Camera Labs

here they are please let me know what you think?
Glamour Shot
Paramount lighting
#1

Glamor-1.jpg by Kevin Mengus,
#2

Glamor-4.jpg by Kevin Mengus, on Flickr
#3

Glamor-6.jpg by Kevin Mengus, on Flickr

For the rest of them please look at my flikr account here is a link.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30709482@N08/7999250011/in/photostream

_________________
Canon 7D<>OP Tech Utility Strap Camera Labs <>28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM<>VANGUARD Alta+ 263AT With SBH-250<> Transend 16gb 400x<>Vivitar 283 Flash

Skin looks over processed to me

But I'm more used to shooting old men with skin like a badger's ar$e, so who am I to comment!

When you said "Glamor" the first thought in my head was those horrible Mall "Glamor" shots. I think they look great. If you were to say just portraites I would say the skin is over processed but for trying a "Glamor" (in a great way ) I don't think they are over processed at all.

_________________
Mike "The Squirrel"
Canon 550D | Canon EF 35mm 1:2 | Canon 50 f/1.8 II | Sigma 18-125mm DC OS | Tamron SP 70-300mm Di VC USD | Canon 430EX II
Military Issued Canon 40D | Canon 55-250mm IS

I would normaly agree with you dubaiphil, however the way i understood glamour was very soft smoth skin so i like the level of softness. but do other people agree dubaiphill i would love to know? i love and respect everyones opion, and would like to here yours? is it overprocesd? by alot? by a little?

_________________
Canon 7D<>OP Tech Utility Strap Camera Labs <>28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM<>VANGUARD Alta+ 263AT With SBH-250<> Transend 16gb 400x<>Vivitar 283 Flash

well thank you very much. and wow i never thought of that but your right mall studios do say glamor dont they. and dam they are awful. scary thoughts.

_________________
Canon 7D<>OP Tech Utility Strap Camera Labs <>28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM<>VANGUARD Alta+ 263AT With SBH-250<> Transend 16gb 400x<>Vivitar 283 Flash

Skin is definitely a little too harshly processed... pare it back about 15-20% and leave a little more definition and then I think you've nailed it (talking the closeups here).

Watch the model vs light position... #1,4,5, and 7 all are underexposed or have hotspots where you don't want them (ie on her chest).

I think #3 is by far the strongest of the set in terms of lighting and composition. You've given her a really flattering definition in her face, and the only thing I can think of for critique would be that there needs to be a little more light in her eyes. Getting a reflector or something below her would help fill the shadows a bit more and bring it to the top-notch level

_________________
Canon EOS 5D MkII | Canon EOS 7D | Canon Digital Rebel XSi | EF 35mm f/1.4L | EF 50mm f/1.8 II | EF 85mm f/1.8 | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM | EF 135mm f/2L | EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS | 580EX II | LumoPro LP-120

My Flickr

I have to agree with dubaiphil and Plymer, the skin looks quite overprocessed and I noticed in the last shot there's some kind of smudge at the left of her nose... looks weird to me, but I don't know.
Despite this, I liked the shots, I think lighting and composition are quite good, if you just reprocessed them, I'm sure they'd make great photos

_________________
Gear: Canon SX20 IS, Canon Rebel T3i, Canon EF-S 18-55mm
Wishlist: Canon 50mm f/1.8 II, Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II
Visit me and leave me a comment in My Flickr

You opinion may vary - however I like the poses and hair - very retro '50s style.