# Some portraits of my friend....slightly NSFW



## Bryston3bsst (Jun 18, 2015)

Some recent work for my friend Alex. She'll use some of these on her different websites for her work and I'm always pretty stoked when she does.

She's a gas to work with, a professional in every way. See what you all think.
































Thanks for looking.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 18, 2015)

Nice set; I think this would be worth retrying with some different lighting, specifically from below (AKA "Horror lighting") to give a bit more drama & mood to the images.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 18, 2015)

These appear to have decent exposures with good, well-controlled studio lighting equipment, and good, sharp focus, but they seem a bit "conventional" in terms of the image processing...I think several of these would benefit from some more modern processing "looks", something a bit more filter-y, something that looks less studio-light-like, if you know what I mean.


----------



## FKP007 (Jul 1, 2015)

Not really a fan of this set, I'm not sure what the intention of the shoot was it has a boudoir come dominatrix style thing going on. 

Image 1 
Pose is all wrong and in no way flatters her form.  Lying square on showcasing the widest view of her body is not the way to go. Hot spot on her chest, lighting on her face is not the best and her hand close to the bottom of the frame draws far too much attention due to its size, luminosity and position.

Image 2
Is she eating the whip or trying to be all sexy and demure? Don't like the composition and her hair had disappeared into the background. There seems to be some light lower down in the back but hasn't been used to create separation. 

Image 5 
Fingers chopped and her forearm chopped and whip appearing from nowhere.

Would be a good idea to learn a little more about 

A) posing the female form to showcase it in the best way
B) lighting a model to create form shape and separation
C) composition and cropping when working with models

Of course photography is a very subjective art form and my opinions might not resonate with yours 


Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## chuasam (Jul 1, 2015)

Derrel said:


> These appear to have decent exposures with good, well-controlled studio lighting equipment, and good, sharp focus, but they seem a bit "conventional" in terms of the image processing...I think several of these would benefit from some more modern processing "looks", something a bit more filter-y, something that looks less studio-light-like, if you know what I mean.


it's like the 1990s called and they want their strobes back.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 1, 2015)

I actually like the pose in #1...
granted, it _*is *_squarish to the camera, but on a horizontal plane so im not getting any manly vibes from it. 
shes well built, but certainly not what I would call "petite". however, I think automatically thinking to position her in a way that makes her look the "skinniest" does her a disservice.. 

#2 is nice. really nice. 
just enough turn to be feminine. Her expression just _*screams *_sexy here.

#3 is ok. 
not really digging the door here. 
kinda wish she was facing the camera more. 

#4 is a nicer pose. 
I like her looking off camera in this one.  not a huge fan of B&W. 
still not digging the open door. 

#5, I think, would be better with a little space above her head. im just not  a fan of head chops if i can  help it in any way. 
Also, i think clearing the hair from around her bustline would have improved these as well. 
her expression is wonderful. she seems to have a knack for it. 

I really like #6, even though its B&W. 
i wonder though, how this would have looked as say....a 16x10 from the waist up? would it get both of her arms in the frame? 

overall i think this is a really nice set. 
I don't see any significant posing faults, and they are nicely lit, with no blown highlights. 
its the same sort of lighting i prefer in my portraits.  nothing wrong with "conventional", although it would be interesting to see this set lit with above and below "clamshell" lighting.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 1, 2015)

A case of too much cowbell.  

Most of the images have parts that are as bright, if not brighter, than her face.  Remember that in portraiture, the face reigns supreme.  That hands and chest definitely need to be toned down.  This can be accomplished using diffusers, grids, flags and scrims.  Lots of hard shadows in the wrong places.

It looks like she has it going on for posing.  I like all the angles created.  Now you need to do your part to showcase that talent.


----------



## Joshjay2 (Aug 3, 2015)

Wow seeing photos get examined here makes me want to not post lol !
Then again even if  photo needs help I enjoy seeing what kind of shots ppl
Are putting together.


----------



## IrvKanemoto (Aug 3, 2015)

Joshjay2 said:


> Wow *seeing photos get examined here makes me want to not post *lol !
> Then again even if  photo needs help I enjoy seeing what kind of shots ppl
> Are putting together.



I agree. I think there are many that feel the need to say something negative about most any photo posted. But there are the few select members that always get accolades. It's like this on all the photo forums I've seen. 

It's funny though, when you look at the photos shot by many of the people that do post negative comments many times they aren't all that great. So you've got shooters that aren't very talented telling you that your pictures aren't very good. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## otherprof (Aug 3, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> Some recent work for my friend Alex. She'll use some of these on her different websites for her work and I'm always pretty stoked when she does.
> 
> She's a gas to work with, a professional in every way. See what you all think.
> 
> ...


I say I love them and she says, "You betta, you betta, you betta . . . " But seriously, the lighting of her head in the first one seems too harsh, and cuts off too much of the face. It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the person.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 4, 2015)

Joshjay2 said:


> Wow seeing photos get examined here makes me want to not post lol !
> Then again even if  photo needs help I enjoy seeing what kind of shots ppl
> Are putting together.



It is clear when someone posts what level they are working at.
If you are relatively new to photography, then people will look at your work with that in mind and be easy with what they say.



IrvKanemoto said:


> I agree. I think there are many that feel the need to say something negative about most any photo posted. But there are the few select members that always get accolades. It's like this on all the photo forums I've seen.



Pictures are put here to be critiqued - and virtually every picture can be improved.
I guess that I assume that even the best photographer is here to see what people think and would like to get constructive input.



IrvKanemoto said:


> It's funny though, when you look at the photos shot by many of the people that do post negative comments many times they aren't all that great. So you've got shooters that aren't very talented telling you that your pictures aren't very good. Makes perfect sense.



This kind of snarky passive-aggressive comment, essentially being nasty about everyone in general, doesn't make you look good.
It does make you look like you have an ax to grind - and if you ever start actually being involved as a poster/commenter, that won't help.


----------



## weepete (Aug 4, 2015)

I like the second from last best. Though I kinda wish you hadn't cropped her right arm a bit funnily enough it doesn't bother me all that much.


----------



## GWWhite (Aug 6, 2015)

Well, I am with the nay sayers Bryston3bsst. You know what? Details are great, subject looked great, but in my opinion you totally missed the mood of the moment. To me it is modeling photos when it BEGS to be something more. Lighting is too spot on for these. Details are too good. I am with tirediron and Derrel. For those of you who think we are being harsh, you are WAY off.


----------



## IrvKanemoto (Aug 8, 2015)

GWWhite said:


> Well, I am with the nay sayers Bryston3bsst. You know what? Details are great, subject looked great, but in my opinion you totally missed the mood of the moment. To me it is modeling photos when it BEGS to be something more. Lighting is too spot on for these. Details are too good. I am with tirediron and Derrel. For those of you who think we are being harsh, you are WAY off.



I recently read a post regarding the notion that those offering "critiques" sometimes have photos in their portfolio that are not all that impressive. I just looked at your Flickr Mr White. So I am wondering how someone is supposed to learn from critiques given by another whose photos don't make a tremendous impression. There are some good ones but nothing that I personally would want to emulate.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 8, 2015)

IrvKanemoto said:


> GWWhite said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I am with the nay sayers Bryston3bsst. You know what? Details are great, subject looked great, but in my opinion you totally missed the mood of the moment. To me it is modeling photos when it BEGS to be something more. Lighting is too spot on for these. Details are too good. I am with tirediron and Derrel. For those of you who think we are being harsh, you are WAY off.
> ...


That is an interesting comment from someone who hides his own portfolio and details.

Tbh I disagree that critiques are only useful from those who can show ability.
Art critics don't need to paint, music critics don't need to compose.
Criticism should stand on its owned and be weighed according to content and applicability.


----------



## snowbear (Aug 8, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Tbh I disagree that critiques are only useful from those who can show ability.
> Art critics don't need to paint, music critics don't need to compose.
> Criticism should stand on its owned and be weighed according to content and applicability.



. . . and customers need only know what they like - no artistic ability at all.


----------



## Designer (Aug 8, 2015)

IrvKanemoto said:


> I recently read a post regarding the notion that those offering "critiques" sometimes have photos in their portfolio that are not all that impressive. I just looked at your Flickr Mr White. So I am wondering how someone is supposed to learn from critiques given by another whose photos don't make a tremendous impression. There are some good ones but nothing that I personally would want to emulate.


The flaw in your thinking revolves around "competence".  

You apparently assume that for anyone to offer criticism, he would necessarily have to be better than the one who is being critiqued.  If everyone waited around until some greater photographer happened to offer a critique, then some photographers would be waiting for a long time.  

Who is to say which one is better?  Is it the responsibility of the poster to judge whether the critic is sufficiently qualified to offer a critique, or is it the responsibility of the critic to assert his own artistic skill level?

If this rather stringent standard of yours were to become the norm, most of what we now consider to be honest criticism would instead devolve into a shouting match between factions, and nobody would learn anything.

I like it the way it is, thank you.


----------



## pjaye (Aug 8, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> #3 is ok.
> not really digging the door here.
> kinda wish she was facing the camera more.
> 
> ...



That's not a door. It's a frame with rings to tie/handcuff someone too 

OP, for what she would use the pictures for, these are good.  I might go a bit more dramatic with lighting but they portray the image she is projecting well.


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Aug 9, 2015)

[/QUOTE]
*That's not a door. It's a frame with rings to tie/handcuff someone too *

OP, for what she would use the pictures for, these are good.  I might go a bit more dramatic with lighting but they portray the image she is projecting well.[/QUOTE]

Well, look at you.......you're right. I'm curious how you might know this? 

This is what it is.


----------



## GWWhite (Aug 9, 2015)

IrvKanemoto said:


> GWWhite said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I am with the nay sayers Bryston3bsst. You know what? Details are great, subject looked great, but in my opinion you totally missed the mood of the moment. To me it is modeling photos when it BEGS to be something more. Lighting is too spot on for these. Details are too good. I am with tirediron and Derrel. For those of you who think we are being harsh, you are WAY off.
> ...



Irv, I am with The_Traveler. I don't really care if you would want to "emulate" my photos or not. At least I have photos to show and am willing to show them. I had a humorous critique on here from someone regarding something I did and they did their best to sound expert. But when I went looking for their work to see where they were and maybe get some ideas, I got a BIG FAT goose egg. Zero. So I am left to one of two thoughts, either they are REALLY good and don't post their photos because of client confidentiality, or they are a troll. Where do you fit in?


----------



## IrvKanemoto (Aug 9, 2015)

Just a troll, Gordo......just a troll.


----------



## Overread (Aug 9, 2015)

*Thread locked pending moderator action*


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 9, 2015)

*That's not a door. It's a frame with rings to tie/handcuff someone too *

OP, for what she would use the pictures for, these are good.  I might go a bit more dramatic with lighting but they portray the image she is projecting well.[/QUOTE]

Well, look at you.......you're right. I'm curious how you might know this? 

This is what it is.






[/QUOTE]

my apologies, I stand corrected.. (well, im actually sitting right now, but you know what I mean)
a most impressive apparatus indeed.  
I would love to know what that thing_* under*_ the....bed/table thing(?)...is as well.


----------

