# Goddess of the Falls - NSFW NSFW



## Trever1t (Mar 19, 2013)

Really it should be safe but undies and pretty girls are somewhat risque I suppose. Diamond, a Latina model I've been wanting to work with for a while wanted something sexy n' wild. 




_POR8850-Edit-Edit by WSG Photography, on Flickr

I feel this is my best work to date. 

Nikon D700
Sigma f1.4 
ISO 200
F2.8
1/400
Aperture priority
+.3 EV
Spot meter

LR4
CS6
Imogenic Portraiture
Nik Color effex


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 19, 2013)

I like clicking on your posts these days, nice pic. I could C and C it to death for the sake of C and Cing it to death but no reason. Ok, the distracting red in the watermark belongs on your FB portfolio!

<joking!>


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 19, 2013)

I like it but what is the blurry patch on the bottom left side of the image where her right foot is?  I find that really distracting.


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 19, 2013)

DO you really want to see her foot? I shot through foreground bushes to give a peeping effect, blur is au natural but I appreciate your opinion


----------



## tirediron (Mar 19, 2013)

Nicely done, but yeah, that blurry bit is annoying.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 19, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> DO you really want to see her foot? I shot through foreground bushes to give a peeping effect, blur is au natural but I appreciate your opinion


That makes sense- ummm... either make it stronger so that we know what it is, or lose it altogether.  IMO, it's just too insipid as-is, and detracts from an otherwise great shot.


----------



## kundalini (Mar 19, 2013)

She's quite 'perky', isn't she?  Her left heel looks like it is going up her bum.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 19, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> DO you really want to see her foot? I shot through foreground bushes to give a peeping effect, blur is au natural but I appreciate your opinion




I guess the reason I find it distracting is that the rest of the image is SO good--tack sharp, perfect exposure--that the OOF portion looks like it was unintended.  I would agree with tirediron to make the effect stronger, so that the viewer knows it was intentional, or lose it altogether.


----------



## Pallycow (Mar 19, 2013)

It is some of your best yet, if not your best.

However I must concur on the blur.  While I see what you were going for, you didn't get it, so it looks like a blurry, almost vignetting, sorta thing...even just washed out.  

Dunno what, if anything you can do about it post..probly nothing.  I don't feel it's really an opinion as much as a distraction in the image.  You seem to have rather discarded the original comment made on it as "opinion" and moved on...but really...it's not just an opinion as much as something in the way of a fantastic shot.


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 19, 2013)

Well darn it then! I have other frames without the blur from the bush, I can easily layer in into this frame without effecting the rest of the image I believe. I didn't feel it was a distraction originally but I am here to listen and learn, so I do put weight on all your critique. Thank you!


----------



## tirediron (Mar 19, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Well darn it then! I have other frames without the blur from the bush...


Come on... does anyone really like bush blur?


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 19, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Well darn it then! I have other frames without the blur from the bush...
> ...




I like fuzzy bush, but not blurry bush!


----------



## Pallycow (Mar 19, 2013)

I have not seen bush in years.  A landing strip here and there, even some designer work above the goods...but not actual bush.  

;-)


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 19, 2013)

Nice !


----------



## TMC (Mar 19, 2013)

Pallycow said:


> I have not seen bush in years.  A landing strip here and there, even some designer work above the goods...but not actual bush.
> 
> ;-)



+1


Also, I think the shot is really nice.  You are a lucky man to have such beautiful models to shoot.   I always tell mine, they make my job easy.


However, I can't stop thinking what this shot would look like if you maybe shot the background so the water fall was nice and silky (longer exposure), and than put the model in on top of it in photoshop.   I know it wouldn't be as natural as this but it has my artistic curiosity peaked.  Im sure this idea isn't new and someone has probably done it a million times but i havent seen it yet, I am still learning tho.   Anyways really nice work!


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 19, 2013)

_POR8810-Edit-Edit by WSG Photography, on Flickr


----------



## Mully (Mar 19, 2013)

Nice shot but agree with others the bushy thing looks too blurry..... clone in some green shrub sort of transparent there and I think it will fix it.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 19, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> DO you really want to see her foot? I shot through foreground bushes to give a peeping effect, blur is au natural but I appreciate your opinion



Bill, Lovely image... and model! But I do agree.. the blur does get in the way... it seriously catches the eye. Made me want to clean my monitor!  lol!


----------



## ronlane (Mar 19, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > DO you really want to see her foot? I shot through foreground bushes to give a peeping effect, blur is au natural but I appreciate your opinion
> ...



I think you were wanting to clean your monitor for a TOTALLY different reason there Charlie.


----------



## Rick50 (Mar 19, 2013)

I hate bush blur! J/K
I really don't give a hoot. I like the first one better because of that look in her eyes. Nice work.
I hope I can get this good.


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 19, 2013)

I learn with every click, seriously. I shoot 2 or 3 times a week, something like 16K frames since January 1st. I watch videos, other photographer's work and I try to do something different each time. Keep shooting Rick50, it will come.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 19, 2013)

According to research I have seen on the topic, "most" American/European viewers dislike foreground bokeh in photographs; most Asian culture viewers find it ADDS a dimension, a sense of depth, to the scene. Over the years on various fora, I have repeatedly seen this negative response to out of focus foreground "anything" from North American viewers. It's an interesting cross-cultural difference. But then again, when European professional artists were painting commissioned artworks in the pre-Renaissance era, they were outlining all their figures with black charcoal outlines, and had no idea how to draw a vanishing point. Meanwhile, Japanese and Chinese landscape painters were creating lovely renderings of distant landscapes using aerial perspective as a strong depth clue; in a way, European artists were like kindergardeners drawing in crayon, while the artists from the Far East were masters of their craft, literally centuries ahead of those 'other folks'.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 19, 2013)

Very nice indeed.  

Just a few points for C&C.
Her face looks different from the rest of her skin.  I know that's not unusual (makeup & tanning etc.) , but when a model is showing so much skin, it tends to stand out.
Secondly, I'm not crazy about the crop.  There seems to be too much space above her, and she takes up a small percentage of the overall image.  I get that you want to show off the beautiful location, but I think the viewer would still get the point, but she could be made more prominent.  If you are going to show the location (as a subject), then use a much wider view, making her an accessory to it.


----------



## ronlane (Mar 19, 2013)

Trever1t, you know that you have to start every new page of this thread with a new picture of her.


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 19, 2013)

ronlane said:


> Trever1t, you know that you have to start every new page of this thread with a new picture of her.






_POR9068-Edit-Edit by WSG Photography, on Flickr


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 19, 2013)

NICE!!!!!


----------



## Luke345678 (Mar 19, 2013)

Well theres nothing I can say that others haven't.

Very beautiful girl you've got there.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 19, 2013)

Derrel said:


> According to research I have seen on the topic, "most" American/European viewers dislike foreground bokeh in photographs; most Asian culture viewers find it ADDS a dimension, a sense of depth, to the scene. Over the years on various fora, I have repeatedly seen this negative response to out of focus foreground "anything" from North American viewers. It's an interesting cross-cultural difference. But then again, when European professional artists were painting commissioned artworks in the pre-Renaissance era, they were outlining all their figures with black charcoal outlines, and had no idea how to draw a vanishing point. Meanwhile, Japanese and Chinese landscape painters were creating lovely renderings of distant landscapes using aerial perspective as a strong depth clue; in a way, European artists were like kindergardeners drawing in crayon, while the artists from the Far East were masters of their craft, literally centuries ahead of those 'other folks'.



I am one of the few people I've run across who quite likes out of focus foreground elements, for exactly this reason. It gives depth. Also, it tends to place the viewer "in" the frame, creating a bit of a voyeuristic feel, in a photo. This can also be a powerful move.

However, in this one, I find the element too weak to accomplish either goal. It's not obvious what it is, and it's kind of subtle. You pick up on it, but you're not sure what it is, it's not obviously an OOF foreground thing, it could be some weird defect or processing error or something. So, I at any rate to NOT get the sense of depth, or the sense of being in-the-frame, from it.


----------



## Pallycow (Mar 19, 2013)

Trev, you need to get her in the studio for a pinup shoot.  She has the thickness and curves the demand pinup.


----------



## Fotofashion.no (Mar 19, 2013)

Thumbs up


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 19, 2013)

Oh, we have studio images too 

Thanks for all the comments!


----------



## Qveon (Mar 19, 2013)

Sexy but where is the wild part? I figured that would at least entail being in the waterfall.


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 19, 2013)

Well it is a public park ah ya


----------



## Lmphotos (Mar 19, 2013)

What is this shoot for? Is this glamour or a just a shot she wanted? I think technically it is very nicely done I enjoy the exposure and colors. As far as the the pose and composition I just do not enjoy women being photographed in this way IMO


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 19, 2013)

Well....  You already know what I think. Not a fan of the skin process. I do believe you have a good raw file, just think the skin processing can be a lot better.


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 19, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> What is this shoot for? Is this glamour or a just a shot she wanted? I think technically it is very nicely done I enjoy the exposure and colors. As far as the the pose and composition I just do not enjoy women being photographed in this way IMO



In what way is that? This was her concept.


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 20, 2013)

Studio image




_POR8634-Edit-Edit by WSG Photography, on Flickr


----------



## ronlane (Mar 20, 2013)

Okay Trever, I hate to get so picky but I think I should make you aware. When I blew this up to the large, I noticed that her top teeth look red, like she got lipstick on them. (In this last photo).

I like the photo.


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 20, 2013)

don't pixel peep


----------



## ronlane (Mar 20, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> don't pixel peep



Sorry, I can't see too well with these two monitors, so I have to zoom in for a better look  (That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.)


----------



## e.rose (Mar 20, 2013)

Really nice!

The blur didn't bother me until everyone started pointing it out and now I don't know how I feel about it....


----------



## kathyt (Mar 20, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> I like it but what is the blurry patch on the bottom left side of the image where her right foot is? I find that really distracting.



Yeah. I agree. It is a great shot, but I would add some blur around the edges VERY softly because my eye is going straight to it. I really do LOVE the shot though. Your skin tones are great and the shallow DOF is really nice.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 20, 2013)

On behalf of the entire medical establishment, congratulations on such a healthy model.

(Her feet look a bit awkward, sort of breaks into the fantasy.)


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 23, 2013)

Healthy indeed although to be honest I helped her in post.  These edits take 30-45 minutes each. Thanks Lindsay Adler 









_POR8729-Edit-Edit by WSG Photography, on Flickr


----------



## fokker (Mar 25, 2013)

Looking through the other shots of her in your flickr stream this is not my favourite of the set, it is good but a couple of the others seem stronger to me.


----------

