Those eyes...she drives me crazy! Gorgeous face and a killer body, doesn't get any better than that.
I liked it and found it extremely erotic.
Wow, lots of comments here..
I am sorry that my set generated severe discussion in some cases (right BatWWD and D74..? ;)), but hopefully some deepening will help both me getting better at knowing viewers' tastes and the community to grow in their critical sense.
About this set: I will not say that its strong point is the lighting (I will always prefer natural light for my work) or the setting (there surely are nicer and more comfortable ones), but in some cases the challenge is also to adapt yourself to what you have in order to differentiate the sets (I have shot more than one set in the same apartment in this case) and create another story. But I can confirm, like someone here figured out, that my main concern was to take out something "hitting the eye" exploiting Candice's sexy body and erotic attitude along with an unusual outfit of a strong color, rather than setting up an academic stage. The challenge was also to have Candice "framed" (thank you Dave74 for catching what I had in mind) in the window, playing with the variations of poses she could assume in that small space. I liked the idea of having Candice writhe and roll to stay on that small stage, using her long flexible legs to take unusual sexy poses.
BaTWWD, the glass surely did reflect the light of the decentralized flash light and the two side LED lights (not just one as you guess), sometimes in different ways, but in my opinion it was not so disturbing or distracting as you present it, on the contrary: the more the glass was lit the more the subject came out of the background (white versus dark roofs, better the first case for bronze skin and red dress). The same with the shadows: BaTWWD really seems to have some idyosyncrasy with strong shadows (see my previous set with Paula Shy, Mina) while to me it's just one of the possible types of shadows, and they also contribute to detaching the subject from the background and giving a more contemporary touch to the ambience, as it was not a classic setting. The edges could be softer, ok, but it was not my priority then. Of course I know there are general rules in lighting and composition, but why not break them on the spot sometimes? is this what makes the standard of a website? sticking to the (standard) rules? As long as the photosets are signed by someone I believe I have the right to tear the rules to my view. I am not saying that anyone has to accept the choice without criticizing, but I agree with Dave74 when he says that one thing is criticizing in terms of likes/dislikes and another is to put it in a way that sounds that the photographer is not capable of basic photographic technique.
Finally, about the model: Candice is a unique model, she is smart and funny, she can look cold at first or crazy when she melts down throughout the set. I really enjoyed shooting with her and I have hardly found another model so naturally sexy and erotic and really enjoying touching herself (she says she prefers Sexart shootings because she can touch her… True!).
Despite the several negative critiques on this set (always welcome, anyway) I hope there is still enough good reasons to enjoy the pictures.
Looking forward to showing you more erotic stories soon and getting involved in the fruitful discussions here on Sexart!
I don't like this set at all I'm afraid. It starts off with big heavy shadows like there is only one light again, then in a lot of shots there are bad reflections in the window, including several where the flash is clearly visible. The costume isn't good, the focus often isn't right, and the posing is uninvolving and a bit gyno. Sorry, it looks careless, hurried and unimaginative. Candice is a sexy model, but I've seen her in far better than this.
Ok, you seem not to like this photographer, but it seems to me that you also have kind of an obsession for the lighting, in particular for the alledged use of only one light (what would be wrong with that? what if a photographer wants to achieve that effect?).
Also, a window is made of glass and it's unavoidable to have reflections when you point lights towards a reflecting surface, I don't see why you make it such a critical issue (it sounds like complaining that the model is wet when she poses in the water.. it's obvious). I like this photographer instead, I respect and often like his choices, and recently I couldn't help noticing merciless criticism about any of his choices, and it surprises me, since I think we all should expect choices from artists rather than conformism or easy approval: in this case you say that the costume is not goo (ok, let's have all the models nude from the beginning or wearing only standard lingerie?), the focus isn't right (what's right or wrong? bad mistakes? photography school time?), the set is careless, hurried and unimaginative.. (anything more..?) and we already know about the lighting. You also seem very sure about everything and once again it sounds as if you speak in absolute terms. Of course we all see things differently, but when it's about judging choices of a professional I think that it's important to make it clear that it's just your opinion driven by personal tastes, instead of saying that something is "not good" or it's "wrong" in absolute terms, as it often sounds from your comments.
I don't think this set is perfect or deserving a 10 (I personally give 8.5/9), surely the lighting is not as flattering as it could have been with different settings, but I like the concept of the model "framed" in the window, I also appreciate the unusual outfit (including the socks, unusual but very sexy on Candice). Then I don't agree with the "gyno" poses you see, maybe you are mislead by the fact that the model doesn't have many options since she is mostly sitting or kneeling, but that depends on the concept of the "frame", so it's rather a consequence. Also, I find the composition of the images generally very good, and the model's sexyness does infleunce my overall judgment (certainly more than the shadows). And let's not talk about this set being "careless, hurried and unimaginative" like you say, because you have seen far better but I have seen far worse.
So you're telling me that big dark shadows around the edge of the model, totally destroying the line, and reflections of a flash in the window are "an artistic choice"? Some things are personal taste, some are right & wrong, and this is wrong, in absolute terms. Focusing is wrong if the main subject of the image isn't in focus. If a photographer isn't capable of dealing with a reflective background, he shouldn't use one. If the model is restricted so that many images look the same, he should move her. This set is clearly careless, hurried and unimaginative - it would have taken 15 minutes max to shoot, the reflections & shadows are a sign of that. I can accept these kind of failings if it is clearly an exciting, spontaneous shoot, but this isn't even that.
I love this site, and am extremely positive about most of what I see, however that doesn't blind me to substandard material like this, and I'm not influenced by the quality of the model.
Once again, this is what YOU see, and sorry if I have problems taking for granted that you speak in Absolute Terms. You see shadows destroying lines, you see problems with the reflecting surfaces, you decide what the main subject of images is, you decide when the photographer should have moved the model, you decide what is the standard and what is the substandard of this site, you KNOW what is wrong or right... Oh God, you speak like a Master of Photography instead of simply explaining your likes and dislikes, like anyone else does here.. and sorry but this sounds a bit like an I-know-it-all dissertation. It's more how you say it rather than what you say that I just don't agree with. I see this comments feature more an opportunity to discover different perspectives from neutral viewers rather than reading school marks explanation from a teacher (who is probably not so entitled to speak like that)
Well I'll ignore the personal stuff. You seem to be saying that we should accept any old rubbish because it is produced by a pro photographer and only he knows what he meant to do. You are overestimating the difficulty of basic glamour photography like this. You can go onto a myriad of portfolio sites like purestorm and see work by mostly amateur photographers that is far better than this. It is plain silly to pretend that reflections of flash lights in the window is good.
I don't normally call someone's work "old rubbish", I tend to respect it even if I don't consider it a masterpiece.
I also don't say that only the photographer knows what he meant to do, but if I am not sure about what he meant to do I avoid to say he did something wrong or careless or hurried or unimaginative, again it's a matter of respect.
I may be overestimating difficulties in this kind of photography, but you may be either underestimating them.
I don't care about comparing this or other sets to other websites, it would be an endless and useless operation since you base your absolute truth on your very personal opinions, so what is far better for you may be worse for others.
And sorry, where have I written that reflection in the window is good? I have said that it's obvious, so I wouldn't make it one of the core reasons for judging this set a total rubbish like you seem to do.
To cut it short, since there is too much subjectivity here, let's take a look at more objective facts to get both down to earth: so far this set has a respectable score of 8.00, which means that the majority of the viewers don't consider it a total rubbish like you do, so either they are blind and totally unaware of what erotic photography should look like or you have a very personal view which is far from being considered like absolute truth or expressed aggressively or in unrespectful ways.
The fact that most of your comments are unpopular and thumbed down does not surprise me and supports what I have written above.
Don't take it personally, you surely have experience and knowledge on the subject, but as I already wrote I just don't like I-know-it-all approach and I think that here critics should be expressed with more respect and less absolute certainties, at least when comments are serious, otherwise better to use irony, it may sound less presumptuous (in my opinion).
Luca, long and lean: Lovely! I like this set.
I am glad you like this set horsemaster!
Costuming. That's the issue I have with this set. With the the dress, the necklace and the socks... it all just seemed a little 'lairy' and a little too much. I think individually, each piece is quite beautiful, take images 0028 (dress), 0067 (necklace) and 0101 (socks, they are really pretty) as examples. I think 'stripping' the costuming down a bit would have made for a better set. I know all you're hearing is criticism deltagamma and I do apologize. If its any consolation, I think that for the most part your photography is very beautiful. I was just a little let down by this piece.
Hi hayley13, you don't have to apologize, your critique makes sense firstly because it's your opinion (and I noticed that you often have interesting and sharp observations) and secondly because I agree that the costuming in this set is a bit predominant (and as I wrote in my other comment i was aware of that and therefore I knew I would risk that someone could not like it). So I respect and appreciate your comment and I also thank you for the nice words about my other work here. To tell the truth I prefer Candice and other models with a strong and "magnetic" erotic personality when they're almost stripped bare, since they don't need much to radiate eroticism, but sometimes when I plan more than one set in a shooting with the same model I tend to try different combinations of outfits/looks/settings in order to explore her potential from different perspectives. I know that it would be easier to choose "average" and "quick win" combinations that suit the model the best way, in order to have her always at her best (and meet the majority of viewers' tastes), but to me (and to the model too) shooting like that it would sound all so repetitive and kind if an industrial process, and therefore not so challenging. It's a bit like a concept music album (e.g., The Wall by Pink Floyd): when you take songs individually they are probably not so much enjoyable and you don't probably appreciate them so much, but when you listen to them in the original sequence you can really catch and understand the real essence of each song within the concept. I may seem to be drifting away from the point, but this aims at explaining that - although photosets here are meant to be taken and viewed individually - if you imagine what is the "making of" the whole series of photosets with Candice (so far this set Igaro, Gentar, Jacinto and Stunning, which were shot in a 2-day session) you may expand your view and enrich your considerations with more elements.
Hayley13, thank you for giving me the opportunity to amplify this point, I hope it has been interesting to know what was "behind" this set and the other ones I mentioned.
Oh wow. Thank you so much for the reply deltagamma. This was so interesting to read, and I totally understand where you are coming from. It offers a 'new light' on things, so thank you so much. I still stand by what I said, I did think its a little too much, and that the outfit as a 'whole' didn't match, but yeah, now I totally understand, respect and agree with what you were 'going for'.
And you're a concept album person, haha, me too... So it's really interesting read this. If you are a fan of Pink Floyd 'concepts', can I recommend Angels and Airwaves, LOVE (Part I particularly). Only if you have time but. You wont regret it.
Thank you again for the reply. It's so nice to have a rapport with administrators, artists and models. Especially when they take the time and put in the effort to write something as great as this. Thank you :)
I am very glad you appreciated my reply hayley13, it's always gratifying to have feedback on the work but also on the opinions, these latter being great opportunities and hints to start interesting discussions among all the parts involved, like you also say.
And about hints, thank you for the musical recommendation! I didn't know neither the band nor the album and I was curious about that, so this morning I listened to the first minutes and I thought it was a really inspiring and rare music, the kind that usually helps me working. I actually listen to this kind of music more when I paint or draw, but when I get more familiar with that album I may consider to put some of those songs in the playlist I use when I shoot. I will let you know if I do it ;)
Hayley you hit the nail on the head although I would go further. The socks are ugly, to me, and really de-emphasized Candice's sexy long legs, what a waste of photos. The necklaces are also distracting. But once all that distraction was gone, oh boy, did her beauty stand out. The long legs and those absolutely gorgeous hips, very beautiful and sexy.
It's just a dress with matching socks and a necklace, I don't see "too much" but rather a predominant color in a normal outfit. After all Candice strips down after 40 shots and leaves on the socks and the necklace, which are quite sexy on her throughout the development of the set. Maybe if she had also shoes and gloves or a hat it would have really been too much, but definitely not in this case, maybe it's the unusual colour that gives you this impression. I do notice a playful and sexy Candice rather than her outfit instead, she is such a gorgeous model, her legs are incredibly hot and so is the rest of her body. Very nice set overall.
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2017 SEXART.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.