Homepage › Forums › Photo Critique › People › more Amy under the bridge (N)
- This topic is empty.
more Amy under the bridge (N)
-
AllinthemindParticipantAliParticipant
OOOh i really like the second shot Si, excellent written all over it. Lovely composition.
FrankCParticipantI also really like the second one.
However, in this case would actually prefer it as head & shoulders only.
Mick451ParticipantSecond one is wonderfully lit but I think it would suit a more high key approach.
Can show you a version of what I mean if you’d like.AllinthemindParticipantThanks folks, fire away Mick, feel free to tinker. The cropped version of that one is on her modelling agency page as a headshot.
Si
Mick451ParticipantRobertoMemberI like the second photo. The background should be simple without any disturbing points.
Nice soft tones and good crop, Mick.AllinthemindParticipantThanks Mick, I think with this one, I prefer a bit of tone, the shot is pre-dominantly lighter than mid-grey anyway. I did try a high-key version when I first edited the shot (and it does look good on screen), the edit I posted looks lovely in print, the eyes have just enough reflection to draw you in. Interestingly, 2 model-agencies have cropped it to a headshot as they thought it was too sexy as is. :)
Many thanks for your time and effort.
Si
Mick451ParticipantNo offence, Si, but I wouldn’t class it as sexy. It’s a bit too page 3 ‘glamour’ girl in the way she’s posed and that’s probably why the agencies cropped it, to give her a better chance of getting a broader range of work – and therefore more money for themselves. IMHO inanyways.
SteveDParticipantMick451 wrote:
It’s a bit too page 3 ‘glamour’ girl in the way she’s posed and that’s probably why the agencies cropped it
If Page 3 photos looked that good, I would be buying the Sun every day :lol: I think this shot is quite a few rungs above a Page 3 photo.
AllinthemindParticipantMick451 wrote:
No offence, Si, but I wouldn’t class it as sexy. It’s a bit too page 3 ‘glamour’ girl in the way she’s posed and that’s probably why the agencies cropped it, to give her a better chance of getting a broader range of work – and therefore more money for themselves. IMHO inanyways.
That’s what I meant Mick, they didn’t want to pigeonhole her as a glamour model (because that isn’t really her thing). Thanks again for your version, please feel free to edit any of my stuff.
..And thanks Steve for the comments, Very kind of you.
All best
Si
RobMemberAnonymousParticipantHi Si
Wow these are of such a high standard,i really love both of them. The first is a fab location and the use of arrangements is spot on! (ie-the archways leading away from the model).
The second shot is beautiful! Your use of lighting here is brillant(any hints?)..I suppose there is a very fine line as to what is acknowledged as glamour portaits and posing, from what i have seen from youre work is that of a flirtation of the female form which is unique! Otherwise top stuff..
Ben 8)AllinthemindParticipantI was going through these photos oing some filing and quite liked this one.. C&C welcome
Si
RobMemberSi
Very nice image. I really like the composition, dof, the lighting across the brickwork, etc. The model’s pose is excellent too, the raised right heel and that lovely straight line of shin contrasting with the arch of the foot (easy to tell I’m a leg man at heart). My only one doubt about this image is your decision to use black and white instead of colour. I find that the contrast between what your model is wearing and the darkened brickwork right of frame is too subtle and undefined, and as a result her torso merges somewhat with the background and lessens the impact overall. I imagine that a colour version would really bring your subject more to the forefront and make for a more pleasing image. That said, I do actually like it. I think I’d just prefer warm skin tones contrasting with the brickwork.
Rob.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.