Glamour Part duh! (nudity)

[Stephen Lutz]

Thanks for the comments on Glamour part 1. Here is a nude shot, tasteful, I hope. Definitely need more lights. Two more, I'm thinking.

The beads were her idea. I definitely see what you mean about the angle. Not flattering. Later in the shoot I did some from directly above her that were more pleasing. Here's a bad pose, bad angle, too few lights..... I guess this was a training wheels shoot, so if anybody has suggestions on how to accessorize, light and pose her, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

[opus]

my biggest gripe is that her face looks flat, probably because of the makeup used. It should be more luminous I think.

I see the same dull flat tonality on her lower torso/waist, which is probably due to the lighting.

[almo]

Thanks for the comments on Glamour part 1. Here is a nude shot, tasteful, I hope. Definitely need more lights. Two more, I'm thinking.

The beads were her idea. I definitely see what you mean about the angle. Not flattering. Later in the shoot I did some from directly above her that were more pleasing. Here's a bad pose, bad angle, too few lights..... I guess this was a training wheels shoot, so if anybody has suggestions on how to accessorize, light and pose her, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

It's not perfect, but this is kinda what I look for in shots like this.

[holly22]

Very nice. I'm not a big fan of her hand being where it is though for a glammar shot.

[jar_e]

Interesting. Lighting is definately a huge issue, one head/hair lamp is needed, and one mid body. This would draw attention away from the background. Almo's idea is good, maybe a tad overboard, but something like that might be nice.

Keep on shooting,

Jared