Wonderfull shot. The moment you captured here gives a nice playfull en relaxed feel to the image. Only thing that slightly distracts me is the white at the bottom.
Love the grain this image has.
I like the processing and the conversion to BnW, but the DOF and her foot look odd to me, almost as if she doesn't have a foot. Don't get me wrong I like the shot.
When I first look at the photo I see the very pretty face which contrasts very well with darker chest and is framed on the white background by the dark hair. But there's not much incentive to linger there because one eye is covered and she's looking away, not making eye contact with the camera. The contrast of the panties and stockings quickly pulls my eye of the face and leads it down the body away from the face.
The further I get from the face the less visual reward there is for my eye. The sensual appeal of a woman's body are the curves, but the path from face-to-toe here is more angular than voluptuous; the straight angular line of the back hits the buttocks almost immediately and my eye is stopped dead in its tracks by the contrast of the panties; the pose isn't revealing much in the way of curves there either and now everything is out of focus and distorted in size by the camera perspective. Undaunted my eye continues the trip down a ruler straight thigh to an equally straight calf. By now I'm thinking, "women have curves and I'm sure she has some, but where the heck are they?" By the time I get to the fuzzy toes I'm wishing I had just stayed up on the pretty face.
Leading lines in art work best when they lead the eye to something equally interesting along a winding path that is a pleasure to linger along and take in the scenery. Here the trip from head-to-toe is choppy and angular. You lead the eye down to the toes in the background, but then what? Retrace the same path back to the face? Another thing which make leading lines in a portrait image work is when any path the eye takes away from the face eventually winds up circling back to the face.
This type of pose works better when the body is turned more to the camera so the shoulder line and back connect in a smooth continuous curved line to the buttocks, with the legs up and tilted forward back towards the head so when the viewer get to the toes they are back close enough to the face to be attracted back to it directly, completing a circular path from the face, along the entire body and winding back at the face automatically rather than being stranded off in some far corner far away from the face. Keeping the body parts on the same plane relative to the camera helps keep them the same size relative to each other. If you look critically at the classic pin-up glamor shots of the 50s and 60s you will notice the predominance of side-view poses used to keep everything the same distance from the camera. Distance to the subject also controls perspective, so shooting from as far away as possible with a longer lens would work to pull the feet closer to the head in terms of perspective.
So for all the reasons above this one works better for me cropped tighter, just to left of the black panties, getting them out of the photo so the contrast doesn't tempt me off the face. Overall the face is far more compelling than the body and eliminating the distraction off the face makes it a stronger image for me -- YMMV But the fact she's looking away doesn't make it a very effective H&S shot either. But a H&S crop with her looking straight into the camera would be a 10+
It would also have worked better as it is if she were wearing white instead of black. It wouldn't flatter her body any more than it does in black, but the attraction of contrast of the black which is pulling the eye off the face wouldn't be there. Just the opposite would happen, the body would blend seamlessly into the background with the parts furthest away - legs with white stockings - blending in the most. No contrast attracting the eye off the face, giving the face more dominance, attention and impact.
