PDA

View Full Version : Playboy Playmate


r1sportbike
26th of December 2008 (Fri), 10:29
http://modelmayhm-7.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/081225/13/4953fa01281b8.jpg

http://modelmayhm-7.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/081226/07/4954f579daa67.jpg

Aj`
26th of December 2008 (Fri), 10:39
Vey good i think you have done a good work on the PP

Sean R.
26th of December 2008 (Fri), 10:47
Very nice photos....

#1 is excellent
#2 great, only thing is the pearls/beads (if that's what they are) seem blown out/overexposed and OOF a bit (from my inexperienced point of view, take it with a grain of salt)

1000DSHOOTER
26th of December 2008 (Fri), 11:00
The eyes in number 2 are great.

I agree with Sean, but I too, am inexperienced.

René Damkot
26th of December 2008 (Fri), 11:42
IMO, the skin smoothing is overdone. She looks plastic.

Also looks like focus is too far back in #2. (I'd have liked mouth and brows sharp as well. Now (maybe) the eyes are sharp, and the necklaces.

borism
26th of December 2008 (Fri), 11:49
Fantastic

1000DSHOOTER
26th of December 2008 (Fri), 11:49
IMO, the skin smoothing is overdone. She looks plastic.

Also looks like focus is too far back in #2. (I'd have liked mouth and brows sharp as well. Now (maybe) the eyes are sharp, and the necklaces.

Dude, she's a playboy model...thats not his fault! :D

Paul J McCain
26th of December 2008 (Fri), 13:41
Also looks like focus is too far back in #2. (I'd have liked mouth and brows sharp as well. Now (maybe) the eyes are sharp, and the necklaces.

Agreed, focus could be just a tad closer, I would have liked to see more sharpness in her features such as her lips.

Kiddo
26th of December 2008 (Fri), 13:43
Excellent!!

StanNJ1
26th of December 2008 (Fri), 18:36
Love the lighting in the first shot. Care to share the setup?

dou_b_14
26th of December 2008 (Fri), 19:28
the first one is perfect for me...the second looks a lil blown out, but its still good.

samurairx7
26th of December 2008 (Fri), 19:43
i really like the first one =)

Trauma
26th of December 2008 (Fri), 19:45
One word - WOW!

wile_e_coyote_n_taz
26th of December 2008 (Fri), 22:24
1st one is outstanding. 2nd is a bit overexposed.


bill

Foxgguy2001
27th of December 2008 (Sat), 06:34
Explanation, your own comments?


Like the eyes in #2.. more detail in them would have been preferred.

leeport
27th of December 2008 (Sat), 09:21
Number one is definitely my fav.

Michael Bottoms
27th of December 2008 (Sat), 11:20
Very nice photos....

#1 is excellent
#2 great, only thing is the pearls/beads (if that's what they are) seem blown out/overexposed and OOF a bit (from my inexperienced point of view, take it with a grain of salt)

Agreed... but the first is awesome...

Andrea Skywalker
27th of December 2008 (Sat), 11:35
I REALLY like the first one.

FLphotoguy
27th of December 2008 (Sat), 20:53
I like the first one also. Photographing playmates can be fun. Here's Holly Dorrough, April 2006 Playmate.

RandyMN
27th of December 2008 (Sat), 21:10
I personally get nothing from the shots when nothing is told about them.

Geesh, we get people here photographing playmates? How do we get a playmate before our lens unless we are a Playboy photographer?

Nothing is said about who we are actually looking at except that it is a assumed Playboy model.

Are we trying to recreate the Playboy lighting and style?

I don't really know, but I'm not going to WOW anything that looks like a dito copy of a centerfold unless someone can be told about it rather than being a mystery.

Karl Johnston
27th of December 2008 (Sat), 21:16
Is that your photo, Haviland?

RandyMN
27th of December 2008 (Sat), 21:21
Is that your photo, Haviland?
I actually did not question Haviland as much as the OP. Why was the original post made and can we get more information about it?

grego
27th of December 2008 (Sat), 21:22
I personally get nothing from the shots when nothing is told about them.

Geesh, we get people here photographing playmates? How do we get a playmate before our lens unless we are a Playboy photographer?

Nothing is said about who we are actually looking at except that it is a assumed Playboy model.

Are we trying to recreate the Playboy lighting and style?

I don't really know, but I'm not going to WOW anything that looks like a dito copy of a centerfold unless someone can be told about it rather than being a mystery.

It gets people to look at the thread. :)

RandyMN
27th of December 2008 (Sat), 21:25
It gets people to look at the thread. :)

So yes, any time we get a great shot it does attract views, but what are we looking at? Seems strange that both posters are new and only looking to get people to look.

Funny thing is I just got an offer today for Playboy for one year at 10.00. That's all it takes to get people to look!

I guess maybe I expect more from this forum...

grego
27th of December 2008 (Sat), 22:59
So yes, any time we get a great shot it does attract views, but what are we looking at? Seems strange that both posters are new and only looking to get people to look.

Funny thing is I just got an offer today for Playboy for one year at 10.00. That's all it takes to get people to look!

I guess maybe I expect more from this forum...

A catching title will always get people to view. That doesn't mean that viewers look for quality as well. "Playboy" is exotic and seen as top notch, so that definitely pushes people to click.

RandyMN
27th of December 2008 (Sat), 23:15
You are correct that Playboy is exotic and will push those who wish to see!( OOPS, READ!)

The lighting used actually looks like typical Playboy lighting. In fact, the pictures are awesome!

I just wish the OP let us know what the intentions were for the photograph. Were we trying to duplicate Playboy lighting with a Playboy model? Who is the model and what are we trying to show the viewers over and above bragging rights?

If I ever had the chance to shoot a Playboy model I would certainly state how the opportunity came about and why I shot the way I did.

Most photographers have a unique style, Playboy has a unique style and this to me looks like Playboy style. If we are posting for bragging rights then let's all give pats on the back!

But if they are genuine in who the model is and what they were trying to acclomplish, this is a photography web site, so let the viewers know what this is all about instead of just throwing photo's saying, look at how well I can do with a beaultiful model!

In fact, all Playboy models are not always as beautiful as the photo's look! So how did we go about making them look good?

FLphotoguy
28th of December 2008 (Sun), 14:44
Is that your photo?

Yes. It is mine. I do not post work from other photographers. I simply posted my photo as a response to the original poster that it is fun when you get the unique opportunity to photograph a playmate. Yes, I am new to this forum but I welcome comments/questions.

As far as photographing Playboy Playmates, most of them are models and many have portfolios on websites like onemodelplace or modelmayhem. While you might think that their rates would be high, some are quite affordable to hire.

I took the above photo using a Hensel EHT 1200 studio flash with light box to fill and offset the backlight. Here is a different pose under the same setup. Canon 50D, EF 85mm @5.6 1/200

Is that enough info? FYI, although she was in Playboy in 2006, Holly no longer poses nude.

Stickman
29th of December 2008 (Mon), 01:33
.......Why was the original post made and can we get more information about it?


I get more worked up over people posting all their family snapshots in the people section instead of in the family forum. :D

FLphotoguy
30th of December 2008 (Tue), 08:41
I get more worked up over people posting all their family snapshots in the people section instead of in the family forum. :D

The first photo by the original poster probably belonged in the glamour forum (in panties with lots of leg showing), and not here. He never responded to any of the followups, so it looks like a drive-by posting ;)

The22oz
30th of December 2008 (Tue), 09:02
I'm a big fan of the firs one ... pretty sharp!

jgrotegut
30th of December 2008 (Tue), 09:38
She is very pretty you captured her well, the first is by far my favorite. I agree that the second one is over exposed. I also think her necklaces are too much, they are way to distracting, perhaps this is due to the over exposure.

epatt250
31st of December 2008 (Wed), 19:51
I get more worked up over people posting all their family snapshots in the people section instead of in the family forum. :D

+1 .

A.ROW
31st of December 2008 (Wed), 21:24
wow...WOW.... definitely for the G&N section

HappySnapper90
2nd of January 2009 (Fri), 14:20
http://modelmayhm-7.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/081226/07/4954f579daa67.jpg

This photo is much too "hot". Her face is so bright it nearly looks flat because ot it. Her white necklace is also too bright. No blown highlights, but these areas are brighter than they should be, IMHO. :cool:

morriwi
2nd of January 2009 (Fri), 14:35
Hot pics...i might have toned down the light a bit in the second picture, but maybe my monitor isn't calibrated...either way, great shots

r1sportbike
2nd of January 2009 (Fri), 14:55
OK, I never responded to the comments of this thread because I had never seen them. I usually go directly to the technical sections of this forum and I actually forgot about this post. I would have put it in the glamour section, but I have not reached the post requirement.

Monica is a Playmate and model. She was Playboy's centerfold in March of 2006 and the Playboy Covergirl in August 2006. She is a wonderful girl and I have been shooting pics for her website and portfolio.

The first pic was a shot for her website. The second pic is blown out because the focus is the Marlaina Stone necklace. The Jewelry company has it as a celebrity sighting on the home page of their website: www.marlainastone.com It was just a promo shot I asked Monica to do while she was at my studio. Both shot were simple single softbox pictures, with the first being in a silver reflective box that we built for interesting lighting.

I just got back from Cancun where I also had the opportunity to shoot Monica and another Playmate. Courtney Culkin was Playboy's centerfold for April 2005.


Monica Leigh - Centerfold 3/06, Cover 8/06:
http://modelmayhm-7.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/090102/07/495e34902a537.jpg


Courtney Culkin - Centerfold 4/06:
http://modelmayhm-7.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/090102/07/495e34efb1027.jpg

http://modelmayhm-7.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/090102/07/495e358eacebf.jpg

titan307
2nd of January 2009 (Fri), 16:24
These are very nice. The posing and the lighting is great. I too think the second shot in the first post is way to hot eve for the jewelry, you can not really recognize what itlooks like. tone it down a bit and it will look better.
When i first looked at the shot with the jewelry i was thinking yo had tried to soften the image and so therefore it all looked OOF. Now i realize it was more for the jewelry. correct?

aathese definitely belong in the glamour section. With images such as these all you need to do is ask for early acceptance and im sure you will be allowed in.

dngrCharlie
2nd of January 2009 (Fri), 17:31
I don't think the skin is too smooth, especially for this type of picture. If you were going for the Playboy look, it seems just right to me. Agree with the comment on the pearls; they almost look fluorescent. Otherwise, IMO, these are outstanding!

grego
2nd of January 2009 (Fri), 22:28
You can request to get in early to the glamour section. Read the FAQ thread for more information.