Backlit body: Thought I'd have a dabble in this section.

JPringle Loc: Australia

Thought I'd have a dabble in this section.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I find the lack of separation between her hair and the shadow of her hair makes the "head" look a bit top heavy. Otherwise, very nicely done. Show us more of your work.

joehel2 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

Love the exposure and the sepia, beautiful.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Excellent shading and lighting

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

Not bad, an interesting image. I agree with John Firm about the lack of separation between the shadow and the head.

Am I correct that this is a doll? The chair looks like a miniature and the gauge of the hair looks wrong. If not, through processing you've managed to smooth the image that to me I'm asking myself if the figure is real.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Nice work with the monotoning.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Better as a vertical, I think.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Very nice!

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

My thoughts this is either a mannequin - lack of details, wrinkle lines, muscle toneless, hands position, no head, etc - or you did a great job at making her look like one. Regardless, concept is nice but hair shadow and lack of head kills it for me.

JPringle Loc: Australia

InfiniteISO wrote:

Not bad, an interesting image. I agree with John Firm about the lack of separation between the shadow and the head.

Am I correct that this is a doll? The chair looks like a miniature and the gauge of the hair looks wrong. If not, through processing you've managed to smooth the image that to me I'm asking myself if the figure is real.

Phicen - 1/6 scale seamless doll. No modelling fees :-) And mainly an exercise in lighting. Been trying to get some life into a face too but difficult. Here's another example

JPringle Loc: Australia

InfiniteISO wrote:

Not bad, an interesting image. I agree with John Firm about the lack of separation between the shadow and the head.

Am I correct that this is a doll? The chair looks like a miniature and the gauge of the hair looks wrong. If not, through processing you've managed to smooth the image that to me I'm asking myself if the figure is real.

And some attempts with processing for a more natural face

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Oh no!!! We are now really being duped. It was not bad enough that "Tatia" was not giving us selfies; now we have 3D computer graphic nudes and scale model dolls. I guess these could be helpful in trying poses (limited) and lighting/shooting angles, but I do prefer real flesh.

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

JohnFrim wrote:

Oh no!!! We are now really being duped. It was not bad enough that "Tatia" was not giving us selfies; now we have 3D computer graphic nudes and scale model dolls. I guess these could be helpful in trying poses (limited) and lighting/shooting angles, but I do prefer real flesh.

It's the invasion of the body scammers! According to forum rules, although I've always been more of a rule-breaker myself:

"Any images you upload must be of consenting adults"

I think consenting adults implies a REAL model and besides, if you're doll is only a couple of years old, it's not old enough to pose nude.

I'm asking the OP does this provide decent figure photography practice?

To study lighting set-ups accurately don't you think you'd have to have "Scale" lights? And if you used computer 3D programs to model lighting, which might be more practical than this, there is still a steep learning curve.

Nothing like getting a real model under the lights, snapping off a couple of shots and looking to see what needs to be raised or lowered, turned up or down, moved, etc. Want to practice with a shy model; pay her to purchase a skin-colored leotard.

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

Glad to read it is 1/6 scale... my first thought was it was a full scale ___ doll, well, lets leave it there but reason I gave benefit of doubt and called it a mannequin. New here but thinking UHH may need to break this into two categories - REAL LIVE nudes and OTHERS, like computer-generated, dolls, virtual reality, and whatever other technology is coming. Anyway, in my humble opinion and will leave to those more senior here.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

InfiniteISO wrote:

... I'm asking the OP does this provide decent figure photography practice?

To study lighting set-ups accurately don't you think you'd have to have "Scale" lights? And if you used computer 3D programs to model lighting, which might be more practical than this, there is still a steep learning curve...

I think the scaling issue would be critical for studying lighting with less-than-lifesize models.

I did stage lighting for a community theatre group many years ago and yearned for software that would allow me to plan the lighting in advance. I played with drafting packages in which I defined lighting angles for the various lamps. I am sure today all of this is far more sophisticated.

But taking the 3D modelling to the extreme, if sometime in the future I could get a real model's face from a photo and a few critical body dimensions to use in some very realistic modelling software, then once I create the pose and lighting why would I need to bother using the real model? So I see both pros and cons to all of this technology.