mostly models Emerging from the Forest

We were interested in the consonance between the overhanging dogwood

blossoms, and her white dress, and also between the curve of the path

and the curves of her body. In this shot. the curves plan didn't work

so well, but the blossoms/dress idea seemed to be ok. Any comments?

Beautiful shot of a natural and lovely model, I like the light and dof. Beautiful dress too, congrats //Salvador

This is really very nice work, Doug.

 

I would at the very least like to know more about that outfit, which baffles me somewhat.

 

--Lannie

 

 

Doug,

 

She is a very pretty girl. Her skin tones are right on. The lighting works very well, but I would tone down her nose just a little. You have a very feminine "S" curve starting at her head - turning at her waist - turning at her hip and again a little at her knee. You have thrown the background very nicely out of focus. She is well separated from the background. I like the way you have presented her unaware of the camera. It looks very natural - her bare feet are a plus - good job. It does make me wonder what she is doing walking in the woods in that rather fancy dress with no shoes on? Does she perhaps have pointy ears under that hair?

 

I have to disagree with you. I think the path works very well to imply her movement from the forest. You have stopped her in such a way as to imply continued motion. This is very well done. I don't like the white blossoms over her head. To me it doesn't look natural that they would be there (I don't care that they were - I just don't like them). They don’t enhance the picture, they draw my attention away from her. I look up at the bright posies above her.

 

Her white dress is beautiful, but (and we are talking a very large but, here), she is wearing panties. You can not only see the pantie lines, but you can see the panties! Notice the bulges at her waist in front and on the side at her pantie line. You have to be very thin to wear this dress, especially if you are facing the camera straight on. Straight on shows her at her widest - across her shoulders and across her hips. She must be shown at an angle to the camera, to present a more slimming appearance. Only a thin girl could wear this dress straight on to the camera and she should not be wearing panties, either. There are very few girls who could be shot straight on (or facing away). I do wish her eyes were just a little sharper.

 

Your logo is not part of the photograph. It belongs on the mat.

 

Very nice photograph,

 

Mark

Salvador, Thanks

 

Lannie, what is it about the dress that baffles you?

 

Mark, perhaps I can fix the pantie line. It was actually a swimsuit bottom, but I guess it doesn't really matter, although I think a bikini bottom would have a bit more elastic. You have some interesting thoughts on panties, I have to admit.

 

So, you don't like the blossoms? That was the very germination of the shot! I wish they were sharper, but she would have been too far back otherwise, and they were to high to get in the frame without having her this far forward, etc. The curve...well...we have some other frames that work better with regard to that, although you may disagree.

Well, Mark wants you to give away the shot (take off the logo) and possibly insult the model (take off the panties), but, other than that, he is fairly positive--well, sort of.

 

I like it, and I think that moderately voluptuous women can get away with this sort of outfit quite well.

 

I like the dogwood leaves, and overall I think that it is simply a very appealing shot. I like the bare feet, never mind whether practical or not.

 

What baffles me about the dress is all the baffling--the layers, sewn-in, I guess.

 

--Lannie

ah, yes... I guess that's a liner, so one couldn't see one's panties....

ps: I'm obligated to myself to leave the logo in place, although it's strictly an Internet only application

Landrum,

 

I do not want to give away this photograph any more than I want to sell it. My intent was to critique it - to make comments about what I considered good about it and what I thought could be improved. I don't try to be positive. I don't try to be negative. I just try to be honest. It is my opinion - nothing more - nothing less.

 

When I shoot a girl, I try to make her look as good as I possibly can. If she did not wish to remove her underwear (in this case her panties) even though I felt she would look better in the dress I was planning on having her wear, I would not shoot her in that dress. It is that simple. I would find it much more insulting to her to show her a photograph that showed panty lines or made her look overweight.

 

I am not real sure what you mean by "moderately voluptuous". It could be moderately sensual - moderately large-breasted - moderately fat. Voluptuous means different things to different people and has had a variety of meanings in art throughout history. I am sure you would want her to look as good as possible - not "just get away with this sort of outfit quite well".

 

Mark

hmmm, point taken.

 

Other than the interruption in her side curve, I couldn't see any evidence of the alleged panties. Mark, did my correction ( a couple comments up) fix the problem? Or do you still see them?

Doug,

 

Yes. They do indeed appear to be gone. Good job. I do see a fold in the "under dress", but that is not a panty line. It looks natural and is of no concern to me. I don't mean to be picky (on second thought, yes I do). If one person notices something and tells you, you can be sure there are others who notice it and don't tell you. Better to hear it from a stranger than a model or customer. I'm not out to get points or ratings.

 

I just think this model (who is very attractive and shapely) didn't work well for this shot. It is a good idea and a good shot, but I think it calls for a thinner girl.

 

I still don't like the white blossoms. If they were on the ground, maybe?

 

Mark

Mark, I got it. No offense taken for any of your comments, and I am 100% on board with the idea you're talking about re: hearing about something that most people would notice, but not mention. I would have gone along merrily without even thinking of repairing the pantie line, so I'm glad you mentioned it.

 

Still disagree with you about the blossoms, although I can plainly see how they would bother someone. A subsequent post will show more of what I was striving for, which may or may not be better than this one. The idea was that she would be reaching up, arching her body in a fashion to more or less parallel the curve, and her hands would be up in the area of the blossoms. This was kind of an outtake. We'll see how that other idea turns out. The idea came to us very suddenly and we tried it, and I think we did a great job, but I would also like to reshoot this scene with different girls, or maybe just a different dress, but I think I might have to wait until next spring, unless I can whip up something up mighty quick because spring is marching quickly into summer.

My favorite shots of her came along towards the end of our afternoon, anyway, so this shot, although I'm quite proud of it, offers a wealth of learning for me, and provides me with lots of inspiration for future work.

Mark, I joke around with Doug a lot--sorry to do so at your [apparent] expense.

 

Yes, of course, it looks smoother without the panty lines. I noticed that, too, from the outset--but, in a good, practical sort of vein, the model might have been averse to taking off the panties for this particular shot, depending on just how translucent the dress really might be--and how modest she might be in Doug's presence. i do not get the sense that this is a professional model, and thank goodness for that.

 

I would not in any case cancel the shot, much less the shoot, because of an imperfection that also might be correctable in PS, as this one was--if one sees it as really in need of correction. (I, too, think that it looks better without the panty line.)

 

As for "voluptuous," I deliberately wanted to be ambiguous, precisely because of the myriad connotations of that word. A more slender model would have worked fine, but I like this one, too--perhaps even more, in this case, I think. The reason for that is that this shot is somewhere between a glamour shot and a nature shot. There is tension between such a dress and bare feet--but so what? I like the tension, and I like the dress. Is it the best possible dress for this model? By whose criteria and preference for body types? What is a girl like this doing in a place like this with a dress like that and no shoes? Well, who knows? (Which narrative might accompany the photo?) She looks real, and that is a large part of what I like about the shot. Life is more interesting than magazine covers.

 

There is room for disagreement on this one, to be sure, and disagreement there will be. I simply find the model extremely appealing, and the "panty line" to me conveyed even yet the sense that this is not a professional model but the very, very nice-looking girl next door--the type I can relate to, not those Barbees all too often sent out by modeling agencies.

 

In any case, trust Doug to develop his own genre and his own label for it. He will not likely be working from any formula, if his previous work is any indication.

 

As for the continuing issue of dogwood blossoms, those trees are ubiquitous around here in the spring, and Doug does not live too far up the road from me. I like the counterpoint of white above matching white below. I do not personally find it distracting. It looks like the woods that I know of the Piedmont from Georgia through Virginia, my country for much of my life.

 

A formulaic treatment would have spoiled this one for me.

 

--Lannie

Well, Doug, it is a compelling photo, and I keep coming back to it.

 

I have asked myself many times what could be done to make it better, and I will give you a hint as to my only really compelling idea: check out the title of my most recent thread on the Philosophy of Photography forum.

 

--Lannie

 

P.S.: But I am sure that that occurred to you a very long time ago. Otherwise, I would not change a thing: same pose, same framing, same path, same dogwoods,same downcast eyes, etc. Just that one "refinement" . . . .

Lannie, I will check out that thread. I'm preparing to post a few alternate compositions, as soon as I get a chance. Stay tuned, and thanks for your very nutritious comments

I'm not very good with clues. Is your new posting "Can You Believe This?" Or is it "Reality and Fantasy? "

Ha! No, that thread is finally petering out.

 

I was thinking about the title of the thread, "The Power and the Glory," i.e., in "all her glory" in this one, which would take care of some of the bulges in the clothing. . . .

 

Given the intense scrutiny that we give such photos (analytical or not), it is perhaps a surprise that women are willing to pose at all.

 

--Lannie

"Given the intense scrutiny that we give such photos (analytical or not), it is perhaps a surprise that women are willing to pose at all. "

 

I'm also quite mystified by this, but no longer question it. Some things are better left unchallenged.