# Feedback requested:  first female model shoot (skimpy outfit warning)



## daggah

Here's a few pictures from my first shoot with a female model:




Sexy in Red #1 by davidgevert, on Flickr




Mirror, Mirror... by davidgevert, on Flickr


Right off the bat, there's three things I wish I had done differently:

I was mixing ambient and flash and should've gelled my flashes accordingly.

On the first shot when she got down on her knees, I should've adjusted my lights - the lack of a catchlight in her eyes kind of bothers me.

Finally, we should've cleaned the mirror better.  It looked clean but my flashes ended up revealing the error of our ways...

Anyway, I'm overall pretty happy with the results I got from this shoot, and I finally have some pictures to use to start a Modelmayhem portfolio.


----------



## ronlane

I'm not an expert on posing but I both look okay to me. #1, the face is OOF. #2, looks fine to me.


----------



## e.rose

Yeah, her face is OOF in the first one.

In the second, like you said, your mirror is dirty.  I'm also not a huge fan of the angle or where you cropped it.  I kind of want you to bring the camera more on her level for that one.


----------



## Lmphotos

whyyyyyy!? I feel like the ultra feminist in this group but not a fan of a woman being photographed in this way I think there is a way to photograph a woman and be sexy while still keeping it classy. Needless to say I hate the posing. Was this something she wanted? The outfit choices are horrible she seems like a pretty girl but its hard to tell with the way shes being depicted.


----------



## pixmedic

Lmphotos said:


> whyyyyyy!? I feel like the ultra feminist in this group but not a fan of a woman being photographed in this way I think there is a way to photograph a woman and be sexy while still keeping it classy. Needless to say I hate the posing. Was this something she wanted? The outfit choices are horrible she seems like a pretty girl but its hard to tell with the way shes being depicted.



If someone photographed women the exact same way every time,  it would make for a pretty boring portfolio.  No harm in mixing it up a bit.  I dont find these to be bad at all. #1 has a very cheerleader ish feel to it.


----------



## jenko

Lmphotos said:


> whyyyyyy!? I feel like the ultra feminist in this group but not a fan of a woman being photographed in this way I think there is a way to photograph a woman and be sexy while still keeping it classy. Needless to say I hate the posing. Was this something she wanted? The outfit choices are horrible she seems like a pretty girl but its hard to tell with the way shes being depicted.



One reason why many so-called "sensuous" or sexy portraits of women do nothing for me. They tend to be cliche, stereotypical, and very shallow. Like it is just too intellectually challenging for some to imagine a woman's sexuality as being more complex than a tight outfit or a coy glance. I like sensuous portraits of women, sexy ones even, but this woman could be any other woman in the same outfit with a decent body. It shows nothing about how this woman is sexy or sensuous. She just looks like she was hired for some party.


----------



## daggah

If you don't like the content of the picture, then just go ahead and click the back button and look at someone else's pictures.  I like the outfits and so does she.  I'm not looking for critique on my choice of model or her choice of attire.


----------



## DiskoJoe

Lmphotos said:


> whyyyyyy!? I feel like the ultra feminist in this group but not a fan of a woman being photographed in this way I think there is a way to photograph a woman and be sexy while still keeping it classy. Needless to say I hate the posing. Was this something she wanted? The outfit choices are horrible she seems like a pretty girl but its hard to tell with the way shes being depicted.



She's smiling and posing in someones living room. Obviously this is not forced. 

Some background assistance would have helped. 

Weakest NSFW thread all year.


----------



## Patrice

I think the first image has too much depth of field and all the kitchen in the background is distracting.


----------



## daggah

I agree...I wanted to use my 50-150 f/2.8 but once we started shooting, I realized I didn't have the room to get the full-length portraits I wanted, and I didn't have any of my primes with me.  Not that I'd get a huge difference out of f/1.8 vs. the f/2.8 I was shooting at.


----------



## kundalini

I suggest employing the use of the Liquify Tool on the 2nd shot, just below the backstrap in the foreground image.

Pretty girl, thanks for sharing.


----------



## Lmphotos

daggah said:


> If you don't like the content of the picture, then just go ahead and click the back button and look at someone else's pictures.  I like the outfits and so does she.  I'm not looking for critique on my choice of model or her choice of attire.




Its has 0% due with your choice of model, 10% to do with attire, 50% to do with posing and 40% with execution. So were you directing her or did she come up with these poses on her own? Your not the first to do this kind of stuff and won't be the last IMO there is just better ways to capture a woman's sexuality.


----------



## Lmphotos

DiskoJoe said:


> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> 
> whyyyyyy!? I feel like the ultra feminist in this group but not a fan of a woman being photographed in this way I think there is a way to photograph a woman and be sexy while still keeping it classy. Needless to say I hate the posing. Was this something she wanted? The outfit choices are horrible she seems like a pretty girl but its hard to tell with the way shes being depicted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's smiling and posing in someones living room. Obviously this is not forced.
> 
> Some background assistance would have helped.
> 
> Weakest NSFW thread all year.
Click to expand...


Never said it was forced I was more going for is this the type of shot she came up with and wanted. Or did she come to him and say make me look sexy and he came up with this?


----------



## daggah

Lmphotos said:


> daggah said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like the content of the picture, then just go ahead and click the back button and look at someone else's pictures.  I like the outfits and so does she.  I'm not looking for critique on my choice of model or her choice of attire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its has 0% due with your choice of model, 10% to do with attire, 50% to do with posing and 40% with execution. So were you directing her or did she come up with these poses on her own? Your not the first to do this kind of stuff and won't be the last IMO there is just better ways to capture a woman's sexuality.
Click to expand...


I actually accidentally left my posing guide at home, so the posing is 90% her with the occasional "look at me" or "look away" or other small suggestions.


----------



## pixmedic

i think the poses are fine, and the outfits awesome. We have seen very similar outfits in other posted girly shoots that got quite a bit of praise. Except for the background being a bit busy, i think these were pretty well executed. 
Nicely done!


----------



## hirejn

They both look only partially lit, meaning it looks like ambient light is registering. Why would you want ambient light to register? That seems to be why the bg is cluttered in #1. My eye wants to explore the background because it has highlights; why feature a tree, what looks like a kitchen window and another window? You don't want anyone looking at that stuff. A model like this needs to pop from the background. You could have draped a black sheet behind the couch to block that stuff out or just underexposed it. I would minimize or eliminate ambient light's role in the equation.


----------



## runnah

Lmphotos said:


> whyyyyyy!? I feel like the ultra feminist in this group but not a fan of a woman being photographed in this way I think there is a way to photograph a woman and be sexy while still keeping it classy. Needless to say I hate the posing. Was this something she wanted? The outfit choices are horrible she seems like a pretty girl but its hard to tell with the way shes being depicted.



That poor woman! I am glad the OP photoshopped out the gun that was to her head forcing her to pose in such a way!


----------



## Lmphotos

I looked through your Flickr and you are a very good photographer with a strong set of skills. What was this shoot for? I think if this was a glamour or boudoir style shoot you could do better. Angle her body instead of posing in front of the couch use that couch! On #2 see that roll she is making on the left side women generally hate that. Really look into posing women and how angles flatter her. A lot of women think this is what sexy is and this is what they have to do to be sexy which could be further from the truth show her how to be sexy, beautiful and artistic at the same time.


----------



## daggah

We did use the couch for some shots, including one that I really like...except one of my light stands ended up in the picture.

Edit:  also, I'm going to shoot with her again in a few weeks and we plan on doing more "casual" fashion-style shots, outside shots, etc.


----------



## LouR

runnah said:


> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> 
> whyyyyyy!? I feel like the ultra feminist in this group but not a fan of a woman being photographed in this way I think there is a way to photograph a woman and be sexy while still keeping it classy. Needless to say I hate the posing. Was this something she wanted? The outfit choices are horrible she seems like a pretty girl but its hard to tell with the way shes being depicted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That poor woman! I am glad the OP photoshopped out the gun that was to her head forcing her to pose in such a way!
Click to expand...

She directed herself and that is NOT what is supposed to happen.  The photographer is the director but he had no idea how to do it because he forgot his book.  Young girls think they can model.  Then they end up with cliche poses like these.  At least she didn't do a duck face.


----------



## daggah

LouR said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> 
> whyyyyyy!? I feel like the ultra feminist in this group but not a fan of a woman being photographed in this way I think there is a way to photograph a woman and be sexy while still keeping it classy. Needless to say I hate the posing. Was this something she wanted? The outfit choices are horrible she seems like a pretty girl but its hard to tell with the way shes being depicted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That poor woman! I am glad the OP photoshopped out the gun that was to her head forcing her to pose in such a way!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She directed herself and that is NOT what is supposed to happen.  The photographer is the director but he had no idea how to do it because he forgot his book.  Young girls think they can model.  Then they end up with cliche poses like these.  At least she didn't do a duck face.
Click to expand...


I liked what she was giving me, so I didn't feel the need to try to direct her more.  I happen to like the poses.


----------



## Lmphotos

Check out some really experienced photographers in this field sue Bryce is a bit more tame but she has some boudoir thrown in on her website there is a girl with less on than yours has but it's done in a very classy sensual away.


----------



## thebasedsloth

For the first I think shooting from a little bit higher of an angle would have been nice, It would have made her appear more feminine and would have taken attention away from her spread legs, which would have made this appear a bit classier and less 'look at my ****'-like.
That also would have cut some of the distracting background out, not all of it, but a bit.
It looks like the focus is on the couch, you should have moved her away from the couch or moved the couch away from her.
This shot gives me the impression she just jumped off the couch onto her knees for some reason, which again is a bit strange and I'm sure not the look you were going for.

The second;
I like this one better out of the two but I probably would have shot over her shoulder more and not into her back, that would prevented showing her unpleasing back wrinkles .
Could have cropped tighter too and filled the frame with her and gotten all the candles and paintings out of the background. 
Her face is pretty dark, darker than the walls.
 Flash should have been aimed more towards her head so it stands out the most. Probably could just dodge it a bit in post and it would work well. 

This is just my advice, feel free to take it or not.


----------



## Thayli

Nice looking lassie, but I would probably agree with the comments on outfit choice. Not that I'm bothered at all by skimpyness, hell I love all skimpy shots and I don't think I'll ever be mature enough to rise above it, but simply on the basis that the clothes look cheap, (as in cheaply made) and that becomes 'the look.' I think these would have better had she been wearing even just a quality set of bra and panties from Victorias secret. More revealing, but more classy and elegant. Feminine instead of sexual aggression maybe?

But, as you said, she wanted that set.

On a side note, no idea what people here actually think of Sue Bryce, but I'd say she's amazing. I love the way she does things and have plenty respect for her.


----------



## LouR

daggah said:


> LouR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> That poor woman! I am glad the OP photoshopped out the gun that was to her head forcing her to pose in such a way!
> 
> 
> 
> She directed herself and that is NOT what is supposed to happen.  The photographer is the director but he had no idea how to do it because he forgot his book.  Young girls think they can model.  Then they end up with cliche poses like these.  At least she didn't do a duck face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I liked what she was giving me, so I didn't feel the need to try to direct her more.  I happen to like the poses.
Click to expand...

You said you think you have enough to get into Model Mayhem but did you even look at their top notch images? These poses and their technicals don't come close.  You obviously have talent and equipment, but I gotta tell ya, your attitude sucks.  First, take the C & C for the model, not just your lighting.  As a photographer, you have to be in charge and the model needs to perform based on your direction.  Look at the photos and blogs in Model Mayhem-there's one right on the home page about posing. And lighten up-you think people here are bashing? Wait til the real fun starts


----------



## runnah

daggah said:


> I liked what she was giving me


----------



## mishele

runnah said:


> daggah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I liked what she was giving me
Click to expand...

No comment.


----------



## BrianV

Beautiful girl, gorgeous face. Which is out of focus in #1.

She need a head/shoulder portrait. You need an F1.5 Sonnar.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Need more planning.  It looks like you put very little thought on the shot.  The outfit and the location clash.


----------



## daggah

LouR said:


> daggah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LouR said:
> 
> 
> 
> She directed herself and that is NOT what is supposed to happen.  The photographer is the director but he had no idea how to do it because he forgot his book.  Young girls think they can model.  Then they end up with cliche poses like these.  At least she didn't do a duck face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I liked what she was giving me, so I didn't feel the need to try to direct her more.  I happen to like the poses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said you think you have enough to get into Model Mayhem but did you even look at their top notch images? These poses and their technicals don't come close.  You obviously have talent and equipment, but I gotta tell ya, your attitude sucks.  First, take the C & C for the model, not just your lighting.  As a photographer, you have to be in charge and the model needs to perform based on your direction.  Look at the photos and blogs in Model Mayhem-there's one right on the home page about posing. And lighten up-you think people here are bashing? Wait til the real fun starts
Click to expand...


I meant that I have enough to get my foot in the door.  You need four pictures to even create an account at all, and I had nothing.

I'm going to agree to disagree on the model direction thing.  I'm not going to interrupt someone's flow if they're giving me good results.  I'm not saying I don't need to know how to direct/pose a model or subject because clearly that is something I need to work on.

And no one even brought up the "bashing" word until you did here.


----------



## e.rose

Lmphotos said:


> whyyyyyy!? I feel like the ultra feminist in this group but not a fan of a woman being photographed in this way I think there is a way to photograph a woman and be sexy while still keeping it classy. Needless to say I hate the posing. Was this something she wanted? The outfit choices are horrible she seems like a pretty girl but its hard to tell with the way shes being depicted.



Yeah, I agree with you.  LOL

I'm not into the "Playboy Styling" type of shoot... but... I didn't mention it because that's a personal opinion based on my tastes.

...but yeah I agree.  I have a hard time critiquing stuff like this because my overall reaction is just "I don't like it".

I have to force myself to be critical of only the technical aspects.


----------



## e.rose

kundalini said:


> I suggest employing the use of the Liquify Tool on the 2nd shot, just below the backstrap in the foreground image.
> 
> Pretty girl, thanks for sharing.



Agreed.  I didn't even notice that at first.  I wasn't paying attention to the OOF portion, but you're right.


----------



## LouR

daggah said:


> LouR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daggah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I liked what she was giving me, so I didn't feel the need to try to direct her more.  I happen to like the poses.
> 
> 
> 
> You said you think you have enough to get into Model Mayhem but did you even look at their top notch images? These poses and their technicals don't come close.  You obviously have talent and equipment, but I gotta tell ya, your attitude sucks.  First, take the C & C for the model, not just your lighting.  As a photographer, you have to be in charge and the model needs to perform based on your direction.  Look at the photos and blogs in Model Mayhem-there's one right on the home page about posing. And lighten up-you think people here are bashing? Wait til the real fun starts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant that I have enough to get my foot in the door.  You need four pictures to even create an account at all, and I had nothing.
> 
> I'm going to agree to disagree on the model direction thing.  I'm not going to interrupt someone's flow if they're giving me good results.  I'm not saying I don't need to know how to direct/pose a model or subject because clearly that is something I need to work on.
> 
> And no one even brought up the "bashing" word until you did here.
Click to expand...

 Only because a couple of your responses were defensive, so I made the assumption you were feeling bashed.


----------



## Ballistics

LouR said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> 
> whyyyyyy!? I feel like the ultra feminist in this group but not a fan of a woman being photographed in this way I think there is a way to photograph a woman and be sexy while still keeping it classy. Needless to say I hate the posing. Was this something she wanted? The outfit choices are horrible she seems like a pretty girl but its hard to tell with the way shes being depicted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That poor woman! I am glad the OP photoshopped out the gun that was to her head forcing her to pose in such a way!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She directed herself and that is NOT what is supposed to happen.  The photographer is the director but he had no idea how to do it because he forgot his book.  Young girls think they can model.  Then they end up with cliche poses like these.  At least she didn't do a duck face.
Click to expand...


Why don't you show him an example of your work, to give him a better idea of what a directed model with a less cliche' pose looks like.


----------



## e.rose

thebasedsloth said:


> For the first I think shooting from a little bit higher of an angle would have been nice, It would have made her appear more feminine and would have taken attention away from her spread legs, which would have made this appear a bit classier and less 'look at my ****'-like.
> That also would have cut some of the distracting background out, not all of it, but a bit.
> It looks like the focus is on the couch, you should have moved her away from the couch or moved the couch away from her.
> This shot gives me the impression she just jumped off the couch onto her knees for some reason, which again is a bit strange and I'm sure not the look you were going for.
> 
> The second;
> I like this one better out of the two but I probably would have shot over her shoulder more and not into her back, that would prevented showing her unpleasing back wrinkles .
> Could have cropped tighter too and filled the frame with her and gotten all the candles and paintings out of the background.
> Her face is pretty dark, darker than the walls.
> Flash should have been aimed more towards her head so it stands out the most. Probably could just dodge it a bit in post and it would work well.
> 
> This is just my advice, feel free to take it or not.



^^^That's some good advice.


----------



## e.rose

daggah said:


> I'm going to agree to disagree on the model direction thing.  I'm not going to interrupt someone's flow if they're giving me good results.



But the problem is they weren't very good results.  You will, however, learn to distinguish that the more you shoot this style.  Find amazing photographers in this genre and study how they pose their subjects.  Immerse yourself in that, and then put together a posing guide of your own with your favorite shots, and start to employ them.  :sillysmi:


----------



## Ballistics

e.rose said:


> daggah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to agree to disagree on the model direction thing.  I'm not going to interrupt someone's flow if they're giving me good results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem is they weren't very good results.  You will, however, learn to distinguish that the more you shoot this style.  Find amazing photographers in this genre and study how they pose their subjects.  Immerse yourself in that, and then put together a posing guide of your own with your favorite shots, and start to employ them.  :sillysmi:
Click to expand...


But he thought they were good results, so it's kind of a moot point (kind of). I do the same thing, if the model is running away with the shoot and I like where they are going, I follow them.
Having a posing guide is a good idea.


----------



## e.rose

Ballistics said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daggah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to agree to disagree on the model direction thing.  I'm not going to interrupt someone's flow if they're giving me good results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem is they weren't very good results.  You will, however, learn to distinguish that the more you shoot this style.  Find amazing photographers in this genre and study how they pose their subjects.  Immerse yourself in that, and then put together a posing guide of your own with your favorite shots, and start to employ them.  :sillysmi:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he thought they were good results, so it's kind of a moot point (kind of). I do the same thing, if the model is running away with the shoot and I like where they are going, I follow them.
> Having a posing guide is a good idea.
Click to expand...


Well, I think my point was more that he thinks they're good *now*... but the more he improves, he'll look back on these later and realize they weren't.  

We're all constantly improving.

I do this with images I've shot just a few months prior.  I see things in them I didn't see before, or things that didn't bother me before, do now.


----------



## Ballistics

e.rose said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem is they weren't very good results.  You will, however, learn to distinguish that the more you shoot this style.  Find amazing photographers in this genre and study how they pose their subjects.  Immerse yourself in that, and then put together a posing guide of your own with your favorite shots, and start to employ them.  :sillysmi:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he thought they were good results, so it's kind of a moot point (kind of). I do the same thing, if the model is running away with the shoot and I like where they are going, I follow them.
> Having a posing guide is a good idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I think my point was more that he thinks they're good *now*... but the more he improves, he'll look back on these later and realize they weren't.
> 
> We're all constantly improving.
> 
> I do this with images I've shot just a few months prior.  I see things in them I didn't see before, or things that didn't bother me before, do now.
Click to expand...


Yeah, of course. Same here. But he's getting chastised by others about not directing the model, when that's not really a problem to begin with. The problem is, not knowing what is more appealing which having a 
posing guide would greatly help him, as you said.


----------



## LouR

Ballistics said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> But he thought they were good results, so it's kind of a moot point (kind of). I do the same thing, if the model is running away with the shoot and I like where they are going, I follow them.
> Having a posing guide is a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think my point was more that he thinks they're good *now*... but the more he improves, he'll look back on these later and realize they weren't.
> 
> We're all constantly improving.
> 
> I do this with images I've shot just a few months prior.  I see things in them I didn't see before, or things that didn't bother me before, do now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, of course. Same here. But he's getting chastised by others about not directing the model, when that's not really a problem to begin with. The problem is, not knowing what is more appealing which having a
> posing guide would greatly help him, as you said.
Click to expand...

Aren't they the same thing?  If he has or compiles a posing guide, the model won't run away with the shoot.  She's just doing what she thinks is sexy or good and, because there's nothing guiding either one of them, the shoot generally failed on the aesthetic level. Well, for those of us who weren't drawn in by the sexy outfits and pretty face anyway.


----------



## Ballistics

LouR said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think my point was more that he thinks they're good *now*... but the more he improves, he'll look back on these later and realize they weren't.
> 
> We're all constantly improving.
> 
> I do this with images I've shot just a few months prior.  I see things in them I didn't see before, or things that didn't bother me before, do now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, of course. Same here. But he's getting chastised by others about not directing the model, when that's not really a problem to begin with. The problem is, not knowing what is more appealing which having a
> posing guide would greatly help him, as you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't they the same thing?  If he has or compiles a posing guide, the model won't run away with the shoot.  She's just doing what she thinks is sexy or good and, because there's nothing guiding either one of them, the shoot generally failed on the aesthetic level. Well, for those of us who weren't drawn in by the sexy outfits and pretty face anyway.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but there are models that know what they are doing and need next to no direction, so letting them run away with the shoot isn't a bad thing. 
If something seems out of place, I'll stop the model and begin directing. 
And to put things into perspective, these poses aren't really as bad as people are making them out to be.


----------



## Ballistics

daggah said:


> We did use the couch for some shots, including one that I really like...except one of my light stands ended up in the picture.
> 
> Edit:  also, I'm going to shoot with her again in a few weeks and we plan on doing more "casual" fashion-style shots, outside shots, etc.




I'd like you to post the one with the light stand in the picture.


----------



## Lmphotos

It is very, very, very hard to learn how to pose in my experience and even harder for a woman again check out sue bryce she is a master at posing the female body


----------



## Ballistics

What's so hard about it? 

8 Posing Guides to Inspire Your Portraiture


----------



## daggah

Here's the one with the light stand in the frame:




Sexy in Red #2 by davidgevert, on Flickr

And another on the couch:




Sexy in Red #3 by davidgevert, on Flickr


----------



## Lmphotos

To me the above crotch shots is not good posing. Good posing includes so many elements right down to a models fingers and on top of all that then you have to make them feel comfortable and not feel posed! Sounds like a catch 22 right in my mind its a hard thing to master and on top of all that you have women who usually have some type of insecurity and trying to make them feel comfortable in scant clothing as well as other angles/factors for a woman's body. The above poses nothing about them are feminine, the second with the camera angled up at her even looks feminine. I bought a book by Roberto Valenzuela and he open my mind to posing on a whole different level! What I thought was "good" turned out was not good enough as he thinks of every small detail and finesses his posing so intricately ever since I seen GOOD posing it has become one of the harder things.


----------



## e.rose

Lmphotos said:


> I bought a book by Roberto Valenzuela and he open my mind to posing on a whole different level! What I thought was "good" turned out was not good enough as he thinks of every small detail and finesses his posing so intricately ever since I seen GOOD posing it has become one of the harder things.



What book did you buy?  Feel free to PM me, so we don't derail the thread...


----------



## Ballistics

daggah said:


> Here's the one with the light stand in the frame:
> 
> And another on the couch:




Your first 2 are posed and composed better than these, but these are sharper and lit better.

As for the light stand being in the shot, you can easily clone that out. Don't be afraid to have your stands and stuff in the shot,
just as long as they are easily cropped or cloned.  

#2, your POV could be much better and really improved the shot. In fact, if she stayed exactly like that, you swung to your right so that you are in off to her side and in front of her, you would have had a much stronger shot.
You would have had to change nothing about her. And a slightly more shallow DOF would aid with the shot.


----------



## cgipson1

daggah said:


> LouR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daggah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I liked what she was giving me, so I didn't feel the need to try to direct her more.  I happen to like the poses.
> 
> 
> 
> You said you think you have enough to get into Model Mayhem but did you even look at their top notch images? These poses and their technicals don't come close.  You obviously have talent and equipment, but I gotta tell ya, your attitude sucks.  First, take the C & C for the model, not just your lighting.  As a photographer, you have to be in charge and the model needs to perform based on your direction.  Look at the photos and blogs in Model Mayhem-there's one right on the home page about posing. And lighten up-you think people here are bashing? Wait til the real fun starts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant that I have enough to get my foot in the door.  You need four pictures to even create an account at all, and I had nothing.
> 
> I'm going to agree to disagree on the model direction thing.*  I'm not going to interrupt someone's flow if they're giving me good results.*  I'm not saying I don't need to know how to direct/pose a model or subject because clearly that is something I need to work on.
> 
> And no one even brought up the "bashing" word until you did here.
Click to expand...


That is what many here are trying to say! *She WASN't giving you good results*... and you lack the experience to know that. And yet you keep saying you "liked" it. For a first attempt at anything remotely serious... they are ok... but not anywhere close to good. You also (obviously) lack the experience to direct her properly... but give it time and you can learn that. But not unless you are willing to admit (at least to yourself) that you didn't really have a clue! Otherwise, you will just keep on shooting the same stuff... because you aren't willing to listen. (Interrupt someone's flow? lol!)


----------



## cgipson1

e.rose said:


> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> 
> whyyyyyy!? I feel like the ultra feminist in this group but not a fan of a woman being photographed in this way I think there is a way to photograph a woman and be sexy while still keeping it classy. Needless to say I hate the posing. Was this something she wanted? The outfit choices are horrible she seems like a pretty girl but its hard to tell with the way shes being depicted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I agree with you.  LOL
> 
> I'm not into the "Playboy Styling" type of shoot... but... I didn't mention it because that's a personal opinion based on my tastes.
> 
> ...but yeah I agree.  I have a hard time critiquing stuff like this because my overall reaction is just "I don't like it".
> 
> I have to force myself to be critical of only the technical aspects.
Click to expand...


This AIN'T playboy style!  It is sort of maybe "playing" at playboy style... 

While I find the magazine a bit silly... they do have good lighting and photography most of the time.


----------



## cgipson1

daggah said:


> Here's the one with the light stand in the frame:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sexy in Red #2 by davidgevert, on Flickr
> 
> And another on the couch:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sexy in Red #3 by davidgevert, on Flickr



This is like "Soft Lonely Housewife Porn"! Is that what you were going for? Not attractive.... The model is ok, but the poses, outfits, and expressions are just not attractive.... imo!


----------



## Robin_Usagani

I dont think you can blame it on the photographer 100%.   Based on her outfit she chose to wear and the location, I think it was destined to fail.  If I was shooting her, I would have encouraged her to wear something that someone would wear at home, not a dancer outfit.  Why cant she wear lingerie or something?  I dont get it.


----------



## daggah

Kindly remove yourself from my thread, Charlie.


----------



## cgipson1

daggah said:


> Kindly remove yourself from my thread, Charlie.



hahaha... sure! I shouldn't have bothered...

Although I do have the right to post here! You can't selectively pick who you allow to post! But I said what I wanted to say... and you obviously don't want to learn!


----------



## jamborras

I'm definitely not an expert but ^^^^ was exactly what I was thinking... Homemade house wife "porn"


----------



## daggah

Robin_Usagani said:


> I dont think you can blame it on the photographer 100%.   Based on her outfit she chose to wear and the location, I think it was destined to fail.  If I was shooting her, I would have encouraged her to wear something that someone would wear at home, not a dancer outfit.  Why cant she wear lingerie or something?  I dont get it.



There's reasons for the outfits that I don't want to go into here, actually.  But that's a subjective thing.  I'm looking more for feedback on the technicals and less on whether people find the model or her attire attractive.


----------



## Ballistics

Lmphotos said:


> To me the above crotch shots is not good posing. Good posing includes so many elements right down to a models fingers and on top of all that then you have to make them feel comfortable and not feel posed! Sounds like a catch 22 right in my mind its a hard thing to master and on top of all that you have women who usually have some type of insecurity and trying to make them feel comfortable in scant clothing as well as other angles/factors for a woman's body. The above poses nothing about them are feminine, the second with the camera angled up at her even looks feminine. I bought a book by Roberto Valenzuela and he open my mind to posing on a whole different level! What I thought was "good" turned out was not good enough as he thinks of every small detail and finesses his posing so intricately ever since I seen GOOD posing it has become one of the harder things.



I didn't say that the poses were perfect. But they aren't as bad as you guys are making them out to be. In fact, they are a lot better than you make them out to be. 
Like e-rose said, this may not be your cup of tea, but if you are going to critique, you have to do it without bias. Also, just because you read somewhere that shooting at an upward angle makes a woman look less feminine, doesn't mean it's true all the time. It's also an empowerment angle. And it can be used for women as well. And I'll tell you, you don't think these poses are feminine, but they certainly aren't masculine.


----------



## e.rose

cgipson1 said:


> While I find the magazine a bit silly... they do have good lighting and photography most of the time.



That's actually true.   I was referring more to the genre when I said that.


----------



## cgipson1

e.rose said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I find the magazine a bit silly... they do have good lighting and photography most of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually true.   I was referring more to the genre when I said that.
Click to expand...


I luvs ya, E!


----------



## Lmphotos

They all feed in together and IMO they are all technical aspects. You can have a perfectly lit image, with perfect exposure but if the content is not there the shoot is a fail.


----------



## e.rose

cgipson1 said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I find the magazine a bit silly... they do have good lighting and photography most of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually true.   I was referring more to the genre when I said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I luvs ya, E!
Click to expand...


Luv ya back!


----------



## jamborras

:raisedbrow: Charlie actually gives really great advice, the only way to get better is to embrace both the positive and negative, and to learn from the experienced...


----------



## daggah

Ballistics said:


> I didn't say that the poses were perfect. But they aren't as bad as you guys are making them out to be. In fact, they are a lot better than you make them out to be.
> Like e-rose said, this may not be your cup of tea, but if you are going to critique, you have to do it without bias. Also, just because you read somewhere that shooting at an upward angle makes a woman look less feminine, doesn't mean it's true all the time. It's also an empowerment angle. And it can be used for women as well. And I'll tell you, you don't think these poses are feminine, but they certainly aren't masculine.



I actually had reasons for avoiding angles that might make her seem more submissive, the upward angles were a deliberate decision on my part.


----------



## Ballistics

daggah said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think you can blame it on the photographer 100%.   Based on her outfit she chose to wear and the location, I think it was destined to fail.  If I was shooting her, I would have encouraged her to wear something that someone would wear at home, not a dancer outfit.  Why cant she wear lingerie or something?  I dont get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's reasons for the outfits that I don't want to go into here, actually.  But that's a subjective thing.  I'm looking more for feedback on the technicals and less on whether people find the model or her attire attractive.
Click to expand...


There's a lot of old fashioned and very one track minded members on here. The best thing you can do is nod and smile. Let them say their peace, and they'll move on. Otherwise, they'll trash and derail your thread with their "Only the way I shoot is right" mentality, insult you for not agreeing with them, and then you'll be on the fast track to a closed thread.


----------



## daggah

jamborras said:


> :raisedbrow: Charlie actually gives really great advice, the only way to get better is to embrace both the positive and negative, and to learn from the experienced...



In the interests of keeping it civil, I'll simply say I agree to disagree.


----------



## daggah

Ballistics said:


> daggah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think you can blame it on the photographer 100%.   Based on her outfit she chose to wear and the location, I think it was destined to fail.  If I was shooting her, I would have encouraged her to wear something that someone would wear at home, not a dancer outfit.  Why cant she wear lingerie or something?  I dont get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's reasons for the outfits that I don't want to go into here, actually.  But that's a subjective thing.  I'm looking more for feedback on the technicals and less on whether people find the model or her attire attractive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a lot of old fashioned and very one track minded members on here. The best thing you can do is nod and smile. Let them say their peace, and they'll move on. Otherwise, they'll trash and derail your thread with their "Only the way I shoot is right" mentality, insult you for not agreeing with them, and then you'll be on the fast track to a closed thread.
Click to expand...


I think you're right.  Perhaps I should've posted my request for feedback on another forum that I post on, that separates its critique forums into beginner, intermediate, and advanced categories.


----------



## e.rose

daggah said:


> jamborras said:
> 
> 
> 
> :raisedbrow: Charlie actually gives really great advice, the only way to get better is to embrace both the positive and negative, and to learn from the experienced...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the interests of keeping it civil, I'll simply say I agree to disagree.
Click to expand...


Boooooooooriiiiiiing.


----------



## e.rose

daggah said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daggah said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's reasons for the outfits that I don't want to go into here, actually.  But that's a subjective thing.  I'm looking more for feedback on the technicals and less on whether people find the model or her attire attractive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of old fashioned and very one track minded members on here. The best thing you can do is nod and smile. Let them say their peace, and they'll move on. Otherwise, they'll trash and derail your thread with their "Only the way I shoot is right" mentality, insult you for not agreeing with them, and then you'll be on the fast track to a closed thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're right.  Perhaps I should've posted my request for feedback on another forum that I post on, that separates its critique forums into beginner, intermediate, and advanced categories.
Click to expand...


There *IS* a beginners category here...


----------



## Ballistics

Lmphotos said:


> They all feed in together and IMO they are all technical aspects. You can have a perfectly lit image, with perfect exposure but if the content is not there the shoot is a fail.



What I don't understand is, why these critique threads of people who are clearly learning, are approached with such strict and forceful opinions. To call a shoot a fail because he's not great at posing, is a bit pretentious. 
We all start from somewhere.


----------



## Ballistics

e.rose said:


> daggah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of old fashioned and very one track minded members on here. The best thing you can do is nod and smile. Let them say their peace, and they'll move on. Otherwise, they'll trash and derail your thread with their "Only the way I shoot is right" mentality, insult you for not agreeing with them, and then you'll be on the fast track to a closed thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're right.  Perhaps I should've posted my request for feedback on another forum that I post on, that separates its critique forums into beginner, intermediate, and advanced categories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There *IS* a beginners category here...
Click to expand...


I know, and they don't allow critiques there anymore. That's where I think the forum went wrong.


----------



## daggah

e.rose said:


> There *IS* a beginners category here...



Picture C&C is not what that forum is for though.


----------



## jamborras

Good grief dude, why even ask what people think if you only want the opinions that mirror your own?


----------



## e.rose

Ballistics said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daggah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're right.  Perhaps I should've posted my request for feedback on another forum that I post on, that separates its critique forums into beginner, intermediate, and advanced categories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There *IS* a beginners category here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, and they don't allow critiques there anymore. That's where I think the forum went wrong.
Click to expand...


Dafuq?  Since when?  Where the hell was I when that happened?


----------



## Ballistics

jamborras said:


> Good grief dude, why even ask what people think if you only want the opinions that mirror your own?



C'mon, are you new to real life? Not everyone that disagrees with you, does it with the intention to help you improve, or are even right in the first place.


----------



## Ballistics

e.rose said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> There *IS* a beginners category here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, and they don't allow critiques there anymore. That's where I think the forum went wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dafuq?  Since when?  Where the hell was I when that happened?
Click to expand...


PFFF It's been almost a year!  Where have you been?


----------



## Lmphotos

Ballistics said:


> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me the above crotch shots is not good posing. Good posing includes so many elements right down to a models fingers and on top of all that then you have to make them feel comfortable and not feel posed! Sounds like a catch 22 right in my mind its a hard thing to master and on top of all that you have women who usually have some type of insecurity and trying to make them feel comfortable in scant clothing as well as other angles/factors for a woman's body. The above poses nothing about them are feminine, the second with the camera angled up at her even looks feminine. I bought a book by Roberto Valenzuela and he open my mind to posing on a whole different level! What I thought was "good" turned out was not good enough as he thinks of every small detail and finesses his posing so intricately ever since I seen GOOD posing it has become one of the harder things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that the poses were perfect. But they aren't as bad as you guys are making them out to be. In fact, they are a lot better than you make them out to be.
> Like e-rose said, this may not be your cup of tea, but if you are going to critique, you have to do it without bias. Also, just because you read somewhere that shooting at an upward angle makes a woman look less feminine, doesn't mean it's true all the time. It's also an empowerment angle. And it can be used for women as well. And I'll tell you, you don't think these poses are feminine, but they certainly aren't masculine.
Click to expand...


I showed it to my husband who is without bias......on #1 he said hooker and cheap #2 he said manly and thought she looked very unattractive. My husband knows nothing about photography. I see the girl and she has potential for some great shots if executed well. There was a guy today who posted a shoot similar to this and even though I am not a fan of it his was leaps and bounds better than this.


----------



## e.rose

Ballistics said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, and they don't allow critiques there anymore. That's where I think the forum went wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dafuq?  Since when?  Where the hell was I when that happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PFFF It's been almost a year!  Where have you been?
Click to expand...


Out improving MAH MAD PHOTOG SKIIIIIILLLLZZZZZZ.


----------



## jamborras

I agree B, however, on here there is usually only helpful critiques (from what I've read) what would anyone of these amazing photographers have to gain by disagreeing just for the hell of it, with someone who isn't even on the same level ?? It's obvious to me that they are just helping and this guy is just super defensive over his pics. But I'm not here to be in any online drama. :banghead:


----------



## Ballistics

Lmphotos said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me the above crotch shots is not good posing. Good posing includes so many elements right down to a models fingers and on top of all that then you have to make them feel comfortable and not feel posed! Sounds like a catch 22 right in my mind its a hard thing to master and on top of all that you have women who usually have some type of insecurity and trying to make them feel comfortable in scant clothing as well as other angles/factors for a woman's body. The above poses nothing about them are feminine, the second with the camera angled up at her even looks feminine. I bought a book by Roberto Valenzuela and he open my mind to posing on a whole different level! What I thought was "good" turned out was not good enough as he thinks of every small detail and finesses his posing so intricately ever since I seen GOOD posing it has become one of the harder things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that the poses were perfect. But they aren't as bad as you guys are making them out to be. In fact, they are a lot better than you make them out to be.
> Like e-rose said, this may not be your cup of tea, but if you are going to critique, you have to do it without bias. Also, just because you read somewhere that shooting at an upward angle makes a woman look less feminine, doesn't mean it's true all the time. It's also an empowerment angle. And it can be used for women as well. And I'll tell you, you don't think these poses are feminine, but they certainly aren't masculine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed it to my husband who is without bias......on #1 he said hooker and cheap #2 he said manly and thought she looked very unattractive. My husband knows nothing about photography. I see the girl and she has potential for some great shots if executed well. There was a guy today who posted a shoot similar to this and even though I am not a fan of it his was leaps and bounds better than this.
Click to expand...


Oh, well since your husband without any photographic knowledge agrees with you, case closed then  

For starters, if the first shot was done in a bathing suit on a beach, the comments here wouldn't be like this. It's a pretty typical pose.
Also - I didn't say that the initial poses were good. I said they weren't as bad as everyone is making them out to be. 

I'll give you the outfit, it's definitely a bit cheesy, but both the model and the photographer like it, so that's not my concern.


----------



## e.rose

jamborras said:


> But I'm not here to be in any online drama. :banghead:



Why not? It's fun. 

...Kidding.  Sort of.

I've had too much coffee...

WHO WANTS SOME WINE?!


----------



## TATTRAT

Reminds me of the type of stuff some ladies do to send off to the men who are serving overseas.


----------



## jamborras

Wine sounds fab.. Sign me up for a couple bottles! Err, I mean glasses!!


----------



## Ballistics

jamborras said:


> I agree B, however, on here there is usually only helpful critiques (from what I've read) what would anyone of these amazing photographers have to gain by disagreeing just for the hell of it, with someone who isn't even on the same level ?? It's obvious to me that they are just helping and this guy is just super defensive over his pics. But I'm not here to be in any online drama. :banghead:



You're an optimist. That'll go away as your post count gets bigger 

As for the something to gain question - It's got nothing to do with gain. Some people are just extremely bitter and others just like to impose their own agendas on other people.

And the OP wasn't being defensive. People didn't like the content, and he said if you don't like it you can leave. It goes both ways. You don't get immunity to critique just because
someone asks for it.


----------



## jamborras

Ok B, I will submit to your opinion! I guess I haven't been around long enough here or in life to be bitter


----------



## Pallycow

I think a lot of people don't read the part about "first time"

How many of us/you hit a home run first time up?

They are happy with what they got, because they don't know any better.  That's not an insult, it's reality.  They will both look back on these and go "man...we were dumb"

However, for now...it's not so terrible as to deserve much of the comments here on posing, cheap look, etc etc.  They are young, and young people just don't know.  I'm sure he'll keep at it, and learn.

Some good constructive criticism was given here, and I think the OP will get it and use it next time.

Give them a break...it's first time and he does not have the attitude of some of the first time douches on here.  So I say get off your feminism horses and realize they are young and trying.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

daggah said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think you can blame it on the photographer 100%. Based on her outfit she chose to wear and the location, I think it was destined to fail. If I was shooting her, I would have encouraged her to wear something that someone would wear at home, not a dancer outfit. Why cant she wear lingerie or something? I dont get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's reasons for the outfits that I don't want to go into here, actually. But that's a subjective thing. I'm looking more for feedback on the technicals and less on whether people find the model or her attire attractive.
Click to expand...


I am sorry, outfit and location is part of technicals.  The outfit can work if you had picked a better location.  Or perhaps do it in the studio.  Usually it is easier to change outfit than location though.  Last time I had a similar shoot, all I had to work with was a small apartment.  Guess what?  I took down the curtain, took down picture frames, decoration etc. to make it look as simple as possible.  I went with implied nude.











Wanna go a little naughty?  Sure... but really think about it.  Working girl outfit in a living room environment just wont work unless you put a guy in there too.


----------



## Pallycow

Implied nudity for the win. 

Sometimes plain old nude can work and be very sexy, if you use lighting right to make it sexy.  However I am a big fan of implied nudity as Robin pointed out.

To add to my point earlier.

Robin - not a newb
OP - a newb

You can't look at a newb and expect to see such works.  It is usually going to be a bit tasteless, maybe even tacky.  That is where we help them, not give them chit.

Too many people around here forget that we are better off helping each other instead of being a douche.  Well, except for the newbs who deserve it...those are just fun.   lol

I don't feel this guy is the typcial douche newb we see on here, and I think a few should just put on their helping hat instead of their asshat.


----------



## Pallycow

Robin, I like how you left the stuff on the fridge.  Says "house mom" being sexy to me.  Dunno if that was intentional or not, but I like that shot and I like that you left the stuff on the fridge.


----------



## Ballistics

Robin, you as a professional photographer are really comparing a shoot you did after how many years of experience, to a guy doing it for the first time. You really showed him.


----------



## Lmphotos

Robin_Usagani said:


> daggah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think you can blame it on the photographer 100%. Based on her outfit she chose to wear and the location, I think it was destined to fail. If I was shooting her, I would have encouraged her to wear something that someone would wear at home, not a dancer outfit. Why cant she wear lingerie or something? I dont get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's reasons for the outfits that I don't want to go into here, actually. But that's a subjective thing. I'm looking more for feedback on the technicals and less on whether people find the model or her attire attractive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry, outfit and location is part of technicals.  The outfit can work if you had picked a better location.  Or perhaps do it in the studio.  Usually it is easier to change outfit than location though.  Last time I had a similar shoot, all I had to work with was a small apartment.  Guess what?  I took down the curtain, took down picture frames, decoration etc. to make it look as simple as possible.  I went with implied nude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna go a little naughty?  Sure... but really think about it.  Working girl outfit in a living room environment just wont work unless you put a guy in there too.
Click to expand...


Yes! MUCH better!


----------



## jamborras

Pallycow said:


> I think a lot of people don't read the part about "first time"
> 
> How many of us/you hit a home run first time up?
> 
> They are happy with what they got, because they don't know any better.  That's not an insult, it's reality.  They will both look back on these and go "man...we were dumb"
> 
> However, for now...it's not so terrible as to deserve much of the comments here on posing, cheap look, etc etc.  They are young, and young people just don't know.  I'm sure he'll keep at it, and learn.
> 
> Some good constructive criticism was given here, and I think the OP will get it and use it next time.
> 
> Give them a break...it's first time and he does not have the attitude of some of the first time douches on here.  So I say get off your feminism horses and realize they are young and trying.



coming from someone who's probably hit many home runs during his "first time"
just a thought...


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Mmmhhh... I was pretty much a newbie when I shot that long ago.



Ballistics said:


> Robin, you as a professional photographer are really comparing a shoot you did after how many years of experience, to a guy doing it for the first time. You really showed him.


----------



## Lmphotos

Ballistics said:


> Robin, you as a professional photographer are really comparing a shoot you did after how many years of experience, to a guy doing it for the first time. You really showed him.



Wow.......He is trying to help by showing examples! You even earlier said post examples of your work to show him how to pose. Now someone did it and you bash them for it which way is it?


----------



## Ballistics

Yes! MUCH better![/QUOTE]

So I guess the general idea of a good critique, is find an established professional who's been doing it for years and compare their work directly to the beginner OP. 

No sh+t it's much better. This is the OP's first shoot. .


----------



## Ballistics

Robin_Usagani said:


> Mmmhhh... I was pretty much a newbie when I shot that long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robin, you as a professional photographer are really comparing a shoot you did after how many years of experience, to a guy doing it for the first time. You really showed him.
Click to expand...


Long ago in 2012?


----------



## Lmphotos

Ballistics said:


> Yes! MUCH better!



So I guess the general idea of a good critique, is find an established professional who's been doing it for years and compare their work directly to the beginner OP. 

No sh+t it's much better. This is the OP's first shoot. .[/QUOTE]

Did you miss where Robin said he was a newb when he shot that? Read on buddy....


----------



## Ballistics

Lmphotos said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robin, you as a professional photographer are really comparing a shoot you did after how many years of experience, to a guy doing it for the first time. You really showed him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.......He is trying to help by showing examples! You even earlier said post examples of your work to show him how to pose. Now someone did it and you bash them for it which way is it?
Click to expand...


Yeah... let's take that whole thing out of context. Christ, you people and your one way street mentality.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Ballistics said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mmmhhh... I was pretty much a newbie when I shot that long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robin, you as a professional photographer are really comparing a shoot you did after how many years of experience, to a guy doing it for the first time. You really showed him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Long ago in 2012?
Click to expand...


I guess you have no idea how long I have been shooting.


----------



## Ballistics

Lmphotos said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! MUCH better!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess the general idea of a good critique, is find an established professional who's been doing it for years and compare their work directly to the beginner OP.
> 
> No sh+t it's much better. This is the OP's first shoot. .
Click to expand...




> Did you miss where Robin said he was a newb when he shot that? Read on buddy....



No, that was shot a year ago. He wasn't a newb. That's a flat out lie... buddy.


----------



## Ballistics

Robin_Usagani said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mmmhhh... I was pretty much a newbie when I shot that long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long ago in 2012?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you have no idea how long I have been shooting.
Click to expand...


Since at least 2010. 2 years of shooting, and you're a newb. K.


----------



## PinkDoor

Derailing at it's best!   For a little critique on facials. . . I get that you were letting her run with it, but I would have suggested some different facial expressions. Another suggestion would be to shoot from above, not straight on.  PLEASE don't bash me for my example - I know I've cropped out body parts


----------



## Thayli

Well this escalated quickly.


"And the man at the back said...."


----------



## cgipson1

PinkDoor said:


> Derailing at it's best!   For a little critique on facials. . . I get that you were letting her run with it, but I would have suggested some different facial expressions. Another suggestion would be to shoot from above, not straight on.  PLEASE don't bash me for my example - I know I've cropped out body parts
> View attachment 39417



Nice! GOOD example! Soft skin, good color, lots of interest, and no "Cheesiness"!


----------



## Ballistics

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/professional-gallery/252252-s-married-lot-pics.html

2011 - I guess this is when you just started out... shooting a wedding... look how _newbish_ these pictures are. :er:


----------



## Ballistics

PinkDoor said:


> Derailing at it's best!   For a little critique on facials. . . I get that you were letting her run with it, but I would have suggested some different facial expressions. Another suggestion would be to shoot from above, not straight on.  PLEASE don't bash me for my example - I know I've cropped out body parts
> View attachment 39417



Excellent.


----------



## e.rose

Can someone come clone out some hair from my model's eye?  It's pissing me off.  And I'm too much of a PS newb to make it work right. :banghead:


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Ballistics said:


> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/professional-gallery/252252-s-married-lot-pics.html
> 
> 2011 - I guess this is when you just started out... shooting a wedding... look how _newbish_ these pictures are. :er:



What are you trying to proof?  That was really my first indoor female session.  Yes, I was a noob.  I did my homework though.  What are you saying about those wedding photos?

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/professional-gallery/271923-nsfw-miss-b-boudoir.html


----------



## Ballistics

e.rose said:


> Can someone come clone out some hair from my model's eye?  It's pissing me off.  And I'm too much of a PS newb to make it work right. :banghead:



Can I suggest this book?:

Professional Portrait Retouching Techniques for Photographers Using Photoshop (Voices That Matter): Scott Kelby: 9780321725547: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## PinkDoor

Y'all are sweet - thank you for the kind critique on my derailed post of the derailing


----------



## Ballistics

Robin_Usagani said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/professional-gallery/252252-s-married-lot-pics.html
> 
> 2011 - I guess this is when you just started out... shooting a wedding... look how _newbish_ these pictures are. :er:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to proof?  That was really my first indoor female session.  Yes, I was a noob.  I did my homework though.  What are you saying about those wedding photos?
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/professional-gallery/271923-nsfw-miss-b-boudoir.html
Click to expand...


That they are 100% legit expert quality work. And you already know that. Going from editorial and photojournalistic style wedding photography, to a boudoir is not some giant leap that you are so out of touch with what to do.


----------



## cgipson1

Ballistics said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mmmhhh... I was pretty much a newbie when I shot that long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robin, you as a professional photographer are really comparing a shoot you did after how many years of experience, to a guy doing it for the first time. You really showed him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Long ago in 2012?
Click to expand...


Ballistics.... here is Robins sixth thread  

(Started by Schwettylens, 06-15-2010 08:08 PM)     http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/welcomes-introductions/206966-forgot-introduce-my-self.html



Schwettylens said:


> I'm Robinson 32 from Denver Colorado.  I am a  structural engineer but I love messing with my camera and photoshop.  I  just picked up a DSLR a month ago (T1i) with 18-55mm, 55-250mm, and  50mm f/1.4.
> 
> The whole reason I bought the camera because recently we were blessed  with 3 triplet girls.  So I want to make sure I take good pictures of  them.  Here is my photography website.  Right now I do bunch of free  work to gain experience.  Eventually I would like to earn some extra  money to help feed the babies LOL.  Please let me know what you think.



So based on this.. he bought his first DSLR in 5-15-2010... not that long ago! But he has talent, and was willing to learn... and worked really hard at it. Look at his stuff now.. it rocks!


----------



## e.rose

Ballistics said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone come clone out some hair from my model's eye?  It's pissing me off.  And I'm too much of a PS newb to make it work right. :banghead:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I suggest this book?:
> 
> Professional Portrait Retouching Techniques for Photographers Using Photoshop (Voices That Matter): Scott Kelby: 9780321725547: Amazon.com: Books
Click to expand...


I've owned that book for a year.  It's not helping my hair situation right now.  

::insert frustrated sigh::


----------



## Pallycow

Just so no one is confused.  I don't like the pics.  I think they are just two kids messing around with a camera, certainly not portfolio worthy.

So don't be confused by my statements earlier.  

I think if he's willing to listen, and we are willing to help, he can do better.  

They are not terrible photos, for a first time.  

Time will tell, and allow us to see if he is interested in learning.


----------



## Pallycow

jamborras said:


> Pallycow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of people don't read the part about "first time"
> 
> How many of us/you hit a home run first time up?
> 
> They are happy with what they got, because they don't know any better.  That's not an insult, it's reality.  They will both look back on these and go "man...we were dumb"
> 
> However, for now...it's not so terrible as to deserve much of the comments here on posing, cheap look, etc etc.  They are young, and young people just don't know.  I'm sure he'll keep at it, and learn.
> 
> Some good constructive criticism was given here, and I think the OP will get it and use it next time.
> 
> Give them a break...it's first time and he does not have the attitude of some of the first time douches on here.  So I say get off your feminism horses and realize they are young and trying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coming from someone who's probably hit many home runs during his "first time"
> just a thought...
Click to expand...


Quiet you, you're going to give me a big head.

Pun intended.


----------



## Ballistics

cgipson1 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mmmhhh... I was pretty much a newbie when I shot that long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long ago in 2012?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ballistics.... here is Robins sixth thread
> 
> (Started by Schwettylens, 06-15-2010 08:08 PM)     http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/welcomes-introductions/206966-forgot-introduce-my-self.html
> 
> 
> 
> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm Robinson 32 from Denver Colorado.  I am a  structural engineer but I love messing with my camera and photoshop.  I  just picked up a DSLR a month ago (T1i) with 18-55mm, 55-250mm, and  50mm f/1.4.
> 
> The whole reason I bought the camera because recently we were blessed  with 3 triplet girls.  So I want to make sure I take good pictures of  them.  Here is my photography website.  Right now I do bunch of free  work to gain experience.  Eventually I would like to earn some extra  money to help feed the babies LOL.  Please let me know what you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


A lot changed in 2 years.


----------



## e.rose

Pally... nice signature!


----------



## Ballistics

Pallycow said:


> Just so no one is confused.  I don't like the pics.  I think they are just two kids messing around with a camera, certainly not portfolio worthy.
> 
> So don't be confused by my statements earlier.
> 
> I think if he's willing to listen, and we are willing to help, he can do better.
> 
> They are not terrible photos, for a first time.
> 
> Time will tell, and allow us to see if he is interested in learning.



My feelings to the T.


----------



## cgipson1

Got yer back, Robin! I was concerned you might not want me digging up old names and threads....   

I do love that SEARCH function, lol! (when it works, at least!)


----------



## jamborras

Pallycow said:


> jamborras said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pallycow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of people don't read the part about "first time"
> 
> How many of us/you hit a home run first time up?
> 
> They are happy with what they got, because they don't know any better.  That's not an insult, it's reality.  They will both look back on these and go "man...we were dumb"
> 
> 
> 
> However, for now...it's not so terrible as to deserve much of the comments here on posing, cheap look, etc etc.  They are young, and young people just don't know.  I'm sure he'll keep at it, and learn.
> 
> Some good constructive criticism was given here, and I think the OP will get it and use it next time.
> 
> Give them a break...it's first time and he does not have the attitude of some of the first time douches on here.  So I say get off your feminism horses and realize they are young and trying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coming from someone who's probably hit many home runs during his "first time"
> just a thought...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quiet you, you're going to give me a big head.
> 
> Pun intended.
Click to expand...



I do what I can 
anything to help the cause


----------



## Pallycow

e.rose said:


> Pally... nice signature!



Thanks.    Your siggy of Tylers quote is still one of my faves.  I use it in real life often.  lol


----------



## Pallycow

e.rose said:


> Pally... nice signature!




one of my other favorite replies to that question is 

"how long is a rope"

when they stand there confused I just let them think about it a bit.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Well... I really don't know what other example I could post.  I simply wanted to put example as close as possible to the scenario the OP had.  3 more months, I will hit my 3rd anniversary shooting so yeah.. february 2012 seems a long time ago.  I was a little crazy with wedding though.  I was a classic example of a Best buy wedding photographer.



Ballistics said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Long ago in 2012?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics.... here is Robins sixth thread
> 
> (Started by Schwettylens, 06-15-2010 08:08 PM)     http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/welcomes-introductions/206966-forgot-introduce-my-self.html
> 
> 
> 
> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm Robinson 32 from Denver Colorado.  I am a  structural engineer but I love messing with my camera and photoshop.  I  just picked up a DSLR a month ago (T1i) with 18-55mm, 55-250mm, and  50mm f/1.4.
> 
> The whole reason I bought the camera because recently we were blessed  with 3 triplet girls.  So I want to make sure I take good pictures of  them.  Here is my photography website.  Right now I do bunch of free  work to gain experience.  Eventually I would like to earn some extra  money to help feed the babies LOL.  Please let me know what you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot changed in 2 years.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pallycow

I took robins post as an example of what others were saying shots should be, not as an example of something better than the OP's in comparison.

Apples and Oranges people.


----------



## e.rose

Pallycow said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pally... nice signature!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one of my other favorite replies to that question is
> 
> "how long is a rope"
> 
> when they stand there confused I just let them think about it a bit.
Click to expand...


I think that even goes over *my* head.  :lmao:


----------



## e.rose

Pallycow said:


> I took robins post as an example of what others were saying shots should be, not as an example of something better than the OP's in comparison.
> 
> Apples and Oranges people.




These people hate fruit.


----------



## Pallycow

There is no answer silly.  Just like there is no answer to the "what settings" question.

although one kid did reply with "double half it's length"


----------



## Pallycow

e.rose said:


> Pallycow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I took robins post as an example of what others were saying shots should be, not as an example of something better than the OP's in comparison.
> 
> Apples and Oranges people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These people hate fruit.
Click to expand...


Oftentimes I forget where I am posting.  lol


----------



## e.rose

Pallycow said:


> There is no answer silly.  Just like there is no answer to the "what settings" question.
> 
> although one kid did reply with "double half it's length"



:lmao:

That kid... is going to get far in life.   Clever.  I like it.


----------



## Ballistics

Robin_Usagani said:


> Well... I really don't know what other example I could post.  I simply wanted to put example as close as possible to the scenario the OP had.  3 more months, I will hit my 3rd anniversary shooting so yeah.. february 2012 seems a long time ago.  I was a little crazy with wedding though.  I was a classic example of a Best buy wedding photographer.
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics.... here is Robins sixth thread
> 
> (Started by Schwettylens, 06-15-2010 08:08 PM)     http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/welcomes-introductions/206966-forgot-introduce-my-self.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot changed in 2 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The example is fine. I wish more experienced senior members chimed in with examples, but it came off as condescending with the "Look what I did with what little I had". Followed by the "Yes! Much Better",
I read that as a "Look at mine... now look at your crap" (lol) comment.


----------



## Ballistics

Pallycow said:


> I took robins post as an example of what others were saying shots should be, not as an example of something better than the OP's in comparison.
> 
> Apples and Oranges people.



I took it as the latter... I think... wait. What?


----------



## Pallycow

lol   isn't perception fun?


----------



## Ballistics

I think we're all on the same page... just not in the same book now


----------



## e.rose

I still want someone to clone this damn hair.


----------



## cgipson1

e.rose said:


> I still want someone to clone this damn hair.



Ah wuld hep if ah can... whur da pic?


----------



## cgipson1

Ballistics said:


> I think we're all on the same page... just not in the same book now



I agree.... you are probably in the Book of Five Rings, Mish is in 50 shades of Grey, and I am in The Number of the Beast! The rest, who knows!


----------



## e.rose

cgipson1 said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still want someone to clone this damn hair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah wuld hep if ah can... whur da pic?
Click to expand...


On my computer.   

I'm working on it.  Slowly.  At 400%.

I need more wine.


----------



## Pallycow

what are you babbling about?  you seriously know how to edit your own chit....drink more wine.


----------



## Pallycow

...and if it was a pic of you naked, I'd gladly work on it.  Not your customers pics.  How boring.

*edit

I mean implied naked.


----------



## e.rose

Pallycow said:


> what are you babbling about?  you seriously know how to edit your own chit....drink more wine.



Yeah but... the SHADOWS... I can't edit the damn hairs out cleanly because of the SHADOWS... cause of the way I brilliantly decided to LIGHT it.  -.-

::sigh::

I was doing so well and then I hit a wall again.  I'm about to say eff it.



Pallycow said:


> ...and if it was a pic of you naked, I'd gladly work on it.  Not your customers pics.  How boring.
> 
> *edit
> 
> I mean implied naked.



You will have to get those from my husband.

But I will warn you, he doesn't like sharing much... :lmao:


----------



## Pallycow

e.rose said:


> Pallycow said:
> 
> 
> 
> what are you babbling about?  you seriously know how to edit your own chit....drink more wine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but... the SHADOWS... I can't edit the damn hairs out cleanly because of the SHADOWS... cause of the way I brilliantly decided to LIGHT it.  -.-
> 
> ::sigh::
> 
> I was doing so well and then I hit a wall again.  I'm about to say eff it.
> 
> 
> 
> Pallycow said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and if it was a pic of you naked, I'd gladly work on it.  Not your customers pics.  How boring.
> 
> *edit
> 
> I mean implied naked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will have to get those from my husband.
> 
> But I will warn you, he doesn't like sharing much... :lmao:
Click to expand...



I know he doesn't, so I'll just have to add that to my list, you know that list that involves winning the lottery...and other chit like that that will never happen.

Send me your file, I'll fix your damn hair for you.


----------



## e.rose

Pallycow said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pallycow said:
> 
> 
> 
> what are you babbling about?  you seriously know how to edit your own chit....drink more wine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but... the SHADOWS... I can't edit the damn hairs out cleanly because of the SHADOWS... cause of the way I brilliantly decided to LIGHT it.  -.-
> 
> ::sigh::
> 
> I was doing so well and then I hit a wall again.  I'm about to say eff it.
> 
> 
> 
> Pallycow said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and if it was a pic of you naked, I'd gladly work on it.  Not your customers pics.  How boring.
> 
> *edit
> 
> I mean implied naked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will have to get those from my husband.
> 
> But I will warn you, he doesn't like sharing much... :lmao:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know he doesn't, so I'll just have to add that to my list, you know that list that involves winning the lottery...and other chit like that that will never happen.
> 
> Send me your file, I'll fix your damn hair for you.
Click to expand...


Only if you promise to tell me how the hell you did it.  

I have to learn... I won't learn if you just do it for me. 

Where do I send it?


----------



## Pallycow

of course I'll tell ya.  I have no secrets in the world of editing.

ernieparrow@yahoo.com


----------



## e.rose

S'takin' a few....


----------



## Ballistics

You guys need to get a drop box going.


----------



## Pallycow

I was wondering, lol.  I even checked my spam folder in case Yahoo doesn't like you.


----------



## e.rose

Pallycow said:


> I was wondering, lol.  I even checked my spam folder in case Yahoo doesn't like you.



I'm using wetransfer, but it's only at 72% haha.

In the meantime I've been working on it... I may actually have figured it out.  LOL


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Pallycow said:


> ...and if it was a pic of you naked, I'd gladly work on it.  Not your customers pics.  How boring.
> 
> *edit
> 
> I mean implied naked.



Back off!


----------



## Pallycow

Robin_Usagani said:


> Pallycow said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and if it was a pic of you naked, I'd gladly work on it.  Not your customers pics.  How boring.
> 
> *edit
> 
> I mean implied naked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back off!
Click to expand...



sorry for cockblocking Robin, I know you've been trying for years.  lol  broke the man-code.  my bad.


----------



## e.rose

Yeah Pally, I got it.  Thanks though.  :sillysmi:

(I'm a stubborn *****.  I don't like letting Photoshop win.  :lmao: )


----------



## Pallycow

lol. Usually how it works.  

on a good note.  we have successfully derailed this thread entirely.

Hijack ftw.


----------



## e.rose

::HIGH FIVE!::


----------



## o hey tyler

Que?


----------



## Granddad

... Back to the thread...  

For a first time they're not that bad, lighting is OK, pretty model. I won't go into my thoughts on background because that's been well covered. The photos don't float my boat but I'm not a fan of the genre (maybe I'm getting too old). I've tried to put my natural negativity to one side.

My thoughts on using these to open an account on Model Mayhem - If your goal is to be able to say that you have an account on Model Mayhem then go ahead. If you want to build a rep as a competent glamour photographer I'd be patient, use these as a learning experience and hold off till next time, or the time after. If it were me making that decision the focus issues in #1 and the dirty mirror in #2 would be enough to force that option. Model Mayhem will likely be there in 6 months time and first impressions are important. 

Good glamour photography is hard to get right, I tried once by the model's request (recently) and won't be in a hurry to try again. My model showed up with what she thought was sexy lingerie but what I though was cheap ebay tat: getting her to try any expression other than duck face was harder than finding feathers on a horse. Though the shots were in focus, pretty well lit and might have got some good responses by blokes who still have hormones flowing I didn't even give her copies of that section of the shoot. I'm only semi pro but I don't want my name attached to shots I'm not comfortable with.

"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently." (_Warren Buffett_)

Good luck!

​


----------



## 12sndsgood

half the girls on model mayhem take pictures with there cell phones pointed into a dirty bathroom mirror. these will be more then adequte to get you onto MM, it doesn't take much. 

as for the photos themselves they remind me of stuff I took when I was first starting out, I thought they were great, I posted on here, got told all the mistakes I made on them. realised they were right and went out and took better photos the next time working on things people mentioned. and I improved. 6 months down the line I looked at the photos I had posted and realised how bad they really were and how much i had improved. You have to learn how to take criticism while still being able to enjoy your own photo.  if one person tells you your posing sucks, ehh shrug it off, if everyone is telling you your posing sucks chances are your posing sucks. hell my posing sucked, its not the easiest thing to learn. things that you do while looking at someone will look a lot diffrent on the computer or on a print. are some of these people harsh. sure they are. and that will make you a better photographer because there not going to sugar coat things. if you want great jobs and wows go to facebook and post there, if you want your photos disected to the 10th degree come here and learn from it.  If your a beginner and you say your beginner why get upset when someone with experience tells you its not great? listen. and learn from it.


----------



## Trever1t

I can't go on reading more...I got a general idea how this is going.

OP: good first attempt, and as that recognize it's a learning experience, take the critique given and roll with it. Do not be defensive or explain yourself as it only leads down a bad path.

To those giving personal opinion on whether or not you appreciate this genre, STFU. Seriously. Women and Men are photographed in many ways. Even PORN has a need for quality photography. Keep your critique to the technicals. Keep your distaste for the genre out.

Now my Dos Pesos: 

I agree the shots are not good. I agree the wardrobe does not fit the setting. I agree you did not bring out the beauty in and of her. These things are learned. You obviously made her feel comfortable. She's smiling, looks happy, good job! Practice Practice Practice! Shooting sexy women is not easy. So many can sit on their couches and critique and not produce BUT take heed,this is your audience. The Audience need not concern themselves with any of the technical and difficulty. Listen and try again!


----------



## JacaRanda

It is quite interesting how so many of these threads occur.  Years ago I wasted a good portion of my life in a yahoo chatroom; actually met my wife there .  There was sooooo much drama you would not believe.  The ignore button was there but rarely was it used and most of the time if you used it, you eventually turned it off because you could not stand missing out on anything.

I am on E.Rose side kinda....I enjoy the drama, mixed in with flirting, mixed in with entertainment mixed in with learning photography :lmao:.  Similar to reality t.v.  If I really did not like the way someone was depicted, why would I comment at all?  Yet, I get it.

For the OP - You really could have, maybe should have used the ignore feature also.  There were enough critiques or suggestions given from a variety of people that seem to fit what you were looking for IMHO. 

Now get back to flirting!   All of youz!


----------

