Time For Another Beating

Bilsen

I probably deserve it this time.

One of my returning models, Samantha, has a guy who probably qualifies as a model himself. DivaMum can tell me that.

Anyway, at a shoot last week we decided to get some couple frames which is a first time thing for me.

Here are a couple for review. By the way, object if you must BUT I didn't blur the BKGs in 3, 4 and 5 because I think the cabin and the stream are integral parts of the entire setting. 1, 4 and 6 should keep everybody happy, at least in that regard.:D:D Anyway, have at it.



2.


3.


4.


5.


6. AND OF COURSE, no set from me is complete without a headshot so here's Sam by herself.

jonh68

Not too bad but the background of 3 and 4 were a bad choice. It makes them look more like snapshots.

Bilsen

TOTALLY disagree Jon but thanks for the comments.

Hackbone

Her choice of clothing for the first two outfits is horendous (sp). The last one just compliments her very well although the white pulls you eye away. Sort of agree with the background comment.......are you feeling black and blue yet. Not meaning to be mean.

Bilsen

Hack,

You don't know the half of it with that dress. Notice the crops on both. The dress was a billowy, loose almost mumu kind of thing that was not flattering at all.
With that said, I kinda like 1 & 2.

AS for the BKG, I knew it was coming and I'm claiming artistic (since I'm never diplomatic) immunity cause I like it.

In any case, neither you nor anybody else here is ever "mean" just like I'm not being petulant when I say I don't agree. Interesting pont about the white scarf. I'll go see if we shot any without it. At least I got her to move her hair to one side for a different look from the more usual 50/50.

What I'd really like to hear is about the couples posing and composition. That's where I don't know enough to disagree.

Thanks.

briandelion

Question: what is it about the bkgd in sharp focus that makes it work for you? Don't you think all that incidental detail is competing with your subjects for attention? Kinda' like a movie where the supporting cast is trying to upstage the stars of the show!

Bilsen

Good question Brian. Let's see if this is a good (or at least serious) answer.

There are times when, in my opinion, the setting helps to convey mood, feel, the temporal as[pect of the shot. Other times I like the texture differential between the subject and the BKG. In those cases I think these things add to the "feel" of the image rather than detract from it. We can always agree or disagree about whether or not the image is effective to accomplish the goal but that's so subjective as to be beyond definition.

#s 1, 2 and 6 do have the bokeh BKG and I certainly have been doing that WAYYYY more over the last two months on here. However, in my world, it just isn't required that everything but the subject always be soft or blurred. I heard that from two pros, both of whom do magazine shoots as a living. I don't know if I discussed it here but an SI editor (I think) said in an article that nothing but blue/green blurs (as in Caribbean waters) would be boring. If they're gonna spend a ton of money to go to the tropics, why not show the palm trees?

PS. I think what makes certain rare people stars is that they CANNOT be upstaged. I feel the same way about the gorgeous women I work with.

Thanks again for the question. We may not agree but I enjoyed the heck out of thinking about it.

Bryce Wilson

Hi John:

Just returned from a trip to Mexico, I'm a bit tired, but hopefully I can write a clear sentence here.

The issue I personally have with 3 and 4 is not that the background is clear and not out of focus, it is the fact that the brick pattern is so busy. The bright white bricks mixed in with the dark ones, directly behind the subjects head/heads keeps pulling my eyes away from the subjects and forces me to focus on the brick. Almost to the point I get a bit dizzy. Not sure if that's because I've been on a plane and or in airports for the past 12 hours, but it is the honest effect it has on me at this time.

I really like number 5.

jonh68

JohnGalt_ny wrote: »

There are times when, in my opinion, the setting helps to convey mood, feel, the temporal as[pect of the shot. Other times I like the texture differential between the subject and the BKG. In those cases I think these things add to the "feel" of the image rather than detract from it. We can always agree or disagree about whether or not the image is effective to accomplish the goal but that's so subjective as to be beyond definition.

I agree with you in theory that the background texture can add something to the picture. However, the background has to be interesting. This isn't an interesting background and you have so many lines and detail competing with the subjects. The other pics in the set are so much better.

divamum

John, others have said it above, but I'll chime in (always a glutton for punishment, and I have a few minutes over my breakfast coffee).

Yes, SOMETIMES a background can be interesting. If you've whisked your model off to the Taj Mahal, or the Eiffel Tower, or some unbelievable tropical location, of course you want to make sure it's in shot and "sets the scene". However, just out of interest, I went and browsed the SI swimsuit shoots online - I think I saw three out of the several dozen that weren't invoking the Beauty of Blurred Bokeh (henceforth to be known as BBB to set their model apart from what was behind her. And there were lots and LOTS of blurred Fiji waters in one of the sets...

I think the other thing to think about in these shoots you're mentioning is something I've said before: they have a TEAM of stylists, MUA, hairdressers, reflector-holders and lighting assistants all contributing their part to create a harmonious picture. You say yourself you don't like the dress above - in the pro shoots you reference, there would have been somebody else picking the clothes to ensure they went with the setting. It DOES make a difference, IMO. It's about the whole photo.

Now, given that us lesser mortals - or at least those of us working as one-man bands - don't have that team of support, we have to make decisions based on what we do have.

I agree with you that the textures on that building are really interesting. But, sharp and brightly lit, they compete with the subjects in front of it. Had it been me, I would have pulled them WAY forward and shot wider - not so much so's to blur it out completely, but to soften it, so the bricks and lines led to the subjects and framed them rather than shouted "look at MEEEE!!!". (Also, in #2, you've "fallen off" the background, as it were, with the edge of the building not quite making it to the edge of the frame). Additionally, it seems there's a built-in challenge with that building in sharp focus in that it's on a hill: if the lines of the planking are straight, the benches look like they're about to slide out of frame left; if the benches are straight, the building looks crooked.

I hasten to add I miss these kinds of things when I'm shooting ALL THE TIME. That's why when I'm doing an important portrait shoot I try to use locations and camera-settings that I've figured out from previous shoots and practice sessions - I don't trust myself in the heat of the moment!

Btw, I was thinking about you and your background vs non-background during a shoot a couple of weeks ago. It took me a minute to find my "sweet spot" and I managed to get my aperture at 6.3 on a few dud shots. This isn't quite the same thing since I actively WANTED to minimize the background rather than incorporate it, but even so - compare and contrast the differences .....

These are all SOOC, unedited jpgs.

These were the first test shots of the day (total tossers - what was I thinking?!?) and I hadn't turned on HSS yet, so wound up at 6.3/43mm. Blech! Nobody needs to see messy backyard at high noon


Opened it up to 2.8. Better - and will work cropped - but still not my idea of "good enough":


Even at 70mm (top of my zoom) I wasn't minimizing the bg enough, so I switched to the 85 1.8 (a lens you should really consider getting - it's not expensive, and it's an excellent portrait length on a crop camera). This is actually ~gasp~ stopped down to f4 - I wanted to make sure her head and shoulders were all sharp in this instance; I took it it down to 2.8 and dreamed it up even more in a few other shots, but they were a different location and pose so don't illustrate the point quite so well.


Anyway, just witterings. Take anything that's helpful and leave the rest behind!

Bilsen

Thanks guys.

On the point of THIS background not being a great idea, I can see that now and actually kind of agree about the light/dark distraction. In reality, I don't think blurring it would have corrected that fault so it's nothing more than a poor choice on my part.

As I said (and Jon seems to agree) the sharp background can work but that doesn't mean I did it correctly or in the appropriate image. Apparently, not this time anyway.

Bryce, I think # 5 could be called a semi-bokeh. That may be why you like that one.:D

Bilsen

Morning Diva,

Here we go again.

I don't think # 1 is all that bad. Crop from the left to get rid of the bright area, then balance the subject out a bit more and I (probably alone) would like it with her as part of her environment.

#2 looks washed out, overexposed and generally meh to me.

#3 is more classic and more pleasing BUT even the subject looks soft to me.

As to my #s 3 & 4 I absolutely see the problems with those frames now (as you, Bryce and Jon point out) but none of it has to do with bokeh, per se. Just bad choices on my part. As a side note, # 4 shows the accurate slant of the hill we were on.

Anyway, thanks a ton for the long and thoughtful response. It's kind of fun waging my lonely "Battle of the Bokeh" on here where people honestly try to help and don't get all huffy over disagreements.

divamum

In haste but... just a reminder my shots were all SOOC with zero processing (and test shots that didn't make the cut - they just illustrated my point) - so yeah, if I were to use it, I would edit #2 to be higher contrast.

As for 3... the subject is absolutely razorsharp (although, again, if I were editing, I would boost contrast etc etc etc). This isn't quite 100% crop, but close (done in haste!)