The character, light and post, all look very coherent.
Thank you Michael, but as you know this is the reality of an open forum is we all live in a glass house so some people will love what we show, some not.
Some of it's constructive and I like that, but all is personal opinion and that's fine also.
The real story of this image
is commercial work and commercial work brings with it a different set of discipline especially today with a major eye on expenses.
If this image (which is one of many) was shot completely on location, the cost of permitting, securing parking, adding RV's, police, grip trucks, catering, running cable, generators, would have impacted this portion of the shoot by a lot.
Then you have the issues of crowd control, wind, overtime because it's evening, etc. etc. Also this project has a video component so the cost exponentially goes up with video due the motion requirements and added crew.
Do this on 4 locations and the numbers add up.
I know because two years ago using some of the same or close to areas in san francisco we were into those prices and honestly the imagery is not any more "real" looking or compelling because commercial work comes with it a lot of selection by committee, changes, swapping out subjects, expressions, etc. In other words a lot of post production.
When it came time to create the main subject for the image referenced, in discussion with the creative group/client we could either light and place the subject in studio to look organic,with more realistic lighting, or shoot it as if we added key light for a more stylistic approach. It was decided by all to use a more stylistic approach.
Consequently, these two images were shot on location with some minor to major supplemental lighting to look organic and regardless of what we did they still require a great deal of post production, because . . . that's the standard of the industry today.
When I look at Michael's lovely nudes the technician in me sees post work and physical construction, though the artist just sees pretty images. (which is the way it should be).
I don't shoot a great deal of nudes to compare it with, but this image
Was shot "organic" and has virtually no retouching. Even the lighting is from practicals moved into position.
Do I think it's better or worse than other imagery . . . NO, I just think it is what it is.