>>3438739"Wiping off the dogshit from my shoe, No3"
>>3438740Not terrible, but needs fill on the face and slightly more towards camera.
>>3438743Best of the 6, I ran this one through photoshop myself and its definitely usable with some tweaks.
>>3438744If you include the elbows you're probably gonna have to include the hands, by the same guidelines if you include the knees, youre probably going to have to include the feet. Otherwise shit gets out of whack.
>>3438745Maybe
>>3438747Both me and the model are wondering why this ones included.
Its a good start but you are photographing her like shes a building basically. People, and especially females dont generally respond well to harsh shadows in portraiture, unless you are going balls-out. To combat this you really need a fill light when outside like this, be it a reflector or speedlite or a bit of white cardboard. Even if its only small and only on her face it will make a major difference.
While landscape shooting you pull out every detail you can, with portraiture you spend the same amount of time hiding shit. You may think a girls double chin is interesting and casts a fucking lovely shadow, but odds are she wont share your enthusiasm. Fill light will fix a multitude of these type of sins, while also balancing out your pics a bit.
>>3438743has a fair bit of fill coming off the wall behind which is why its the best one.
Posing is something you will probably need to look at examples of. As a general hint, more angular and pointy is better. For an upper body shot point feet to camera left, shoulders to camera right, and then face to somewhere between feet and camera center. Lots of angles create the best shadows and the body gets wound up a bit tighter. I always finish by throwing their ass out towards the rear as well.
>>3438745 I feel could have been a lot better with this kind of angular pose.
And then theres processing, but I think ive waffled enough.
I'm
>>3438155 btw, so feel free to disregard tho.
