Michele-Rainy Monday Didn't Get Her Down

jonh68 · December 9, 2013

I shot these a little different, I brought out the Sigma 120-300 I use for sports and put it to use as a portrait lens. D3s and I think 2.8 at 300mm for most of the shots.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

divamum · December 9, 2013

5 & 6. 7 is almost fabulous, but most of the light missed her face - if there's latitude to dodge it out with layers, I'd go for it as it's a way cool shot

PS Everything here demonstrates why I love shooting portraits with the 70-200!! When there's room to use a tele, the results are always soooo satisfying

jonh68 · December 9, 2013

divamum wrote: »

5 & 6. 7 is almost fabulous, but most of the light missed her face - if there's latitude to dodge it out with layers, I'd go for it as it's a way cool shot

PS Everything here demonstrates why I love shooting portraits with the 70-200!! When there's room to use a tele, the results are always soooo satisfying

Thanks, while fast primes can smooth backgrounds, there's just no substitute for long,fast tele's on full frame to get the compression.

Bilsen · December 10, 2013

#s 1, 3, 4, 8 & 9 --- WOW love them all. Great color, nice expressions and she is, of course, gorgeous.

# 3 is my best in show for this set.

I like #2 except I'd crop a bit wider and clone out the bug bite on her wrist. I do like the angle and expression a lot.

# 5 is nice but a bit flat to the camera for my taste.

#6 just doesn't seem to have the tonal depth for a B&W. (But I don't get out much

)
#7 is the way better B&W.

I also agree that the 70-200 is my favorite lens when I'm outside and have the room. Of course, sometimes I feel like I need a telephone to direct the model.
I've been contemplating an 85mm 1.4 to replace my busted 50mm 1.4 but, honestly, the 70-200 f4 IS has worked great for outdoor work.

jonh68 · December 10, 2013

Bilsen wrote: »

#s 1, 3, 4, 8 & 9 --- WOW love them all. Great color, nice expressions and she is, of course, gorgeous.

# 3 is my best in show for this set.

I like #2 except I'd crop a bit wider and clone out the bug bite on her wrist. I do like the angle and expression a lot.

# 5 is nice but a bit flat to the camera for my taste.

#6 just doesn't seem to have the tonal depth for a B&W. (But I don't get out much )
#7 is the way better B&W.

I also agree that the 70-200 is my favorite lens when I'm outside and have the room. Of course, sometimes I feel like I need a telephone to direct the model.
I've been contemplating an 85mm 1.4 to replace my busted 50mm 1.4 but, honestly, the 70-200 f4 IS has worked great for outdoor work.

Thanks, and 70-200 2.8 is even better, or 300 2.8

Bilsen · December 10, 2013

jonh68 wrote: »

Thanks, and 70-200 2.8 is even better, or 300 2.8

Also twice the weight (I'm old), twice the price (I'm a hobbyist) and incrementally not gonna do anything I can't do now.

Hackbone · December 10, 2013

First 4 and last one are just done very well, love posing, exposure, colors, etc.

5 seems too hot exposure wise and hand posing is odd to me.

6 seems that you missed your exposure by quite a bit.

Overall lovely execution of ideas, enjoyed viewing them. Congrats.

jonh68 · December 10, 2013

Bilsen wrote: »

Also twice the weight (I'm old), twice the price (I'm a hobbyist) and incrementally not gonna do anything I can't do now.

monopods and used

jonh68 · December 10, 2013

Hackbone wrote: »

First 4 and last one are just done very well, love posing, exposure, colors, etc.

5 seems too hot exposure wise and hand posing is odd to me.

6 seems that you missed your exposure by quite a bit.

Overall lovely execution of ideas, enjoyed viewing them. Congrats.

6 was a so-so pic for me.

5 is my favorite but I guess this is a case of me not being objective. What grabbed me was her eyes, the streak in her hair, and background.

jmphotocraft · December 10, 2013

Very nice. She is a babe. She has a lovely smile, I wish she would use it more.

Bryce Wilson · December 10, 2013

Great set! Really like 3,4, 5 and 9.

Question.

I understand the benefit of shooting at 300mm. It really shows in these.

This girl looks REALLY comfortable in front of a camera and looks like she has a fair amount of "posing knowledge".

How difficult is it to give direction at 300mm? Would it be hard to pull off a session with someone that isn't comfortable and has little or no posing skill at this focal length?

Bilsen · December 10, 2013

Bryce Wilson wrote: »

Great set! Really like 3,4, 5 and 9.

Question.

I understand the benefit of shooting at 300mm. It really shows in these.

This girl looks REALLY comfortable in front of a camera and looks like she has a fair amount of "posing knowledge".

How difficult is it to give direction at 300mm? Would it be hard to pull off a session with someone that isn't comfortable and has little or no posing skill at this focal length?

For sure

jonh68 · December 10, 2013

Bryce Wilson wrote: »

Great set! Really like 3,4, 5 and 9.

Question.

I understand the benefit of shooting at 300mm. It really shows in these.

This girl looks REALLY comfortable in front of a camera and looks like she has a fair amount of "posing knowledge".

How difficult is it to give direction at 300mm? Would it be hard to pull off a session with someone that isn't comfortable and has little or no posing skill at this focal length?

I guess it depends on the subject, but if they don't have posing skills it doesn't matter what focal length you use. I have shot a bunch with Michele, we didn't change anything about poses. The only difficult part was communicating on a downtown street since I was farther away which would be a problem if you had to continually coach on poses. Even then it just takes a little more time since sometimes you have to walk up more. In a way though it could be easier. If someone doesn't have posing skills they are not going to move around as much, so once you get that good pose, they stick with it. Models for the most part move around and that frustrates me when they move out from a good pose.

She did joke about the lens showing off imperfections but I assured her it wasn't any different than doing close ups with other lens. She also liked the assurance that the longer lens was more flattering in closeups because it doesn't distort facial features. I showed her what the pics looked like and she became much more enthused about the results, especially the blurred backgrounds and wants to do more using the lens.

There might be an intimidation factor, but you also have to get farther back. It doesn't feel like you are up close in their business like you would other lenses so that's a trade off. The only difference when actually shooting the lens is you have to make sure there is enough room. It was raining so we were limited to shooting under awnings in the street. I think this actually helped though.

zoomer · December 11, 2013

really like 2 4 8. I would toss 6, processing on that doesn't work. 1 3 7 could go also.
Really like the bokeh from that lens combo. Looks like a really fun model...great look.
Nice work overall.

jonh68 · December 11, 2013

zoomer wrote: »

really like 2 4 8. I would toss 6, processing on that doesn't work. 1 3 7 could go also.
Really like the bokeh from that lens combo. Looks like a really fun model...great look.
Nice work overall.

Thanks, I was iffy on those pics too.

tomnovy · January 7, 2014

Great session. Congratulations.

Lightsearcher · January 10, 2014

Very nice, it is the first time I see somebody using the 120-300mm for portraits.

I have also that lens but I use it for sports and wild life.

She is a beautiful woman and you did a great job with your gear.

Marcelo

Michele-Rainy Monday Didn't Get Her Down

Comments