Challenging but fun shoot (C&C)

divamum

C&C always welcomed! Client hasn't chosen final shot(s) for the project, so I can make adjustments as needed. Bring it on :thumb

Thanks again to those who answered my "SOS" yesterday. Because it was last-minute and didn't fall within the parameters of the kind of shoot I do enough for it to feel "routine", I needed to think on my feet for this one and panicked a bit as I was packing the gear bag and thinking I wasn't sure what to take! Venue I'd never seen (extra points if you can identify it ), limited time due to my own commitments afterwards (rush job for them and only available time to meet), and one of the subjects was late. I'm not really used to the "editorial" whirlwind yet!!! Still, it worked out fine I think :whew

You may recall both of these ladies from recent headshot sessions (the one referred the other, in fact) - they're doing a cabaret show together and asked me to do some promo shots with a sort of "girls just wanna have fun" feel, a little bit of a cafe feel, a little bit of a retro feel (specific, right?!). All in under an hour, with no stylist, no assistant and a 7 year old in tow (one of the subjects'). I must be completely crazy!!

A sampling. These have had preliminary processing, but no "deep editing" - the shots they choose will get that. 7d+24-70L (love, love, love, LOVE this lens now I finally have it!)+135L+lensbaby Composer (f5.6). Photek 45" with the 430ex for lighting (used as fill).

(sorry for watermarks - hope they're not too intrusive....)

1. Today's discovery: hats make for very difficult cropping. And yes, I'll need to clone out the reflection if they choose this one



2. "Cafe" secrets... (If they choose this one I need to figure out how to create some more headroom somehow.... Hopefully another shot can be transformed into place)


3. We decided to play the "you're wearing my dress!" gag. Got a few of these in different poses/bg's, but I just love their expressions, and the way the 135 renders the highlights in this. That said, can't decide if the rest of the bg bothers me or not .... :scratch



4. I love my Lensbaby :lust


5. Some retro processing


6. We decided that they're actually Lucy and Ethel. They have SUUUUCCCH expressive faces - we couldn't stop laughing!

6A.


6b I REALLY like the way this one converted


7 And another Lucy and Ethel (they were good at that!)

jmphotocraft

These are fun, you did a nice job while being put on the spot. I'm not digging the light on 1, they look underexposed and the dramatic lighting doesn't jive with the bg, imo. Those sunglasses aren't helping their cause either. These days it seems you aren't allowed to call yourself a woman if you don't have some big Jackie-O shades, and I think they would really go with the hats. I like 2, and the lack of headroom doesn't bother me. You'll need to give some photoshop lovin' to her legs. 4 doesn't go with the set. It says political talk show to me.

6 is great, probably my fav. 7 would be great but I wish the woman on camera right didn't look like she was about to hurl. That's just my take.

I'd like to see you shoot them driving (or pretending to drive) in a convertible.

briandelion

Considering all the time constraints I think you did an admirable job. Maybe a little bit of too many ideas. Love #6 either way. If you had had more time I think you would have hit your stride. Driving is a great idea, one you should definitely consider if you have a session two.

dbveto

Nice set. It looks like the lady with the shorter hair was into more than the other one.

divamum

Thanks guys!

Yeah, I agree that #1 isn't the best, actually - not sure why it jumped out at me immediately after the shoot!

The one they've chosen isn't actually one of these - I'll be working it up and will post it a bit later.

Maybe a little bit of too many ideas.

Oh, ain't THAT the truth! It was really chaotic, frankly. Even the 7 year old was trying to direct. Part of me wanted everybody just to slow down (or STOP) so I could actually set them and the lights more methodically, but their energy was so high - and they were actually delivering some pretty good stuff - that I decided just to keep shooting and hope for the best. Fortunately, they're very pleased with what we got!

Thanks for the feedback... more to come!

Sam

Looks like you did a great job and delivered.

Sam

jmphotocraft

divamum wrote: »

The one they've chosen isn't actually one of these

ha, I hate when that happens.

divamum

Thanks guys.

I'd really welcome further feedback on this one, which is the one they want. (By Tuesday ). Despite its seeming simplicity and the fact that the lighting worked well and it's a decent capture SOOC, it was an absolute pig to edit. I hated the balconies in the background so had to do some cloning (please tell me if you see any whoopsies). This shot from the series also didn't have enough foreground to straighten it up without losing the tips of the shoes..... so I had to bolt the foreground from another shot onto it, but none of them lined up exactly and.... Well, you get my drift.

Worst of all was STRAIGHTENING - all those lines in multiple directions, and no matter what I did to adjust perspective/rotate it always looks slightly off! I've cropped this about a hundred times I think

None of this probably would have been that big a deal if my computer weren't currently having a nervous breakdown, but there we have it. (Dear Operaland - please throw a decent autumn gig my way so I can buy a higher-specced new computer that doesn't crash all the time. Plsktxbai! Hugs and kisses, Diva)

Anyway, four versions of the same shot. Given aforementioned computer wackiness, I'd be grateful for feedback on whether these are bright enough and/or too bright etc etc. I'm not trusting ANYTHING I'm seeing at the moment until it's been viewed on multiple monitors..........

Natural



Vintage


B&W

Bryce Wilson

I might be tempted to burn in the shoes to make them a bit more prominent and lighten the shadows on the face under the wide brimmed hat.

Personally, I like the vintage treatment the best.

briandelion

The first place my eye travelled was the upper left corner area (horizontally from just above the hat brim across the background trees to the left edge). It appears to be a bit smeary and there is a bluish cast to the bg trees that doesn't exist on the other side of the image. Was there something going on with the lighting that caused an inconsistency with the white balance or did it happen with cloning? I wouldn't have known you inserted a fragment of foreground. Very clever! That part works for me. All that aside, I like either the vintage or b&w version as it also eliminates the color cast issue.

divamum

It appears to be a bit smeary and there is a bluish cast to the bg trees that doesn't exist on the other side of the image. Was there something going on with the lighting that caused an inconsistency with the white balance or did it happen with cloning?

Brilliant.... because that's one of the spots where I did NOTHING at all I think it's a different kind of tree, plus maybe a tiny bit of lens flare from the flash just out of shot camera left? Not sure, but it isn't from cloning, which is what's good from my point of view Thanks for the feedback!!!

PS I prefer the vintage and BW better too, but I have a feeling they'll use the colour. Oh well.

NeilL

Well, you had your challenges! The thought of "managing" this pair brings me out in a sweat!

The zaniness comes through strongly, and this is the main gain with these images imo. I think cropped tightly so the faces are bulging at the frame will release that aspect to the max in some of them. That is nearly there in #5, which is my fav. Perhaps a zany camera angle or two would have got into the spirit. Connected with that idea of an emphasis on the physiogs, I think losing the background a bit more (another reason why I like #5) might have worked well. In most of these the subjects are quite strongly tied to the background. Don't know if they necessarily gain by that?

I would have liked to see a few more with the pair playing to each other, or the stalls, as well as directly into the lens as in most of the images here.

**My feeling is that the light is a bit flat on most of these (if I'm not mistaken), and that could be why the more unusual processing looks of #5 and "Vintage" lift those images. Perhaps shifting the bodies attached to those faces (not tying them so strongly to the bg) from one relationship to the ambient light to all the other possible ones (and filling if necessary) might have resulted in some other interesting lighting effects. So, a less static camera angle and posing positions in relation to the light direction, might be what I would try.

Of course you have your own vision for these, and I sure don't want to trespass on that! But hope I haven't been completely irrelevant!:D

Neil

EDIT **No not flat, and I see that of course you have moved the guys around... but something bothers me about the lighting, trying to put my finger on it... for lighting, once again #5 with its highkey style I like most.

divamum

Thanks Neil! Yeah, it was a whooollleeee lot of energy banging around, but it was a lot of fun, too.

The location was hard to minimize, despite best efforts. It was late in the day but BRIGHT - and because there were two of them, I couldn't really use too shallow a depth of field by opening apertures too wide anyway. It's actually a small garden and the places to put them were limited - perhaps with more time to burn we could have set it up to use the space differently, but as it was we were limited to the paths and existing furniture placement, and I didn't want the surrounding buildings to be TOO dominant (it's a very recognizable landmark, to say the least!); they did want full-body shots rather than all close. Compromises inevitable; as my lighting improves, hopefully I can play with that more (Strobist-style) to create visual interest no matter what the scenario. This is the first time I've ever had to do something quite like this, though - I've usually had time to think about it AND have known the venue beforehand so I could practice, which wasn't the case this time....

As for the lighting... 45" umbrella+late-afternoon ambient. Because the umbrella's a little small for a 2-person shot, I used it as fill rather than knocking down ambient further and making it the main light. Plus, they wanted that summery, "girl's having fun" feel, so I kinda like that they look "sunny". With more time (always need more time. And space!) I'd have tried some edgier looks. The "highkey" feel you like in 5 is simply a tight shot with the Lensbaby 50mm, using the path as the background. Lighting is the same, although a slightly different direction. That said, because we were in a courtyard, the ambient was diffuse by this time (you can see it in her sunglasses)

Fortunately, they are THRILLED with them, so it all worked out well. Thanks to everybody for the comments and feedback!!

jmphotocraft

divamum wrote: »

Fortunately, they are THRILLED with them, so it all worked out well.

I love when other photographers nit pick apart your images, and then the customer is thrilled with them. HA!

divamum

jmphotocraft wrote: »

I love when other photographers nit pick apart your images, and then the customer is thrilled with them. HA!

Well, they're not looking for the same things we are! THey're looking at their own expressions, do I look thin, was my lipstick the right colour, god I hate my double chin, why did I wear that dress, my hair needs cutting, my smile is nice in that one etc etc. We're looking at all this technical "behind the scenes" stuff!!!

But I know what you mean. I recently posted some snapshots of our new puppy on FB and my blog and felt I had to APOLOGISE because my WB's didn't line up in a storyboard (shots taken in same position but an hour apart -light had moved and changed colour and I didn't spot it). Nobody - but NOBODY - except another photographer would even begin to care (or notice)

NeilL

divamum wrote: »

I recently posted some snapshots of our new puppy on FB and my blog and felt I had to APOLOGISE because my WB's didn't line up in a storyboard

ROFIS rofl simply hilarious!!!!!!!

Neil

NeilL

divamum wrote: »

Thanks Neil! Yeah, it was a whooollleeee lot of energy banging around, but it was a lot of fun, too.

The location was hard to minimize, despite best efforts. It was late in the day but BRIGHT - and because there were two of them, I couldn't really use too shallow a depth of field by opening apertures too wide anyway. It's actually a small garden and the places to put them were limited - perhaps with more time to burn we could have set it up to use the space differently, but as it was we were limited to the paths and existing furniture placement, and I didn't want the surrounding buildings to be TOO dominant (it's a very recognizable landmark, to say the least!); they did want full-body shots rather than all close. Compromises inevitable; as my lighting improves, hopefully I can play with that more (Strobist-style) to create visual interest no matter what the scenario. This is the first time I've ever had to do something quite like this, though - I've usually had time to think about it AND have known the venue beforehand so I could practice, which wasn't the case this time....

As for the lighting... 45" umbrella+late-afternoon ambient. Because the umbrella's a little small for a 2-person shot, I used it as fill rather than knocking down ambient further and making it the main light. Plus, they wanted that summery, "girl's having fun" feel, so I kinda like that they look "sunny". With more time (always need more time. And space!) I'd have tried some edgier looks. The "highkey" feel you like in 5 is simply a tight shot with the Lensbaby 50mm, using the path as the background. Lighting is the same, although a slightly different direction. That said, because we were in a courtyard, the ambient was diffuse by this time (you can see it in her sunglasses)

Fortunately, they are THRILLED with them, so it all worked out well. Thanks to everybody for the comments and feedback!!

So good dm to get your context! I can certainly see the sunniness, yes it's definitely there, and that completely changes my assessment of the light, and indeed explains to myself what I was seeing but not seeing!

Neil