# Boudoir Photoshoot (NSFW)



## SoulfulRecover

My wife had been having some body image issues lately since the baby. She was finally feeling confident/body positive and wanted me to do some photos for her. She loves them, I think they are OK given the space we had and it resulted in someone wanting to do a paid shoot in the same fashion this up coming weekend. Its a friend of my wifes so she understands this isn't something I normally shoot but shes excited. Id like to get some feed back on how to improve so I can do better and make sure the lady this weekend is happy with the results.

To give you an idea of the space, the one window across the way that is clearly seen is North facing. The other is East. I had to shoot at 1600 ISO, f/2.8 and about a 50th. So the images are not tack sharp, a bit soft from me and the wife moving. I wanted to use my 24mm manual focus lens but its so dim, I couldn't see if it was focused or not which led to using my 50mm for auto focus.






Im going to guess ill need to use my strobes which is fine. Are the poses decent? Is the composition ok? Should I find a wider lens? Where and what do I need to work on?

1.





2.





3.





4.





5.


----------



## adamhiram

These are absolutely beautiful.  I love the soft lighting, and I think the shadow depth of field does a great job of "showing without showing".  The eyes look nice and sharp in the images where you can see them, and with great catch lights too.  Really nice job.


----------



## Fujidave

All taken very nicely, but even with the BG blur it could be taken at a better angle I think.


----------



## SoulfulRecover

I tried to talk to wife into moving all the baby stuff out of that nook and moving the bed over there but that was a hard NO hahahaha


----------



## vintagesnaps

Yeah, that blue thing... even out of focus it creates a blue blob, that stuff up there needed to go in a basket or something while taking photos. Watch the mirror, it's reflecting the door (I found with mirrors or windows that are reflecting something it's necessary to adjust the vantage point to get decent looking reflections - they're part of the composition). 

The heel in #1 needed to be positioned a little differently so it's not sticking up off in the distance. The ones with her lying down are more flattering than seated; I'd think about trying the edge of the mattress so you don't get the subject sinking down and pushing her hips out. Think about arranging the fabric so you get nice folds, or not - notice where/how arranging the fabric creates lines, and think about arranging it to flatter her not to compete with her.

The hair - especially dark against fair skin and light color bedding, needs to be combed/arranged every time the subject moves, it's going all over the place. Which could work if it's arranged - it created a lot of dark lines and high contrast. I'd even rethink the dark nail polish; I like it myself but for a portrait, again the high contrast makes it stand out and makes for visual distractions. If that's a deal breaker, then think about how to pose the subject and the dark hair and nail polish and how to arrange fabric - notice the tones, the dark and light. If need be do a quick B&W version to see where the contrast is so it has better balance between the dark and light. 

The ones showing her face are lovely of her. The background/vantage point needs to be rethought.


----------



## Granddad

Those eyes in #5!!!  Combined with the half smile. *Sigh...*


----------



## jcdeboever

very nice. 5 is gorgeous


----------



## Jeff15

Very nice images.....


----------



## Dean_Gretsch

I am going with #5 also because of the smile. Lovely lady. The lighting is great on the set.


----------



## chuasam

you lucky dog!
and these are actually really good
do NOT use a wider angle.
also experiment with looser and tighter crops just to see if you like it

you know i'm super critical but these are GOOD
a little blur is fine
don't be afraid to push up the ISO


----------



## pocketshaver

the ones of her laying stomach down are the best ones, really work well with the face and EYES. other ones just don't have that "feel" you know of LIFE...

The others seem more apt to be bland advertisement photos of feminine hygiene products.


----------



## JoeW

First of all, she's lovely.  If she were available as a model, I'd shoot with her.

Second, I get the issue about body image.  Having a baby changes your body.  But she looks terrific.

Third, your work is fine. Lovely light, some great poses.

Okay, now let me offer some advice.  Let's suppose you were a professional shooting boudoir or valentines day packages for 40 year old women who had 25 pounds too much and a C-scar--how do you deal with that?  Recognize the body issues/concerns they may have (big biceps, possible double-chin, big thighs, stomach) and look to hide or minimize those.  Poses #1 and #5 are perfect examples of how to do this.  Also, emphasize to that model (I'm speaking generically now) that this also means she's got cleavage.  So have her proper herself up in one of those poses to show off some cleavage.  And to emphasize it, have her wear a small crucifix on a small chain which has the perverse effective of a flashing, neon arrow pointing to the cleavage saying "LOOK HERE!"  Trust me, it never fails.

If your model has body image issues (thighs and stomach) then having the thighs face the camera or foremost (pose 3) makes her thighs look bigger.  But having a little extra weight makes her calves look better and provides more shape.  So that means don't have her seated with her but and thighs fully on a bed or chair (they'll look bigger) but maybe have her on the edge of a chair or bed facing the camera--her calves will have great form and curve and look lovely.  Pose 2, probably a little bit of nerves plus holding the pillow/cloth tightly against her makes her bicep bigger than it is--which doesn't flatter her.  Anything that extends her arms will make that bicep smaller and more proportionate.  Pose 4 is a good example of if you're going lay your model flat on her back, what direction you want her facing.  Other direction and  you get double-chin.  Frankly, I'd have her roll slight to one side (which will give her more cleavage and make her look bustier).  If her legs are open, that would feel very exposed to her but from that angle you'd see nothing and that would thin her legs and hips.  Here are a couple of other hints for poses:  have her standing (on her toes), side profile but holding fabric (sheet, lace, whatever) in front and partially draping her side.  Then if she throws her shoulders back what you get is a real set of curves.

Key point from this last paragraph:  she's worried about her tummy, her thighs, her biceps.  How those appear in pictures is totally up to YOU.  How you pose her determines if she looks heavier or lighter.  So look at poses that will not emphasize the thighs, will hide the tummy or have her laying on it, and straighten (or at least extend) her arms.


----------



## Granddad

Did anyone notice that this is a ZOMBIE thread? ....  23rd of July 2018.

Worth resurrecting because the subject is _*drop dead gorgeous*_?


----------



## pocketshaver

Granddad said:


> Did anyone notice that this is a ZOMBIE thread? ....  23rd of July 2018.
> 
> Worth resurrecting because the subject is _*drop dead gorgeous*_?



If you don't LIKE the thread or the pictures then why are you commenting on the age of the thread just to insult the Original Posters wife?


----------



## Derrel

I do not think he is insulting the original poster's wife, but rather paying her a compliment when he refers to her as to her as being  "drop dead gorgeous"... that is actually a compliment, not an insult.

 And yes, this is an older thread. I saw it come up last night but I did not reply since it was indeed an older thread. But here I am responding to your comment, so I think I will make my own response. Of the shown photos ,my favorite is number 4. Normally I am not a fan of this pose, but in this instance I think it looks pretty good.


----------



## DanOstergren

pocketshaver said:


> Granddad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone notice that this is a ZOMBIE thread? ....  23rd of July 2018.
> 
> Worth resurrecting because the subject is _*drop dead gorgeous*_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't LIKE the thread or the pictures then why are you commenting on the age of the thread just to insult the Original Posters wife?
Click to expand...

Wow, do you know how to read?


----------



## pocketshaver

am I the only one that see the little green emoticon is normally an insult icon since it was created...


----------



## DanOstergren

pocketshaver said:


> am I the only one that see the little green emoticon is normally an insult icon since it was created...


Yes, you are. Nobody was insulting you or the OP, so why are you doubling down on this?


----------



## Derrel

pocketshaver said:


> am I the only one that see the little green emoticon is normally an insult icon since it was created...



I do not think that emoticon is meant to convey any sense of insult. I think that quite possibly you misunderstood granddad's use of the emoticon.


----------



## pocketshaver

no, the sentence with emoticon are meant to be insulting.

Its like saying "yeah your wife is good looking for an ugly woman"


----------



## DanOstergren

pocketshaver said:


> no, the sentence with emoticon are meant to be insulting.
> 
> Its like saying "yeah your wife is good looking for an ugly woman"


----------



## Granddad

pocketshaver said:


> no, the sentence with emoticon are meant to be insulting.
> 
> Its like saying "yeah your wife is good looking for an ugly woman"



I'm not sure what planet you live on but it obviously has a VERY different culture. The laughing emoticon was for the fact that the thread had been resurrected and people had started responding as if it was a new thread.  I've never heard of a rule where sentences with emoticons are intended to be insulting. The fact that the subject is a VERY beautiful woman is indisputable. I think you missed the nuances of the language. Zombie thread means a thread resurrected from the dead and then "drop dead gorgeous" is a phrase to describe someone who is so beautiful that she (or he) would stop the heart of a viewer. Put together they are an expression of mild (groanworthy) humour. You, of course, have the right to interpret it as you see fit but language can be a subtle thing and it's sad that you have failed to grasp the subtleties here.


----------



## SoulfulRecover

Wow old thread indeed. I have since done a couple more photos of the wife which I don't think I posted on here. I was suppose to do a shoot with my sister in law, but the night before the shoot, she asked her fiancé to go with her to pick out some clothes. Well he freaked out on her about the shoot. My wife stepped in for a quick 10-15 minutes just to see what might have been possible at our new place. I am happy with them but not thrilled. I think if we would have had more time to try a few more poses and I would have switched around to the window side for some, I would have been happier.


----------



## vintagesnaps

The hair... I seem to always be pointing this out, even if going for a somewhat tousled look it needs to be scrunched/arranged (when the person moves around, so does the hair). 

The light that time of day wasn't ideal but not bad. Watch that post (windowframe) and where to put the subject in relation to it, and smooth blankets/comforters/bedcovers, the fabric folds create shadows and contrast.


----------



## Granddad

Personally I can't see past these images of your very lovely wife to find any improvements to suggest so I'm a total failure as a critic. 

... And just for the record, my use of emojis does not involve any intent to insult, denigrate or malign.


----------



## SoulfulRecover

Granddad said:


> Personally I can't see past these images of your very lovely wife to find any improvements to suggest so I'm a total failure as a critic.
> 
> ... And just for the record, my use of emojis does not involve any intent to insult, denigrate or malign.



No worries! I got the joke in the original comment


----------



## pocketshaver

vintagesnaps said:


> The hair... I seem to always be pointing this out, even if going for a somewhat tousled look it needs to be scrunched/arranged (when the person moves around, so does the hair).
> 
> The light that time of day wasn't ideal but not bad. Watch that post (windowframe) and where to put the subject in relation to it, and smooth blankets/comforters/bedcovers, the fabric folds create shadows and contrast.


the light through the window is a little to bright... but it DOES create an excellent contrast for the model. That's half the point for this type of photo isn't it? To maximize and emphasize the models attributes.


----------



## SoulfulRecover

pocketshaver said:


> Now these links DISPROVE that you need to be afraid of having sheets, blankets, and other assorted fabrics that have wrinkles in them. These things DONT need to be fought. And since I provided links to some photo galleries where the rumpled up bedding and blankets are actually a design element in the photo work,,, by photographers making their entire income, UNLIKE a large number of people posting on photography websites,
> 
> the tousled up sheets have been proven to be a good option, ALTHOUGH I will admit that if the light from the window had been reduced by at least half, the valleys in the folds would haven't made the peaks so damn bright to look at.



Havent checked out the links yet but I do agree about the lighting. I bought some sheer curtains which helped but it was a single sheet on two of the three windows. Im going to end up buying two more sets so each of the three windows will have a proper two sheet curtain. I will have to adjust the time of day to shoot as well. The windows face west and I think these were done around 3 or 4pm? Late enough that the top small windows had harsh light coming through landing on the bed side closest to me so we had to try and avoid those squares haha. I think it was a good learning experience for the space though along with the continued input from everyone here.


----------



## vintagesnaps

Those sites linked are promoting videos of women doing sex shows. I wouldn't go by porn sites to figure out what works for boudoir photography.


----------



## pocketshaver

vintagesnaps said:


> Those sites linked are promoting videos of women doing sex shows. I wouldn't go by porn sites to figure out what works for boudoir photography.


The website in question does partner content from websites that do nude videos. But the thing is, why do you overlook the fact that PROFESSIONAL photographers who make lots of money doing photographic work, make excellent use of messed up blankets and bedding?

Is it simply because it disproves your comment?


----------



## Derrel

Boudoir and softcore porn are not really the same thing. In Boudoir photography styling of hair and clothing and accessories is very important , while in porn, not so much emphasis is placed on styling.


----------



## limr

So...porn makes money because of its professional photographic quality and artistic value? 

And here I was, all these years thinking it was about sex.


----------



## JoeW

SoulfulRecover said:


> Wow old thread indeed. I have since done a couple more photos of the wife which I don't think I posted on here. I was suppose to do a shoot with my sister in law, but the night before the shoot, she asked her fiancé to go with her to pick out some clothes. Well he freaked out on her about the shoot. My wife stepped in for a quick 10-15 minutes just to see what might have been possible at our new place. I am happy with them but not thrilled. I think if we would have had more time to try a few more poses and I would have switched around to the window side for some, I would have been happier.
> 
> View attachment 180801
> 
> View attachment 180802
> 
> View attachment 180803


First, thanks for update the thread.  And your wife/model is lovely.  And I like all 3 photos.  Nice poses on her part, less distracting background stuff.  I think the third shot would look especially good cropped from the waist up.


----------



## pocketshaver

Derrel said:


> Boudoir and softcore porn are not really the same thing. In Boudoir photography styling of hair and clothing and accessories is very important , while in porn, not so much emphasis is placed on styling.


go look over at photo.net photo section, they have categories, for plain nudes, and fashion and glamour photography.

A lot of the same photos are in each of the 3 categories. NO difference


----------



## vintagesnaps

I don't think the pictures in the links looked like they were done professionally by a portrait photographer; the quality looked more like they were taken by just some person with a camera. They didn't look like the standard a portrait photographer would be able to do.  

The quality on photo.net is inconsistent at best; some look pretty good and some aren't that well done. Portrait/professional photographers would probably not use that site as examples of good quality work.


----------



## Derrel

If I call myself a car, would I be a Volkswagen or a Chevrolet? How people self identify their photographic work does not make it belong in whatever categories they think it is. You showed us some links to some soft core p*** site, all in the effort to make your point about messed up blankets. I do not think the consumers of the p*** give a rat's ass about the blankets, but are instead looking at something entirely different.


----------



## vintagesnaps

Well, yeah.....

C'mon Derrel, don't be so modest, you'd be a Cadillac.


----------



## pocketshaver

vintagesnaps said:


> I don't think the pictures in the links looked like they were done professionally by a portrait photographer; the quality looked more like they were taken by just some person with a camera. They didn't look like the standard a portrait photographer would be able to do.
> 
> The quality on photo.net is inconsistent at best; some look pretty good and some aren't that well done. Portrait/professional photographers would probably not use that site as examples of good quality work.



Thought you were one of the crowd that said a professional photographer was a person who earned their living by taking photographs. And its ironic that when the point I made about PROFESSIONAL photographers using rumpled up sheets and blankets in photos,

and your like totally against that PERIOD..

that you decide that they are not professional because of the content they shoot, nor are they worth considering as actual professionals because they make money by taking pictures of naked people.
And ironically BOUDOIR is nothing but NAKED PEOPLE... gasp.... and PROFESSIONAL photographers take pictures of naked people.....  We have that one guy on here who makes a living as a professional photographer. And most of his nude photo shoots are of naked dudes... so if you don't like pictures of naked dudes... then does that make HIM a NON PROFESSIONAL?


----------



## pocketshaver

Brigid Marz
Maxwell Lander
Pascal Renoux
Sol Lang
https://www.saatchiart.com/photography/ a massive online photo print store used by actual professional photographers. Sure some seem crazy to charge 9,000 for a 20x20 print of a naked woman sitting on a rock.. but its ART  and its NUDE..

Natalia Mukha
Helmut Newton
Spencer Tunick
Lucien Clergue
Troy Schooneman
Jim Furness

Andreas H. Bitesnich

Lindsay Adler


----------



## Derrel

But ..... you linked us to some site selling memberships to euro-porn...


----------



## smoke665

vintagesnaps said:


> Well, yeah.....
> 
> C'mon Derrel, don't be so modest, you'd be a Cadillac.



Nah he's more the classic 56 Chevy, a little heavy on the lines but still can move when the need arises.


----------



## limr

pocketshaver said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the pictures in the links looked like they were done professionally by a portrait photographer; the quality looked more like they were taken by just some person with a camera. They didn't look like the standard a portrait photographer would be able to do.
> 
> The quality on photo.net is inconsistent at best; some look pretty good and some aren't that well done. Portrait/professional photographers would probably not use that site as examples of good quality work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thought you were one of the crowd that said a professional photographer was a person who earned their living by taking photographs. And its ironic that when the point I made about PROFESSIONAL photographers using rumpled up sheets and blankets in photos,
> 
> and your like totally against that PERIOD..
> 
> that you decide that they are not professional because of the content they shoot, nor are they worth considering as actual professionals because they make money by taking pictures of naked people.
> And ironically BOUDOIR is nothing but NAKED PEOPLE... gasp.... and PROFESSIONAL photographers take pictures of naked people.....  We have that one guy on here who makes a living as a professional photographer. And most of his nude photo shoots are of naked dudes... so if you don't like pictures of naked dudes... then does that make HIM a NON PROFESSIONAL?
Click to expand...


Time to give it a rest.


----------



## vintagesnaps

Thank you.


----------



## Overread

I think maybe its time to end this one. 
Those who wish to continue the discussion of props and suchlike within boudoir photography are free to start their own thread on the subject.


----------

