Guess its time I stepped back into the ...er.. spotlight.

Hi Ed,

I downloaded this the other day, and I've been looking at it, and looking at it.
I love it on so many levels.  The light is beautiful.  I love the way you handled the potential problem of the hair shadow.  It's barely there.  The light on her nose is wonderful.  And the hairlight just makes the whole thing.
But a few things bothered me as well, but they are small and pretty nit picky
1. The fly away hair-I'd clone it out.
2. There is a tiny line at the bottom of the nose (away from camera).  My eye is just repeated drawn to it.

Told ya my nits were minor!

Cindy its Bob. [grin] never been called Ed before, but around here it could be a compliment.

When I carefully clone out the flyaway hair, it doesn't look "normal" to me. I do see your point though.
The little line is the curve of her lip, not sure I should do anything about it.

Susie: Thanks, and I agree its not '40s pinup, in the classic sense. I was too close, there was no "prop" there wasn't a cute/sexy theme to the photo, etc etc. The session had shots that were more fitting to the style, I'll post a couple in the portrait section if I can find a couple that aren't too "over the edge". I posted this one here because I feel it is the technically best shot of the group, and I needed to know if it really was. (I already know it isn't her or her husband's favorite) This is the kind of pose that a lawyer or doctor or other business professional might consider as a sexy gift for her husband. The stand up shot with the skirt flying up would not be acceptable.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned it was her dad's shirt. [grin]

First the things that don't bother me: the shadow from her hair . . . that's what light does, it throughs shadows.  Two catch lights?  I don't have a problem with this either.  Two catch lights have never bothered me, even though it used to be a huge PPA no-no.  There are actually many natural situations where this can occur.  How many rooms in your house having only one window?

The combination of her smile, the turn and tilt her head and the lighting, give an odd shape to her face and head.  Look at how high and narrow the back/top of her head looks.  I think that turning her face a little toward the camera would help, but I am just not sure. 

I think that your fill is too bright.  This makes the lighting look very flat across her face.  At first I thought that she was broad lit, but I don't think that was your intention.  I also don't think that the kicker, camera left, is helping you very much.  I tend to only like kicks on smooth surfaces, like skin or smoother hair where you can have specular high lights. 

I would like to see you do an edge burn on this image.  Darkening the bottom and lower side in particular.  This will help "lock" the viewer into the frame.  Burning the backgroud as well might also help, but I don't think that it is required.

In all, I do like the image and, as noted earlier, she is beautiful!  I think that you are pretty far from a pin-up here.  There is much less implied sexual content here.

Ed

The lighting is not flattering the subject!  The broad lighting is not necessarily at fault.  The light is too high and is not even illuminating the subject’s teeth- they look black or missing- not at all glamorous.  It is neither a short of broad light because is it “straddling the line” so to speak- it is not a loop and not a butterfly.  The image is lackluster because there are no specular highlights.  There is a lack of shadow detail in the hair and the excessive hair or kicker light (?) is distracting and drawing attention away from the face.

Pin up?  Glamour?   Retro?  I don’t know!  The pin up shots of the 40s and 50s that appealed to the solders were kinda like the girl next door but glamorized look.  The Hollywood pin ups of that era were usually full length images showing a lot of leg:;  vis-à-vis Betty Garble.  A sexy shot in dad’s ODs?  I don’t wanna get too subjective or personal but I really think uniforms are for solders and should be respected as such- especially nowadays.  Ok- so I’m a grumpy old vet but from a strictly professional standpoint I don’t think that image is broadly marketable as good clean fun and I am not at all  opposed to tasteful sexy or even sensuous images. 

My feeling is that you have a lovely model and it is best to concentrate on her beautiful features, effective lighting and dynamic expressions sans the gimmicks.

Ed Shapiro