YUK! Wish I could see the girl. Soft focus is not becoming at a website that sell memberships to folks who pay their cash to see the pretty girls.
Tell you something Erik, I came back to professional photography after a break of a ¼ of a century. 25 years I was gone. Mamiya RB67 ProS, Mamiya 330C and Mamiya RZ's. That was the equipment I was using in 1985-90. Gotta remember the manfoto 5x7 monorail in there too:-)
My point? For 7 years, from age 60, I had been managing a 5* hotel, 14 hour days were the norm! I retired. Stuff it. Bought myself a whole lot of gear I knew nothing about, but hell, I had been a pro, at 40!!
I did not dis-similar to this set when I first stepped out as a freelance pro in Feb 2012.
Every-fucking-one-of-us who comments on this page has done the same thing. If they haven't, they've never held a camera in their lives!!
There will be those who know absolute shit about photography, but will know all the answers, and still be full of the most shit.
Learn to disseminate. You'll know those talking shit from those who have a clue.
Your biggest critic is going to be you, except for me. And a host of other know-it-alls who couldn't distinguish a camera from a roll of film. That'll fuck-em. Should I have said a roll of film from a card-reader?:-)
You've done brilliant work previously. This one wasn't up there.
Go Again!! But don't post anything you're not 1000per cent sure about.
Good Luck, friend.
I am starting to get irritated with MET-ART. I subscribed to this site to see nude photos, but I am seeing a lot of sets with articles of clothing. This set is an example of what I am talking about. Please dump the clothes and stockings; and give us 100% nude photos. Thank you.
I fully concur with most of the previous comments about this set. Bad lighting, bad setting, bad colors, very bad photography. The model deserves better than this.
I always look forward to new models, but this set is a disappointment. It is not because of the model, she is fine but the photog does not show it or bring out any of her qualities in the least. Please bring Polina backin a future set shot by another photog. As of this posting, the composite score is 7.13, telling me I'm not the only one that is let down.
I've seen worse...just can't remember when! This photographer has shown that he CAN shoot a decent set, but this is not one of them. Polina's a very attractive model, and should do well here, IF Erik gets his shit together, OR another 'artist' takes over. In either case, I look forward to seeing more of this "FOX"! YUMMY!!
I agree with your sentiments - Latika has shot good work, but this is far from his best. Can't imagine where his mind was here, but it wasn't on the set.
Guccione back again???
No. I think an experiment that went badly wrong.
Should never have been submitted. Erik is going to have work bloody hard, and fast, to rectify this. This shite, could ruin his rep completely.
I waited for ages to see the model in a good pose, only for the photographer to cock it up by being out of focus. Lovely model but rubbish photography.
Pretty girl. Poor focus.
This one set is enough!
Give the guy a break. An experiment that failed and should never have seen the light of day. We both know that, and I'm pretty sure Erik does too.
Truth about this guy, he's shooting better work than Rylsky, Leonardo and Goncharov combined!!
Just a brain-snap. He'll come back and prove all you detractors wrong. I've seen his previous work, or most of it.
Some of these photographers use milk bottles instead of lenses.
Met-Art, dump this idiot.
Another set with horrible graininess...I don't know if this is an incorrect ISO setting, some type of digital filter, or what, but it's terrible. Not Met-Art quality. And a pity too, because Polina is gorgeous and very hot!!!
Model OK.Bad lighting,grainy,noisy pics,tilted camera,weird composition.
I don't have a problem with the lighting and compositions, but the ISO was set WAY too high, at least at 6400, but maybe even over 8000, and the digital noise is just unbearable. Look at the high resolution version of image 9 and look at the whites of her eyes and lips; that level of noise is just unacceptable on a professional level!
I think the problem is that the photographer was trying to shoot in natural light, and when you're working in low natural lighting you either need a tripod, faster lenses or higher ISO settings, and they all have drawbacks; faster lenses usually aren't extremely sharp wide open, and, even if they are, the more you open up a lens, the shallower depth of field you get so it can be hard to get what you want in sharp focus. High ISOs create digital noise (as in this set) and lose sharpness. Tripods can take care of both problems, but then you lose freedom of movement with the camera and your model has to hold still for longer periods (and fractions of a second count in photography).
I usually think it's better just to supply a bit more lighting to enhance whatever is there; that way you can hand-hold at relatively low ISO settings and close down the lens a bit for greater sharpness without losing that "natural" look.
Absolutely fucking Brilliant:-) I hope Erik takes it ALL on board.
Well said Solrage. Even I knew what you were talking about. Says a lot:-))
And not nude on top of all the other faults. Poor introduction.
Sweet girl with a very sexy body. Enjoyed seeing her strip down to her beautiful shaved pussy and fantastic breasts. Looking forward to seeing more of her, she has what it takes.
What a waste of s photo shooting!!!
perhaps more full nude pics would have been good to have but she is gorgeous regardless
Yay !!!!!! no caps. Thax a2m2
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All materials © 2016 metart.com. All models photographed were at least 18 years old.