knox . .

To my eyes, this would be a very nice shot without the overly digital 'look' (waxy skin etc). But I really don't like that look, so I may be overly sensitive to it. Of course we all have different preferences as I see many of your shots have it. No right or wrong, just preferences. You have some nice photos.

best,

knox

* *

cool shot!

Chad . . . . I hate to be a bummer, but to me there is so much smoothing / blending / etc happening here that she looks like a wax candle. I see so much of this these days . . . it's getting to be a real issue, negatively speaking (to me). Especially in the glamour beauty shots. I sincerely mean this as a positive and hopefully helpful critique. Hopefully this trend will die one day and you may look back on photos like this and wonder why you did it. Maybe not. I certainly don't have all the answers.

for me . . the photo itself is good but there is so much Photoshop that she looks very fake. Takes away any emotional involvement. Of course we all have different likes and dislikes.

GREAT photo!!

city kid . . snap / portrait

hasselblad w 180mm / portra 400

Of course we all have our likes and dislikes, but for me there is way too much 'obvious' Photoshop work. In particular the eye looks 'whitened' in a fake way. Skin (waxy skin) smoothing etc seems too much. Though possibly you had reasons to do these things. I find when there is so much editing . . . I lose any emotional involvement with a shot. Though for advertisements, emotion is often not paramount (if at all). But if I saw this in a magazine (where there is much digital / editing etc these days) my eye would be drawn to the whitened eye more then the overall image. Personally I would like to see how the shot looks with 80% less editing. Much less so called edited 'perfection'. But that's just me. *smile*

You may want to check the eyes and teeth. They look a bit over edited and whitened.

Thanks! and good points . . . but I was seeking a more natural shot . . I didn't want to make it to look like a studio shot (re: taking down the mirror). I wanted the shot to look natural (w low light), but it may not work the way I hoped. Seems the upload to the net gave her chest artifacts and less definition in her hands (enhanced shadows) as well. Though I do like shadows and contrast.

 

Best

**

**

**

that's one heck of a shot!

this is a photo from my book Urban Tails.

http://www.urbantailsbook.com

this is a photo from my book Urban Tails.

http://www.urbantailsbook.com

this is a photo from my book Urban Tails.

http://www.urbantailsbook.com

this is a photo from my book Urban Tails.

http://www.urbantailsbook.com

Hasselblad 503CW / 180mm / Portra 400

a street portrait

thanks again . . interesting, the one that is suppose to be solid black is somewhat checked. I am on a calibrated Sony Artisan monitor.

Thanks for your input, though it may be a Mac / PC issue (IF you are on a PC) or simply a preference in our likes / dislikes. On my Mac it looks about the way I want it. Should only be a hint of light on her face. That said, I am always interested in input. Thanks again.

Hasselblad 503CEW / 180mm / Portra 400

This is the kind od digital image I see all over the internet. Yes it is a nice photo. She is very pretty. Ligting is even. BUT the post work . . . smoothing / blurring is way over the top. It looks the same as so many 'glamour' shots I see. Digital already adds this look 'somewhat' then this much smoothing on top of that (?) . . . . I don't mean this as a mean spirited post, but hopefully will offer some food for 'thought'. Obviously we all have our own likes and dislikes.

Hugo . . .

Obviously we all enjoy different things. Personally, I would like to see more photo and less photoshop on some of your shots, as I like the photography itself!. You are obviously multi talented.

 

My best,

Knox