Treed Cat

Bilsen

OK so her name is Catherine and it took two years for us to get back together but this 30 something made it all worthwhile.

Click the first image for the entire gallery with some different looks.



2.


3.


4.


5. and a couple from a stone arch


6.


7. and we end with a headshot of course

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Bryce Wilson

In your gallery, no.s 10, 15 and 52 do it for me.

Not wild about the tree shots. The foot being cut off by the tree in the first three bothers me.

I like the pose in no 6 except for the tummy.

Bilsen

Thanks Bryce.

Of course I always choose the wrong frames to post.

As far as the tree, I agree with you about her foot BUT wasn't no other way for her to balance and no other angle for me to shoot.

Hackbone

Don't mean to be mean but the poses don't seem feminine to me. Exposures seem a little bright on her.

Bilsen

Nothing mean about you ever Hack.

This one is really simple, you don't like the poses -- I do. I think they are different from a lot of the "static" model poses I often get whacked for. Hey, ain't no thang about artisitc disagreement.

As for the exposures, they may be a tad bright but I don't see it on my calibrated screen.

Bryce Wilson

JohnGalt_ny wrote: »

Thanks Bryce.

Of course I always choose the wrong frames to post.

As far as the tree, I agree with you about her foot BUT wasn't no other way for her to balance and no other angle for me to shoot.

OK, so I'm in the mood to be philosophical for a minute or two because this response got me to thinking...(not picking on you John, but using this as a conversation/philosophy point)

As a photographer, if we see something the "bothers" us about a shot, is it prudent to take the shot anyway knowing we will take some more that will be better?

I got my start shooting in the film days and I'm wondering if today, because it doesn't cost us anything but time when we press that button, there is a lot of time and energy being used that need not be. Face it, all we have to sell is our time and our talent. Frankly, between having to digitally process for showing "on-line" (Lab used to do this with film, not me) and uploading and/or burning, I'm spending more time on a shoot than I ever did in the film days.

Even with a Polaroid back that I used to use with my medium format gear, I spent more time setting up the shot, metering and posing to get it right the first time (click = $) and NO time in post. Wondering if I/we took more time doing this now, some of that time we have to charge for could be reduced?

Hackbone

Bryce, you nailed it. We should be shooting less with digital but it has gone the other way. We now have the capacity to correct a pose, exposure etc. immediately but most don't. They love to " shoot & pray". I still use 250 & 512 cards to get me to shoot less and think more.

Bilsen

Naturally, having never shot with film, I take the responsible opposing viewpoint.

When I see things that bother me (such as the foot in the tree or the leaf in #2) I will generally take the shot and see what I can do with it (ie using the leaf to frame along her face). However, there are many times where it just doesn't work and the image gets tossed.

With that said, I do find myself cutting WAYYY down on the number of clicks in a given shoot. A couple of years ago 500-600 snaps in a 2 hour shoot was pretty common for me. A lot of that was double clicks because I didn't have the confidence to know I had the shot. Nowadays I'm down to 250 or so frames in a 3 hour shoot and I find I have the model change outfits much more quickly that I used to.

divamum

Good points all, Bryce. That said, I think we can take risks shooting digital that we couldn't shooting film and that's what's GOOD about shooting off frames on the spur of the moment - you just might nail something that you never would have tried if you only set it up meticulously, posed it etc.

I think it depends on your shooting style, too - if you like movement in your shots, you need to take more frames to guarantee at least one will nail what you want. Your personal style, Bryce, is a more static one, thus it probably is easier for you to set up every detail in the way you describe. I try very hard to "set my scene", but I also am trying to get movement and life into my shots so will sometimes do technically ludicrous things to grab the moment. Some of those work; some don't. Thankfully, with digital, it doesn't cost me. And the crappy ones never see the light of day!!!!

John, I'm not feeling this set I'm afraid. Some of your recent shoots have been outstanding, but in this one the combination of "unstyled" casual clothing and hair and no clear purpose for the pictures makes them feel flat and definitely not portfolio material (for her or you). I'm not seeing light, meaningful background, or particular personality/styling coming through ... they're "just" pictures of an attractive gal.

On a plus note, that last one will make a killer headshot if you lose the edge of green on the rh side where you ran out of pillar (couldn't you have moved her, or taken a step to the right to frame it against the solid stone?). As it is, it's messy. That one will make a nice actress-y 8x10 if you crop it in considerably tighter (you could even try turning it into a landscape shot and see how it looks)

zoomer

In her gallery I really like the last group where she is in the black, those are nice. She is a pretty girl and it shows in that black outfit.

I take 500-600 shots in a 2 hour session. If I use lights more like 200-300.
I try to create an environment where the camera becomes invisible and they just do their thing with little input from me...sometimes it works sometimes not.....I seldom use lights anymore...unless I am shooting in green shade light.

I usually process about 100 but it only takes me an hour or so.