Neil, I have to admit that your initial post kinda threw me off stride for a bit but, the photo examples you provide are very thought provoking. I think I can see what you are talking about.
I also see a lot of similarity between Lynne's #5 and your second example. A part of the difference is a matter of degree, but this difference is very significant changes the entire tone of the image.
Very thought provoking!
The main difference I noticed in the three Neil shared was the lack of eye contact between subjects. Perhaps this prevents the image from going to an overly intimate place, at least for some?
Elaine
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
Caveat, I'm not a wedding or portrait photographer so grain of salt Lynne, grain of salt.
I like the treatment in 2 and 3, #3 especially. You can likely get this effect, or close to it, by turning down vibrancy in the raw controls (lightroom has this yes?). The desaturated tones are the new "in" thing, due in large part to your fellow Midwesterner Alec Soth.
For me though #6 is the best of the lot ... ahem, what i can see of it ;-) ... because the moment feels so relaxed, genuine and the feelings of these two shine through. I think her expression is fine. Okay sure, we can nitpick it a bit, perhaps if you'd moved one pace to the left, or had her lay her head on his chest, or stand on a phonebook, or pull back just a little, etc ... but it's really good and authentic which always trumps "perfect" in my book.
Hmmm, I don't like the reworked one (I assume this was #1 which is not showing up), the high contrast low/high key mix but it seems very popular in magazines now .... okay i'll be honest, i really can't stand this look but it's just me ;-)
#8 is the perfect closer.
If it was me, and i can be a bit out there, i'd also try to catch a few of those moments between .... the truly candid which you do well ... imperfect lyrical black and whites. Between locations, throw on the really fast glass, open it all the way up, get close and loose as you see a moment between them and see what happens.
Of course you need to shoot for the client, for what they want, but you might also capture something unexpected, something really true, and be surprised when they like it.
I just shot my first wedding (I could not say no to family) and I really appreciate how difficult it is to really do this well, to set up shots and not have them look too set up, to meet traditional portrait expectations but also really come away with real moments ... and it's the real moments that will truly be treasured decades down the road. You do this well (see below). It seems you have a very good mix of tradtional and photojournalism wedding styles ... am I on the mark here? ... with just a little bit of fine art thrown in. Keep working these styles and molding them into a little more coherence and you're going to be big time.
Unsolicited comment ;-) :
BTW, your wedding portfolio (favorites) has some absolutely stunning shots ... the guys by the window, the couple on the street, the beach shot, through the fence, the boy at the doors ... wow, really, really outstanding. Where's the black and white inside limo shot (yours right?, perhaps faulty memory)? Edit just a few more out of your favorites and the whole will really pop out. You don't need 20, only the best of the best, there are a few pulling the others down which is a crime because the others are so, so strong. Almost everyone shows too much IMHO.
Your work is a joy to look at, thanks for sharing.
I’m a little late to the show, but here’s what I think (FWIW )
It’s fun, and they are having fun and the composition is pretty much working for me, but I think the image background is just a touch busy. I’m with Jeff on this one – my eye wonders all over the image. The PP – well, I’m not a huge fan of the original, but the toned down version is quite nice.
The compo on this one rocks! There seems to be a glow/halo around the couple and I’m wondering if that’s not a vignette?
The huge blown area in the upper right – not working for me. Love her smile and the way he’s into her in this one!
Sky was nasty – why not capitalize on that? I would be very tempted to a mild de-saturation of the background – not all the way to B&W, but just a bit. This way it might look like it was on purpose!
”My” kiss shot! The lips are right and there’s enough light coming between them (their lips) that you know it’s about to happen. Their relative postures is causing me problems – it’s almost like he’s pulling away from her a bit. Is that them, or is that camera tilt?
That rust-red metal wall is sooo cool! I agree this one is really nice. Her expression is alright – she’s into him and his focus is all on her. Not really liking the hand in the pocket though.
Same smile on her – just huge!!! Love her expression.
This one ROCKS!!!!! You plagiarized “my” kiss shot. I’m going to steal this one from you! I’ve even got a place or two around here where I might be able to execute something very similar – though we don’t have canals, we do have rivers with bridges. I’ll find something!
Hey Scott! I didn't mean to forget you! thanks for your awesome blow-by blow critique. It's full of great suggestions! I think I may try #1 in black and white and crop tighter to see if I can minimize the distractions.
#2 is a vignette, you guessed it! The light was pretty sweet, too and the very far away background was a lot of fun to work with. I could have shot there all day!
5 is tilted some, mostly for compositional leading the eye reasons, but it may be contradicting the body language. Great catch! I'll have to play with that one a bit.
8 is a sweet location. I've tried to duplicate this backlit/ bridge shot in different locations and it has fallen flat every time. I have found it impossible to do with a bridge moving east/west (meaning you're shooting the "tunnel" below from north/south). From my limited experience, shooting into the sun is the only way to get enough backlight for it to work. Here's another from that set that has a wider angle:
As you can see he was standing in the bridge's shadows and his feet got lost. Posture is certainly key too, I feel like you can tell he's not in the moment. So for the #8 above, I had them move to just outside the shadow and closer to the water, but underneath the bridge itself.
This entire set was taken within a city block. White River State Park rules!
Hope this helps, and that you've enjoyed my wordy stream of consciousness! crazy :rutt
I find the Paltrow image very interesting. There are question marks as far as the feelings of the daughter toward the mother, which I think makes it demand second looks from the viewer. There is a feeling of reluctant submission on the part of the daughter. Like I want to grow up and wear grown up gowns but my mom has me tight in her grasp. The black turtleneck on the mom is clearly purposeful. Obviously, Annie is the master and I can't begin to guess how she elicits this kind of rawness from her subjects, especially considering there are about 30 people on the set!
The other two....if I am honest...feel somewhat one dimensional to me. The first one is sweet, but I'm not feeling anything one way or another. The other shot is more interesting, but in a universal kind of way. Not showing their faces lets the viewer put themselves in the scene, which is something I definitely should explore further.
Great dialogue and thanks again for weighing in and challenging us all!
The main difference I noticed in the three Neil shared was the lack of eye contact between subjects. Perhaps this prevents the image from going to an overly intimate place, at least for some?
Hi Elaine,
thanks for the very relevant fact re the two women in the Liebovitz pic. It makes this pic even more enigmatic!
Very interesting observation about eye contact between subjects. An often used pose is the male with all his attention on the female while the female looks directly through the lens to the viewer. Liebovitz's pic is a variation on that, gender and role, and a startling one! So, yes, I think what the eyes are doing has a big effect.
I doubt I would be alone in saying that your tastes and style in your photographic decisions are inspirational. We each have our own "eye" for seeing this world, and it is more often than not a real treat to see it through yours. I would imagine that the kids here in your photos based their decision to hire you mostly on what was seen in your portfolio. They too liked seeing things through your eyes? In light of that I am sure they will be pleased with what you have given them.
I personally do not find them overly intimate. No one seems to be all hands, and everyones clothing is intact. Not that this matters. In the end, the paper...product..photograph belongs to them, the lovers, and I doubt that anything you could have done would have made them feel too intimate about themselves.
Neil, I have to admit that your initial post kinda threw me off stride for a bit but, the photo examples you provide are very thought provoking. I think I can see what you are talking about.
I also see a lot of similarity between Lynne's #5 and your second example. A part of the difference is a matter of degree, but this difference is very significant changes the entire tone of the image.
Very thought provoking!
Good to read your comment, Scott!
Photography has the shortest production time of any of the graphic arts. It's well nigh immediate, from getting the subject lined up to looking at the product photograph. Typically there is no time, or no time taken, for self-editing. Compare that with painting or sculpture, where each brush stroke or strike of the chisel is a chance for self-editing, and the process takes hundreds of hours, hours to learn from the work in progress, to grow with it, to negotiate with all the forces which are playing a part, including the subject. Photography balances things out a bit with its potential to allow for multiple takes of an idea, one ofter the other in the same shoot, or after longer time intervals.
For the subject, photography allows immediate gratification of fantasies. They don't have to survive long periods of time in which to be threatened by second thoughts and reality. Witness the antics in photo booths, and social network sites on the internet. It's in-the-moment play.
As viewers we enter into the play, or we seek out images, still or moving, as momentary entertainment. We want to watch erotic intimacy in our magazines and movies. It's disposable fantasy. Lips touching, bodies clinging, eyes big erotic saucers. We get our fix and are gone.
Some real-life couples apparently want to insert their relationship into this virtual imaged world, want their relationship to be memorialised in the same fantasy terms. Well, if they are the only viewers of the product it's none of my business. But if I have to look at it then I don't want to see all that they want to see. Or rather, all that they fantasise, the playing out of their roles in their erotic drama.
In short, a certain kind of erotically intense kissing and touching and looking, while desirable in entertainment, is embarrassing to witness between real-life individuals.
It wouldn't get through if photography was not so slick. It would be self-edited out long before.
What's interesting is what this kind of subject matter would look like if time were allowed for self-editing, if the roles depicted slipped out of the fantasy realm and towards what they really involve.
Engagement and marriage are public, social events. On the other hand the erotic behavior between the participants is most private. In my own experience I have always felt that my strongest feelings for another person were our affair only, not to be offered for view in the form of photographic displays. You would never guess who I was in love with from looking at photographs of me with other people.
I don't demand a similarly strong reticence from everyone else, of course. But as you know, I would prefer loving couples to spare us a total revelation.
I think it's a challenge for photography to transcend the temptations of immediate gratification/fantasy play in the interest of self-editing ourselves towards a product with more sublimation (Freudian meaning) and thus with more complexity and humanity. We look for this quality in human relationships, but hardly between two amorous dogs in the park. Some photos show only the latter, while the two people involved we are led to believe are committing themselves to a lifetime of who-knows-what together.
You are being defended as if you were being attacked
Can no ideas that are not 'nice' be also taken as being not destructive?
It's easy to say to people "You are the best! You are the best!". Is photography so easy that there is no struggle involved, no things to doubt, to thrash out, to challenge each other with? When you do photography does all the roughness of life smooth away? Is photography only about twiddling knobs?
All of us here want there to be some art in our photography. What are the implications of that? I think the implications are sometimes hard.
The fact is I am made uncomfortable by some of the pics in this set. I have gone to some pains to examine why. In doing that I hope that I have furthered my own and perhaps others' sophistication in the art of photography, and even life.
Of course, it is a kind of attack, but not I think the kind that you, or I, need to be defended against.
It must also be seen in the larger context of other comments I have made about the things that you have shown in DGrin.
My need and desire to travel light doesn't allow me to carry chips on my shoulder.
I really do think that you could pull off some better things in this type of subject, and in fact I am pushing you to go beyond what you have got here. An expression of faith and admiration, in my view.
You are being defended as if you were being attacked .....
In your post you quoted my previous post....did I come off as defensive? Because I really can't see how it was, but I may be shortsighted. If you have issue with anothers' post I think you should address them directly. I am always up for intelligent dialogue and constructive criticism whether they be about my images or others'. I feel like you've articulate on your initial point of view, which did need some clarification as to what your meaning was. I found your last post thought provoking and relevant even if I don't agree with every point.
I know this set isn't my best work. Attaboys (or attagirls) are nice but they certainly don't help me as a photographer. In the context of this forum and past exchanges I think you realize I recognize and appreciate others pushing me to better my craft.
In your post you quoted my previous post....did I come off as defensive? Because I really can't see how it was, but I may be shortsighted. If you have issue with anothers' post I think you should address them directly. I am always up for intelligent dialogue and constructive criticism whether they be about my images or others'. I feel like you've been able to articulate on your point of view, which initially did need some clarification as to what your meaning was. I found your last post very thought provoking and relevant indeed.
I know this set isn't my best work. Attaboys (or attagirls) are nice but they certainly don't help me as a photographer. In the context of our collaboration together I think you realize I need and appreciate others pushing me to better my craft.
Thank you for doing that.
Oh, no I was not referring to your post which I quoted as being defensive. I replied with the quote because originally I wanted you to see that I had read your reply to me. Now I see it is not only a bit of a non-sequitur but also confusing.
I'm happy as you know to get down and wrastle! Good that you are too
If you are referring to me as a defender you are right....and wrong I'm afraid.
My comment was meant really to make a couple of points:
1- Lynne is indeed a talented photographer who inspires many other photographers....including myself. A pat on her back perhaps, but a truth as well.
2- We each reserve the right to view the world as we please. As photographers, as artists, it is important that we hold onto, develop (yes grow), and cultivate our own process...technically and artisticly. This is important to us personally, yes, but on a larger scale is also important to photography as an art. So....guilty.....yes I think this is worth defending!
Art is less minus the artist.
....anyway...
I wasn't making a pointed comment at you....but rather offering my own opinion since it seemed we had opened the floor for that...
If you are referring to me as a defender you are right....and wrong I'm afraid.
My comment was meant really to make a couple of points:
1- Lynne is indeed a talented photographer who inspires many other photographers....including myself. A pat on her back perhaps, but a truth as well.
2- We each reserve the right to view the world as we please. As photographers, as artists, it is important that we hold onto, develop (yes grow), and cultivate our own process...technically and artisticly. This is imortant to us personally, yes, but on a larger scale is also important to photography as an art. So....guilty.....yes I think this is worth defending!
Art is less minus the artist.
....anyway...
I wasn't making a pointed comment at you....but rather offering my own opinion since it seemed we had opened the floor for that...
Are his hands in his pockets for the kiss shot #5? I don't get that loving feeling from them because of that.
I really like #3.
I like #8 - the processing and the silhouette but again the hands in the pocket? Regarding the stock porn leg comment by NeilL, I wanted to know from Lynne, did she do that on her own or did you ask her to do that?
I prefer the under the bridge shot in this case.
I only like her expression in #3 and 4.
I think her hand is too straight in #7 which makes it look posed. If her hand was curled around his side like his is around her back it would look a bit more intimate. Same with #6; it's almost as if a pushing away gesture rather than pulling him in. Hope that makes sense. Similar feeling to him putting his hands in his pocket as she pulls him in.
Hey Neil I can appreciate the effort you've gone to in providing examples of what it appears you think is appropriate for photography "in public" and I think we've all got the gist of the point you are trying to make. But, honestly, I think ... :deadhorse
Photography has the shortest production time of any of the graphic arts. It's well nigh immediate, from getting the subject lined up to looking at the product photograph. Typically there is no time, or no time taken, for self-editing. Compare that with painting or sculpture, where each brush stroke or strike of the chisel is a chance for self-editing, and the process takes hundreds of hours, hours to learn from the work in progress, to grow with it, to negotiate with all the forces which are playing a part, including the subject. Photography balances things out a bit with its potential to allow for multiple takes of an idea, one ofter the other in the same shoot, or after longer time intervals. .........I think it's a challenge for photography to transcend the temptations of immediate gratification/fantasy play in the interest of self-editing ourselves
Horse has been beaten on the intimacy issue, we can all agree to disagree on that one.
However, I have given your paragraph above a lot of thought and I think that you raise an important point. Photography is an instant gratification creation at the time of exposure, yes, but more dimensional than you've given credit for in regards to vision, execution and most importantly...selecting and processing images that reflect that vision. I don't just shoot and click and post all for better or worse, I do a significant amount of self-editing. For this particular shoot I shot about 250 frames, and have selected 30 to share with the client. That process takes days, sometimes weeks of thinking and evaluation. Some images I liked initially but now see flaws. Some I initially tossed are growing on me.
Your thoughts also hit home (along with many others' critiques, like evoryware) because I really did approach this shoot differently. I've been pretty loose about directing clients in the past, but have been unhappy/self-critical about their hand positioning, their posing, and wondering if I'm expecting too much of the client and not enough of myself. I started poring examples of photographers I admire, and tried some of their posing/setups. To be more specific, the frames with the hand in the back pocket (on the copper wall) were inspired by a shot I saw as a way to have the guy "Do something" with his hands, as a lot of my shoots have dangling arms, which look silly and conspicuous. But as much as I liked that example shot, I realize now that it didn't work for my client, and it doesn't work for ME either because it doesn't register as authentic. Now I realize that I was more true to myself before, and more happy with the results than in this case. But I wouldn't have that confidence if I didn't go in a new direction and fail a little.
So, maybe the self-editing doesn't happen during the shoot itself compared to a sculptor or painter, but it certainly happens (or should!) in post processing, and most importantly, overall as a photographer, with every shoot I'm looking to further shape and mold my personal style, what works for me and the clients, and that involves a very fluid progression-regression process.
Are his hands in his pockets for the kiss shot #5? I don't get that loving feeling from them because of that.
His hands were, but not because of me (vs. the copper wall). I think he was just "done" with the shoot and I wish I would have noticed it and told him to put his hands on her.
I really like #3. Thanks! One of my faves, too!
I like #8 - the processing and the silhouette but again the hands in the pocket? Regarding the stock porn leg comment by NeilL, I wanted to know from Lynne, did she do that on her own or did you ask her to do that?
I prefer the under the bridge shot in this case.
I'm not sure what you mean. In #8 in the original post, his hands are around her waist, you can see the silhouette of his fingers. I did just casually tell her to separate her legs given this is a silhouette shot, and you have to be careful about body parts melding into each other. I really don't see how this is a stock "porn leg" reference. Maybe y'all have seen more porn than me.
I only like her expression in #3 and 4.
I think her hand is too straight in #7 which makes it look posed. If her hand was curled around his side like his is around her back it would look a bit more intimate. Same with #6; it's almost as if a pushing away gesture rather than pulling him in. Hope that makes sense. Similar feeling to him putting his hands in his pocket as she pulls him in.
This was a tough set for me, after the first scene setup (with the oof treeline in the background, which I thought was the most natural) they asked for a bit more direction and I was prepared for that (see my post above to Neil). So I did give them a lot more, and personally I think the body language and expressions went downhill from there. Sounds like you guys mostly agree.
I don't know if the pictures are online but I've seen the book.
Interesting the critique in this thread, I must admit.
Hey, interesting is good thing in my book! Much more so than nice or boring! Thanks for weighing in, evoryware.
For me, there are matters, such as the one we've been discussing here, which might never reach a dead end. For one thing, I am always riddled with self-doubt about my opinions and judgments, and liable to do a complete flip. Tomorrow I could be smoochin' and slobberin' for the camera (or shootin' it) with the best of 'em clap
Lynne, I was waiting for this reply from you wink
Not saying you are predictable or your reply redundant - what a minefield communicating on forums is!
Indeed, I am grateful and pleased to read your thoughts, partly in relation to the above-mentioned self-doubt, but also because it's coming from you, and not me, so contains things which I could never contribute
I am rearing to have a go at this kind of photography, but my practical circumstances right now make that very unlikely. The herd of loving couples who can fearlessly behave in the required ways in public, or even in private, is minuscule, to speak conservatively.
However, I recognise that it's not a carefree trot, just as you yourself graphically illustrate.
You are of course beyond dispute when you describe how self-editing is the paramount preoccupation of post shooting. My guess, though, is that the common experience is (sigh) "So, this is what I got, so what can I do with it now?!". We are tied to what a few seconds have produced, and perhaps more often than not by accident.
It seems to me that this is a different kind of self-editing to the one which occurs integrally as the work is being produced, as in other graphic arts, where a longer gestation permits a dynamic network of negotiation between practitioner, subject and medium, which acts as a governor and censor of the whole process. And of course, post production editing is still possible, and done, here.
Typically, in photography, comparatively long and intimate relationships are rare, as is reshooting. The examination of the subject matter does not go as deep. As I said before, photography is in general far more superficial, disposable, and at the mercy of momentary influences. And here we approach another longlived and ongoing debate about the credentials of photography as an art form. Another equine casualty, in some people's wishful thinking
I agree with you if you are saying that photography can be educative in a parallel way to the other graphic arts, but I think the mechanisms of this education are different. While education happens in the latter as an inseparable and unavoidable part of the work, in photography it can easily be avoided. Technology and its mass consumption are partly responsible for this optionality. The other graphic arts must still be done the long way, by hand and brain and personality and relationships. Few, very few, go down that path - and the reasons that most don't are instructive and crucial to our discussion. And as well, preparing yourself for the next shoot is not a substitute for the interactions I have described, which are a definitive aspect of the other graphic arts.
Photography is "pretty" and sensational and in-the-moment in a way that other graphic arts cannot be. But these virtues should not blind us to its challenges (and limitations?). One of which, I repeat, is to transcend the temptations of immediate gratification/fantasy play in the interest of self-editing ourselves towards a product with more sublimation (Freudian meaning) and thus with more complexity and humanity.
This I fear can only really successfully be done in the shoot and not post. The implications are that photographers and subjects will need more commitment of time and involvement to the photographic/artistic process, in real time, than is usual now.
It's fun, the whirl of life, which is what photography is eminently suited to. Getting to know each other as unique lives is very, very fraught, and so is the photography that wants to go there.
It's fun, the whirl of life, which is what photography is eminently suited to. Getting to know each other as unique lives is very, very fraught, and so is the photography that wants to go there.
Neil
As a copyeditor and writer, the merits of self-editing for brevity and clarity come to mind.
That said, I appreciate your input and very much look forward to seeing the fruits of your own journey in photography as a pseudo-art form!
awesome
I am way more into the backgrounds than the people.. where did you shoot the brown background at? Im a photography student and would LOVE to get a fall fashion shoot there!!
I'd cred you for the idea, of course
I am way more into the backgrounds than the people.. where did you shoot the brown background at? Im a photography student and would LOVE to get a fall fashion shoot there!!
I'd cred you for the idea, of course
Thanks for your comments!
All photos were taken at White River State Park in Indianapolis. The metal wall is part of the the NCAA national headquarters complex. If you make it here definitely give me a holler!
Height Differences
A little late in the game, but, I'd like to add one thought:
When I'm photographing a couple with a fairly pronounced height difference, I try to find poses that will bring the interest (their eyes) closer together. So, for me, the poses where he's leaning against a wall (lowering himself) and she's reaching up to him (lifting herself) work better compositionally. Close ups of them when they're sitting will allow you to get their bodies onto similar planes without forcing an uncomfortable or unbelievable look. Have her come over his shoulder, or sit in his lap. Let her stand on a small wall, or even up a hill...anything to bring their faces together naturally.
When the eyes of the smaller person line up to the nose/mouth of the taller one, your eye doesn't have to travel as much to pick up both expressions - and by extension - the chemistry between them.
All this said...my favorite is #8 ... it just works...maybe because I can't see their eyes and their bodies are doing all the talking.
#1. Oh my fault, on second look I see his hand behind her back now!
#2. Hahah, no I didn't think it was "stock porn" at all. In fact, I didn't think anything was wrong with it. I just wanted to know if you asked her to do that or if she did it on her own. I thought it was really cute. One of my ex-girlfriends used to run up to me and do that all the time I had no choice but to catch her in my arms.
I'm still lost trying to figure out NeilL's standards regarding intimacy and nudity and I guess it's just a diffference in geographical location. Unfortunately, someone stole my GPS so it's taking me a while. :cry
Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358
I'm still lost trying to figure out NeilL's standards regarding intimacy and nudity and I guess it's just a diffference in geographical location. Unfortunately, someone stole my GPS so it's taking me a while. :cry
HaHa!! Good one!! clap
My standards are on a sliding scale!
I like glamor to be in-your-face sexy, but sexy as in hey! that is one way for people to be beautiful! I detest hide-and-seek peeping-tom voyeurism, which da would-be controllers of da merchandise turn stuff into so that they can milk your conscience for da returns (ie "We will let you see naughty things if you pay" :pimp.) Yes, mark me, one natural way to be beautiful!
I love nudity, when the body becomes the window to the soul. Nothing can tell the same story as the nude body, and that story to me is the one, true epic! Once again, it is not fer da whisperin' man to sell it to me!
And you know very well what I think about photography of real people who are committing themselves to each other for a lifetime of better-or-worse, and what they do or don't do together when they are intimate (at least Scott and Lynne assure me you do. They held the funeral! ).
As I've said here, there and elsewhere, the quality of the photo depends on the quality of the relationships it encapsulates.
BTW How long would it take to get a couple score of Hollywood pimping movie stills with the girl's leg semi-erect? Leave porn alone!
I guess I'll run into ya when you track down that GPS?
Comments
The main difference I noticed in the three Neil shared was the lack of eye contact between subjects. Perhaps this prevents the image from going to an overly intimate place, at least for some?
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
Elaine Heasley Photography
These are great!
Caveat, I'm not a wedding or portrait photographer so grain of salt Lynne, grain of salt.
I like the treatment in 2 and 3, #3 especially. You can likely get this effect, or close to it, by turning down vibrancy in the raw controls (lightroom has this yes?). The desaturated tones are the new "in" thing, due in large part to your fellow Midwesterner Alec Soth.
For me though #6 is the best of the lot ... ahem, what i can see of it ;-) ... because the moment feels so relaxed, genuine and the feelings of these two shine through. I think her expression is fine. Okay sure, we can nitpick it a bit, perhaps if you'd moved one pace to the left, or had her lay her head on his chest, or stand on a phonebook, or pull back just a little, etc ... but it's really good and authentic which always trumps "perfect" in my book.
Hmmm, I don't like the reworked one (I assume this was #1 which is not showing up), the high contrast low/high key mix but it seems very popular in magazines now .... okay i'll be honest, i really can't stand this look but it's just me ;-)
#8 is the perfect closer.
If it was me, and i can be a bit out there, i'd also try to catch a few of those moments between .... the truly candid which you do well ... imperfect lyrical black and whites. Between locations, throw on the really fast glass, open it all the way up, get close and loose as you see a moment between them and see what happens.
Of course you need to shoot for the client, for what they want, but you might also capture something unexpected, something really true, and be surprised when they like it.
I just shot my first wedding (I could not say no to family) and I really appreciate how difficult it is to really do this well, to set up shots and not have them look too set up, to meet traditional portrait expectations but also really come away with real moments ... and it's the real moments that will truly be treasured decades down the road. You do this well (see below). It seems you have a very good mix of tradtional and photojournalism wedding styles ... am I on the mark here? ... with just a little bit of fine art thrown in. Keep working these styles and molding them into a little more coherence and you're going to be big time.
Unsolicited comment ;-) :
BTW, your wedding portfolio (favorites) has some absolutely stunning shots ... the guys by the window, the couple on the street, the beach shot, through the fence, the boy at the doors ... wow, really, really outstanding. Where's the black and white inside limo shot (yours right?, perhaps faulty memory)? Edit just a few more out of your favorites and the whole will really pop out. You don't need 20, only the best of the best, there are a few pulling the others down which is a crime because the others are so, so strong. Almost everyone shows too much IMHO.
Your work is a joy to look at, thanks for sharing.
cheers,
tom
Hey Scott! I didn't mean to forget you!
#2 is a vignette, you guessed it! The light was pretty sweet, too and the very far away background was a lot of fun to work with. I could have shot there all day!
5 is tilted some, mostly for compositional leading the eye reasons, but it may be contradicting the body language. Great catch! I'll have to play with that one a bit.
8 is a sweet location. I've tried to duplicate this backlit/ bridge shot in different locations and it has fallen flat every time. I have found it impossible to do with a bridge moving east/west (meaning you're shooting the "tunnel" below from north/south). From my limited experience, shooting into the sun is the only way to get enough backlight for it to work. Here's another from that set that has a wider angle:
As you can see he was standing in the bridge's shadows and his feet got lost. Posture is certainly key too, I feel like you can tell he's not in the moment. So for the #8 above, I had them move to just outside the shadow and closer to the water, but underneath the bridge itself.
This entire set was taken within a city block. White River State Park rules!
Hope this helps, and that you've enjoyed my wordy stream of consciousness!
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
I find the Paltrow image very interesting. There are question marks as far as the feelings of the daughter toward the mother, which I think makes it demand second looks from the viewer. There is a feeling of reluctant submission on the part of the daughter. Like I want to grow up and wear grown up gowns but my mom has me tight in her grasp. The black turtleneck on the mom is clearly purposeful. Obviously, Annie is the master and I can't begin to guess how she elicits this kind of rawness from her subjects, especially considering there are about 30 people on the set!
The other two....if I am honest...feel somewhat one dimensional to me. The first one is sweet, but I'm not feeling anything one way or another. The other shot is more interesting, but in a universal kind of way. Not showing their faces lets the viewer put themselves in the scene, which is something I definitely should explore further.
Great dialogue and thanks again for weighing in and challenging us all!
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
Hi Elaine,
thanks for the very relevant fact re the two women in the Liebovitz pic. It makes this pic even more enigmatic!
Very interesting observation about eye contact between subjects. An often used pose is the male with all his attention on the female while the female looks directly through the lens to the viewer. Liebovitz's pic is a variation on that, gender and role, and a startling one! So, yes, I think what the eyes are doing has a big effect.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I doubt I would be alone in saying that your tastes and style in your photographic decisions are inspirational. We each have our own "eye" for seeing this world, and it is more often than not a real treat to see it through yours. I would imagine that the kids here in your photos based their decision to hire you mostly on what was seen in your portfolio. They too liked seeing things through your eyes? In light of that I am sure they will be pleased with what you have given them.
I personally do not find them overly intimate. No one seems to be all hands, and everyones clothing is intact. Not that this matters. In the end, the paper...product..photograph belongs to them, the lovers, and I doubt that anything you could have done would have made them feel too intimate about themselves.
Jeff
-Need help with Dgrin?; Wedding Photography Resources
-My Website - Blog - Tips for Senior Portraiture
Good to read your comment, Scott!
Photography has the shortest production time of any of the graphic arts. It's well nigh immediate, from getting the subject lined up to looking at the product photograph. Typically there is no time, or no time taken, for self-editing. Compare that with painting or sculpture, where each brush stroke or strike of the chisel is a chance for self-editing, and the process takes hundreds of hours, hours to learn from the work in progress, to grow with it, to negotiate with all the forces which are playing a part, including the subject. Photography balances things out a bit with its potential to allow for multiple takes of an idea, one ofter the other in the same shoot, or after longer time intervals.
For the subject, photography allows immediate gratification of fantasies. They don't have to survive long periods of time in which to be threatened by second thoughts and reality. Witness the antics in photo booths, and social network sites on the internet. It's in-the-moment play.
As viewers we enter into the play, or we seek out images, still or moving, as momentary entertainment. We want to watch erotic intimacy in our magazines and movies. It's disposable fantasy. Lips touching, bodies clinging, eyes big erotic saucers. We get our fix and are gone.
Some real-life couples apparently want to insert their relationship into this virtual imaged world, want their relationship to be memorialised in the same fantasy terms. Well, if they are the only viewers of the product it's none of my business. But if I have to look at it then I don't want to see all that they want to see. Or rather, all that they fantasise, the playing out of their roles in their erotic drama.
In short, a certain kind of erotically intense kissing and touching and looking, while desirable in entertainment, is embarrassing to witness between real-life individuals.
It wouldn't get through if photography was not so slick. It would be self-edited out long before.
What's interesting is what this kind of subject matter would look like if time were allowed for self-editing, if the roles depicted slipped out of the fantasy realm and towards what they really involve.
Engagement and marriage are public, social events. On the other hand the erotic behavior between the participants is most private. In my own experience I have always felt that my strongest feelings for another person were our affair only, not to be offered for view in the form of photographic displays. You would never guess who I was in love with from looking at photographs of me with other people.
I don't demand a similarly strong reticence from everyone else, of course. But as you know, I would prefer loving couples to spare us a total revelation.
I think it's a challenge for photography to transcend the temptations of immediate gratification/fantasy play in the interest of self-editing ourselves towards a product with more sublimation (Freudian meaning) and thus with more complexity and humanity. We look for this quality in human relationships, but hardly between two amorous dogs in the park. Some photos show only the latter, while the two people involved we are led to believe are committing themselves to a lifetime of who-knows-what together.
The soapbox has been well used today
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
You are being defended as if you were being attacked
Can no ideas that are not 'nice' be also taken as being not destructive?
It's easy to say to people "You are the best! You are the best!". Is photography so easy that there is no struggle involved, no things to doubt, to thrash out, to challenge each other with? When you do photography does all the roughness of life smooth away? Is photography only about twiddling knobs?
All of us here want there to be some art in our photography. What are the implications of that? I think the implications are sometimes hard.
The fact is I am made uncomfortable by some of the pics in this set. I have gone to some pains to examine why. In doing that I hope that I have furthered my own and perhaps others' sophistication in the art of photography, and even life.
Of course, it is a kind of attack, but not I think the kind that you, or I, need to be defended against.
It must also be seen in the larger context of other comments I have made about the things that you have shown in DGrin.
My need and desire to travel light doesn't allow me to carry chips on my shoulder.
I really do think that you could pull off some better things in this type of subject, and in fact I am pushing you to go beyond what you have got here. An expression of faith and admiration, in my view.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
In your post you quoted my previous post....did I come off as defensive? Because I really can't see how it was, but I may be shortsighted. If you have issue with anothers' post I think you should address them directly. I am always up for intelligent dialogue and constructive criticism whether they be about my images or others'. I feel like you've articulate on your initial point of view, which did need some clarification as to what your meaning was. I found your last post thought provoking and relevant even if I don't agree with every point.
I know this set isn't my best work. Attaboys (or attagirls) are nice but they certainly don't help me as a photographer. In the context of this forum and past exchanges I think you realize I recognize and appreciate others pushing me to better my craft.
Thank you for doing that.
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
Oh, no I was not referring to your post which I quoted as being defensive. I replied with the quote because originally I wanted you to see that I had read your reply to me. Now I see it is not only a bit of a non-sequitur but also confusing.
I'm happy as you know to get down and wrastle! Good that you are too
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
If you are referring to me as a defender you are right....and wrong I'm afraid.
My comment was meant really to make a couple of points:
1- Lynne is indeed a talented photographer who inspires many other photographers....including myself. A pat on her back perhaps, but a truth as well.
2- We each reserve the right to view the world as we please. As photographers, as artists, it is important that we hold onto, develop (yes grow), and cultivate our own process...technically and artisticly. This is important to us personally, yes, but on a larger scale is also important to photography as an art. So....guilty.....yes I think this is worth defending!
Art is less minus the artist.
....anyway...
I wasn't making a pointed comment at you....but rather offering my own opinion since it seemed we had opened the floor for that...
Jeff
-Need help with Dgrin?; Wedding Photography Resources
-My Website - Blog - Tips for Senior Portraiture
Nicely done! Thanks Jeff!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I really like #3.
I like #8 - the processing and the silhouette but again the hands in the pocket? Regarding the stock porn leg comment by NeilL, I wanted to know from Lynne, did she do that on her own or did you ask her to do that?
I prefer the under the bridge shot in this case.
I only like her expression in #3 and 4.
I think her hand is too straight in #7 which makes it look posed. If her hand was curled around his side like his is around her back it would look a bit more intimate. Same with #6; it's almost as if a pushing away gesture rather than pulling him in. Hope that makes sense. Similar feeling to him putting his hands in his pocket as she pulls him in.
I see NeilL is checking out Annie Leibovitz "Women".
Here is another one you may want to check out:
http://www.powerhousebooks.com/book/164
I don't know if the pictures are online but I've seen the book.
Interesting the critique in this thread, I must admit.
dak.smugmug.com
http://www.linnealenkus.com/couples3.html
http://www.linnealenkus.com/couples9.html
http://www.linnealenkus.com/couples11.html
http://www.linnealenkus.com/couples13.html
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Horse has been beaten on the intimacy issue, we can all agree to disagree on that one.
However, I have given your paragraph above a lot of thought and I think that you raise an important point. Photography is an instant gratification creation at the time of exposure, yes, but more dimensional than you've given credit for in regards to vision, execution and most importantly...selecting and processing images that reflect that vision. I don't just shoot and click and post all for better or worse, I do a significant amount of self-editing. For this particular shoot I shot about 250 frames, and have selected 30 to share with the client. That process takes days, sometimes weeks of thinking and evaluation. Some images I liked initially but now see flaws. Some I initially tossed are growing on me.
Your thoughts also hit home (along with many others' critiques, like evoryware) because I really did approach this shoot differently. I've been pretty loose about directing clients in the past, but have been unhappy/self-critical about their hand positioning, their posing, and wondering if I'm expecting too much of the client and not enough of myself. I started poring examples of photographers I admire, and tried some of their posing/setups. To be more specific, the frames with the hand in the back pocket (on the copper wall) were inspired by a shot I saw as a way to have the guy "Do something" with his hands, as a lot of my shoots have dangling arms, which look silly and conspicuous. But as much as I liked that example shot, I realize now that it didn't work for my client, and it doesn't work for ME either because it doesn't register as authentic. Now I realize that I was more true to myself before, and more happy with the results than in this case. But I wouldn't have that confidence if I didn't go in a new direction and fail a little.
So, maybe the self-editing doesn't happen during the shoot itself compared to a sculptor or painter, but it certainly happens (or should!) in post processing, and most importantly, overall as a photographer, with every shoot I'm looking to further shape and mold my personal style, what works for me and the clients, and that involves a very fluid progression-regression process.
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
For me, there are matters, such as the one we've been discussing here, which might never reach a dead end. For one thing, I am always riddled with self-doubt about my opinions and judgments, and liable to do a complete flip. Tomorrow I could be smoochin' and slobberin' for the camera (or shootin' it) with the best of 'em
Lynne, I was waiting for this reply from you
Not saying you are predictable or your reply redundant - what a minefield communicating on forums is!
Indeed, I am grateful and pleased to read your thoughts, partly in relation to the above-mentioned self-doubt, but also because it's coming from you, and not me, so contains things which I could never contribute
I am rearing to have a go at this kind of photography, but my practical circumstances right now make that very unlikely. The herd of loving couples who can fearlessly behave in the required ways in public, or even in private, is minuscule, to speak conservatively.
However, I recognise that it's not a carefree trot, just as you yourself graphically illustrate.
You are of course beyond dispute when you describe how self-editing is the paramount preoccupation of post shooting. My guess, though, is that the common experience is (sigh) "So, this is what I got, so what can I do with it now?!". We are tied to what a few seconds have produced, and perhaps more often than not by accident.
It seems to me that this is a different kind of self-editing to the one which occurs integrally as the work is being produced, as in other graphic arts, where a longer gestation permits a dynamic network of negotiation between practitioner, subject and medium, which acts as a governor and censor of the whole process. And of course, post production editing is still possible, and done, here.
Typically, in photography, comparatively long and intimate relationships are rare, as is reshooting. The examination of the subject matter does not go as deep. As I said before, photography is in general far more superficial, disposable, and at the mercy of momentary influences. And here we approach another longlived and ongoing debate about the credentials of photography as an art form. Another equine casualty, in some people's wishful thinking
I agree with you if you are saying that photography can be educative in a parallel way to the other graphic arts, but I think the mechanisms of this education are different. While education happens in the latter as an inseparable and unavoidable part of the work, in photography it can easily be avoided. Technology and its mass consumption are partly responsible for this optionality. The other graphic arts must still be done the long way, by hand and brain and personality and relationships. Few, very few, go down that path - and the reasons that most don't are instructive and crucial to our discussion. And as well, preparing yourself for the next shoot is not a substitute for the interactions I have described, which are a definitive aspect of the other graphic arts.
Photography is "pretty" and sensational and in-the-moment in a way that other graphic arts cannot be. But these virtues should not blind us to its challenges (and limitations?). One of which, I repeat, is to transcend the temptations of immediate gratification/fantasy play in the interest of self-editing ourselves towards a product with more sublimation (Freudian meaning) and thus with more complexity and humanity.
This I fear can only really successfully be done in the shoot and not post. The implications are that photographers and subjects will need more commitment of time and involvement to the photographic/artistic process, in real time, than is usual now.
It's fun, the whirl of life, which is what photography is eminently suited to. Getting to know each other as unique lives is very, very fraught, and so is the photography that wants to go there.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
As a copyeditor and writer, the merits of self-editing for brevity and clarity come to mind.
That said, I appreciate your input and very much look forward to seeing the fruits of your own journey in photography as a pseudo-art form!
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
Yes, and Time has its purpose, and it's not just to turn us old! Take your time!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I am way more into the backgrounds than the people.. where did you shoot the brown background at? Im a photography student and would LOVE to get a fall fashion shoot there!!
I'd cred you for the idea, of course
Thanks for your comments!
All photos were taken at White River State Park in Indianapolis. The metal wall is part of the the NCAA national headquarters complex. If you make it here definitely give me a holler!
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
A little late in the game, but, I'd like to add one thought:
When I'm photographing a couple with a fairly pronounced height difference, I try to find poses that will bring the interest (their eyes) closer together. So, for me, the poses where he's leaning against a wall (lowering himself) and she's reaching up to him (lifting herself) work better compositionally. Close ups of them when they're sitting will allow you to get their bodies onto similar planes without forcing an uncomfortable or unbelievable look. Have her come over his shoulder, or sit in his lap. Let her stand on a small wall, or even up a hill...anything to bring their faces together naturally.
When the eyes of the smaller person line up to the nose/mouth of the taller one, your eye doesn't have to travel as much to pick up both expressions - and by extension - the chemistry between them.
All this said...my favorite is #8
- Gary.
#1. Oh my fault, on second look I see his hand behind her back now!
#2. Hahah, no I didn't think it was "stock porn" at all. In fact, I didn't think anything was wrong with it. I just wanted to know if you asked her to do that or if she did it on her own. I thought it was really cute. One of my ex-girlfriends used to run up to me and do that all the time I had no choice but to catch her in my arms.
I'm still lost trying to figure out NeilL's standards regarding intimacy and nudity and I guess it's just a diffference in geographical location. Unfortunately, someone stole my GPS so it's taking me a while. :cry
dak.smugmug.com
HaHa!! Good one!!
My standards are on a sliding scale!
I like glamor to be in-your-face sexy, but sexy as in hey! that is one way for people to be beautiful! I detest hide-and-seek peeping-tom voyeurism, which da would-be controllers of da merchandise turn stuff into so that they can milk your conscience for da returns (ie "We will let you see naughty things if you pay" :pimp.)
I love nudity, when the body becomes the window to the soul. Nothing can tell the same story as the nude body, and that story to me is the one, true epic! Once again, it is not fer da whisperin' man to sell it to me!
And you know very well what I think about photography of real people who are committing themselves to each other for a lifetime of better-or-worse, and what they do or don't do together when they are intimate (at least Scott and Lynne assure me you do. They held the funeral!
As I've said here, there and elsewhere, the quality of the photo depends on the quality of the relationships it encapsulates.
BTW How long would it take to get a couple score of Hollywood pimping movie stills with the girl's leg semi-erect? Leave porn alone!
I guess I'll run into ya when you track down that GPS?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix