File :-(, x, )
"chocolate bunny" pskaught
shoot for a playboy bunny, who wanted something not quite like playboy. So, not the best model I've worked with but, she did take her shirt off.

if you don't know who I am, I'm the guy who uses a shit-ton of flash.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Created2007:09:03 13:46:21Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/5.7Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length53.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width648Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
So it's YOU whose pictures always have the shiny-legs-and-arms syndrome?

I hate you.
>> pskaught
     File :-(, x)
yeah, I tried the flat-chicken-skin sydrome and it didn't work too well.

its fun to hate strangers on the internet isn't it.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Created2007:09:03 14:00:08Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length28.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1000Image Height665RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
I'm not sure I like the composition of this one. The fact that one of her legs is hidden is... slightly intriguing, but also slightly wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>73832
not even slightly intriguing.
>> phesarnion
>>73826
Number one suffers from poor attention to detail, i.e. hidden leg, the pose in number two is weird and offputting. also, both are far too soft. softening, as a general rule, should be subtle as to diguise minor imperfections, but not so soft as to drown out most detail .
That said, colour in the first one is good, although needs a little more saturation, and number two is a little overexposed for my liking, more lighting on the model and so a shorter shutter and a darker background. if you're getting shiny limbs, facepowder can work wonders.
>> Anonymous
So can we get some topless pics or what?
>> Jay Ann
>>73845
She has HUGE tits!
>> phesarnion
>>73848
huge tits are no excuse for poor composition
>> Anonymous
>>73828
I think this one should have been cropped more.
The building gives a nice contrast to the model's skin, but it's kind of boring.
>> Anonymous
>>73828
Crop out the lens flare in the right window.
>> Anonymous
lighting sux

pics = fail
>> Vincent
I like them both too a degree, but it feels like the model needs to stand out more, (aka too bright of a background)

also if you post NSFW pics post them in /s/ and link us! I wouldn't mind seeing them :)
>> Anonymous
>>73828
What do you mean by "flat chicken skin?"
>> pskaught
no tits, I think when you sign with playboy, they have the rights to your nipples. and good god people, really?

I made 800 clams that day, doesn't matter what you guys say.
>> Anonymous
>>73918
>I think when you sign with playboy, they have the rights to your nipples. and good god people, really

That is wrong on so many levels.
>> Anonymous
>>73918

it's true. the members' section of Jennifer Walcott's site has no nipples. such a rip.

and for being such a skilled photographer, pskaught, you sure are a defensive asshole. You're like the former fat guy turned body builder who spends all his time calling his friends fat lards. "fuck you i got paid" is the equivalent of "WHO CARES LOOK AT THESE ABS"
>> Anonymous
>>73901
like you can do any better.
>> Anonymous
>>73930
No, I didn't mean "wrong" as in "factually incorrect," I meant "wrong" as in "morally and/or ethically wrong."
>> Anonymous
I wasn't bagging on the pictures, just offering constructive criticism. A lot better than the usual "shit sucks" and a sage you'd get usually from other douchebags.
>> Anonymous
how much did you pay the girl for her time?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
The first one is my pick but the model doesn't really pop against the well lit background, this being /p/ I made my own edit - not sure what it actually looks like as I have never been able to calibrate this cheap LCD

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Created2007:09:04 20:41:08Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/5.7Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length53.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width648Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>73960
Awesome colour. How do you get it so vibrant?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>73961
Levelled it off and then selective Hue&Saturation passes. Pulled most of the red out of the rest of the image so it wasn't distracting from the model's skin. Replaced the sky with a gradient.

Oh, and I just noticed I missed the top of the door frame and caravan when pulling the blue back - here's that gone.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Created2007:09:04 21:10:03Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/5.7Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length53.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width648Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Did you realize she was black before you agreed to take her picture?
>> Anonymous
>>73962
good stuff

I'd love to learn how to do that shit
>> pskaught
     File :-(, x)
>>73946
she's the one who paid
>>73962
hmm yes, not bad, but I liked the blue door, because it balances the sky. My color profile is looking a lot more satuarated for printing than it does on the internet. without the browns and reds, it looks a little too clean. Instead of getting rid of them, I think it would probably be better just to knock them down.

this i what I prefer, people. Instead of just waving your cocks at it, clean it up/crop it/ color correct it for me via photoshoop. The usual dipshit comments are useless, I already took the picture.

here, fix this one now.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Created2007:09:04 12:26:41Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/4.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length28.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width665Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>74057
Now that I'm awake I see the point with the blue door, I still like the cleaner look though, but hey it's all personal opinion right :D
>> pskaught
copy that, thanks for playing.
>> assface
what kind of flash are you using or how bright is it? Cuz whenever i use flash outdoors i have to dial up the f-stop to like f11 or f16 to get the flash to expose right.
>> pskaught
>>74171
the 5d's ISO can be dialed down to 50, and I had a polarizer on, mostly just working as an ND. so I could open up to 3.5 in a lot of them.

I have a speedo black line 2400A kit, old as fuck. So the intensity always varied. a lot of the time my key was 800w or so, and my backlight was the sun or 1200w. I always try to shoot in the shade as well. hope this answered a question or two. Three heads almost always.
>> assface
thank you. the ND filter/polerizer makes the difference in this case. also i have a 5d but i'llhave to read the manual to bring it down to fifty.
>> pskaught
>>74189
custom functions: ISO expansion goes up to 3200 as well, looks like shit, even in b&w.
>> Anonymous
>>74189
Bear in mind that the sensor in 5D (and many other cameras as well) doesn't actually work at ISO 50. The camera just underexposes an ISO 100 shot by 1 EV and then digitally adjusts the brightness, so you might lose a bit of detail in the shadows compared to a properly exposed ISO 100 shot.
>> Anonymous
>>74171
Balance your light: http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/09/lighting-102-balancing-light-twilight.html
>> Anonymous
These photos are actually quite poor.
>> Anonymous
>>74057
Not much I'd fix on this one, except maybe to light her legs a little more. It's quite brilliant, especially the location.
>> pskaught
hmmm. interesting. I think I'll do a test next time, it was really just for the stop.
>> Anonymous
>>74242
thats some fantastic comment there bud.
>> Anonymous
ugly model is ugly
>> Anonymous
>>74356
I must concur. Playboy must have some low ass standards nowadays...
>> Anonymous
asdf
>> Anonymous
>>74357
they're competing with niche pr0n, SuicideGirls, and the whole internet... plus everyone "only reads Playboy for the articles"
>> Anonymous
jesus,
you know how when you insult or criticize someone and they're such faggots they say something like "you're just jealous", well I think this is one of those few times where anyone who insults of criticize this photographer is indeed jealous.
VERY few people here have taken better pics and I'd much rather learn from this guy than ruin a good thing.
>> Anonymous
>>74410
OP
>> pskaught
>>74411
that wasn't me, but I enjoyed the comment.