Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
-Attractive model
-technically good: sharp, good exposure
-gesture & setting are tactile, erotic, and a little ambiguous
-photo was usable for the purpose it was shot for
-design of photo allows for surprinting, cleanup or extension of background
-lack of visible face allows viewer to put herself* in place of model
*Most erotic stories are read/bought by women; men prefer visual erotic material
I'm not really any the wiser given your response for numerous reasons. You say it is "technically good". The first image has a strong yellow bias and in the B&W version, the only areas of exposure variation (models hair and object bottom right) have lost detail almost entirely (really easy to fix). You mention, "photo was usable for purpose it was shot" but apparently neither versions were used. "Design of photo allows for extension of background", that applies to every image on this site. I can't see a great deal of "eroticism" here either as it's just a flat image of a back, bum and sign on the wall. Perhaps I'm not that easily excited
I only mention these points in light of your comment, "the graphic designer lacked the wisdom to see the greatness of this image" - perhaps he/she and I are on the same page re the merits of this particular shot.