Deezie, I think dmward made some valid points. The whole purpose is to learn from others. The viewer is free to agree or disagree with him but hopefully the points that dmward makes will offer food for thought for anyone who wants to duplicate the setup.
One can regard the above-mentioned photos and take away a good deal of information about whether or not this particular photographer's setup, and the included sample photos are of use. That's not in dispute. What I'm referring to is unwarranted criticism. The poster put up his pics to show an example of his setup and the resulting photos. He didn't ask for comments on his technique. Maybe he welcomes them, perhaps he doesn't - we don't know.
The criticism posted about the photos, while providing good points, focused only on the negative. This could be very likely be taken as a slight by the photographer and possibly limit his contributions on this board for fear of more critical comments.
Deezie wrote:
The criticism posted about the photos, while providing good points, focused only on the negative. This could be very likely be taken as a slight by the photographer and possibly limit his contributions on this board for fear of more critical comments.
And that was my point. He provided some good points that an aspiring photographer and/or an experience shooter could possilby lean from. I also would hope that anyone who posts a photo on a website full of photographers from all walks of life and experience, would expect to receive some critical comments at times. Having a thick skin goes with the job.
I accept that this thread is lighting set up focused. My comments were intended to point out how the lighting may have impacted the final image.
I also accept that the poster did not ask for a critque. I was hoping to be constructive, but apparently my view of constructive observation is broader than some monitoring these fora.
dmward wrote: I accept that this thread is lighting set up focused. My comments were intended to point out how the lighting may have impacted the final image.
I also accept that the poster did not ask for a critque. I was hoping to be constructive, but apparently my view of constructive observation is broader than some monitoring these fora.
DM - I get the idea that you were trying to be constructive, but in spite well intentions, your comments may not have been welcomed. I've been guilty of this a few times and been called on the carpet for it by other members here. I realize that while I was trying to help the person, they weren't asking for help, so it wasn't appropriate for me to do so, publicly. Maybe they'd be a little more receptive to criticism in a PM.
jcolman: Having a thick skin goes with the job.
This may not be his job, so a thick skin has yet to be developed. Even so, it's not for you to say whether or not he's tough enough to take it. One could be just as critical of your work without you asking. I don't gather you'd be very grateful - thick skin or not.
Deezie wrote:
What I'm referring to is unwarranted criticism. The poster put up his pics to show an example of his setup and the resulting photos. He didn't ask for comments on his technique. Maybe he welcomes them, perhaps he doesn't - we don't know.
I have to agree with this - unsolicited critique is such a fine line. Whether or not it's going to be welcomed really depends on the people in question, so it's probably best to assume it's unwelcome until told otherwise.
Regardless, my hope for this thread was to get people telling stories about shoots and talking about their process - not just the how of lighting, but the why and the context that images were created in. There are so many threads on FM that offer critique, whether its useful or not, but so few that discuss the thought process behind the images we create or the logistical process that informed or restricted that creation. I love discovering that a gorgeous, bright, sunny photo was taken in the rain, or that a tall, amazonian model was 5'4" and standing on an apple box. I was hoping that other folks would be equally interested in pulling back the curtain and showing how they got to the final product of an image.
shatterkiss wrote:
I love discovering that a gorgeous, bright, sunny photo was taken in the rain, or that a tall, amazonian model was 5'4" and standing on an apple box.
On that note, why did you get the model to stand on the box in this shot? shatterkiss wrote: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/2854380417_0f49b4bc5a.jpg
To raise her up so that I could get the shooting angle I wanted while keeping myself in a more comfortable position. Donna's actually only 5'5", so lower angles help her maintain the look she needs for her commercial fashion portfolio. There's also the fact that the fan in the shot there isn't height-adjustable and I needed additional clearance for shooting over it.
Recent celebrity portrait at Ramscale Studios in NYC. Can't post images until publication though, sorry.
If anyone is curious, that's a Profoto Pro7a pack with 2 heads - the modifier on the left is the 3' Elinchrome octa (modified for Profoto) and on the right is the Profoto Pro Big 7' - it just looks small because it's about 8 feet further back On the floor on a tripod (hard to see) is a Hasselblad H1 with a P45 back.
The Eli octa was key light high and right, with frontal fill coming from the ProBig.
setup was a Canon 580ex at 1/2 power in a 28" Westcott softbox. I like to keep things very simple and easy to break down/setup when on location. Plus, I really love the look that a little softbox can add to an image outside.
shatterkiss wrote:
To raise her up so that I could get the shooting angle I wanted while keeping myself in a more comfortable position. Donna's actually only 5'5", so lower angles help her maintain the look she needs for her commercial fashion portfolio. There's also the fact that the fan in the shot there isn't height-adjustable and I needed additional clearance for shooting over it.
SK...I am not a fashion photographer so this is truly a learning question for me...
Your "lower angles help her maintain the look she needs" comment was counter to what I always thought...I thought the most flattering shots were eye level and above. But those pictures you took of her on the "apple box" looked to have the camera at chest level...and they are great pictures of her.
Am I wrong in my "eye-level or above" thinking or is that just true when you are shooting average to heavier people?
Eye level or above is considered more of a traditional angle... Though I have seen "contemporary" images at a "traditional" angle. As you start to go way above and below eye level, it is considered to be more of a contemporary angle. Though again, their are plenty of "traditional" images from "contemporary" angles.
I think you have to think of the purpose of the images you're shooting. This comes back to something that's a constant refrain for me, but you need to ask "why?" before you start setting up lights or striking camera angles (or choosing a model's wardrobe). Once you figure out the reason behind a photo, assembling all the pieces of that photo is much easier.
Your thinking of having the camera above eye level is sound for certain kinds of portraits, especially headshots. But making a sort of rule out of "the camera is best above eye level" negates the entire point - the relative height of the camera will have certain visual effects on the image, so you need to decide what effects are best for the image you trying to create.
Are you looking for an intimate and welcoming image that allows you to connect with the subject while still minimizing physical flaws like a double-chin or short neck? Then definitely raise the camera above your subject and shoot down towards them. Do you want to make your subject taller and more statuesque, more powerful, allow them to dominate over the viewer? Then lower the camera and shoot up at your subject. This is a classic fashion shooting technique: a long lens almost down to the floor shooting across the room and up at the subject for full-length shots - you get an amazonian model with legs that go on forever. It's not necessarily about finding a flattering angle, it's about creating the overall emotional structure and impact that you want.
Consider this famous (notorious?) image of President Clinton that Platon shot:
It breaks every rule in the book but works brilliantly. He knew exactly the emotional and semiotic point of his image and everything in his composition and approach goes to serve that while employing and reinforcing his distinctive artistic voice. Following the rules would have given him a by-the-book portrait that we've all seen a thousand times. Conceptualizing his shoot in advance and accepting the counter-intuitive approach gave him a historic photo instead.
Honestly, Platon is one of my favorite photographers working today - I think he's just a brilliant portraitist who manages to get one-in-a-million photos of very famous and guarded subjects with absolutely minimal gear (frequently just a single strobe). But he's also a perfect example in a conversation like this, as his photos commonly violate conventional wisdom and rules but are still simple, eye-catching, memorable and distinctive.
Swanny...thank you for the traditional/contemporary understanding.
SK...great food for thought. Thank you very much for taking the time. I totally see how my statement comes from a "most flattering for the client" mindset. However, as I think back to my most favorite and compelling photos, they are from non-standard perspectives or angles.
Recent celebrity portrait at Ramscale Studios in NYC. Can't post images until publication though, sorry.
If anyone is curious, that's a Profoto Pro7a pack with 2 heads - the modifier on the left is the 3' Elinchrome octa (modified for Profoto) and on the right is the Profoto Pro Big 7' - it just looks small because it's about 8 feet further back On the floor on a tripod (hard to see) is a Hasselblad H1 with a P45 back.
The Eli octa was key light high and right, with frontal fill coming from the ProBig.
Nice setup... I want your gear
More seriously, if you are on the floor with the Hasselblad, and the probig is above you angled down, doesn't that cancel out some of its fill properties?
I understand fill as coming from one of two different places:
1: on camera axis (and maybe the pro big is close enough and big enough spread that it doesnt matter)
2: opposite from the key
Perhaps I should add 3: all around if you wrap the subject with light or are outdoors in shade.
I'll keep things moving along with samples from a shoot this week! I shot lookbook images for a fashion designer's Spring line, which meant shooting ~24 garments organized into ~16 looks on 2 models. We spent a little less than 7 hours on it, including putting both models through hair/makeup. The entire line was shot with one lighting setup to try and maintain consistency while getting as much detail on the clothing as possible.
The lighting setup was a 5' octabox high and to the right with both diffusers and silver interior panels installed. This was driven by a single Profoto head on an Acute2 1200 pack at a little less than 1/4 power. There was also a silver collapsible reflector below the octa and a silver light panel to camera left. The setup looked a little like this:
