# Body Sculpting with Light (NSFW)



## eric-holmes (Dec 18, 2011)




----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 18, 2011)

Nice man!


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 18, 2011)

I like it! Very nice!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 18, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> Nice man!



That's a man?


----------



## eric-holmes (Dec 18, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> Nice man!


Thanks



cgipson1 said:


> I like it! Very nice!


Thanks as well.



Bitter Jeweler said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Nice man!
> ...


LOL.

I wanted to smooth her skin a little to make it less "goose-bumpy" but my typical skin smooth technique didn't work well.


----------



## Trever1t (Dec 18, 2011)

LOVE it, god rested after creating woman.


----------



## KenC (Dec 18, 2011)

eric-holmes said:


> I wanted to smooth her skin a little to make it less "goose-bumpy" but my typical skin smooth technique didn't work well.



Well done.  Don't smooth it - much better if it looks real, at least imo.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 18, 2011)

I agree with KenC--do not smooth the skin..if the skin is smoothed, well, it will then look very fake. The photo looks quite fine as-shown. Just as an aside, I've been looking at more and more images where the amount of skin smoothing and "perfecting" is beginning to creep me out...it's just so,so pervasive in some fields. Celebrity portraiture for example.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Dec 18, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Nice man!
> ...



Schwetty was hoping so...


----------



## eric-holmes (Dec 18, 2011)

Thanks for the input guys. I have more from the session but I am at work and haven't got to really look at them yet.


----------



## Trever1t (Dec 18, 2011)

your model has great assets... 








Sorry, couldn't resist!


Oh and +1 on not smoothing, I find the 'goose bumps' add, not detract from the shot!


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 19, 2011)

Very nice.

I think that I'd like to see a bit less light on her back...I think it would be just that much better if the light was falling off in that area of the photo.  It tends to lead the eye out of the photo, instead of back in.  

And yes, no need to smooth out goose bumps...they are not an 'imperfection' that needs to be edited out.


----------



## eric-holmes (Dec 19, 2011)

Big Mike said:


> Very nice.
> 
> I think that I'd like to see a bit less light on her back...I think it would be just that much better if the light was falling off in that area of the photo.  It tends to lead the eye out of the photo, instead of back in.
> 
> And yes, no need to smooth out goose bumps...they are not an 'imperfection' that needs to be edited out.



I agree with you but I also like the way it leads you out of the photo. As much as this isn't abstract, I kind of wanted it to be a _little _abstract. Kind of like a roller coaster. It brings you in, takes you up, then down and then out the frame. Make sense?

I also added a couple more pics.


----------



## Trever1t (Dec 19, 2011)

That last frame is the winner, art of form.


----------



## eric-holmes (Dec 19, 2011)

Thank you, sir.


----------



## indioli (Dec 19, 2011)

I like to goosebumps... shows excitement!  I love them.


----------



## MaoZeBong (Dec 19, 2011)

awesome shots! mind posting some details on how you got those shots?


----------



## caughtmyeye (Dec 19, 2011)

The first 2 are beautiful, showing how  
a woman was born to be!


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 19, 2011)

> I agree with you but I also like the way it leads you out of the photo. As much as this isn't abstract, I kind of wanted it to be a little abstract. Kind of like a roller coaster. It brings you in, takes you up, then down and then out the frame. Make sense?


It does make sense, but typically, you don't want the viewer's eye to 'escape' the image.  If it does, they tend to take a quick look at it and move on.  Or they may have to 'start over again' and it gets repetitive, with their shooting out of the image every time.  To me, a more 'successful' image is one where the viewer's eye travels around within the image, yet does not stagnate.  This one reason why vignettes are such useful tools, they can gently persuade the viewer's eye to stay in the image.  




> I also added a couple more pics.


Nice series, well done.  You're lucky to have such a beautiful and willing model at your disposal.  

I really like the 2nd image (and not just because it's a frontal view of a naked woman).  It's an excellent example of hiding 'parts' with shadow.  Some might even call it selective lighting.  I think that her far arm is hurting the image though.  It's a tad too bright and the shape takes away from the aesthetic of the body shape.  I think it would have been better, had she stretched her arms above her.  That, of course, would prevent her from using the 'hand bra', so it would then be up to you, whether or not you wanted to light the breasts to show up or not.


----------



## eric-holmes (Dec 19, 2011)

MaoZeBong said:


> awesome shots! mind posting some details on how you got those shots?



One SB-600 in single beauty dish positioned behind subject on approx. 1/16 or 1/32 power. Pretty simple.



Big Mike said:


> > I agree with you but I also like the way it leads you out of the photo. As much as this isn't abstract, I kind of wanted it to be a little abstract. Kind of like a roller coaster. It brings you in, takes you up, then down and then out the frame. Make sense?
> 
> 
> It does make sense, but typically, you don't want the viewer's eye to 'escape' the image.  If it does, they tend to take a quick look at it and move on.  Or they may have to 'start over again' and it gets repetitive, with their shooting out of the image every time.  To me, a more 'successful' image is one where the viewer's eye travels around within the image, yet does not stagnate.  This one reason why vignettes are such useful tools, they can gently persuade the viewer's eye to stay in the image.
> ...



Mike, I took some of your opinions and implemented them onto the blog. I completely cloned out the distracting arm and I darkened her back so it wouldn't lead people out of the image. Your advice was spot on. Thanks for the tip.

Eric Holmes Photography


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 19, 2011)

I would start by trying to find a wife / gf with a banging body.



MaoZeBong said:


> awesome shots! mind posting some details on how you got those shots?


----------



## ishafizan (Dec 20, 2011)

very well executed. love all of them


----------



## SixShotEspressO (Dec 20, 2011)

KenC said:


> eric-holmes said:
> 
> 
> > I wanted to smooth her skin a little to make it less "goose-bumpy" but my typical skin smooth technique didn't work well.
> ...



+1.


----------



## gopal (Dec 20, 2011)

beautifil work in b&w.....professional look,


----------



## cnutco (Dec 21, 2011)

MORE....


----------



## Trever1t (Dec 21, 2011)

I gotta come back and say this is some of the most impressive work I've seen on this forum. My wife thought it was very artistic and she's VERY difficult to impress


----------



## eric-holmes (Dec 21, 2011)

Thank you everyone for your great comments. They mean a lot to me


----------



## paul85224 (Dec 22, 2011)

I love women.


----------



## Hickeydog (Dec 22, 2011)

Can someone loan me a shovel?  I need to pick my jaw up off the floor.


----------



## eric-holmes (Dec 23, 2011)

paul85224 said:


> I love women.


As do I good sir, As do I.



Hickeydog said:


> Can someone loan me a shovel?  I need to pick my jaw up off the floor.


LOL, I take it you like what you see?


----------

