Kristine - Accidental Shoot

Bilsen

I was away last week on a cruise to the Virgin Islands. Since this was a non model vacation cruise I traveled light with only a camera, 2 lenses and a flash expecting to shoot only turista type snaps.

Well I ran into this couple from Norway and as we were discussing photography and what I do, she said, "I've never done a real shoot before and I always wanted to try it." Can you guess how long it took me to suggest we do so on the ship??

SOOO here is the camera debut of non-model Kristine.



2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.


8.and what is a Bilsen set without a headshot??

anonymouscuban

.

Not sure how you're going to take this man but these shots are some of the best stuff you've ever posted in my humble opinion. I love them all except #3 and that one I still like. There are a couple really minor distractions in the BG in a couple but nothing that can't be erased. #2 and #5 are my favorites.

Really nice stuff. You need to figure out exactly what you did with these and bottle it for later use!!!

Bilsen

Alex, thank you (I think ) .

I'm not sure what you're seeing different except that with a non-model who knew nothing, I took a serious lot of time between clicks to pose her from the ground up. Normally I let the model go for the general pose and just refine it a bit. Other than that, I don't honestly know.

I do know that even my wife said "Focus on her incredible eyes" which is where the last frame came from. Maybe I should have taken Diva on the cruise as my female art director.

briandelion

Excellent!
I've not been around in quite a while but sure picked a good time to visit. I have to agree John this is you at your best! The posing, the composition and color all work together. Very sophisticated stuff. Maybe that's the ticket- you control the pose from the ground up. Great work, John!

divamum

Why? I'll hazard some guesses:

- she isn't a model, so you had to think about how to help her instead of "leaving it to her" (you've often said that's what you do)
- she isn't a model, and you probably went to greater lengths to make her feel comfortable in her own skin
- you HAD to pose her, which made you stop and think about what you were doing instead of just clicking
- you didn't go looking for "sexy" - and in this context probably weren't so comfortable doing the "male fantasy" poses, but spent time making her the best HER she could be. You worked at making HER shine instead of just "wow, she's hot - hubbahubba"

Gold star for you on this set, my friend!

divamum

PS #6. Are you REALLY going to leave dude's head at the edge of the frame?! (I know, details details!!)

Bilsen

Thanks Diva, I can only guess that you are 90% correct. This set probably shows more of my thoughts than anything other than the world tour with Cyndi. With Kristine, I wanted her to have max comfort and there was nonreal concept other than maybe J Crew for the shorts/top set. So you are pretty much right albeit with a Few small corrections:

That is a statue in #6 not some dude's head. still, it can go away.

I rarely think the hubba hubba thing anymore. After 5 years and 160 or so models, i am way past pretty girl syndrome. That said, if a model wants to go sexy, I usually go with them and suggest what I think works.

It was definitely different directing Kristine from the ground up and doing so in a way she'd stay natural and unforced. She really took to it naturally and was so smart that she got a direction ( ie: weight on the back leg) on the first try. Then she remembered that when we added another.

jmphotocraft

many of these are too dark...? 1, 2, 3, 5, 7.

divamum

jmphotocraft wrote: »

many of these are too dark...? 1, 2, 3, 5, 7.

Would have to agree with that - meant to mention in my first post some could use a little brightening up. Was swayed by the great vibe of these shots and forgot!

DonFischer

To dark? Don't know why that would be said. Love them all except #6 and the last one.

anonymouscuban

Hmm... I'm one those guys that love well exposed images. Actually, prefer them to walk that fine line of being too bright. That said, I don't find any of these shots "too dark". I haven't but I think if you look at the histogram on each, you will not find it to be underexposed at all. Maybe you guys are focusing too much on the shadows. Take a look at all of the highlights and midtones in all the shots. Look just right if you ask me but I'm known to travel on an inner tube so what the heck do I know.

jonh68

Great set but some need to be lightened up a bit. Pose is a bit awkward for me in 6. Great set overall.

jonh68

anonymouscuban wrote: »

Hmm... I'm one those guys that love well exposed images. Actually, prefer them to walk that fine line of being too bright. That said, I don't find any of these shots "too dark". I haven't but I think if you look at the histogram on each, you will not find it to be underexposed at all. Maybe you guys are focusing too much on the shadows. Take a look at all of the highlights and midtones in all the shots. Look just right if you ask me but I'm known to travel on an inner tube so what the heck do I know.

Histograms are great but they can also be misleading. There are very bright areas in the pictures that can throw a histogram off, namely the shirt and backgrounds.

When shooting sports I would have white colored jerseys and background light throw off exposure which is why I try to expose for skin and faces when shooting sports.

jmphotocraft

Here's a quick edit of the jpg in Picasa (all I have here at my day job) to demonstrate roughly where I think these should be, brightness-wise:

before/after:

Bilsen

Jack, I have no argument with your preference but I did look at it brighter and prefer not to blow out her blouse. Just a personal choice in PP.

Thanks all for looking in.

jmphotocraft

If processing from raw, you would not have to blow out the blouse in order to get the whites whiter. I blew out the blouse because it's a jpeg.

I see these photos were taken about 6pm, so I'm sure your versions are accurate to what you saw in the evening shade. However accurate reproductions of a scene and pleasing photographs are often two different things.

kdog

Gorgeous series. Well done!

divamum

Fwiw, on my monitor something about halfway between the originals and Jack's edit would be about right.

Qarik

she looks better and poses better then most of your "pro" models to be honest.

anonymouscuban

divamum wrote: »

Fwiw, on my monitor something about halfway between the originals and Jack's edit would be about right.

I would agree with Diva if I was agreeing that they are underexposed to begin with but I'm not really agreeing although I can see where a little added bump would hurt the image or make it objectionable. Maybe.

Bilsen

I see these photos were taken about 6pm, so I'm sure your versions are accurate to what you saw in the evening shade. However accurate reproductions of a scene and pleasing photographs are often two different things.

Boy don't I know that.

Anyway, I won't argue with anyone's take on this set but the fact is they were shot on the dark side of the ship away from the Caribbean sun. All that white superstructure made for one helluva reflector. For better or worse, this is what the camera saw. That's not to minimize PP but I wanted to leave her as naturally beautiful as she was.

she looks better and poses better then most of your "pro" models to be honest.

Qarik my friend, I'll take that as the second "sort of" compliment in this series. I don't usually micromanage a model but with Kristine I basically started at her toes and moved up. Diva thinks I should do that more often and perhaps she's correct (yet again).

Anyway, I appreciate the comments on this impromptu shoot and I'm still listening.

Bryce Wilson

Add a me too!

To me, this is the most pleasing set (for me) I have seen from you in a long time.

Very natural yet stylistic.

Kudo's.

Bilsen

Thanks Bryce, sorry I missed this comment. Always good to have your feedback, pro and not so pro.