Glamour with glow.

[Stephen Lutz]

Thanks for the tips on Glamour part 1 and 2. I used a lot of filtration on some of the other shots I did of her. Here are two with the glow filter for that ethereal effect (AKA make her blurry and hazy.) Opinions on this effect, whether it improves the overall photo or not, as well as with posing would be particularly welcome.

[jar_e]

Stephen,

I like the glow filter, much more appropiate for this type of shot. In the first one however, her smile to me seems a tad fake and out of place. The second one is good, as it appears unposed, and still decent.

Good shots,

Jared

[OldSchool]

Hi Stephen,

I don't have much experience shooting glamour shots, but I do have two general comments...

I'm not that big a fan of post processing effects. I think the photos come off much better if you try and do this with props, costume, makeup, lighting, composition, exposure, etc.. Unless one can really execute something artistic, I'd say less is more with photoshop filters and stuff. Otherwise, they kind of come off as trying to cover something up -- even when you are not.

Also, the first image appears to be suffering from shooting the scene at wide angle. Your model's face and forehead look kind of distorted here. (If you can) Back up and shoot with a longer lens.

That all being said, keep on with the good work. These "theme" portraits that you are working on are just tough.

With outdoor nature shots, God (or mother nature) does most the work by providing something beautiful to shoot (photography skill and artistry do come into play of course).

In the "studio", however, the photographer has to do so much more work in creating the shot. My hat's off to you for giving it a good go. Post more. Don't take my comments in a negative way. Your work is well received.

BR,
Tim

[shesells]

Stephen.. I think you're onto something with the effect but i have problems with both pics. The first one is ok but the blue thing on the floor is distracting and i would like to have seen it without the dresser included, just the screen behind her is nice. Its also a little too blurry for my liking.

In the 2nd shot... its weird to me. Her chest looks distorted because of the angle and i find the pose way beyond glamour.. more like soft porn. ok ok.. don't take offence but i'm trying to be honest. I love seeing photos of beautiful women but like to see them not being so obvious.

Kit

[Stephen Lutz]

My friend did some modeling for Playboy back in the early 90's. She wanted some pictures done, now that she's 35. She asked me to "make her look good," which I interpreted to mean "like I am not 35."

Good advice on the blue thing. I can clone that out. Also, I had to use a 16-35 2.8 L on these shots because I was in cramped quarters. Both were shot in my bedroom, so I kind of was stuck for an answer as how to get her all in the frame. A full frame sensor would have been much preferable! Thanks for the critiques!

[ArmySSG]

My friend did some modeling for Playboy back in the early 90's. She wanted some pictures done, now that she's 35. She asked me to "make her look good," which I interpreted to mean "like I am not 35."

Good advice on the blue thing. I can clone that out. Also, I had to use a 16-35 2.8 L on these shots because I was in cramped quarters. Both were shot in my bedroom, so I kind of was stuck for an answer as how to get her all in the frame. A full frame sensor would have been much preferable! Thanks for the critiques!

Whether she is 35 or not, your friend is still quite a lovely lady, and I think that you did her justice with the shots. The only way to get better at these, is to keep shooting them. Good Luck!