I’m currently trying to do a series of photos using a nude model as a subject for the first time. The one major issue I have to work around is the available space to shoot in, which is more or less like an 8x10 room. This makes it a bit challenging to get shots in which the subject is entirely in frame, as well as severely limiting the possible arrangement of lights. This also makes it a bit harder to find poses that do not look totally out of place or just strange. I was sort of thinking of taking everything out of the room and seeing what sort of shots i could achieve with just a white background. These are a few examples of what I’ve shot up to this point (They are slightly cropped). As you can see, it hasn’t turned out well thus far, so I’m going to take more sometime tomorrow. Since this is something I have literally no experience with, does anyone have any suggestions on how they would utilize this particular setting? Any input at all would be very helpful.
So overexposed its unreal. Also I recommend using a female model that isn't in your grand livingroom
>Putting a clock on the wall
I laughed, this is great.
>>2786207
I also like the clock photo.
It's an action, something is happening.
Play with your levels a bit, the photos are lacking contrast. Other than that, change nothing, you're a true auteur and I love this.
>>2786117
Microbenis
>>2786117
All I could think of is using a shorter focal length or getting a bigger room
I wouldn't move everything out of the room, if anything try moving the furniture around a bunch of different ways. You definitely need to adjust your levels, but i do like these
>>2786117
Im kind of interested to see any more if you have any?
>>2786117
sorry, I just lost hard for this clock one.
What the fuck is happening
It's time to stop.
>>2786117
has potential
>>2787412
This
Also work on your contrast a bit.
>>2786117
It reminds me of schmidt in the first episode of new girl.
Work on your actions and movement, that's what's going to make being naked interesting.
So i was able to find a larger place to shoot in, which made setting shots/lighting much easier. These are just like a few examples in which the levels are probably closer to where they should be.
>>2788311
This is your mom's attic, isn't it
>>2786117
>>2788311
is this you?
http://a.pomf.cat/symtwi.webm
>>2788311
worse background though
still think the clock photo is the best
>>2788311
is this ayya
>>2786117
almost looks like digital infrared?
>>2786117
of all shitty ideas I've seen on /p/ this takes the prize
honestly I hope you get back on the tracks again and shoot something that's beautiful or interesting, at least
>>2791890
>art is supposed to be beautiful
wow back to the 19th century with you
not op, or even a fan of his work, but i can't stand this attitude that is so popular among /p/ users
worse than gearfagging desu
>>2791900
> implying beauty is romantic beauty
pls be bait
![zogoecr1eqsuv8qztxuh[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/YYGS9BT.jpg "zogoecr1eqsuv8qztxuh[1].jpg")
>>2791902
>implying art should be beautiful in any of that words meanings
>>2791905
now I see why these shitty ideas seen to pop out on /p/; not even old spunkers on 500px seems to be so detached of the nature of art (or the nature of reality, in here)
>>2791911
so wait, you wouldn't call surrealism, dadaism, or pretty much anything post-1900 art?
now I see why these shitt,y boring, but perfectly exposed and WB'd photos seem to pop up on /p/
>>2791913
>>2791913
>so wait, you wouldn't call surrealism, dadaism, or pretty much anything post-1900 art?
what, I said two posts ago that beauty is not romantic beauty.
of course there's good modern painting (miró, rohko etc) and bad modern painting (the majority of it, in fact).
btw, I'm cruz, I'd be surprised to see anyone on /p/ calling my pics on focus and perfectly exposed.
very good stuff
>>2788311
this is fucking hilarious, never stop
>>2788311
You...didn't listen to a single person's CC? They still look like shit
>>2786234
He's probably flaccid there, or it could be cold inside.
