manhattan somewhere

I like it! Except perhaps for the patch of lace on the far left - my eyes jump back and forth from it to the model's face. Otherwise, thoroughly enjoying exploring the image.

johntodd wrote:
I like it! Except perhaps for the patch of lace on the far left - my eyes jump back and forth from it to the model's face. Otherwise, thoroughly enjoying exploring the image.

What lace?!!

Hey, it's dramatic. I like it!

Hey, there is an iMac in the back... Oh wait, what?

Why does she have two ring on the ring finger? Does that mean she is available? Because you know... Ha ha...

I think this is a really interesting photo.

One nitpik: I start at her face, move to her fanny, and then am drawn to the Beatles poster and the imac, etc....

Is that what you intended?

I took the liberty of taking away the cluter in the B/R. I will be happy to delete this photo if you so desire.
I like it better this way.

Then I got bored so I did some other pp.

marty

I do like m. goodwins PP... but I like the original better. LOVE the mix of light... blue in the background and warm subject. The Imac on the dresser/desk and the fan add something I can't put my finger on... maybe a hot night of chatroom cybering? Must be... the bed is still made! The only PP I see is the white thing growing out of her head at the end of the headboard. One more thing I noticed... I like the placement of light... like the light is coming from the nightstand (is it?) - I probably would not have been so thoughtful.

The clutter gives the shot context without it you just have a naked girl on a bed with an unusually large head. With the background in place you have a story; you've just been caught trying to pull your pants up and you're desperately trying to remember her name - context is everything when there's a story.

liamh wrote:
The clutter gives the shot context without it you just have a naked girl on a bed with an unusually large head. With the background in place you have a story; you've just been caught trying to pull your pants up and you're desperately trying to remember her name - context is everything when there's a story.
My thoughts too. OK, maybe I didn't think about pulling up the pants.

Spoooooky

original is much better

Love it Nate. And yeah, I like his original much better. The clutter in the background adds to the photo.

liamh wrote:
The clutter gives the shot context without it you just have a naked girl on a bed with an unusually large head. With the background in place you have a story; you've just been caught trying to pull your pants up and you're desperately trying to remember her name - context is everything when there's a story.


I agree in principle. However, this background tells a pretty dull story because there really isn't one. I could see if there were some specific items in the background; remnants of a prior night of partying or something but, at this point, it's just whatever happened to be there at the time. Totally unrelated to the subject and so, OUT of context.

I think.

Thank you everyone. The photograph of Renee is part of a series involving women, nude in their homes. A subject and her environment, with little if any art direction.

nategigapixel wrote:
The photograph of Renee is part of a series involving women, nude in their homes.

Go figure.... Oh I like the blu tones in the first.

liamh wrote:
The clutter gives the shot context without it you just have a naked girl on a bed with an unusually large head. With the background in place you have a story; you've just been caught trying to pull your pants up and you're desperately trying to remember her name - context is everything when there's a story.



Head? Her head is normal compared to her hand! It's like the Seinfeld episode with the girl who had 'man hands'

All kidding aside I like the envionrmental aspect of the original pic.

This thread needs a warning up top!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kinda weird, kinda strange, kinda like it.

Because you used a wide angle lens up-close, there is some distortion (head/hand). Also, the hand looks very big in comparison to the face/head. And the way she is positioned on the bed make her body look like she has no waist (in other words: short). She also appears to have only one leg, cut off at the knee.

Is the blue color cast a result of uncorrected AWB... or was it intentional? What was your intent to leave/create the blue color cast? If you look closely, her hip looks kind of purple.

pawlowski6132 wrote:
One nitpik: I start at her face, move to her fanny, and then am drawn to the Beatles poster and the imac, etc....


I think the point is it's an environmental portrait, you are allowed to look at the environment....now if you were drawn to the imac first, that would be a problem.

New title: "Aren't you ever coming to bed?"
"