An Academic Discussion

Bilsen

Having just gotten off a ship with sometimes cramped areas to shoot three models, I got to wondering what people think. It's always dangerous when I have time.

So the question for discussion: Assuming you have walked around every position and assuming every position has something "wrong" with it (background, obstacles, people or whatever) do you set up and shoot as best you can or do you walk away??

There is no right answer here, at least not from me but I'm curious what others do.

Qarik

walk away and find a better spot or shoot some shots with a different post process in mind to accomodate

Bilsen

Interesting Qarik. I actually did exactly that on Explorer since there was no "good angle" for the greek goddesses set. I shot it knowing I'd be taking plants out of the girl's heads. In this one, there were ferns growing out of Anylza's ear and hair on camera right. If I moved, they'd be growing out of Cyndi's head on camera left.

Qarik

one of my recent pet peeves in my shooting is to get the BG "straight on" so all the lines are rectilinear. It's great you shopped out the plants but look at all the horizontal and vertical lines that are tilted this way and that way. I think about 2 steps to your right and turn the camera a touch left and all your lines would have been much straighter (along with a touch longer focal length as I see barrel perspective distortion )..and at least the rest could be corrected easily in PP.

Bilsen

Thanks Qarik but, as I said, this was tight.

My next step to the right was a bolted down table and my next step backwards was into the ocean.

Hackbone

I'm one for walking away, trouble is you don't always know or see it at the time. I believe that is what separates a great one from a good one.

A tighter crop might be called for in those instances to rid one of distractions.

Qarik

climb on the table! anything to get the shot right?

Bilsen

Hey, I've been known to hang from a tree and, on occasion, take my camera for a swim in the Gulf of Mexico trying to get the shot. I got tired of replacing skin and, more importantly, lenses.

Thanks Hack. This is an interesting discussion. On another subject, how did your stuff with Anylza and Amy turn out? With you shooting those two, I expect more than perfection.

zoomer

for me I keep looking till I find a spot...that looks good....nothing looks good I keep looking.
forced to shoot in a space I don't like I would suck at photography....that is why I don't do weddings any more

but luckily that doesn't happen....what is that old saying about making a silk purse out of a sows ear ?

having said that...this isn't a bad spot, but you shot vertical subjects in a space that wants horizontal subjects. Sit a couple on the bench or floor have one laying sideways on the bench shoot it from low so the stuff above is in the background....one at a time laying on the bench from this angle or slightly from the side, or extremely from below and peeking over the edge....etc etc....

and don't overthink what is coming out of where...if the subject looks amazing you can get away with a lot if you blur it...depth of field is everything in a spot like this. Yes I know not very deep but 1/4 doesn't need a lot of space

Bilsen

You mean like this (before I get rid of the vegetation)

divamum

IF there's something better, then sure - look for it. Ideally ahead of time. And there is almost-always something better. But if I waited for "perfect" shooting locations, I don't think I'd ever take a picture. It's our job as photographers to make lemons into lemonade! This is also one of the most compelling reasons to have at least one wide aperture lens in the bag... it's amazing what you can do to make the most gawd-awful space look fabulous if you shoot at 2.8 or wider.............

All of these pix were taken in the crazy ghetto setup of the upper left photo, on my messy porch; the "interesting bokeh" is provided by shooting my wicker chair, propped up on the wicker table, at a wide aperture. (In the one of mini-D I actually sat her in the other chair)




This was a set I took in the hallway at the college. PHUGLY hallway (scuse the blown out tosser of a pullback photo - obviously it's overexposed and useless, but it shows the surroundings).



Also, when I was prepping for those two weddings I shot last year, I found some great shots + pullbacks showing just how much you can do with a HORRIBLE setting. There was one guy who produced an amazing editorial-style shot in somebody's (rather ugly) suburban driveway.

In your Greek godesses above (fun idea!) were there no other ways of setting them up? Around the pillar/planter? Faces on the same plane so you could open up the aperture and blurred out the plant matter instead? Do you have a pullback of that spot so we can see what was a little further on either side/behind you?

jonh68

If it's tight I try to make do, but minimize the distractions. If it doesn't I walk to another place. The goddess shot just doesn't work for me because it looks like you are trying to fit a square into a round hole. That shot could very well have been taken on the beach on some rocks invoking a Mediterranean atmosphere.

Or if adamant about shooting at that spot get a different or interesting angle. Straight on doesn't work. You could have an upper torso shot, shoot at 1.8 to 2.8 and blur some of the backgrounds but they add to the shot by subconsciously evoking a Greek theme. You do it that way, you see maybe the columns with the plants on top. Instead of making them out in detail, you just have blurred shapes.

Divamum gives samples of how to make do and not make the background hurt the image. The pullback shot she shows is not an impressive background. If she put the subjects in the chair and shot straight on, the background kills the shot. However, she worked around the backgrounds and found little slivers for hints in the background that make the pics work.

Bilsen

Diva, there was no other way in that particular set. To camera left there were people around the pool in bathing suits that had me wanting an acid eye wash. To camera right was a laundry basket, garbage can and crew entry. Behind me was the ocean (as in my next step was overboard).

As for the wide Av, I get that, but using f2.8 or faster with THREE models pretty much guarantees somebody is gonna have soft eyes.

This set had to be shot the way it is or not at all. That is actually the point of this discussion. I shot it anyway. Should I have just passed on it? What would you all do?

I have some great answers here. Anybody else???

jonh68

Bilsen wrote: »

Diva, there was no other way in that particular set. To camera left there were people around the pool in bathing suits that had me wanting an acid eye wash. To camera right was a laundry basket, garbage can and crew entry. Behind me was the ocean (as in my next step was overboard).

As for the wide Av, I get that, but using f2.8 or faster with THREE models pretty much guarantees somebody is gonna have soft eyes.

This set had to be shot the way it is or not at all. That is actually the point of this discussion. I shot it anyway. Should I have just passed on it? What would you all do?

I have some great answers here. Anybody else???

I would have used one model and shot 2.8 or faster. This isn't a bad location but it is for trying to use 3 models at one time. I would have walked if 3 models were required.

divamum

You have to get their eyes in the same plane to use 2.8; it's a pain, but it can be done.

Instead of two in front, one in back, I probably would have set them up in an elegant, sensual and linked line (either standing or seated - both could work) - eyes on level, maybe draping arms. More a Vanity Fair than SI vibe since it's very classic. This painting isn't exactly what I have in mind (and you'd have to be careful with the depth of field to ensure the middle one didn't wind up out of the sweet spot), but it's the kind of "vibe" I'm imagining. How much space did you have behind you to step back?

Bilsen

The next step back was in the ocean. I was leaning back outside the railing.. I already took one camera/lens for a swim remember? OL

divamum

Wow - narrow. What lens were you using?

Btw, you could easily have avoided the foliage in heads by having them all recline in some way.....

Just brainstorming. Without seeing the whole area, hard to know how it might have been handled. Do you have any pullbacks at all?

Bilsen

That was my 24-105 f4.

And that last one is as close to a pullback as it gets. I spent that whole set getting in as tight as I could.

I wish I had better answers.

divamum

What're the exif settings?

Bilsen

Will have go check them tomorrow Diva. Talk to you then. Thanks for sticking with it.

michaelglenn

Biggest problem here is your background. The colors and pattern don't do anything to bring out the models here.

A couple questions:

1. How big was this space?
2. Why did it have to be shot here or not shot at all?

My advice to you is to bring a lens with a wider aperture to really crush out the background..especially if it's uninteresting or even distracting. You could absolutely get everyone in tack sharp focus at f/2.8. Heck, I would be shooting this at f/1.8 to really blur it out. Just make sure each subject is on the same plane of focus and you'll have the shot.

To answer your question about bad locations..I generally look for good light and keep walking around. Heck, even if you're unsure of a backdrop..just fake it and take an image in that spot. Tell your subject that you are testing the lighting, and keep on moving. You'll eventually find a spot that will work.

Just by looking at the spot your in, the most interesting backdrop here is the floor. I would have stood on the table, laid down the subjects, and shoot directly above them. No joke!

Bilsen

michaelglenn wrote: »

Biggest problem here is your background. The colors and pattern don't do anything to bring out the models here.

A couple questions:

1. How big was this space?
2. Why did it have to be shot here or not shot at all?

My advice to you is to bring a lens with a wider aperture to really crush out the background..especially if it's uninteresting or even distracting. You could absolutely get everyone in tack sharp focus at f/2.8. Heck, I would be shooting this at f/1.8 to really blur it out. Just make sure each subject is on the same plane of focus and you'll have the shot.

To answer your question about bad locations..I generally look for good light and keep walking around. Heck, even if you're unsure of a backdrop..just fake it and take an image in that spot. Tell your subject that you are testing the lighting, and keep on moving. You'll eventually find a spot that will work.

Just by looking at the spot your in, the most interesting backdrop here is the floor. I would have stood on the table, laid down the subjects, and shoot directly above them. No joke!

Going backwards (as I often do), those are good suggestions Mike, thanks.

I already talked about using f2.8 or faster with three models. Somebody's eyes are gonna be way soft although I will certainly give that "same plane" thing a try when I shoot with Anylza and Cyndi this weekend (a Downton Abbey concept shoot).

Question 1). The total area available is shown and described in that last image. That was what we had.
Question 2). It was that particular set that "had to be" shot there. We had several sets in that area and we shot them all, like this:



and this (where you can also see the set in question behind them)

Bilsen

divamum wrote: »

What're the exif settings?

Diva, the first image I posted is 1/250 @ f5.6, ISO 640 at 28mm (so you see that really was a tight spot )

The rest are going to be in that general range give or take 20mm in focal length. All were at 640 ISO, no flash with me leaning out over the ocean.

anyway, I really have enjoyed this discussion. Seems most of you would have walked away OR used a technique that was beyond my knowledge (ie: the same plane faces). So once again, I've learned something new to try and, invariably, screw up beyond recognition.

divamum

Ok, looking at the shot in post #2 - if you couldn't move straight back, why the HECK didn't you move off to the right and back yourself into that other room/area? There's a ton of space there!! Along with a fluted column that would've added to the "Grecian Goddess" concept. Ok, I get that you had a more symmetrical vision in mind and wanted the marble bench, but it does seem you actually had quite a few options, many of which have already been suggested

Btw, the other option with shallow dof+multiple people is that you can get eyes sharp for each person in separate shots, and then composite/headswap. It's a pita, but in certain circumstances it might be the best option. I suspect that A LOT of editorial shots silently do this... but skillfully enough that we don't notice

PS Cindy needs to point her toes properly and bend her ankle outward more to keep a pretty line in her legs/feet. For me, her toes kill that image in the "shower stalls", and it's something I"ve noticed before in her work.

Bilsen

divamum wrote: »

Ok, looking at the shot in post #2 - if you couldn't move straight back, why the HECK didn't you move off to the right and back yourself into that other room/area? There's a ton of space there!! Along with a fluted column that would've added to the "Grecian Goddess" concept. Ok, I get that you had a more symmetrical vision in mind and wanted the marble bench, but it does seem you actually had quite a few options, many of which have already been suggested

Btw, the other option with shallow dof+multiple people is that you can get eyes sharp for each person in separate shots, and then composite/headswap. It's a pita, but in certain circumstances it might be the best option. I suspect that A LOT of editorial shots silently do this... but skillfully enough that we don't notice

PS Cindy needs to point her toes properly and bend her ankle outward more to keep a pretty line in her legs/feet. For me, her toes kill that image in the "shower stalls", and it's something I"ve noticed before in her work.

Thanks again Diva. I had a bolted table immediately to my right so I couldn't move that way and if I had gone to the other side of the table (to get the fluted column) I'd have spent hours getting rid of some truly horrific people sightings. I think the consensus here is I probably should have skipped it altogether.

As for Cyndi, you are, of course, dead right and we have noted that seemingly forever. I can go back to our shoot # 1 (in June, 2011) and see it. I call it "scrunching her toes" or "toe amputation".
I don't know why but she seems unable to consistently correct this flaw in her technique. It's a shame because she has developed so many other things over our shoots (expressions, hand positions etc) but this seems to stay. Maybe we should concede it and just call it her "signature look". - NO I'm not serious.

Hijacking my own thread, we did use different columns in that area like this:

Cyndi


Ann Marie

divamum

Concensus is NOT skip it altogether. Not at all. I'm positive there were ways of using that spot. Possibly not quite for your full-length vision, but totally ways of using it.

Have you tried saying "extend your toes" instead of "point your toes"? Just wonder if that might help her to avoid bending them over.

Bilsen

divamum wrote: »

Concensus is NOT skip it altogether. Not at all. I'm positive there were ways of using that spot. Possibly not quite for your full-length vision, but totally ways of using it.

Have you tried saying "extend your toes" instead of "point your toes"? Just wonder if that might help her to avoid bending them over.

I agree there were other ways to use the spot BUT not consistent with my "artistic vision". In plain English, I apparently tried to force something that wasn't there. That's OK, more learning. My old baseball coach used to say the best stuff he ever learned was after he knew everything.

As for Cyndi, we'll keep working on it. Here's an image from June, 2011, our second shoot ever. 30 or so shoots later we can at least say she's consistent. She, Anylza and Kay remain my top of the line anyway.

jonh68

Consensus isn't to skip it all together, just shoot in a different way. Your pull back of the three of them at the edge of the pool or hot tub shows it looks like you had room to use.

Your last two posting with the columns is another example to me of how the backgrounds don't add anything to the photo as shot. Pull them away from the columns so you can see them but shoot at 1.8 so they don't dominate. The best way to describe is like you are shouting to the world "Hey I found a Greek Looking Set so I HAVE to make it work". Sometimes subtle works best where you let the viewer draw in the setting mentally. You do this by shooting 1.8-2.8, pull the model away from the set, and then have just blurred shapes that invoke a Greek Temple.

Bilsen

Interesting thoughts as always Jon.

I do often prefer to bring the background in as part of the scene and I've been hit for that many times on here. I plead artistic license for what many consider a design flaw.

Qarik

you know that is my #1 nit with your shots..waay too much background in focus. At least shoot at f4. Get a cheap 50mm 1.8

jmphotocraft

I'm with Qarik on your backgrounds. I think they make the shots look amateurish and flat and the models awkward. The models are striking poses that say look at ME, it's all about ME, while your photo is saying hey check out this cool background! An OOF background also lends to the dreaminess I like to see in model shots.

And fwiw, Cyndi's hair was way better in 2011.