of physique, though. It's just the first thing my eyes are drawn to.

I'm digging the overall feel though. It's different from the normal "look at my kids! LOOK AT THEM!" threads that are posted quite frequently.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 14, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> I think she's attractive, but I'm curious about her breasts as well. I know that on some male models they move their nipples to a more ideal (???) area, but* I'm not sure about her breasts. They seem like they're in the middle of her torso.* She might just be very tall and have that sort of physique, though. It's just the first thing my eyes are drawn to.
> 
> I'm digging the overall feel though. It's different from the normal "look at my kids! LOOK AT THEM!" threads that are posted quite frequently.



Exactly. But according to amonitor, they are exactly where they are on every other single woman who has ever walked the face of the earth...not uber-low-set and oodly close to her belly button...


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 14, 2012)

Give her a sammich ASAP.


----------



## Jaemie (Aug 14, 2012)

I don't care for the way the technique in #1 emphasizes her bony physique, and/or makes her appear bony and stretched. My eyes focus on her chest where the skin appears thin across her ribs and sternum. It's unsettling, though that may be the desired effect.

The more natural look in #2 is easier on my eyes, and the model's expression seems more relaxed.

I understand she's a pale woman, and that's a striking feature, but I think the choice of blue clothing and a cool background in both images is cool overkill. I'd try warming up the background and see how that feels.


----------



## 53cent (Aug 14, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> I think she's attractive, but I'm curious about her breasts as well. I know that on some male models they move their nipples to a more ideal (???) area, but I'm not sure about her breasts. They seem like they're in the middle of her torso. She might just be very tall and have that sort of physique, though. It's just the first thing my eyes are drawn to.
> 
> I'm digging the overall feel though. It's different from the normal "look at my kids! LOOK AT THEM!" threads that are posted quite frequently.



I'm haven't done anything to her breasts, they're just as they are. But thanks for the comment.


----------



## 53cent (Aug 14, 2012)

Designer said:


> LShooter said:
> 
> 
> > I think she needs to eat a hamburger
> ...





JerseyJules said:


> Give her a sammich ASAP.



Stay away with BS posts like this please.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 14, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Exactly. But according to amonitor, they are exactly where they are on every other single woman who has ever walked the face of the earth...not uber-low-set and oodly close to her belly button...



Seriously, dude, why you gotta be that way?

Her nipples are about one head height down from her chin. That's where nipples are. I know it looks weird, but it's because her shoulders are narrow.


----------



## Granddad (Aug 14, 2012)

I'm surprised at the comments some well respected people have made about the way this young lady is built. She  may not be everyone's cup of tea but that's the way the cookie crumbles. The OP submitted a photo for C&C of his photography and processing, not for the model to be dissected. If I submit a photo of my wife for C&C is she going to have her wrinkles analysed and her saggy breasts discussed like this? This isn't the first time a thread has gone off topic like this recently.

OP: I much prefer the second shot, it shows the model to better advantage IMHO (I'm not fond of the catwalk look) and the lines on the container add to the image. Personally I'd straighten it so that the lines are vertical but maybe that's just me being OCD. Nice job of using the available light.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

JerseyJules said:


> Give her a sammich ASAP.




Grow up!


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 14, 2012)

53cent said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > LShooter said:
> ...




Ok how about this one? 

*Your picture is disturbing to look at,it hurts my eyes and my soul.... The model looks very skinny obviously. Combine that with a low cut and open dress and it exaggerates the fact that she is pale and thin. It keeps drawing your attention to her chest plate in an unnatural and distracting manner. She is a beautiful girl with gorgeous eyes and facial structure,but wardrobe selection has pretty much distracted anyone looking at the picture from even acknowledging that. The picture while it may be textbook perfect as far as the photographic skill involved, lacks any real interest other than over exasperating her physical attributes in a less than flattering manner. So congratulations, you made a beautiful girl look bad with poor representation...I cant see what magazine would look at that representation of her and think "yeah that's the one lets publish it"...

Disclaimer: I know less than nothing about photography, Im just giving you my personal advice on how I see the picture and the thought process of the general public..*


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 14, 2012)

53cent said:


> One more:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Much better representation of this girl's beauty..


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Aug 14, 2012)

I really like the second one, except as mentioned the processing to the eyes needs to be toned down.  Looks very unnatural and detracts greatly from what I would otherwise consider a very good image.

At first glance and from a distance, I liked #1 okay but at closer inspection the selection and cutting around the head and stray hairs is really bad.  Kills it for me.  Was the background so bad that you feel it benefits from this edit?

And, the comments about the model are beyond juvenile.  Makes it easier to spot the jackasses, I suppose.


----------



## 53cent (Aug 14, 2012)

JerseyJules said:


> 53cent said:
> 
> 
> > Designer said:
> ...



If that is your more explained opinion, fine. You don't like the picture, there is nothing wrong with that. But you obviously have no clue about fashion and especially about European fashion and the way high fashion models look like. I even added more contrast to the chest area to make her look the way she is; pale and skinny. I edited it the way I like a model to look like in a fashion shot like this. And yes they are going to publish it. And If you find this hurting your soul, wait until you see really skinny high fashion models.


----------



## Designer (Aug 14, 2012)

JerseyJules said:


> Ok how about this one?
> 
> *Your picture is disturbing to look at,it hurts my eyes and my soul.... The model looks very skinny obviously. Combine that with a low cut and open dress and it exaggerates the fact that she is pale and thin. It keeps drawing your attention to her chest plate in an unnatural and distracting manner. She is a beautiful girl with gorgeous eyes and facial structure,but wardrobe selection has pretty much distracted anyone looking at the picture from even acknowledging that. The picture while it may be textbook perfect as far as the photographic skill involved, lacks any real interest other than over exasperating her physical attributes in a less than flattering manner. So congratulations, you made a beautiful girl look bad with poor representation...I cant see what magazine would look at that representation of her and think "yeah that's the one lets publish it"...
> 
> Disclaimer: I know less than nothing about photography, Im just giving you my personal advice on how I see the picture and the thought process of the general public..*



Other commentors have pointed out that this photo is NOT "textbook perfect".


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 14, 2012)

this thread is approaching fail mode quickly


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 14, 2012)

Well.. this kind of clothing is mostly shown on runways.  I highly doubt you see one on the street (maybe in LA).  She is very beautiful the way she is.  Yes, you are drawn to the light area on her chest, I am pretty sure that was the clothing designer's intention.


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 14, 2012)

53cent said:


> JerseyJules said:
> 
> 
> > 53cent said:
> ...



Yeah, I get it..Models are supposed to be skinny..Thats not the issue for me, I like women in all sorts of shapes and sizes. To me its just an awkward and distracting picture that does that girl zero justice. Looking at some of her other pictures she is not that skinny actually, but for some reason that dress kills it for me...It just makes you keep looking downward to her chest. Fashion or not, it's a bad representation of her for me...You wanted CC, you got it..Sorry I cant add any CC on the actual technical aspect of the shot..


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 14, 2012)

Designer said:


> Other commentors have pointed out that this photo is NOT "textbook perfect".



Yeah, no kidding..The most talented photographer in the world could post a perfect picture on here and you guys would rip it apart..lol..However Im not qualified to even begin to make any technical assessment of the actual photo, just my personal opinion of the overall image. I would however like to see more of this girl


----------



## 53cent (Aug 14, 2012)

JerseyJules said:


> 53cent said:
> 
> 
> > JerseyJules said:
> ...


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Aug 14, 2012)

Maybe if she looked more like Snooki.  :roll:


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 14, 2012)

53cent said:


> One more:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I personally prefer this one over the first. The eyes do look a tad on the sharp side. did you process them any? her expression is wonderful. I would like to have seen her arms posed a bit lower though. Love the tasseled hair, but would love to see this shot with the hair pushed back a bit. great shot! (sorry, I guess my C&C here was mostly just personal composition taste than actual technical stuff)


----------



## MWC2 (Aug 14, 2012)

I personally like example #2 a little more.  There is more shadowing to help bring dimension and depth to the subject.  As pointed out her eyes are a little over-cooked but that's an easy fix if you saved the file with psd.  

I actually liked both of these, they made me think and look at them more than once.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

Derrel said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > I think she's attractive, but I'm curious about her breasts as well. I know that on some male models they move their nipples to a more ideal (???) area, but* I'm not sure about her breasts. They seem like they're in the middle of her torso.* She might just be very tall and have that sort of physique, though. It's just the first thing my eyes are drawn to.
> ...


Mine didn't get oddly close to my belly button till gravity took over...


----------



## Jaemie (Aug 14, 2012)

Mine would probably sag if my fat stomach didn't stop their descent.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



:addpics:


----------



## kundalini (Aug 14, 2012)

#1 - There are two things that bug me slightly.  
The shadow streaking down her cheek and neck.  This is a lighting issue.
I believe if she had moved her left elbow away from her body slightly, we could see her upper arm fully, rather than a disembodied appendage.

#2 - I think if she had moved her right hand so that her fingers (including nails) were holding her left arm, it would be a bit more pleasing.  I'm not too fond of hands square to the camera (especially women), but having stubbed fingers looks ackward to me.

Lovely model and captured well.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## LShooter (Aug 14, 2012)

JerseyJules said:


> 53cent said:
> 
> 
> > Designer said:
> ...



Yepper. I know we're suppose to critique the photo technique, etc. But my advice is "she needs a hamburger".  The industry as a whole doesn't need any more "crack-head" looking eating disorder type promotions.  She has the potential to be a beautiful model, but the post in the first photo does not emulate that.  As a dad who has daughters I can whole heartedly say girls that look like this should not be glamorized.


----------



## LShooter (Aug 14, 2012)

Jaemie said:


> Mine would probably sag if my fat stomach didn't stop their descent.



That my friend is TMI.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Aug 14, 2012)

As another dad with a daughter, I am neither offended nor threatened by thin models.  I am more annoyed by people that insinuate you must be a crackhead if you are too thin.

BTW this isn't personal for me.  I happen to be fit and perfectly proportioned.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 14, 2012)

SoonerBJJ said:
			
		

> As another dad with a daughter, I am neither offended nor threatened by thin models.  I am more annoyed by people that insinuate you must be a crackhead if you are too thin.
> 
> BTW this isn't personal for me.  I happen to be fit and perfectly proportioned.



Having said this, it seems that you are implying that someone is not malnourished if their bones are showing through their skin?

Skinny does not mean healthy, I know people that have pot belly's that can run further without becoming winded than 90% of the "healthy" people you encounter. 

Fat is not good looking either, but a woman with some meat on her looks more attractive than what is shown in these pictures, even if she is a bit heavy. 

The look this woman has could simply mean that she has a super high metabolism. However, in most cases, it's the identifying factor for drug abuse or an eating disorder.


----------



## MWC2 (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...



Dam it! I am going to kill my husband, he promised he would keep my _Sexy_ photos private.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 14, 2012)

Yes some models have drug problems and eating disorders.  Isabella Caro was a prime example of a model with a serious eating disorder. That said - it doesnt mean all thin models have drug problems and/or eating disorders. The model in this thread looks thin - no doubt about it. But....this is a photography forum - I'm sure the OP is sick of having every thread be about the weight of the model. Saying she needs to eat a burger is just as rude as saying a heavier set person needs to lay off the burgers.


----------



## jowensphoto (Aug 14, 2012)

I'm guessing the boob problem is in post. They do seem lower than average in the second as well, but not nearly as extreme. They also seem bigger.

I like the second photo. 

Not even going to touch the "force feed her a big mac" BS.


----------



## jowensphoto (Aug 14, 2012)

Hold up, hold up, hold up.

Isn't this the same model from the last "she's too thin" thread? I think she looks great, ballerina-like.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 14, 2012)

In the first one, there's apparent flattening caused by the light from nearly overhead (which would place shadows below) and the drape of the dress, which eliminates said shadows. She looks rather more flat chested than she is. Also, she has extremely narrow shoulders, which increases the appearance of skinniness. Possibly she has them rotated a little to make them appear narrower, as well. I'm not really seeing it, but it's hard to be sure.

The proportions are just fine, her navel's just much lower than you think it is: nipples one head-height below the chin, navel one head-height below that (almost at the bottom of the frame). This is how people are made.

I actually have no idea from the first photograph how skinny she is. There's basically no information there, other than "not portly". The photograph certainly uses styling tricks to suggest a cadaverous appearance, which is a reasonable point to make. No point in slamming the girl for a couple of optical illusions, though.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...




AARRGGHHH!!! I will get you for that! lol!


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



I thought about being nice and just telling you it would scar you for life, but I am not really known for NICE.




Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > AARRGGHHH!!! I will get you for that! lol!
> ...



Yummy! What'cha doing tonight? Wanna go hit the graveyard for a late night snack?


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

I was thinking it'd be a good night to make my first porn. Maybe in the graveyard?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> I was thinking it'd be a good night to make my first porn. Maybe in the graveyard?



and bump a very old thread with it


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > I was thinking it'd be a good night to make my first porn. Maybe in the graveyard?
> ...



What very old thread? What did I miss?????


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 14, 2012)

I meant perhaps bump an old gravedig thread after you've made your graveyard porn


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

OH... K!


----------



## mommy-medic (Aug 14, 2012)

Lol- looks like you went from a 36C to a 34 long!


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

mommy-medic said:


> Lol- looks like you went from a 36C to a 34 long!



Eh. Just roll 'em up like socks!


----------



## kundalini (Aug 14, 2012)

Glad to see the conversation moving on from thrashing the OPs model to MLeek's granny tits.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 14, 2012)

*DONE!*


----------

