Feedback/Advice request

<p>After asking a lot of questions here, here are a few photos I took [NSFW]: https://500px.com/curvaturephotos <br>

These are my first ever photos of a model with "in-studio" lighting. (Prior to these I took some self portraits and photos of a model outdoors with the flash mounted on the camera; other than that I've done mostly candid shots in the past).<br>

They were taken with a Nikon D750, 50mm 1.8G lens and a Strobist kit. (I'm getting a 85mm 1.4D lens as well).<br>

Any advise is appreciated. Even if it's to abandon photographing models LOL.</p>

<p>If I were in your shoes, I would, before venturing further into photographing models, first try and find out what kind of pictures you would like to make/emulate.</p>

<p>Right now, you have fulfilled the ultimate GWC dream: you shot a model, and she was naked to make things 'perfect', and you have been experimenting with 'strobist'<br /> But I always wonder when I see these kind of 'first time ever with a model' pictures why the models always have to be nude, and what the obsession with 'strobist' is.</p>

<p>Photographing a model dressed already is hard enough , and for most men the added factor of the model being naked adds an extra challenge, to say the least, to overcome.<br /> After all, you don't want to look like a perv and ask the model to pose in a way that adds nothing extra but at best maybe fulfill a hidden desire , or seem like you want to make advances on her, or to be after anything else other then 'art'.<br /> So why add the additional burden of the nakedness when you still have to find out how to make a decent picture of a model at all?</p>

<p>With regards to the 'strobist thing', right now IMO your 'strobist' technique consists of blasting some flash into the face of the model. Sure, you're suppressing/nearly excluding the available daylight, but does that really add something extra to the picture,apart from 'my, it's really getting dark now'?</p>

<p>I first started experimenting with off camera flash using TTL's in the late 70's (it wasn't called 'strobist' back then, just simply playing around with of camera speedlights, non TTL Metz units in my case), and basically was intended as an alternative for out of reach priced studio flash, and some kind of solution for on site (outside the 'civilized' world with a power grid) lighting.<br /> In those days 400 ISO was the highest usable setting (sure, Tri-X in super diluted could be pushed up to 3600 ISO, if you dared, but the results would be 'experimental' at best) so getting some extra light was a constant quest.</p>

<p>You however have a top of the line modern DSLR with excellent high ISO capabilities, so unless it's really dark outside, you can easily bump up the ISO ans still get excellent pictures IQ wise.<br /> Sure, if you go really high (6400+) you might end up with some grain/noise, and yes, when shooting with your lens fully/nearly full open you won't get 'razor sharp' images.<br /> But why add the extra burden of a technique you still have to learn to master/really use to your advantage when you are still trying to find out to get something hopefully resembling the picture you have somewhere in the back of your head?</p>

<p>I shot this picture http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/156849793. I was by myself, no assistant to help me with reflectors, no time to set up an elaborate on site lighting set up (just walking around during a 'Fantasy' event). So day light only in the deep shadow (under trees), exposed on the highlights (the light filtering in through the leaves in the background, so that at least would not be burned out). Consequently the model and her clothing were quite heavily underexposed (somewhere around three stops).<br /> Yet, as you can see, I have been able to get a very decently exposed picture with usable highlights and still detailed shadows, using only Nikon NX2.4.6 (so no Capture One, no Photoshop etc), simply by using the same kind of 'burn and dodge' techniques I used to play around with in the 'good old' film days, without need for on site flash units, reflection screens, assistants etc.<br /> Same here, http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/162085891 , shot in the late afternoon of an mid December day, no flash, no reflector, in the shadow of some buildings.<br /> I'm quite sure your D750 will be able to emulate the same technical level with the same basic tecnique.</p>

<p>So you should ask yourself.<br /> What do you prefer, a pictures that captures what you're after but needs some technical fine tuning (which you can find out how to later). Or a technical 'perfect' (no noise, sharp all over, everything well within the 'proper' DR) picture, that is bland, lifeless, uninspiring?</p>

<p>IMO when starting with a new direction in photography, you should start to try and get the pictures right first, the technique is something you can find out later (plenty of 'how to' videos and tutorials by self appointed 'experts' on the internet) .<br /> Leave the clothes on the models on for the time being, stop using techniques you haven't learned to master yet, but rather concentrate on what kind of pictures you like, would like to make, try to emulate</p>

<p>Start looking around/study the work of other photographers to find the kind of pictures you like, read anything you can find on them, how they did it, what kind of technique, light etc.<br /> Basically the same things artist have been doing for ages, a 'standard' learning technique e.g. in the studios of the painters in the Renaissance, 17th century Dutch 'Golden Age' painters, and Impressionists of the 19t century, so why not in photography?. E.g. Pieter Mondriaan started with quite tradition landscapes and still life before he evolved into the characteristic style he's known for nowadays.<br /> Try to imitate them, accept you will fail initially, and do it all over again and again, and hopefully pick up some things along the way (and develop your own personal taste).</p>

<p>But don't extra barriers in your way when you're just starting, keep it simple. After all, I bet your first efforts with cooking started with maybe fired eggs and bacon, but not with a five course meal (I started with the fried eggs :) ).</p>

<p>Not too bad, but a long way to go.<br>

"brushing her hair" isn't a butt flattering pose.<br>

https://500px.com/photo/135250961/untitled-by-curvature-art-?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=14989417 opens the question "why?" pose wise. That is a typical pitfall with nudes. - I mean they might look cute posing on a bycicle on your buffet, but pictures have an easier time to pass as great if the spectator subconsciously considers them part of normal life, in some way expectable.<br>

"prometheus" appears quite great to me. - Grats!<br>

https://500px.com/photo/135249831/untitled-by-curvature-art-?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=14989417 nice would benefit from a separated background though. Also a bit too under-photoshopped to pass as a glamor shot. - The face might benefit from some PP or softer light? or?<br>

"what are you waiting for" is much better in that regard. <br>

I guess you should carry on and maybe figure out how to get a better looking background like the ruin inspired inhomogenous brown wall Maximov is using.<br>

(Makeshift) studio portraiture of young ladies and beauty postprocessing aren't my own field. Paul's advice above sounds well intended and right all together, but I suppose a strobist kit isn't the worst purchase ever. - I should get one packed too and learn to master it someday, but my cameras need more light than yours. </p>

<p>Well...... I was into street photography for a few years and then I moved to a small town. There is still quite a lot of opportunity for street photography here but not comparable to what I was used to. So it occurred to me to create scenes myself. I have a lot of ideas for "photos that tell a story" for example a woman in bed being threatened by a camera on a tripod (think of old school science fiction movies with giant spiders) and many more.<br /> On the sexy side I liked Herve Lewis's <a href="http://www.hervelewis.com/#pagegalleries?gallery=fineart&series=2">fine art nudes</a> a lot since I was much younger and wanted to somewhat emulate them.<br /> Anyway so far I've got only two positive responses to my modeling calls. The first one (amateur model and outdoor shots) got me to the MM citadel where I sent messages to several local models explaining ideas similar to the one I mentioned above. I got no response from them but then a travelling model who used to be an art figure model contacted me and I did what I could do with a figure model. <br /> The photos I took and posted are not really voluptuous so they are far from "ultimate GWC dream". I get the point you're making about available light although flash has advantages too, not just the compositional flexibility but also freezing motion. And the strobist guy does a good job of popularizing it.<br /> Thanks for the encouragement Jochen. I used wavelet denoise to smooth the skin on the other ones but forgot to do so for the first one. Isn't the background that Maximov used muslin?</p>

<p>If you look at the examples of the photographers you mentioned in the previous post, they are using softer, broader light sources, ie light boxes or umbrellas or windows, and often a reflector can be seen in the reflections in the model's eyes, which is where you can tell which lighting was used. The reflectors are to fill in dark shadows from the main light. They are also using very shallow depth of focus, probably the lens wide open in most cases. Their backgrounds are farther away too. If I were you, I would practice with window light for starters, and work on composition too. A large silver card on a stand is handy for a fill reflector too. Just a few thoughts.</p>

<p>It looks like the light you used is much too hard and/or you need to post process and retouch her skin more. At the moment you're showing every minor skin blemish - we all have them, but they're much more noticeable on a photograph.<br>

I think by a strobist kit you mean a small flash and umbrella - it would be helpful to be more specific. Trying turning the power of the flash down and moving the umbrella closer, making it softer (softness = angular size relative to subject - this is THE biggest thing to understand about lighting) and add a reflector - even low level on-camera flash - to get rid of the shadow moustache under her nose. (On-camera flash is supposed to be the devil, but used intelligently it can work.) You might also try bouncing the flash off a reflector and then through the diffuser umbrella.<br>

To get the look you're after, you need to shoot with a softer key light and with it set closer to the level of fill - which looks like it should be unidirectional. Buy a couple of used slave flashes and point them at the walls for fill, measure the level with the histogram, set the key as close as you can without it being in frame and so that it pops up the brightest bar on the histogram say 50%. Then adjust.<br>

<br />..Although I can't help wondering if flash isn't on the verge of becoming obsolete for this type of photography, given how cheap and powerful LEDs are now.</p>