................

 

i dont mind looking at either one of them

 

#1.

In #2 she looks like she is saying, "WTF dude!"
lol

 

1 if you're the subject

2 if you're the photagrapher

 

btw her skin looks more tan in pic 2 b/c I over burned it in photoshop.....but I can see ur points on the face in pic 2.

 

Sorry, just being real.....they both suck. Pics are good quality, model blows.

 

haha shes more of the playboy type

you make like this Russian model I've shot a little more.....
..............................

 

I should be shooting this girl soon.....THIS IS NOT MY PIC, just the model.....
..........

 

Exactly, picture 1 is awesome;however, the girl is hideous.

 

why? number two has the horrible washout right in the middle of the pic.

id say #1 in eithe case. the washout and the look on her face in #2 take away from it. the look makes it look like a staged candid.

 

^ I blelive the washout adds to the pic in #1. Not all washout is bad. In pic #1 it gives a good contrast to the subject and her surrounding, makes 'em pop a little better. Like in the picture of the russian girl, 50% of the entire picture is completely blown out. This gives a good contrast to the black and makes for an interesting and captivating photo. But to answer the question, I'd go with pic #1 only because her eyes in #2 look just a little too vivid.

 

yeah, sometimes washout can add to a pic, i can agree with you on that one. and on the pic with the russian girl it kind of does because it blends with the background pretty nice, and is almost un-noticable because it just kind of hides the background.

but in the OP's pic it is too close to the subject of the photo, and i like the blue of the sky alot more than i like the plain white of the washout. if it was me i probably would have shot it again from lower down to try and get the sun out of the shot

but this is all just a matter of my oppinion as well

 

She's hot!!!!
















Epic fail