Girl WITHOUT bikini top this time with the PICTURE

This time with attached photo!

Nice shot, pretty girl.

And a much better shot than the one with the bikini-top.

Poorly lite...green print of a girl that belongs in the galleries, not splashed--twice no less--for the heavy breathers lurking in the forums...<p>Igor; please get with the program. No one else posts pictures in the forums. Please don't consider yourself to be an exception.<p>

 

<i>Moderator's Note: This forum has <b>always</b> allowed posting of images. Based on feedback on the forum and to moderators directly, participants here <b>enjoy</b> the image posting on the forum. <p>

 

Other forums, such as the Leica Forum and occasionally the Large Format Forum also have image posting.<p>

 

If you want a forum without images, some of the forums here (Canon and Nature, for example) don't have images on them, in general. Spend your time on those forums rather than trying to tell posters what to do. That's what moderators are for.</i>

The first image with the bikini top is a much stronger image, for me. She has a more direct look, better posture, stronger eye contact and the composition of the frame is better too. Also, it's not the tired cliche' of the bashful girl... t

Don't know if it's my eyes or my monitor or the lighting, but looks like the girl was "photoshop'd" into the background. Look at the almost "serrated" edge along her left shoulder and along her back... Tell me it ain't so !?

I like it on a technical level, but I do not understand why she is covering herself. In the previous picture she was fairly thrusting her bosom towards the viewer (in agreement with her confident expression), so why the sudden timidity? I prefer this one over the last; better pose and light.

Over-exposed. ;-)

Hi,

 

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate your attitudes.

Girl was not photoshopped into the background.

Tom, I hope that you see the third light now?

could do with a bit more light in the shadow-side of her face

Nope... which is cool, but why would I see it now, when I didn't see it yesterday? <p>One on her, camera right (or is that two?), and one on the background, camera left... t

3 on her camera right, reflector on the background.

Well no wonder... you've made three lights into one, or one light out of three... whatever. Are they in similar softboxes, stacked? Or behind a large scrim? I think that makes them one light.<p>By your reckoning, I'd count four, since the reflector actually functions as a light source... t

Igor,

 

I like this one a lot better than the first one, and not for the reasons of clothes-lessness. IMHO the body lighting is perfect!! The face lighting is not so perfect. Put the body lighting on the face, or the face lighting on the body and I think the photo will be just right.

 

Great photos, keep going.

I�m not sure what some people would like for lighting her face; but I think that Rembrandt was a good choice for her face structure. I like the high ratio too it gives a strong dramatic look. It is hard for me to tell on my monitor but it looks like around 5 to1 (I do have a dark monitor). I would think that it would look nice at a 4 or 3 to 1 also, adding a little more detail in the shadow.

 

All in all I like it like it is.

 

So why did you use 3 lights rather than one big softbox or screen?

 

p.s. perhaps a little feathering would have reduced some of the glare on her face.

Thanks for positive opinions.

The answer is very simple - I do not have a large soft box...

But I like the look of this lighting.

Lighting is from wrong side of the body, her face is too much in shadow for this kind of pose, background not lit properly, hair not lit to separate from background, etc. Pretty girl.

I was looking for a picture that I posted somewhere and I can see your comment and I don't agree hehehehe. I don't like separating lights in colour photos as colours separate the background by itself and I do think that the light is by the right side hehehe.