And a cute model to go along.

Close enough so you see as few of the ugly locations as possible. Then use such a small depth of field so that it enhances that effect. Seeing even less of how uninspiring the location is. Then use post procesing in photoshop or lightroom to create vibrant colors and lightning that weren't there when the photo was taken. All these photos are the same photo. Great portraits requires more than this. Few tips:look for patterns, show those. Don't blur everything. Look for interesting geometric shapes in your pictures than are also rcognisable from a distance. May it be in color or shapes. What you've shown is great as a learning experience about one of the many techniques. Now see it as one of the many tools you have to "subtley" use as part of a photo or collection. NOT the main focus. A photoshop beginner learns 1 effect. Think it's cool and (over)uses it on EVERY creation he or she creates. A pro(Photograpgher or photoshopper) knows many tools and uses it very subtle when appropriate.

Not all software... not all Gear... but mostly SKILL... you can use an iPhone and create the same result

The lesson here is depth of field, not photoshop.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Too simplistic to really just say shoot close. More like find the one or two elements you might like, incorporate it into the shot, and isolate from the rest. It's nothing actually special as that's just how creative photography is done. The only real difference between a good and bad location is how much more options they can have in just one spot. They overcame this obstacle because they drove around which isn't always the way a shoot is going to be carried out. Normally clients would just agree on one or two venues, maybe three at the most.

I was thinking "Helps to have a nice lens to blur out what you don't want in the background." But still I get the initial point, you can still take a great photo in unlikely places.