In the Public Garden
Finally accepted yesterday that the weather was not going to cooperate, so my husband, Charles, and I took a chance that the light drizzle was not going to turn into a downpour and headed for the Boston Public Garden.
I decided to use my 50mm f1.2 on my 40D just to see if it worked better for me at mid-range f stops than it does when I use wide open. Not too thrilled with its performance, but that is for another forum.
I had thought ahead of time of where in the Public Garden I might place Charles and myself for the exercise and, after some scouting once we got there, I chose a spot where I thought I would have interesting elements to use for various compositions.
My goals:
- Make an interesting photograph with Charles framed in as many different quadrants as possible
- Take advantage of passers-by to add interest
Problems I knew I would have:
- Too far away to use anything but sign language with Charles
- The over bright sky
Normally, I would be much closer to my subject and I was and am unsettled by his distance from the camera. To me, he doesn't take up enough of the final pictures to be its subject (except, perhaps, in the case of #2).
In the end, out of just over 70 shots, I only got two that I really like, and, interestingly, I wouldn't have gotten them if I had been closer to Charles.
I learned that this exercise is much, much harder than I thought it would be, and I always figured it would be difficult.
Nothing could have reminded me more forcefully of how much I move around when I am taking pictures and how valuable a zoom lens is to aid in framing quickly. Not being able to move AND not being able to use a zoom was really frustrating.
OK. Enough babble.
1. Setup shot (which I rather like). Charles and the photographer are in position.
2. Photographer is taking pictures with one hand holding an umbrella.
3.
4. Photographer squats down and is not happy with the amount of sky in the frame. Nix taking from a lower perspective. Knees are probably relieved in more ways that one.
5. The young ladies asked if they were interfering with my shooting and, when I told them no, they went about their business and I went about mine.
6.
Looking forward to see how others handled this challenge!!
Virginia
_______________________________________________ "A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
Yay Virginia! You've started the ball rolling. I love that you chose bw - perfect for the setting, in fact! I considered converting mine, but I think they actually benefit from colour (rare for me, because I usually prefer BW) so have left them as is.
I've been vacillating over whether to post my results or not - I feel like these barely climb above "snapshot", but always game to learn...
Location: I was on the deck steps (so I could sit down to change vantage point).
Lens: 85 1.8
Hula hoop was the model's own idea (as was the, um, attire... NOT Mom's choice, but I had to pick my battles to ensure cooperation ). Feet stayed resolutely put
(NB Please forgive the hideous chainlink fence - it's too strong to justify removing, so we're growing things over it to hide it, but it takes time....)
1. In position
2. Feet planted, hulahoop in action...
3. Not so different, but I'm including it despite the subject being centered because I like the motion and, of course, it varies the orientation to landscape
4. More variations of the Hulahoop kind - I think I sat down for this one
5. Probably my favorite, because it's such a yummy natural smile (she thought it was hilarious to do this without moving our feet - I was leaning forward as far as I could without falling down the steps!)
Finally accepted yesterday that the weather was not going to cooperate, so my husband, Charles, and I took a chance that the light drizzle was not going to turn into a downpour and headed for the Boston Public Garden.
Virginia
Hi, Virginia - I'm not going to comment on the individual photos yet, or the tricks you tried, for the simple reason that I don't want to influence the people who haven't yet shot. That said, I will say two things - there's one very interesting, useful thing you did in shooting these. And, go back and try again with Charles much closer. The idea here is to figure out how to use the frame in as many ways as possible.
For example, think what you could do with this if you were where I was in each of these situations and the woman in the photo was your subject - with all the rules I laid out.
Yay Virginia! You've started the ball rolling. I love that you chose bw - perfect for the setting, in fact! I considered converting mine, but I think they actually benefit from colour (rare for me, because I usually prefer BW) so have left them as is.
You've got time...go back and try again, keeping in mind this is a framing exercise. Think FRAME. One of the things I ask students in one of the first classes of each semester is 'what's the most important part of the frame?' After they give me all the guesses - center, bottom, top, right corner, left corner, etc. etc. etc., I tell them: The entire thing. Every tiny fraction of a millimeter. That little rectangle - or square - of real estate is all you have to express your creativity; don't waste it. Think about all of it and what you're putting in it.
OK, I'm ready to be told to go back and try again. In fact, I knew that was the foregone conclusion.
I've known this guy since middle school. You might think he was clowning for me, but that's him. He was telling me about getting his MFA in Literature, believe it or not. He is an amateur actor, but he should have been a professional stand up comic. Just wind him up. That's why I chose him.
[edit: a little more contrast in the first one and XL versions instead of L]
OK, I'm ready to be told to go back and try again. In fact, I knew that was the foregone conclusion.
I've known this guy since middle school. You might think he was clowning for me, but that's him. He was telling me about getting his MFA in Literature, believe it or not. He is an amateur actor, but he should have been a professional stand up comic. Just wind him up. That's why I chose him.
[edit: a little more contrast in the first one and XL versions instead of L]
Love them - now go do it again. What you've basically done - with an exception - is just give me one shot with the subject mugging. Now, YOU do the work.
Love them - now go do it again. What you've basically done - with an exception - is just give me one shot with the subject mugging. Now, YOU do the work.
Pathfinder asked the following:
A couple questions...
1. Must they all be with the same focal length?
2. Must they all be available light? ( eg: no flash? )
3. Must they all be shot in the same limited time period, as opposed to various times of the day as the sun moves overhead?
***************
1. Absolutely.
2. Preferably.
3. Yes. Get your subject. Get your location - and WORK it.
I'm pretty excited about this - what a great learning opportunity!! I don't post much, but I lurk...a lot...and I'm always itching to post some stuff. But I get that 'I'm not sure about these shots' feeling that Divamum mentioned, and I stall...
So today, I asked my awesome husband to help me out in the backyard, since we didn't get the chance to go the 'prime' spot I had thought of. (ah well...maybe next time...) I think the technical side of things may not be perfect, but I was trying to be quick-ish - don't want to lose my model!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Jen
Live today like you'll wish you would have 10 years in the future. You only get one life; this is it...live it up. - Joy Nash
Important Modification Of The Assignment
IMPORTANT - I occasionally forget things. So here is a slight modification to the assignment that just may make it slightly easier...
IF you decide to have your model sit, he or she MAY move their feet - but then they must keep their rear fastened to the seat. So if they stand, the feet must stay in the same place; if they sit, the feet, and therefore the legs, may move.
Well since we get to choose focal length and aperture, I decided to go for my favorite... f2.8 200mm... Of course it results in some yummy bokeh.
Gracie was bribed with lipstick (Which worked out nicely for both of us, since it looked so cute with her outfit.) She put sunglasses, & glasses with clear lenses in her purse before we began and halfway through she threw her sweater out of the frame. It worked out well for some nice variety.
Funny thing... I noticed when I went back over these for some reason ithe focal length changes when you turn to landscape... I don't have a clue why. Portrait was 195mm and landscape was 200mm according to metadata. But I swear I didn't change it.
Here is the link to the gallery. There are about 50 of what I would consider fairly close to cute enough to hang on the wall. What a terrible problem for a mom to have, huh. To many photos, and not enough wall space. Ha ha!
And this, Heather, is why people pay you the big bucks to take their pictures (I have no idea if this is what BD had in mind, but I'm sure impressed - you've produced shots which are technically sound and simply attractive portraits in their own right regardless of the limitations imposed by the exercise )
And this, Heather, is why people pay you the big bucks to take their pictures (I have no idea if this is what BD had in mind, but I'm sure impressed - you've produced shots which are technically sound and simply attractive portraits in their own right regardless of the limitations imposed by the exercise )
Shoot!! Your post made me wonder if I had screwed up... and I just went back and reread the directions... "no longer than 110 mm." Whoops. I'll go hide now. Yeah, these were at 200mm. No reshoot possible as I have to go meet with clients tonight and have a wedding in the morning... Eh, you can tar and feather me again. I am used to it by now. :hide
Ah well, it was more fun than processing stranger's wedding photos.:D
Shoot!! Your post made me wonder if I had screwed up... and I just went back and reread the directions... "no longer than 110 mm."
That totally was NOT what I was referring to, since I hadn't noticed that requirement either (good thing none of my lenses are longer than that, eh?!).
And I stand by what I said - that series totally rocks
That totally was NOT what I was referring to, since I hadn't noticed that requirement either (good thing none of my lenses are longer than that, eh?!).
And I stand by what I said - that series totally rocks
So there I was, standing in the middle of a lovely babbling brook with two sets of feet firmly planted where I could have sworn they would have best benefited humanity. Suddenly, all that time I spent reading about enlightenment kicked in and my mind was blank. Talk about timing! Damned Buddhists...
Anyway, this turned out to be a lot of fun and incredibly difficult! This is a great exercise, B.D., and I will be revisiting it often in the near future.
So I don't normally do the B&W thing. I'm not that great with color and so I spend all my time doing it (there's some logic buried in there). But, since B.D. is a B&W guy, I figured I'd kiss up to the teacher and give it a whirl (I used B.D.'s Tri-X technique -- more brownie points!).
1)
2)
3)
4)
5) This one lost something in the conversion so I will offer it in its colorful glory!
This was a blast. I can't wait for the next assignment (or a firm bashing and an order to redo this one)!
So there I was, standing in the middle of a lovely babbling brook with two sets of feet firmly planted where I could have sworn they would have best benefited humanity. Suddenly, all that time I spent reading about enlightenment kicked in and my mind was blank. Talk about timing! Damned Buddhists...
This was a blast. I can't wait for the next assignment (or a firm bashing and an order to redo this one)!
Since this is all about reaching, growing, learning, and hopefully breaking through comfort zones...
I'm going to suggest that everyone who has shot this reshoot it, and everyone who hasn't - well - I'm extending the deadline until one week from Monday - which gives you two weekends on which to shoot.
Here's the problem with most of what I'm seeing - people tend to simply be shooting the same thing repeatedly. There are the lovely shots of the little girl with the basket, but they all add up to two shots - horizontals with her in the center, and verticals with her to one side. End of story. But I don't see any real attempt to frame the images in different ways. For instance, all of them appear to be shot with the camera in the same position, as though it had been on a tripod.
There have been some exceptions - I particularly notice the swirly effect in this last batch - nice idea.
But let's start over:
NO LENS LONGER THAN 50MM (35 mm equiv)
PHOTOGRAPHER AND SUBJECT LESS THAN 12 FEET APART
REMEMBER THAT YOUR LEGS ARE FLEXIBLE, AS ARE YOUR ARMS AND TRUNKS :-)
THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT IN THE FRAME AND WHY YOU WANT IT THERE.
ABOVE ALL - BE CREATIVE.
I have had a zillion students smack their heads against this exercise, and some of come up with some very clever ways to deal with it. I won't tell you what they did, but I will tell you that Virgina, who shot in the Boston Public Garden, came the closest to what one of those clever people did.
Oh yay! I got to this post late and was going to try to get someone to pose for me today... but the time extension gives me a little more time to play around with the exercise.
I was planning to use my 85mm 1.2 prime, but I'll go with the 50mm instead. I'm excited to see how creative and out-of-the-box we can be with this assignment! :ivar
And this, Heather, is why people pay you the big bucks to take their pictures (I have no idea if this is what BD had in mind, but I'm sure impressed - you've produced shots which are technically sound and simply attractive portraits in their own right regardless of the limitations imposed by the exercise )
Question - if I read this correctly, you are looking for max focal length of 50mm on a 35mm (FF) camera. So, on a 1.6 "crop factor" camera, we would be shooting with 30mm maximum?
I tried it last night and found that it was a little more difficult than I originally thought. I didn't think it would be easy, but didn't realize how hard it would be. I'll post what I got tonight.
Second try
but before the revised rules were announced.
I'm posting some of the results, even though they were shot in accordance with the original guidelines, because they are part of the journey I am taking as I work this exercise.
I do intend to try again (if I can find another willing victim), working within the "new" rules set down by B.D.
I knew after my first try that I was way too far away from my subject and thought that shooting closer with a wider angle lens would help me focus on the person who was my subject but also leave me some opportunity for adding content from the surroundings.
Yesterday, I grabbed my camera on the way out the door to meet out of town friends for lunch. No time to change the 50mm I had used with my 40D for the first shoot. (If my math is correct, that is roughly 80 mm on a full frame camera).
Our friend, Yoli, graciously agreed to let me use her as a subject for the exercise. I chose Trinity Church in Boston. We were both on the same level, in shade, but with plenty of indirect light. I was approximately 12 feet away from her.
I took pictures from a standing position - sometimes putting the camera out in front of me and leaning forward to move in without moving my feet, sometimes moving it to the sides to get different framing. I took from a squatting position and even tried putting the camera on the ground. I held the camera over my head, and/or off to one side or the other.
The pictures I took without looking through the viewfinder were the hardest. I ended up with lots of shots of her body without her head. In a few, I just got the top of her head. In one, there was nothing but building. Almost all of these attempts resulted in a tilted background. In some, Yoli is out of focus because I was using center focus.
So here, with gratitude and thanks to Yoli for letting me take these pictures of her, are five from the shoot.
1. This one was taken with me leaning forward to get closer to her. I wanted to get her hands with the rings, but also keep her head in the shot. I figure I was probably 4 feet closer to her than when I was just standing there. I wasn't using the viewfinder.
2.I believe this was taken with me leaning over the the right. Given that the background is almost straight, I was probably twisted and looking through the viewfinder.
3. This was taken from as low as I could get the camera and still use the viewfinder.
4. For this one, I was just standing in position. (These two weren't fighting, it just looks that way!)
5. For this one I held the camera over my head trying to get a perspective from above. Obviously, my arms are not long enough - at least from this distance with the 50 mm lens.
The shoot with Yoli was an experiment in what sort of flexibility I might have under the rules and how I might use that flexibility to capture her personality. I made lots of mistakes and I did not make pictures that I would put in my portfolio. But, for me, the exercise isn't about taking the perfect shot or a picture that has everyone saying "wow," but about letting go of my inhibitions, experimenting, and, with luck, training my eye to see more of the possibilities that are right in front of me.
But boy is it hard.
Now, back to the drawing board.
Va
_______________________________________________ "A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
I'm posting some of the results, even though they were shot in accordance with the original guidelines, because they are part of the journey I am taking as I work this exercise.
3. This was taken from as low as I could get the camera and still use the viewfinder.
But, for me, the exercise isn't about taking the perfect shot or a picture that has everyone saying "wow," but about letting go of my inhibitions, experimenting, and, with luck, training my eye to see more of the possibilities that are right in front of me.
Got meself a free weekend (darn flakes), so decided to take a shot at this. Since a live model was indisposed (see above:-) I stuck to a non-live one
Neither model, nor camera moved their anchor points. Camera was on a stand, and model... well, you can see for yourself:
Gear: 5D2, 50/1.4, all manual, one AB800 with a snoot (sorry BD, I'm not a natural light person:-), triggered with PW mini. Since it was a very short exercise I didn't bother to shoot tethered. The "seamless" is actually one of the vinyl tileboards I normally use on the floor for my highkey setup.
And here are the five framing variations I selected. Vantage point was changed from Low to Mid to High. Model was occasionally rotated around her, erh, anchor point. Since it was purely framing exercise I didn't put any postprocessing into them except converting from raw to jpeg.
Comments
Finally accepted yesterday that the weather was not going to cooperate, so my husband, Charles, and I took a chance that the light drizzle was not going to turn into a downpour and headed for the Boston Public Garden.
I decided to use my 50mm f1.2 on my 40D just to see if it worked better for me at mid-range f stops than it does when I use wide open. Not too thrilled with its performance, but that is for another forum.
I had thought ahead of time of where in the Public Garden I might place Charles and myself for the exercise and, after some scouting once we got there, I chose a spot where I thought I would have interesting elements to use for various compositions.
My goals:
- Make an interesting photograph with Charles framed in as many different quadrants as possible
- Take advantage of passers-by to add interest
Problems I knew I would have:
- Too far away to use anything but sign language with Charles
- The over bright sky
Normally, I would be much closer to my subject and I was and am unsettled by his distance from the camera. To me, he doesn't take up enough of the final pictures to be its subject (except, perhaps, in the case of #2).
In the end, out of just over 70 shots, I only got two that I really like, and, interestingly, I wouldn't have gotten them if I had been closer to Charles.
I learned that this exercise is much, much harder than I thought it would be, and I always figured it would be difficult.
Nothing could have reminded me more forcefully of how much I move around when I am taking pictures and how valuable a zoom lens is to aid in framing quickly. Not being able to move AND not being able to use a zoom was really frustrating.
OK. Enough babble.
1. Setup shot (which I rather like). Charles and the photographer are in position.
2. Photographer is taking pictures with one hand holding an umbrella.
3.
4. Photographer squats down and is not happy with the amount of sky in the frame. Nix taking from a lower perspective. Knees are probably relieved in more ways that one.
5. The young ladies asked if they were interfering with my shooting and, when I told them no, they went about their business and I went about mine.
6.
Looking forward to see how others handled this challenge!!
Virginia
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
Email
I've been vacillating over whether to post my results or not - I feel like these barely climb above "snapshot", but always game to learn...
Location: I was on the deck steps (so I could sit down to change vantage point).
Lens: 85 1.8
Hula hoop was the model's own idea (as was the, um, attire... NOT Mom's choice, but I had to pick my battles to ensure cooperation
(NB Please forgive the hideous chainlink fence - it's too strong to justify removing, so we're growing things over it to hide it, but it takes time....)
1. In position
2. Feet planted, hulahoop in action...
3. Not so different, but I'm including it despite the subject being centered because I like the motion and, of course, it varies the orientation to landscape
4. More variations of the Hulahoop kind - I think I sat down for this one
5. Probably my favorite, because it's such a yummy natural smile (she thought it was hilarious to do this without moving our feet - I was leaning forward as far as I could without falling down the steps!)
Hi, Virginia - I'm not going to comment on the individual photos yet, or the tricks you tried, for the simple reason that I don't want to influence the people who haven't yet shot. That said, I will say two things - there's one very interesting, useful thing you did in shooting these. And, go back and try again with Charles much closer. The idea here is to figure out how to use the frame in as many ways as possible.
For example, think what you could do with this if you were where I was in each of these situations and the woman in the photo was your subject - with all the rules I laid out.
Good luck!
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
You've got time...go back and try again, keeping in mind this is a framing exercise. Think FRAME. One of the things I ask students in one of the first classes of each semester is 'what's the most important part of the frame?' After they give me all the guesses - center, bottom, top, right corner, left corner, etc. etc. etc., I tell them: The entire thing. Every tiny fraction of a millimeter. That little rectangle - or square - of real estate is all you have to express your creativity; don't waste it. Think about all of it and what you're putting in it.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
I've known this guy since middle school. You might think he was clowning for me, but that's him. He was telling me about getting his MFA in Literature, believe it or not. He is an amateur actor, but he should have been a professional stand up comic. Just wind him up. That's why I chose him.
[edit: a little more contrast in the first one and XL versions instead of L]
Nikon Shooter
It's all about the moment...
Love them - now go do it again. What you've basically done - with an exception - is just give me one shot with the subject mugging. Now, YOU do the work.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Pathfinder asked the following:
A couple questions...
1. Must they all be with the same focal length?
2. Must they all be available light? ( eg: no flash? )
3. Must they all be shot in the same limited time period, as opposed to various times of the day as the sun moves overhead?
***************
1. Absolutely.
2. Preferably.
3. Yes. Get your subject. Get your location - and WORK it.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
So today, I asked my awesome husband to help me out in the backyard, since we didn't get the chance to go the 'prime' spot I had thought of. (ah well...maybe next time...) I think the technical side of things may not be perfect, but I was trying to be quick-ish - don't want to lose my model!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Live today like you'll wish you would have 10 years in the future. You only get one life; this is it...live it up. - Joy Nash
IMPORTANT - I occasionally forget things. So here is a slight modification to the assignment that just may make it slightly easier...
IF you decide to have your model sit, he or she MAY move their feet - but then they must keep their rear fastened to the seat. So if they stand, the feet must stay in the same place; if they sit, the feet, and therefore the legs, may move.
Everyone understand?
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Meet me 1/2 way Frank so I can use you! And...I know you have a gazillion models! Liar....
Gracie was bribed with lipstick (Which worked out nicely for both of us,
Funny thing... I noticed when I went back over these for some reason ithe focal length changes when you turn to landscape... I don't have a clue why. Portrait was 195mm and landscape was 200mm according to metadata. But I swear I didn't change it.
Here is the link to the gallery. There are about 50 of what I would consider fairly close to cute enough to hang on the wall. What a terrible problem for a mom to have, huh. To many photos, and not enough wall space. Ha ha!
http://www.ambiencephotographyalaska.com/gallery/8676829_zMwNw/1/573179752_5UPRT
Live today like you'll wish you would have 10 years in the future. You only get one life; this is it...live it up. - Joy Nash
Shoot!! Your post made me wonder if I had screwed up... and I just went back and reread the directions... "no longer than 110 mm." Whoops. I'll go hide now. Yeah, these were at 200mm. No reshoot possible as I have to go meet with clients tonight and have a wedding in the morning... Eh, you can tar and feather me again. I am used to it by now. :hide
Ah well, it was more fun than processing stranger's wedding photos.:D
That totally was NOT what I was referring to, since I hadn't noticed that requirement either (good thing none of my lenses are longer than that, eh?!).
And I stand by what I said - that series totally rocks
Thursday morning wedding? Wow - yo'ure packing 'em in!!!
Well thanks... She is awefully cute. So what WERE you referring to?
Just the difference in styles, really (more portrait-y vs more candid/pj-ish) - nothing specific!
Anyway, this turned out to be a lot of fun and incredibly difficult! This is a great exercise, B.D., and I will be revisiting it often in the near future.
So I don't normally do the B&W thing. I'm not that great with color and so I spend all my time doing it (there's some logic buried in there). But, since B.D. is a B&W guy, I figured I'd kiss up to the teacher and give it a whirl (I used B.D.'s Tri-X technique -- more brownie points!).
1)
2)
3)
4)
5) This one lost something in the conversion so I will offer it in its colorful glory!
This was a blast. I can't wait for the next assignment (or a firm bashing and an order to redo this one)!
Since this is all about reaching, growing, learning, and hopefully breaking through comfort zones...
I'm going to suggest that everyone who has shot this reshoot it, and everyone who hasn't - well - I'm extending the deadline until one week from Monday - which gives you two weekends on which to shoot.
Here's the problem with most of what I'm seeing - people tend to simply be shooting the same thing repeatedly. There are the lovely shots of the little girl with the basket, but they all add up to two shots - horizontals with her in the center, and verticals with her to one side. End of story. But I don't see any real attempt to frame the images in different ways. For instance, all of them appear to be shot with the camera in the same position, as though it had been on a tripod.
There have been some exceptions - I particularly notice the swirly effect in this last batch - nice idea.
But let's start over:
NO LENS LONGER THAN 50MM (35 mm equiv)
PHOTOGRAPHER AND SUBJECT LESS THAN 12 FEET APART
REMEMBER THAT YOUR LEGS ARE FLEXIBLE, AS ARE YOUR ARMS AND TRUNKS :-)
THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT IN THE FRAME AND WHY YOU WANT IT THERE.
ABOVE ALL - BE CREATIVE.
I have had a zillion students smack their heads against this exercise, and some of come up with some very clever ways to deal with it. I won't tell you what they did, but I will tell you that Virgina, who shot in the Boston Public Garden, came the closest to what one of those clever people did.
Anyone game for continuing?
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Will continue to ponder
I'm going to chug about 30 gallons of milk... After the last outing I suspect I must need a little flexibility in my bones as well!
Live today like you'll wish you would have 10 years in the future. You only get one life; this is it...live it up. - Joy Nash
I was planning to use my 85mm 1.2 prime, but I'll go with the 50mm instead. I'm excited to see how creative and out-of-the-box we can be with this assignment! :ivar
~Kathleen
www.kdspencer.com
My Photos - Powered by SmugMug!
Question - if I read this correctly, you are looking for max focal length of 50mm on a 35mm (FF) camera. So, on a 1.6 "crop factor" camera, we would be shooting with 30mm maximum?
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
My blog
My Facebook
but before the revised rules were announced.
I'm posting some of the results, even though they were shot in accordance with the original guidelines, because they are part of the journey I am taking as I work this exercise.
I do intend to try again (if I can find another willing victim), working within the "new" rules set down by B.D.
I knew after my first try that I was way too far away from my subject and thought that shooting closer with a wider angle lens would help me focus on the person who was my subject but also leave me some opportunity for adding content from the surroundings.
Yesterday, I grabbed my camera on the way out the door to meet out of town friends for lunch. No time to change the 50mm I had used with my 40D for the first shoot. (If my math is correct, that is roughly 80 mm on a full frame camera).
Our friend, Yoli, graciously agreed to let me use her as a subject for the exercise. I chose Trinity Church in Boston. We were both on the same level, in shade, but with plenty of indirect light. I was approximately 12 feet away from her.
I took pictures from a standing position - sometimes putting the camera out in front of me and leaning forward to move in without moving my feet, sometimes moving it to the sides to get different framing. I took from a squatting position and even tried putting the camera on the ground. I held the camera over my head, and/or off to one side or the other.
The pictures I took without looking through the viewfinder were the hardest. I ended up with lots of shots of her body without her head. In a few, I just got the top of her head. In one, there was nothing but building. Almost all of these attempts resulted in a tilted background. In some, Yoli is out of focus because I was using center focus.
So here, with gratitude and thanks to Yoli for letting me take these pictures of her, are five from the shoot.
1. This one was taken with me leaning forward to get closer to her. I wanted to get her hands with the rings, but also keep her head in the shot. I figure I was probably 4 feet closer to her than when I was just standing there. I wasn't using the viewfinder.
2.I believe this was taken with me leaning over the the right. Given that the background is almost straight, I was probably twisted and looking through the viewfinder.
3. This was taken from as low as I could get the camera and still use the viewfinder.
4. For this one, I was just standing in position. (These two weren't fighting, it just looks that way!)
5. For this one I held the camera over my head trying to get a perspective from above. Obviously, my arms are not long enough - at least from this distance with the 50 mm lens.
The shoot with Yoli was an experiment in what sort of flexibility I might have under the rules and how I might use that flexibility to capture her personality. I made lots of mistakes and I did not make pictures that I would put in my portfolio. But, for me, the exercise isn't about taking the perfect shot or a picture that has everyone saying "wow," but about letting go of my inhibitions, experimenting, and, with luck, training my eye to see more of the possibilities that are right in front of me.
But boy is it hard.
Now, back to the drawing board.
Va
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
Email
Virginia has very nicely explained the exercise.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Neither model, nor camera moved their anchor points. Camera was on a stand, and model... well, you can see for yourself:
Gear: 5D2, 50/1.4, all manual, one AB800 with a snoot (sorry BD, I'm not a natural light person:-), triggered with PW mini. Since it was a very short exercise I didn't bother to shoot tethered. The "seamless" is actually one of the vinyl tileboards I normally use on the floor for my highkey setup.
And here are the five framing variations I selected. Vantage point was changed from Low to Mid to High. Model was occasionally rotated around her, erh, anchor point. Since it was purely framing exercise I didn't put any postprocessing into them except converting from raw to jpeg.
#1:
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:
All variations (most are pretty lame, I admit) are here: http://nik.smugmug.com/gallery/8705937_xBKbu#575387673_co2fw
This post was made with the assistance of Star*Explorer