"What an offensive post." I agree. We should NEVER attack models with insults. No wonder it's getting harder to find people willing to "pose".
suntouched wrote:
Just as a side note- To me the model's dress and tattoos (size, type, amount) were incongruent. It would have been less jarring if she was more casually dressed. But hey that's my opinion and the world is changing.
My daughter has done the same thing.....covered herself in distracting tattoos....but ya know what? I lover her just as much. God bless our children...Merry Christmas to ALL!
My granddaughter too. And it hasn't changed my feelings towards her- still love her too!
trainspotter wrote:
My daughter has done the same thing.....covered herself in distracting tattoos....but ya know what? I lover her just as much. God bless our children...Merry Christmas to ALL!
I love using natural lights. In my experience strobes tend to be harsh, which can be corrected somewhat in PP. In these photos, the judicious use of some fill light, maybe just from a reflector, might have brought out more details where needed.
Glenn Harve wrote:
Make a million, market a de-tat tool.
There are lasers that render tattoos almost invisible after treatment.
All three of my kids have at least one tattoo. I never had a piercing or a tattoo because I don't follow trends but I recognize that I'm from a different generation and things have changed. I don't judge people by their appearance. One of my faults is my pet peeve regarding poor writing and punctuation but you won't find a single post of mine where I critiqued said issues, common as they are on this and other forums.
Tolerance my friends.
d2b2
Loc: Catonsville, Maryland, USA
The question should have been about the photography comment not about the model. The photography was very good, for a first attempt. The tats were certainly a distraction, so the caution I would offer is that if the photographer is simply playing with light, positioning and camera angles, she is fine. If he is seriously looking at providing a quality product for fashion or some other use, the model is a distraction. Some of the comments seem to go way beyond what was requested and are unnecessary.
@christographer you have some nice shots, but you're working with some extremely rough material. Most of the shots highlight the deep features of the model which is very unattractive, while other shots are very professional. Some too dark while others are spot on.
d2b2 wrote:
The question should have been about the photography comment not about the model. The photography was very good, for a first attempt. The tats were certainly a distraction, so the caution I would offer is that if the photographer is simply playing with light, positioning and camera angles, she is fine. If he is seriously looking at providing a quality product for fashion or some other use, the model is a distraction. Some of the comments seem to go way beyond what was requested and are unnecessary.
The question should have been about the photograph... (
show quote)
Totally agree. Still, there is a great deal of useful critique in the thread, fortunately.
christographer wrote:
I've always been a landscape kind of guy with some rock bands and air shows thrown in for good measure. But I've long been considering shooting a model of the female variety for a long time. I dabbled a little bit of that in photography classes back in the mid 70's but that's about it. And it was more to hit on the girl in the dark room than to photograph her.
This past weekend, I finally followed through and attached for your critique are my first serious attempts. Please give me your thoughts. What did I do well? What could use some work? What did I totally blow? From pose to exposure to processing and everything in between. Everything was shot with natural light using a Nikon D810 and a Tameron 105mm f1.4 and another lens that escapes me at the moment. It should all be in the EXIF data if you are so inclined to look.
Please be forthright, but not brutal. Thanks in advance.
I've always been a landscape kind of guy with some... (
show quote)
My first impression is that the window light is a little harsh and a reflector could have been used to lift some of the shadows. I agree with others that the focus is not spot on. The poses are good, the model looks at ease. I like the last two for lighting the best
Cristographer , , , for more opinions its good to know what the shoot is for. To me this shoot reflects the models personal portfolio. If that's the case lighten them a bit.
Model looks relaxed and enjoying the the shoot , excellent ! Back rounds and jewelry to distracting though.
Lookin Good keep workin it. !
d2b2
Loc: Catonsville, Maryland, USA
suntouched wrote:
My granddaughter too. And it hasn't changed my feelings towards her- still love her too!
I detest tats! My daughter has several, although they are rather unobtrusive. However, it has become a family "joke" that if I irritate her, she will get another, bigger tattoo! Weird humor, but it works for us. To each his/her own!
As an old guy I don’t like tats even though a lot of the kids in my family have them.
When I was a kid I had a great uncle that always wore long sleeve shirts even when it was a hundred degrees out. I once asked him why. He told me he got half naked ladies on his arms. Showed me. They were very faded by then. He was ashamed of them.
The other reason I never got one is I hate needles.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.