Aenna - No Sex, Just Fashion

Bilsen

I often hear (at least from the women) that my shoots spend too much time on sexy poses and faces (Right Diva??:D)

Well these are the first two looks (one more to come) from a shoot with Aenna, a gorgeous German model doing commercial and print work in the New York area. Since she's "only" 5'8" and has actual curves, she doesn't qualify for runway but she makes a decent living selling stuff. This shoot was meant to be commercial so let me know (as if you all wouldn't) if we hit the mark.

Click the first mage for her full gallery.



2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


BY THE WAY, it was about 40 degrees with a 25 mph wind and only a real model would troop her way through that. Here's what she looked like between sets:



and one just for fun

Hackbone

1-3 & 4 do it for me really nice. 3 & 4 just grab your eye. Good job.

Bryce Wilson

Sorry John. You failed!

It's impossible for me to look at this woman and not think, at least briefly, about sex!:D

I really like one. Did you happen to take any from about four steps to your right?

Like five too, but not real fond of skin tone one face.

divamum

1 & 5.

5 is just a kick-a** shot that really works, and 1 is how to use a background to your advantage! This is a terrific set.

I'll defer to the guys on this, but to my girl-eye, these are actually waaaaay sexier than some of your more self-consciously "let's be sultry" shoots.

Bilsen

Thanks Hack. I take that as high praise indeed.

Bryce, it just so happens I did indeed move to my right. It's cropped to lose a lot on the left but here 'tis.


By the way, the challenge is to hang around with her and not think that way. You can see how much fun she is in the two out takes.
Actually, # 2 is the one that makes me think naughty thoughts. Go figure.

Bilsen

Diva, I just can't satisfy you on the sex thing. Well, you aren't the first.

Anyway, if you like anything I do that much, I consider it a success.

I hope Nikolai drops in and sees I followed his rules re: full body below and closeups above.

zoomer

3 4 5 6 are all home runs on the model.....except I don't like any of the backgrounds....they distract from the shots rather than adding to them.
In those her pose and the look of the shots would look right at home in any fashion magazine.....except for the backgrounds, which continue to be your weakness.
This girl knows her stuff! Nice series.

Bilsen

Zoomer, sometimes I think you won't be happy until there is NO background.

In 3 & 4 the BKG is as bland as I could find and in #5 it's pretty much blur gone to me.

Anyway, thank you as always. Even when we disagree we aren't disagreeable and I value that.

zoomer

Further explanation:
3 ya had me until I got to the bottom and saw the second color in the background. If the background had been all the top color and she was 4 feet further away from it, would have been perfect.
4 surely you can see that the background is distracting, all the lines and clips on the sides. 5 different lines through the back and 1 down each side.
5 you could get away with, just would be better without that small piece of in focus wing that immediately pulls the eye to it.
6 the pole on the right and specifically where the wing meets the brightest point of the pole, that is where my eye goes first.

Choose the background first, find a nice photo, put the model in it.
Keep at it....they are getting better.

Nikolai

JohnGalt_ny wrote: »

I hope Nikolai drops in and sees I followed his rules re: full body below and closeups above.

lust
Much, much better!
However you were still shooting above her waistline for the full height. Get lower, trust me, it will be even better

Bilsen

Thanks Nikolai.

As for getting lower, I was basically sitting down on the full length frames. I guess I could get lower BUT at my age I ain't so sure about getting back up.

Nikolai

JohnGalt_ny wrote: »

Thanks Nikolai.

As for getting lower, I was basically sitting down on the full length frames. I guess I could get lower BUT at my age I ain't so sure about getting back up.

I hear you about the age (I'm not getting younger either:-), but you can get low and stay low, so you only have to get back up one time

This is from an old, old shoot:

jeffreaux2

zoomer wrote: »

except for the backgrounds, which continue to be your weakness.

John I have to agree with zoomer on the background comment. I also feel as though you are still cramping your subject too tightly into the frames when you compose/or crop.

Technically, there isn't a whole lot not to like here. Artistically......well....I think you do better.

But what about gear?
What camera and lens did you use for these shots?

jeffreaux2

Nikolai wrote: »

This is from an old, old shoot:

Hey Nik.....my guess is that it was taken rather early on in the shoot as well?


I like the shallow DOF. The camera angles certainly exemplifies what you have been preachin'. Nice use of light as well. Two of them I presume.

Bilsen

Thanks Jeff.

I can disagree with you about the backgrounds same as Zoomer but that's part of the fun.

As for the crops, I never quite know what's best. Most times I try to crop at 4x6 while keeping her eye or head on at least one rule of 1/3s line but sometimes that just doesn't work. In addition, some of these will end up at 9x12 for her print look book so that's an entirely different set of problems. I'll be curious to see which, if any, her agency wants printed. I'll definitely keep wider crops in mind next time.

The camera is a Canon 600D/T3i and the lenses are either the 24-105 f4 or the 70-200 f4 IS.

jeffreaux2

JohnGalt_ny wrote: »

Thanks Jeff.

I can disagree with you about the backgrounds same as Zoomer but that's part of the fun.

As for the crops, I never quite know what's best. Most times I try to crop at 4x6 while keeping her eye or head on at least one rule of 1/3s line but sometimes that just doesn't work. In addition, some of these will end up at 9x12 for her print look book so that's an entirely different set of problems. I'll be curious to see which, if any, her agency wants printed. I'll definitely keep wider crops in mind next time.

The camera is a Canon 600D/T3i and the lenses are either the 24-105 f4 or the 70-200 f4 IS.

I think a wider composition is better in many cases. It will definately give you more options for print sizes later. I use a focus screen with a grid etched on it. This helps to keep the camera straight, helps me leave room for 4x5 ratios, and also helps me with composition even though the grid isn't laid out in thirds.

Ill throw a challenge out at you......
Next shoot, leave that 24-105 at home. Use the 70-200 at F4 and at no focal length less than 100mm. Also, leave enough room in every shot for an 8x10 print to be cut out of it?

Whaddaya say?:D

Nikolai

jeffreaux2 wrote: »

Hey Nik.....my guess is that it was taken rather early on in the shoot as well?

Are you referring to the fact she's still wearing a full outfit?
As I said, it was a long time ago, summer 2008... In fact, we started nude, progressed to bikini and ended up with a dress... How silly of me, I know...
So, technically, this one our last look in that shoot.

jeffreaux2 wrote: »

I like the shallow DOF. The camera angles certainly exemplifies what you have been preachin'. Nice use of light as well. Two of them I presume.

Thanks!
Yeah, I think that was 70-200/2.8 IS USM (original one, not my current Mk II) on Canon 40D at f/4. I was probably lying flat on the gound, which is a good vantage point at such a long distance. If I was closer I'd rise up above her knees to avoid certain comic effect.

Bilsen

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED (at least partially).

Next shoot I probably won't leave the 24-105 at home BUT I will consciously shoot every look with the 70-200. 100mm on my 1.6 crop means I'll be hand signaling from down the block and full body may require walkie-talkies but I'll give it a try and then I'll label them as "Jeffs' Set".

Serious question: How do I compose optimally when I also have to consider 9 x 12 prints?? To me, 9 x 12 (or 4x3 ratio) is a genuine PITA.

Nikolai

JohnGalt_ny wrote: »

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED (at least partially).

Next shoot I probably won't leave the 24-105 at home BUT I will consciously shoot every look with the 70-200. 100mm on my 1.6 crop means I'll be hand signaling from down the block and full body may require walkie-talkies but I'll give it a try and then I'll label them as "Jeffs' Set".

Honestly, on a crop body 24-105 is totally fine for most of the portrait or body-related work.
70-200 however does allow for a fine-tuned shallow DOF.

JohnGalt_ny wrote: »

Serious question: How do I compose optimally when I also have to consider 9 x 12 prints?? To me, 9 x 12 (or 4x3 ratio) is a genuine PITA.

Well, that's an eternal question... Basically, if your target image ratio is (or may be) different from your camera body crop ratio you have no other way but to frame wider/looser and sacrifice some real estate (and final image resolution) for the future in-post cropping flexibility. Which is perfectly fine. I often crop to 4:3 or to 1:1 in post if the pose fits it better.

jeffreaux2

JohnGalt_ny wrote: »

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED (at least partially).


Serious question: How do I compose optimally when I also have to consider 9 x 12 prints?? To me, 9 x 12 (or 4x3 ratio) is a genuine PITA.

Well, If you shoot with an 8x10 in mind, then you ought not have any issues getting a longer ratio out of it. Just make sure the background you choose reaches the edges when you compose.

I use my 70-200 a LOT. Usually at F2.8 to F3.2, and will do all I can to use it from as far away as possible (given the location). 30 - 40 feet in some instances. I like the compression, and the shallower DOF. About 98% of what I post on dgrin is uncropped....or the composition and framing is "as shot".

Here is what my focus screen looks like.
Not sure if it is interchangeable on a Rebel series. I shoot 50D.

jeffreaux2

Nikolai wrote: »

Honestly, on a crop body 24-105 is totally fine for most of the portrait or body-related work.
70-200 however does allow for a fine-tuned shallow DOF.

....I think we all know that Nik. I am trying to tie his hands a little.....and force him to shoot shallower.

Get more compression.

Gotham

I'm chiming in late here, but just wanted to say: John keep this up! These are a huge step up from the shots I've seen before. Great work.

kdog

3,4,5 & 6 for me. The background pulls your eye away from the model in #1. The pose in #2 looks too slouchy for me. Exposures look great, and so does the model.

Bilsen

Thanks all for the comments.

I hereby vow to continue my "battle of the backgrounds" where I think appropriate. For example, I like the wood and glass in #s 1&2.

Jeff, 8x10 is easy for me, it's composing for 9x12 that makes me crazy:bash I'd love to find the person who made that industry standard and beat him on the kidneys with a long stick.

Now, if I am to combine the advice from Zoomer, Nikolai and Jeff in my next shoot, I will have to find a totally blank background, get the model to pose not sexy (for DivaMum), walk to the other side of town, lay down on my side, shoot the 70-200 at f4, make sure the light never changes , direct the model via either a walkie talkie or smoke signals and get perfectly exposed images before the ambulance arrives to pick me back up. HMMMM - Should be no problem as long as I bring the proper equipment :slurp

jeffreaux2

JohnGalt_ny wrote: »

Thanks all for the comments.


Now, if I am to combine the advice from Zoomer, Nikolai and Jeff in my next shoot, I will have to find a totally blank background, get the model to pose not sexy (for DivaMum), walk to the other side of town, lay down on my side, shoot the 70-200 at f4, make sure the light never changes , direct the model via either a walkie talkie or smoke signals and get perfectly exposed images before the ambulance arrives to pick me back up. HMMMM - Should be no problem as long as I bring the proper equipment :slurp

You make it sound so easy!

Bilsen

@ Jeff --- OOL

Long ago and far away, when I was a pitching coach, I used to tell my players to listen to everyone but pick out the things that worked for them cause if they tried to do everything that everybody told them they'd end up a mess and tear themselves in half doing it. Now I know why they used to look at me like I was from Mars.

It's supposed to be hard --- it's the hard what makes it great.-- Jimmy Dugan

divamum

John, you'll recall that I really like #1. For me, the reason the door bg in that one of the series isn't a problem because there are no clear images in the reflections - it's kind of a loose, repetitive pattern which = "neutral" bg. The other ones in that part of the shoot reveal less consistent light patterns, and recognizable shapes which instantly = distracting.

Just my 2c on that. Did you see that set Jeff did with the levee and a bunch of wood in the bg? (I mentioned you in it at the time, but not sure if you saw my post). Check it out for how to use what could be a really REALLY distracting bg in a way that I think enhances, provides texture... and doesn't call attention to itself. Sure, it's senior portraiture and thus not doing quite the same thing as you are, but it's aprinicple that I think is applicable to both genres....

Btw, also laughing - didn't I set you a similar challenge with the lenses only on the 50 1.4???? GMTA....

Bilsen

divamum wrote: »

John, you'll recall that I really like #1. For me, the reason the door bg in that one of the series isn't a problem because there are no clear images in the reflections - it's kind of a loose, repetitive pattern which = "neutral" bg. The other ones in that part of the shoot reveal less consistent light patterns, and recognizable shapes which instantly = distracting.

Just my 2c on that. Did you see that set Jeff did with the levee and a bunch of wood in the bg? (I mentioned you in it at the time, but not sure if you saw my post). Check it out for how to use what could be a really REALLY distracting bg in a way that I think enhances, provides texture... and doesn't call attention to itself. Sure, it's senior portraiture and thus not doing quite the same thing as you are, but it's aprinicple that I think is applicable to both genres....

Btw, also laughing - didn't I set you a similar challenge with the lenses only on the 50 1.4???? GMTA....

Just went over and saw that set Diva. Honestly, I'm either too naive or too just plain stupid to get why that BKG in # 2 is any different (or better) that what I do with rock walls bt I'll take your word for it. I do see the lines and such in # 1 but I probably wouldn't leave that much negative space in what I do. Maybe I'll give that a try.

As for the challenge, yep I remember the 50mm challenge and once I figured out how to work with a 3 inch DOF, it went OK. I already use the 70-200 a lot more nowadays so I will take Jeff's challenge and see what happens.

Bilsen

OOPS, double post.

divamum

I think the reasons the wood here works better than some of your stone shots:

- uniformity of shape (repetition makes it seem less prominent)
- uniformity of colour (ditto)
- subtle, feathered vignette so that it isn't brighter than the subject (moving the subject away a little and letting light falloff do the job would work too)
- probably the most important: he shot it with the subject at an angle to it rather than with it dead-square behind him. That results in some blurred depth of field behind, plus adds to the sense of separation.

I'll say that on second look at that shot just now I would have preferred it without all the tags, BUT I didn't notice those on first look, so they couldnt' have been so prominent as to catch my attention.

Anyway, just my overinflated, recessionary 2c. Your mileage may vary

Moving Pictures

JohnGalt_ny wrote: »

Just went over and saw that set Diva. Honestly, I'm either too naive or too just plain stupid to get why that BKG in # 2 is any different (or better) that what I do with rock walls bt I'll take your word for it.

I'm a gonna take a stab at this ....

Rock walls don't reflect distracting background stuff. Or, if I don't miss my guess, Diva woulda been happier (and others, too,) if you'd shot with a polarizing lens to take the reflection out of the glass.

However, the key between the shot diva suggested you looked at, and yours, is that the background is in focus on much of the plane of the photo you captured. In the example, only part of that background is, due to the angle.

Now, I love bokeh. I'm a hound for it, when I shoot people ... and I often try to grab my 70-200 for portraits, for that reason. Part of the whole reason is that I long ago clued into how the human eye works ... if you look at someone across a room, your eye/brain will naturally block out everything else but their face and/or form. When you're shooting people, it's pleasing to the brain to have an image that closely resembles what our eye normally sees. Hence, f4 or wider on a zoom - which is kinda what people are telling you, from what I can gather.

That said, I must applaud you. You're really heeding advice here, and I really wish I had the time to put some of what you've clearly learned into my own work ... but as a news photog, I shoot basic people portraits so rarely ... less often than I'd like.