Just to Prove I do Listen

Bilsen

We did our first shoot of the Downton Abby series over the weekend. I don't know the show either :dunno but Cyndi and Anylza helped me through.:wink

Anyway, I just started PP on them so I don't have a full set yet but I'm posting these here to show Diva, JM, Jon, Qarik and everyone else that while I may argue, discusss, spit, kick and otherwise be my juvenile self, I DO actually hear what y'all say and will always try it out.

I'll comment on what I think later but for now #2 is the result of last week's comments as follows: 1) Angle changed to allow more pleasing depth; 2) Dark skinned model nearest the main light (Mr. Sun); 3) Shot with my Tamron 28-75 @ f2.8 (wide open); 4) Faces and tea set all on the same plane (oh yes - I heard that too)

As always, no flash, no reflectors.

divamum

Dude, even if you've never heard of it, Downton-mania is everywhere - I trust you hit up youtube and watched some clips?!

The irony is that here, the square-on comp of #1 almost works (although the window reflections completely kill it for me no matter what else) That said, I definitely prefer the second shot. It's not quite there, but IMO you're on the right track. I'd have pulled the table even further away from the background and/or used a longer lens to soften it even more, but this is definitely better than the "everything in focus" look that has been under discussion.

Nits:
- that pink dress is really overpowering against all the neutrals. I think they either both need to be in bright dresses, or both in light ones to make it work.
- not enough light on Anylza; in fact, the whole of #2 looks a little underexposed to me. Brighten up the girls with some fill flash or reflectors (even a white sheet on the ground out of sight would have helped bounce some light back up onto them), and let light falloff darken the bg a little.
- iron the tablecloth! Creeeassseeesss!
- chairs are kinda heavy compared to the afternoon tea look of the table; because they're out of period and color tone, they do jump out more than might be ideal, especially with the rim lighting picking up the wood on Anylza's side of the table.

On a plus note
- cake tier and table setting looks great.
- girls are nailing the deportment/poses/expressions, especially A.
- hair and makeup look terrific and evoke what you were going for.

Keep shooting wide open. Keep noticing details. It's coming

Bilsen

Thanks Diva.

FWIW, here was my thought process (as TRULY amended by the recent discussions on here)

As to shot number 1, I very purposely framed them on the stone wall between the two windows. I like the symmetry and it showed that they were on a portico rather than just in front of a wall. The width of the shot is the max possible because of a really ugly railing on the steps where I was positioned. When framed in the camera, this was the best way to show what I wanted to show.

After that set, and directly as a result of comments from you and the others, I was not satisfied and walked all around the portico for an angle with a deeper depth. I had to consider the lighting direction, some ugly NON Downton elements (like A/C compressors) and where to frame them. I also had to get as far away from them as possible to allow zooming and compression.

For the second set (which I fully admit I like better - ) I originally place them out further from the wall BUT that had a column coming out of Anylza's head . Thus, with you guys ringing in my ears (supplanting the more usual voices in my head ) I moved them closer so that both heads are framed against the stone BKG while still giving me the angular depth. I then changed from my 24-105 F4 to the Tammy 28-75 f2.8 and opened wide. (::little voice:: Listen dummy - keep the faces in the same plane as the tier plate. ) Lastly, for shot #2, I got as far back from them as possible (leaning into the balcony rail) and zoomed to the max possible to still get them both (60mm - 96mm eq on a 1.6 crop).

Thus, though I KNOW y'all don't like to hear it, there were some locational constraints and equipment limitations to deal with.

In any event, I think the girls did an amazing job of research and their concept was excellent. As a giggle, my "direction" to them was "Look at me as if I am a bug". I think they both nailed that, possibly because they really feel that way.

Anyway, whether successful or not, I hope I've at least shown that all of you aren't wasting your breath (or your pitchforks and torches either.)

Qarik

I actually like #2..this is solid shot. your DOF is not quite as thin as it could/should be

Bilsen

Qarik wrote: »

I actually like #2..this is solid shot. your DOF is not quite as thin as it could/should be

Appreciate that Qarik but the DOF is all that could happen in that set.

Camera is at max f2.8 and I am as far from them as I can get. At a point, we live with the physical layout for a particular image.

zoomer

the closer your subject is to the camera in relation to the background the more the background blurs.
if the subject is closer to the background than the camera less blur.

Bilsen

Thanks Zoomer.

I understand that concept but, again, the physical dimensions of the space made all the various placement of camera, subjects and background the optimal as they are shown to get the depth, angle, framing and elements I wanted. Thus given all of that, shot @ f2.8, that's what there was to get no mater how imperfect it may be.

michaelglenn

Loads better!

Great lighting on both shots. I'm digging the colors and the processing.

The only problems I see here are the actual posing. They both look a bit stiff as to what they are doing. Were you trying to go for the lifestyle approach here or were you trying to go for something posed?

Edit: I also want to point out how much more your subjects become the main focus here. Do you see how with that shallow depth of field, your eyes go directly to the models. If this was shot more narrow, they wouldn't pop out as much as they do now. Overall, I think what you did here is a huge improvement from the previous thread.

divamum

(I believe this was the "Downton Abbey Set" that Steve referred to a while back... so I'm assuming the stiff corset-evoking poses were intentional )

Bilsen

Thanks Diva.

Michael, the stiff and severe is EXACTLY what this shoot required. They did a great job of it.

I wanted the look I have seen for real on many super rich, the one that says "I smell dog poop but don't know where it is". They nailed it.
Also, BELIEVE ME I am more than fully aware of the preference on this board for blurred BKG. I am capable of doing that, but being the contrary cuss that I am, I do not always want it. I fully admit I like the angled depth of the second series better than the straight on but I am not willing to concede that this image isn't any good either.

puzzledpaul

I also (unsurprisingly) prefer the 2 angled shots - the second more than the post 1 (#2) because of the lower pov.
My main 'wonder' is whether you would've been able to 'lose' the door at frame left, by slight movement of cam / table / focal length etc.

I accept you had physical constraints on site, but comparing the width of wall between doors (#1, post 1) and that showing on the 2 frames mentioned, less than half the wall width available was used as bkg.

Having the LHs door so close to the LHS frame also shows up any tilt, of course.

Just out of interest, I much prefer the bkg in these 2 shots compared with the first DtA example shown in the other thread - truly horrendous bkg / pic imo* - for all manner of reasons. (I recently used the w/life equivalent** in a talk, to indicate problems in the environment I frequent.

pp

* + mrs pp just laughed / groaned when I showed her, btw, so it wasn't just me

** similar to top LH frame on quadtych, post 7 here.
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=246360

divamum

Steve, what *exactly* - be specific - do you see that you want to include sharply with the backgrounds? I know you've often said "including context", but what exactly *is* that context in the case above? And how does being completely sharp actively help the shot?

I'm not being snarky here, I'm really just trying to get to the bottom of this. It's come up over and over and over, and while you're "giving it a try", you obviously still feel that it's just a style (and implying that it's one you still aren't 100% convinced is the way to go). The teacher in me keeps hoping I can figure out what it is you don't/can't see, because with few exceptions it is the difference between a good shot and a "meh" shot.

Also, to repeat a point I made elsewhere: your shots ALWAYS look better on high contrast, uncalibrated monitors than on my calibrated IPS screen. For instance, in the shot in post 10, on my main screen my eye immediately goes to the window reflection and the rim lighting on the frame-left chair; on my phone, it's a nice bright summertime shot all round. I don't quite know what that "means", but I keep noticing it and wondering how that affects your processing and awareness of bright areas.........FWIW, my calibrated monitor yields pretty accurate prints.

Bilsen

Good morning Diva.

Those are serious questions and I both appreciate them and want to give them the thought they deserve. I'll be back later today but I wanted you to know I've seen the comment.

jonh68

What focal length did you shoot? Personally, I think you need to start using different tools in your arsenal. Grab the 50 1.4, 70-200, and 55-250 more. My favorite lightweight portrait lens right now is my 70-300 VR shooting at 7.1. Shooting at 200-300 mm creates pleasing portraits with less distortion and separates from the background at the same time.

I like the lower angle of your 2 and 3 rd shot.

What keeps coming up over and over in your remarks is "I was limited" by the location and setting. Sometimes it is best to change locations and scout better. Even in your first shot it looks like you had a few feet to play with to move the table farther from the wall.

I'm with Diva on the background questions. Since this was an Abby themed shoot, the backgrounds don't scream "Abby". They are so prominent that it takes me out of the illusion. If it were an authentic setting then I can see having part of the story. Since they are not, it doesn't help the story. You are almost getting there. It's like a running back tripping on the 5 yd line. I think the shot would have been better just shooting against a black or white background and let the viewer mentally draw the backgrounds in.

Bilsen

Understand Jon. Thanks as always.