DThriller wrote in post #17887573
I think for the pose her lower leg would have looked better if it was obscured by her thigh.
Interesting. I just opened this thread, and the first thing I thought was kind of the opposite; I'd like to see at least a small bit of her other leg through the triangular space under her. For me, it would look weirder with both lower legs obscured, like she's standing on stumps. But really, I think it's not a natural pose. A person wouldn't pose like this, with both arms tucked in and bearing so much weight. The arm positions make it not believable as a transitional pose, i.e. it's clear she's not crawling towards the camera in a come hither way, because there is no way out of this pose but to back out of it...or face plant off the bed
The reason you can't get a satisfying final image though, is the lighting. What little there is is super diffuse, flat ambient lighting, and the model isn't even looking towards it. The result is a photo that doesn't have any shadows to give it depth. The fact that the model has dark hair and eyes is a worst-case scenario for the lack of lighting too. Even the natural light, boudoir style photos you see and admire have careful use of what's available, usually either as dramatic backlight, or flattering light from the front by way of the model looking in the direction of a window or doorway where the light is coming from--not necessarily dead on, but also not side lighting (at least not usually for women). Also of course, many photos that look like available light often aren't.