Guss W wrote:
Well, if those "high end" guys aren't going to reply, I guess I will.

Does the terminology really matter, though?  Maybe if people are doing a web search, you'll want to include both words, but does the client care?

Anyway, I would put it in the "glamor" category because the woman is pretty much the sole object of interest with virtually no embellishments.  I think of "boudoir" as bringing in more of the bedroomy atmosphere and frilly night wear.

EDIT:  If you can find an old book titled "Boudoir Studio" by Robert and Roxanne Wortham, that would represent my idea of Boudoir.

Guss W, Thanks so much for your feedback.

JimBobLc wrote:
There is a lamp on a nightstand in the back to make it bedroomy, and she appears to be on a bed. The soft focus and smile seem to be more intimate and boudoir-like to me at least.

Thanks JimBobLc, These were kind of my thoughts, I've been getting a lot of boudoir requests but I'm haven't put a portfolio together yet and I want to reflect this style in my portfolio album.

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
Being one of those "high end" types, I avoid splitting hairs like the plague. Glamour/Boudoir falls into such a category, IMHO. Same as Nude/Implied Nude . . . I personally see no difference worthy of the effort of distinguishing. But that's just me, feel free to draw any lines of distinction you wish.

Thanks for the imput. Since I'm a low end type, more of a substandard hack to be truthful,  I need to check with my peers before I label anything that might not be as such.

AJScalzitti wrote:
A couple of things stuck for me, the darkening is a bit too noticeable and a bit fake looking.  Try working on lighting that naturally falls off.  Remember to keep the subject closer to the light source.

Depth of field, this would have helped this type of image; f/2 or wider.

Last thing is the expression, but that is up to the client really.  Big smiles don't fit the style IMHO, but again that is very subjective.

Thanks for your thoughts. I did put a little vignette on the photo in LR. I couldn't get the beauty dish any closer if I would have wanted, it was only about 18 inches from her face. Didn't have a softbox with me. I was at F8 which caused a lot of the background darkness. I perfer 2.8 but it was really bright that way.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
It's a lovely boudoir portrait.

I wouldn't call it glamour though.

The only thing I don't care for is the large distracting logo in the lower left corner.

KM

Thanks so much, I love your work by the way.

MCP Photography wrote:

Thanks for your thoughts. I did put a little vignette on the photo in LR. I couldn't get the beauty dish any closer if I would have wanted, it was only about 18 inches from her face. Didn't have a softbox with me. I was at F8 which caused a lot of the background darkness. I perfer 2.8 but it was really bright that way.

It's that the vignette isn't even like you would normally have.  I know what you mean about the power on th strobe; consider going to f/1.4 on the modeling lights alone, at worse you may need to go up a bit in ISO.

Best of success to you

AJScalzitti wrote:

MCP Photography wrote:
It's that the vignette isn't even like you would normally have.  I know what you mean about the power on th strobe; consider going to f/1.4 on the modeling lights alone, at worse you may need to go up a bit in ISO.

Best of success to you

I feel really silly right now, back before I started shooting strobes all of my work was with natural light and with my inside shots I used hot lights. Many times I would kick up my ISO to 800-1600 Now I have a camera that can shoot with little to no grain at 6400 and I totally forgot about having that opition. I do have another question in that regards, my autofocus sometimes doesn't pick up in low light and just keeps tracking. Is there a way around that or will I just be stuck with shooting in manual focus?

Thanks so much for opening my eyes and taking me back to the basics.

Mo

MCP Photography wrote:
Just wondering if anyone else could advise my autofocus sometimes doesn't pick up in low light and just keeps tracking. Is there a way around that or will I just be stuck with shooting in manual focus? Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Mo

Use a flashlight if your camera doesn't have an AF-assist lamp.

Chanel Rene wrote:
The makeup is throwing me off.
I would prefer less emphasis on her face.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Mo

Good Egg Productions wrote:

Use a flashlight if your camera doesn't have an AF-assist lamp.

I do have a AF assist but for some reason with my 70-200 and 24-70 it won't pick up further than about 3 feet away. My 50 & 85 pick it up just fine. I will try the flashlight.

Thanks,

Mo

MCP Photography wrote:

Thanks for your thoughts. I did put a little vignette on the photo in LR. I couldn't get the beauty dish any closer if I would have wanted, it was only about 18 inches from her face. Didn't have a softbox with me. I was at F8 which caused a lot of the background darkness. I perfer 2.8 but it was really bright that way.

I presume you're talking about combining the flash with available, or continuous, light?

Get yourself some neutral density gels for your strobe. When you can't make the adjustments you want on your flash unit's power settings, you can resort to the NDs. You can get the exact brightness setting you need for the shot you want.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Use a flashlight if your camera doesn't have an AF-assist lamp.

Also, you can use your on camera dedicated flash infra red AF assist function. In your camera's custom settings, you can get your flash to emit the IR-autofocus assist without firing the flash.

Practice it all BEFORE the real shoot or, I promise you, you'll be sorry.

255 West wrote:
I presume you're talking about combining the flash with available, or continuous, light?

Get yourself some neutral density gels for your strobe. When you can't make the adjustments you want on your flash unit's power settings, you can resort to the NDs. You can get the exact brightness setting you need for the shot you want.

Yes I was talking about combining the continuous light with flash. And that's a great idea thanks.

255 West wrote:

Also, you can use your on camera dedicated flash infra red AF assist function. In your camera's custom settings, you can get your flash to emit the IR-autofocus assist without firing the flash.

Practice it all BEFORE the real shoot or, I promise you, you'll be sorry.

I do have the AF assist on but for some reason it's only good for about 3 feet away on a Nikon D700. Works fine on my 50 1.4 or my 85 1.4 but not on any of my other lens.

Rachel Reilly wrote:
Im not high end so take this for what its worth
logo is super distracting
I hate how her elbow is cut off (sometimes it works.. Sometimes it doesn't)
Lacks polish
Her expression is... Not sexy at all!
Her hair looks untidy
And her eyebrows really bother me as well

So I wouldn't classify it as boudoir or glamour

Thanks for your imput.

Mo

Michael Novo wrote:
Not a fan of this shot, but here's why.  It looks like she's laying on the bed, the lens was pulled up to her face and a photo taken.  What's lacking for me is the story.  I think if you're going to do a straight portrait, something needs to be expressed.  It's a smiling implied nude girl in a bedroom but its not flirty.

I guess the question is, what makes this a photo and not a snapshot?  What will you do next time to change that and have it tell a story?

Thank you for the suggestions, that makes a lot of sense seeing it with your point of view. Thoughts to ponder for the next one for sure. I guess maybe it should be more teasing or a more playful look. Might be able to include more of the bedroom.

AaronPawlak wrote:
seriously............ why?

Probably because I want to improve, and the best way to make that happen is get good feedback from those who know and do it better than me.

Ty Lockhart wrote:
I photograph a lot of plus sized ladies who pay for shoots.

One of the keys to making them happy is to make them appear slimmer, by avoiding things that remind them (and the viewer) that they are plus size. I do this by corrective posing or lighting, but no photoshop.

Having said that, the way your llama is mashing her face in her hand is something I'd avoid. Ask her to barely lay her face in her hand, gently cupping it. In your shot, her face looks squished. She looks like a plus sized llama.

Nothing wrong with that, a plus size llama can look as good as any other llama, in some cases better. But her poses don't have to reiterate the fact that she's plus sized.

Thanks so much for your suggestions.

I'm not a higher end professional photographer, but hopefully my insight is just as valuable to you.

AJScalzitti wrote:
A couple of things stuck for me, the darkening is a bit too noticeable and a bit fake looking.  Try working on lighting that naturally falls off.  Remember to keep the subject closer to the light source.

Depth of field, this would have helped this type of image; f/2 or wider.

Last thing is the expression, but that is up to the client really.  Big smiles don't fit the style IMHO, but again that is very subjective.

Basically I go with this.
In addition, I think it is mostly a plain and simple portrait. No glamour, erotic or sensuality going on.
It's literally too much "in the face" for me as well.

MiGel wrote:

Basically I go with this.
In addition, I think it is mostly a plain and simple portrait. No glamour, erotic or sensuality going on.
It's literally too much "in the face" for me as well.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Mo