'Kristine II'

Kristine I posted last week prompted calls from some members for

posting of other images of Kristine. This is another. Your ratings,

critiques and observations are invited and most welcome. If you rate

harshly, very critically, or wish to make a remark, please submit a

helpful and constructive comment; please share your photographic

knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

Kristine's eye contact with the viewer makes this an entirely different photograph. I feel like she is trying to draw us all into her world. The very shallow depth-of-field supports her face being the center of attention. I am a fan of hair being a bit unkept and falling across the model's face like you have done here. There is some subtle sensuality when if drops lightly across her breast as you two also did. Thank you for sharing this one as well, John.

Two sister photos, taken within minutes of each other.

Two entirely different photos in meaning, lighting and viewpoint.

Differences both strong and subtle; strong for a viewer like you; subtle for the more casual viewer.

I'm proud of them both; usually I don't post two from the same sitting; I'm breaking a rule with this posting.

I'm glad it pleases you.

john

John (Crosley)

Beautiful image John.  Between the two i definitely prefer this one, the darker tones create a more intimate feeling to this portrait. The soft light is also more "enveloping" in this image which makes it more sensuous for me. Her eye contact with the viewer is engaging and inquisitive at the same time.  Nice work - regards - michel

When I decided to begin posting nudes again, I only had a few that were postable, and two of Kristine I liked very much.

It was a tossup which one I'd post, as I almost never post two of the same sitting in one service.

This is an exception.

I have taken your criticism to heart, and I agree. 

It is an entirely different photo, and yet it is separated in the taking by minutes or less.

And both were taken in seconds, hardly 'posed' at all; just aim and shoot (not point and shoot), because that's how I take photos; I see something that resonates and press the shutter with very little thought, but sometimes with lots of predecessor movement by me and/or my model to get it just right -- all very rapidly.

My models often are very astonished at how quickly I work and shoot.

Thanks for letting me know your evaluation; I'm glad it pleases you.

john

John (Crosley)

I like the lighting in this shot, it is very natural. Good soft focus accentuates the model. I nomally do not like clipping the subjects head, but in this shot it works, perhaps because she was not the real focus of the shot. Nice casual feel. Well done. - Charles

This is a photo taken in minimal light with very shallow depth of field, so it's 'soft' in part because parts are out of focus, but notice the eye, which is in sharp focus.

The trick is that everyone looks at the 'eye' and if it's in focus, then everyone assumes that  was intentional, which it almost always is with me (I might focus on lips instead, however, for a different look).

Yes, the light is great; this is taken in a flat with window light from the left - it's side lighting on a cloudy, overcast day at the end of day, which in my opinion is the best light, though it required excellent equipment to capture (high ISO, and large aperture, pro lens).

Thank you for the flattering evaluation.

john

John (Crosley)

the eye contact is very strong

That eye contact is what holds this whole photo together, right?

Thanks for the comment, from a veteran nude shooter, to an occasional one.

john

John (Crosley)

Beautiful nude portrait. Love the eye contact and soft lighting. Congrats.

I selected this a while ago and worked it up from the selection.

I just finished looking up all her raw captures from the shooting sessions and was most impressed with her eyes -- they are singularly the best eyes I have ever photographed (and she knew it, staring directly into the camera much of the time for a real intimacy, and it worked, clothed or unclothed).

Thank you for the kind comment.  I'll be sure to pass it on to Kristine (she calls herself Kristina I recall) when and if I run into her on the street. 

john

John (Crosley)

John:  She is a pretty girl and she connects well with the viewer.  You obviously have a good report with her.  Just a couple of comments that you may or may not agree with.  While the hair covering her left eye gives an alluring look, the few hairs that extend down across her nose detract.  While the light comes from the left, her catch lights are in her pupils and very pointy, obviously from the camera's flash.  Is there a way you can move the flash to the left and defuse it  little so it would be at 10 o'clock in her iris to match the other lighting coming from the left?  I also prefer seeing more of her head on top. Nice shot.  Alan.

I'm glad you like this shot.

I let the hair fall where it may and never touched it.

The model moves, I move, focus, and take the shot. 

If stray hairs are there, then they are there; and if they detract in one shot, we fix it between shots, but usually I let such things go. 

I prefer things to fall where they may in such shots -- it's part of keeping the model's rapport not to keep reaching in and 'adjusting' or having my assistant (then I had one) saying 'oh, it's great, but we gotta fix those distracting hairs' and interrupting the intimacy of the shoot.

We just let such things go, and sometimes the hairs we think might be distracting are really more alluring than distracting . . . . we don't know which ones to move until someone like you makes a comment sometimes.  No hi-tech wifi to monitors for simultaneous review of each shot to look for flaws.  Sometimes I would wait for years to look at my captures.  (yes, years)

As to the catch light, there is somewhere in the back a point light source, but this is taken with a relatively short lens and no flash -- repeat 'no flash' so the catch lights are not from any flash, and if it were the catch lights would be very large and if from my studio lights would be even larger.  (Studio lights were not used and were off.)

I think they're from a room light, as this was taken in very poor light with sidelighting from flat windows in very late afternoon in wintertime near dusk.

So, regrettably, I cannot help on the catch lights, and the only way to 'fix' it would be artificiially to suppress them by cloning them out.

I appreciate the time you took to analyze this photo and my model as well as my technique -- you have found I think that I'm rather natural -- I'm a believer in letting the model move, moving myself and searching for what 'looks good' through the viewrinder, then snapping.

'Straightening things' falls far back in my list of things to do when things are working out as they have here.

Maybe I'm not a perfectionist, or maybe I'm a believer that what I capture is 'perfect' as it occurs, and that tampering with it too much will destroy the rapport/or I'll tamper with the wrong thing and just ruin the composition, since it depends on my standing off and concentrating on pointing, framing, focusing and shooting as the model moves, rather than giving her detailed instructions. 

It requires concentration.

I do very well with models who move naturally themselvse and help me by being able to provide their own interpretation of how they should move and look.  This might not work well if I were shooting shampoo or perfume commercials, but it works pretty wonderfully for me.

I hope this helps you understand how I work; my models started out as underemployed agency models made available to me for 'practice' by their agency (on a discount basis) - some were or became famous models, but all were young.  I soon learned to advertise for my own as I moved to another place in the country and had good experience with amateurs (including Kristine here, who is a pro-am).

john

John (Crosley)