# Daria NSFWish...



## artoledo (Feb 9, 2011)

I had a model contact me on Model Mayhem to do some portfolio shots for her. Here are a few for C&C. I love how brutally honest is here and I know people will not hold back. Where are you GeneralBenson???


----------



## mishele (Feb 9, 2011)

Why is she taking a dump in that bucket?  :hug:: I'm sorry....that is seriously what I thought when I saw that. Not a very sex pose for her.


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 9, 2011)

I love the model but dislike the shadows in the first otherwise great pic. The second pose I just don't like but the lighting is better....still a little shadow.


----------



## cnutco (Feb 9, 2011)

Trever1t said:


> I love the model but dislike the shadows in the first otherwise great pic. The second pose I just don't like but the lighting is better....still a little shadow.



Couldn't agree more!


----------



## wlbphoto (Feb 9, 2011)

^^ what they said , but model is  hot BTW:greenpbl::thumbup::er:


----------



## thingsIsee (Feb 9, 2011)

First pose is good but the back ground is way to busy and as mentioned the shadows.
Second well the lighting is better, but not by much.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Feb 9, 2011)

nice location..  more?


----------



## kundalini (Feb 9, 2011)

Lovely model and interesting location.

#1:
The pose - She is very square to the camera. This causes a static look and offers very little personality for the viewer. She is in much the 2x4 pose, as in stiff as a board. There is no angles or lines from the body to generate much visual interest although you can detect a slight attempt by her ess curve from the hips to head. This would have been extended had she tilted her head to her high shoulder (feminine position). However, the straight arms and legs negate the essence of the female form...... curves. As with the shoulders, you should also avoid having the back of a woman's hands square to the camera, a side view is much prefered. The smile is slightly excessive and causing additional smile lines that are not flattering.

The setting - While this is an interesting background from what can be seen, it is entirely too busy and completely uncomplimentary to her outfit. It looks like The Crayola Company vomited. A better approach IMO would be to have her in solid colors as she would stand apart from the background. Additionally, had she been 6 to 8 feet in front of the vehicle, you could open the aperture and thrown the background blurred, further making her the absolute subject.

The lighting - Very harsh to say the least. Your main light is too far around causing the shadow of the nose to run down to her upper lip, around the corner of her mouth and ending up below her lower lip. It is also a bit hot as evidenced by the hot spot on her forehead and left cheek. It is possibly too high because I do not see any catch lights and the right side of her face is not completely shadowed. Your fill light is either set too low or is absent. At least a reflector would've lessened the hard shadow line running down her chest. Speaking of.... that is the brightest portion of the image instead of her face. This is another tell-tale that the main light is misdirected. The hair/accent light is hitting the front of her right shoulder a bit too strong IMO.

In post, I would clone or CA the highlight on her right forearm and the downward shadow on her right leg below the hemline.



UNC and Duke are about to tip off (GO HEELS!!!), so I'm leaving now. Hope some of this helps.... and not far off the mark.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Feb 10, 2011)

Am I really that guy who won't hold back?? I promise I'm not any more forgiving (probably much less) on tearing apart my own work!

Well, most of it has already been said. The lighting on the first one just is very harsh, and has out of control highlights all over. The most egregious of these is the image right side of the car, that is just way to bright and specular, and draws a lot of attention away from the girl. Other annoying highlights, the shadow line on her cleavage from the hard main light, and the random hot spots on her right arm. The lighting her face is quite rude, and also, I think her face is underexposed quite a bit, which really works against her with the right side car being so hot and the background being so busy. Aside fromthe fact that our brains are always trying to sek out faces to look at, there is nothing else in this photo that draws me to her face, or any part of her. When I look at this, I see the giant hot spot first, and then eventually make my way to her face, which should be the first thing I see. As a whole, I think ther whole graffiti thing is just too much, graffiti on the car and on the background is just overwhelming. Maybe one or the other would have worked, but I don't think both. 

Second photo, I think this one is better for sure. I think her face looks much better with this kind of expression, versus an all out smile. She's got one of those over-enthusiastic, face-widening smiles, and she already has a bit of an NHL jawline. So I think think the subtle smile is better looking on her, and for these types of shots, I think it is a little more fitting as well. Lighting looks much better as well, but it looks like you key was a lot warmer than the ambient, and I don't really like that her legs seem to fade cooler and cooler towards her feet. I also have to agree with the first guy, that it sort of really looks like she is going to the bathroom, which I hope wasn't your intent. And even if it doesn't look that way, with the bucket, I would have spun it around so all the writing wasn't so apparent. 

Again, not a huge fan of the graffiti, in either. It seems to be a pretty popular choice for this style of photography, but I think I see way more examples of it not working and just being too busy, than examples where it works and looks good.

Good work though, keep at it!


----------



## xjoewhitex (Feb 11, 2011)

thingsIsee said:


> First pose is good but the back ground is way to busy and as mentioned the shadows.
> Second well the lighting is better, but not by much.


I would have to agree with this comment.


----------



## FoggyLens (Feb 11, 2011)

mishele said:


> Why is she taking a dump in that bucket? :hug:: I'm sorry....that is seriously what I thought when I saw that. Not a very sex pose for her.


 

LMAO!! I thought thr same thing! not beibg mean..


----------



## Patrice (Feb 11, 2011)

As for the bucket shot my first thought was not of her taking a dump but of just how wide her rear end appears to be.


----------



## kundalini (Feb 11, 2011)

Patrice said:


> As for the bucket shot my first thought was not of her taking a dump but of just how wide her rear end appears to be.


 About 5 gallons.


----------



## camz (Feb 18, 2011)

Art I think one of the toughest pose to pull off in general glamour photography is to have a model sitting down straight like #2(wether it was a bucket, a stool, log etc...still hard to pull off).

Accentuate the woman's curvs.....if you want to stick with the same pose as #2 I say accentuate what she has. How about with a wider angle lens....stand right infront between her legs infront of the bucket and shoot down. You can focus on her face, boobs, lashes, lips, hair..whatever you want to convey. Then blur out the rest. This way since you're shooting down, you get the hide the bucket from the shot and give a slimmer effect. :thumbup:


----------



## artoledo (Feb 22, 2011)

I love this place. Thanks everyone! and i dont mean that in a sarcastic way either.


----------

