recent shoot

[ProShotPhoto]

[newbieXT]

Not sure about the first one, but her legs seem large. I she really that muscular or is it due to lense choice & camera angle? Just curious, mostly here to learn. not my intent to criticize.

...Very beautiful model by the way

[ProShotPhoto]

Originally Posted by newbieXT

Not sure about the first one, but her legs seem large. I she really that muscular or is it due to lense choice & camera angle? Just curious, mostly here to learn. not my intent to criticize.
...Very beautiful model by the way

She is a fitness model in her off season so her legs ""are powerful and well defined"" might be a better way to put it. The camera angel does not actually make the legs look larger (at least from my way of thinking), but rather the upper body appears smaller because it is further from the lens.

I use a wide angle lens 34MM which effectively becomes a 50MM attached to my DSLR. My studio is not large enough to use much else for most full body shots. It does provide this distortion which I utilize to its fullest quite purse fully as most of the time it provides a useful tool to sculpt the fantasy forms I seek rather than be limited to whatever reality is in front of me.

This model is very proud of her lower proportions and wished to accentuate this aspect of her anatomy. Hence this shot which I has expected would receive a lot of critique and maybe even a bit of controversy.

Thanks for your remarks.

I like the image because it is very unusual – mostly because of her specific body, outstanding flexibility and unusual confidence. But then again I might criticise this image for exactly what you have mentioned if it was someone else’s but in this case I know how special she is to be able to pose for the shot in the first place. IF you do not believe me get a mirror and try it yourself. LOL

[AHGSean]

Her lower parts look pretty good, but her upper parts (#3) are great! Good shooting.
Sean

[joseph1275]

I love the pictures and the way the model project hereself. Just a thought for the second picture...... a very good pose which really showed an S curvature, one thing that distracts me when I look at it is the background, although it is blurred a bit but still it draws attention away from the model (most especially the rail in the background).

[Zakd]

Hi,
First I must say that I find very attractiv her "powerful and well defined" legs and good capture...... but yes at the first look at #1 photo it may look like distorzion or such.......

P.S. May I ask what wide lens you were using as I'm in same situation that because of small studio my Prime 50mm are not suitable and therefore must obtain some wider lens for indoors and studio. Thjinking of some Tamron(28-75 or 17-50) or Sigma(18-50 or 17-70). Hope you dont mind Iask this in your thread. Thanks

[ProShotPhoto]

Originally Posted by Zakd

Hi,
First I must say that I find very attractiv her "powerful and well defined" legs and good capture...... but yes at the first look at #1 photo it may look like distorzion or such.......
P.S. May I ask what wide lens you were using as I'm in same situation that because of small studio my Prime 50mm are not suitable and therefore must obtain some wider lens for indoors and studio. Thjinking of some Tamron(28-75 or 17-50) or Sigma(18-50 or 17-70). Hope you dont mind Iask this in your thread. Thanks

I use a sigma 28 MM spherical lens. - earlier stated lens was incorrect.
It is a Sigma Spherical - 28 mm 1:18 EX DG Macro. With my canon DSLR it is 28mm Times roughly 1.6 or effectively a 44.8mm lens.
I zoom with my feet because i use softer lighting than most and need a lens faster than I cannot afford if I went to zoom. This also keeps me much closer to the subject and the entire shoot is a much more imitate experience for both of us. This in my case (and I t may work well for me but negatively for others) is a huge advantage as the models respond very favourably (but professionally of course) to what is a much more personal experience.
I think if I had a larger space I would still use the same tools most of the time except where I wanted to capture the scene very differently, this physically closer experience is very beneficial to the results.
Same lens in different situation - OUTDOORS with a huge amount of room but the closeness allows me to speak softly to her without having everyone on the beach hearing whaat i am saying.

.

[wifeysh0t]

Been lurking for a few weeks, reading all the critiques, will try to post as soon as I have a few shots that are worthily edited and lit, but... ANYONE WHO SAYS THIS MODEL DOESN'T HAVE A PHENOMENAL BODY IS INSANE. My #1 model (read: my wife) is a fitness model -- the absolute ideal of femininity in my opinion. And I don't mean the super-muscular ones like the Olympia. I mean Fitness America, FAME, etc. Why else are half the girls in WWE that are ogled by millions around the world from a fitness background? Why else are they all on bikini calendars, fantasy art, etc.? Who wants a girl with no meat on her bones and no musculature (that creates all the curves)?

I think it's safe to say that most of us grew up with a preference for a bikini model type vs. a supermodel type. Especially because most men aren't as tall as a supermodel. I'm 6'3" though and I still prefer a fitness model over a supermodel any day. It's all about the hourglass figure, and a girl who doesn't work out generally doesn't have a small waist and a round butt. Any model can go out and get implants for some curve. Doesn't do a damn thing for the other half of her body. And if she was born with no hips, well... I guess that's what photographers are for, right? Light her legs so that at least a small amount of curvature can be created.

I suppose models who just got implants want to flaunt them, so I can't blame the photographers. I just think the legs/butt (which are far more glamourous in my opinion) get overlooked or ignored too much -- or is it because most girls don't have nice legs? Am I missing something here? Is there just a far higher percentage of models with better chests than legs/butt, so everyone shoots torso/face shots instead of body shots that show off legs?

[kgphoto]

Obviously a pretty model with a very good body that she has worked hard to obtain and maintain.

Now it is up to you to show it off to its MOST flattering. Part of this will be determined by taste, but there are standard conventions that hold true for most.

Ripples of muscles are not usually attractive. The leg muscles in #1 do not look "right." IT creates the lumps that look a little deformed. These form cords that are best left unseen.

Turn her upright and have her extend her leg out from her body, like an "L" and see what the shape of her muscle is. Then relax the leg until it is still defined but a little softer. Maybe post a series of these if you want input as to which is most accepted.

The pose it self looks awkward. Even if she "can" get into this position, it is not necessarily a good idea to.

By the way, there appears to be a skin color difference. Her back is a little green, compared to her face and legs.

In #2 the extreme arch of her back is jutting out the bottom of her rib cage. Monster lighting doesn't work for most, but she handles it well here. Lining her legs up will make them look smaller and yet still show their shape and definition.

# 4 appears to be back focused, but is a great representation of the model's form and especially her abdomen and rib cage. The multiple shadows on her chest are distracting to the eye. Moving to her left to put the sun more behind her to serve as a kicker and then using a reflector or fill to create the main and then a softer reflector or fill light for the fill, would have fixed that. Extending her legs would complete the line more and avoid the amputee look. It looks like a different girl.

#3 cuts off her behind, so looses that form. Her head on her shoulder removes her neck and makes her look thicker there than she is. The cheek is spread a little by this as well.