Erica's AWESOME MonoKini

Bilsen

It's personal preference but I think the monokini is sexier than almost any bikini.

Here's Erica in hers.



2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.


8.


and what would a Bilsen set be without a headshot? (and before you ask, I didn't touch her eyes, they are all hers)


and one of her stranger friends

Sam

Nice images.................# 2 is my favorite. clap

Sam

Foques

not a fan of 3 and 4, but others are great.

Those eyes!!

D3Sshooter

Nice work and a great model, shooting in full sunlight is not all that easy…. My prefered one is the wet look "2".

troopers

One of your better sets...thanks for posting.

jonh68

Nice set. 1 is my favorite. If 7 was shot like 1 it would be a great shot but again, the backgrounds are too sharp. 3-5 just look awkward for her. Great pose and lighting for 8 but again not enough separation from the background, not interesting enough to be a focal point of the shot.

D3Sshooter

jonh68 wrote: »

Nice set. 1 is my favorite. If 7 was shot like 1 it would be a great shot but again, the backgrounds are too sharp. 3-5 just look awkward for her. Great pose and lighting for 8 but again not enough separation from the background, not interesting enough to be a focal point of the shot.

I kind of agree with John, if the focus or point of interest is the model, then it would be better if she would stick-out. There are many ways on how this can be done. Jonh mentioned to work with a smaller DOF, so that the back is blurred. That will work, however you might need a ND filter in full sun, since a blur /bokeh background comes with a low F number (wide open). or increase the shutter to higher speed.

You did it in the first shot, but then again it is maybe your style of work.

hgernhardtjr

Are the flowers real in number 5? Their regularity, linearity, and similarity make them look as though they were added in post and, to my eye, distract. Nonetheless, all the shots were very well done!

Bilsen

Thanks everyone.

HG, the flowers are there. I took them out in a couple and left them in in others. Appreciate the comment.

D3, as you point out, bright sun and wide open Av ain't easy. The "blurred BKG" in # 1 was added in post. I can add it to any of the others but that is one damnably hard selection.

Jon, we get back to our usual discussion about letting the perfect be the enemy of good. Those were all shot wide open (f4.0) and as far back from her as I could get. So again, the question is do we pass on a decent shot because of less than perfect conditions OR do we take the image as it is? As I said to D3, I can add the blur in post so I probably will when time permits. Making that selection takes a while even with CS6.

Foques, I told the truth. ZERO PP on her eyes, they are all her.

Bryce Wilson

Bilsen wrote: »

Those were all shot wide open (f4.0) and as far back from her as I could get.

Me thinks it's time for someone to invest in a new lens!

jonh68

Bilsen wrote: »

Jon, we get back to our usual discussion about letting the perfect be the enemy of good. Those were all shot wide open (f4.0) and as far back from her as I could get. So again, the question is do we pass on a decent shot because of less than perfect conditions OR do we take the image as it is? As I said to D3, I can add the blur in post so I probably will when time permits. Making that selection takes a while even with CS6.
.

It isn't about being perfect because no shot is. It's about giving the subject room to shine. And yes, if the image isn't up to par I toss it. That is the part about being the photographer. Backgrounds are something you can control and are easy to take control of. If I am going through the thought, time, and energy as well as the models, I want it to be the best it can be. If I have limiting gear, I am not going to shoot in a way that manifests the weakness of the gear. If you don't have a fast lens, then get the subject farther back from the background, and shoot at the longest range of the lens. If you are limited in space then shoot close ups and find a better location for full length where you can control the backgrounds. Those are choices you make before the shutter is pressed to make that part the best it can be.


There is good, better, and best. I agree there are shots that are imperfect but overall are nice. However, if you shoot in a way that highlights the weakness of gear you are already limiting the picture to be good no matter how well the model nails the pose, look, and wardrobe.

jmphotocraft

Bilsen wrote: »

HG, the flowers are there. I took them out in a couple and left them in in others. Appreciate the comment.

What? Those flowers are as cloned as the day is long. Come on man.

Jon, we get back to our usual discussion

Several of these shots are very nice, but you asking for C&C and then making excuses for shortcomings or downright arguing against unanimous criticism is getting tiresome. Sharp backgrounds in portraits are not a matter of taste or style. I'm not sure why you didn't use your 50/1.4 for many of these shots. If it was too short, an 85/1.8 or 100/2 is a great cheap solution.

Foques, I told the truth. ZERO PP on her eyes, they are all her.

You may not have touched the eyes, but it really looks like a b&w filter was applied, like orange or yellow. So, not exactly zero pp.

Bilsen

Thanks everyone.

JM they are explanation NOT "excuses". I also said no PP to the eyes. Of course a B&w will have filters applied to the entire image. My point was that those are her eyes.

I'll be posting another shoot next week so let's see what happens.

jmphotocraft

Look, you seem like a nice guy, I wouldn't bother posting if I thought otherwise. But explanations, excuses, call them what you will, it is a constant pattern with you. "Hey folks, here's another portrait with a tack sharp background, and here's why I've disregarded your advice AGAIN". Not saying I've always been above it, quite the contrary, it takes one to know one. In any case strong images need no explanation.

So you admit you cloned the flowers.

Different B&W filters will make blue eyes look very different. Not saying she doesn't have amazing eyes, but you probably picked the filter that made them look best.

Bilsen

I think we are both nice guys (as are Diva, Zoomer, Hack, D3 and a bunch of others who have been critical of what I do).

If you have seen my stuff for any length of time you know that I have appreciated every critique and have NEVER become offended or come back harshly to anyone who takes the time and trouble to comment. Further, you also must have seen how my work has indeed changed (both in shoot procedure and final images) directly as a result of C&C here, very much including you. Thus, when I post an image with a sharp background, I am not ignoring you (or anyone) I am disagreeing for that particular image. Perhaps that comes from the fact that I am not "selling" to anyone but the models and thus have no editor or art director (or stage mom) to answer to.

That said, I offer NO excuses and see no reason to do so. I post things I like and am never either offended or upset when someone doesn't.

/minor rant with a handshake, a smile and for all who take the trouble to comment, positive or negative.

puzzledpaul

Minor point re blurring the background in pp (as in 1) ... apart from overall masking hassles - as already mentioned - ('hole' between her right elbow and body looks unmodified?) be wary of wayward stuff.

In 1, the bit of vegetation overlapping the path, bottom left corner, sticks out like a sore thumb imo -esp. when we have 8 as a comparison shot, even tho it's not needed.

When I used to mess around with blurring bkgnds in pp, (which I don't with w/life pics) I'd consider:
Making several selections and blurring by different amounts, so there'd not be a an obvious cut off / transition plane ... eg very easy to spot if ground behind subject is paving stones / blocks etc with 'join' lines.
Cloning some of the bkgnd into the outline / periphery of the subject (on the underneath layer to be blurred) to control subject 'overspill' into the bkgnd when blurring.

btw - Imo you'd have problems with this bkgnd anyway,whatever you did -'cos imo, it's 'spotty' - I try to avoid it like the plague for my stuff

pp

Bilsen

All good tips Paul. Thanks.

I really hate doing blurry bkg in post for exactly the reasons you mention. I always miss something. I like that idea of several lYers to very the blur. I've done it with painting the layer at different opacities but I'm gonna try your idea next time.

divamum

I really hate doing blurry bkg in post for exactly the reasons you mention. I always miss something.

:bash :bash :bash

SO DO IT IN CAMERA BY CHOOSING POSITIONS AND LENSES THAT MAKE IT HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!

jmphotocraft

divamum wrote: »

:bash :bash :bash

so do it in camera by choosing positions and lenses that make it happen in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!

qft

troopers

Bilsen, I think you meant to say as close to her as I could get , not "as far back from her as I could get".

jmphotocraft

troopers wrote: »

Bilsen, I think you meant to say as close to her as I could get , not "as far back from her as I could get".

I took that to mean he was trying to maximize the telephoto effect by getting further away and using a longer focal length.

Bilsen

No trooper, I said as far back as possible so I could zoom as much tele as I could to get as much blur and compression as humanly possible. I actually HAVE listened to the people here and learned a lot.

Diva and JM - I think you must be as tired of this discussion as I am. I still very much value your comments but, from here on, I will ONLY post blurry bokeh here so that we can get past that to technical and conceptual issues. That's not criticism of anyone who bothers to comment, I would just like to move on. I'll save my sharp backgrounds for the clients/models.

In case you don't believe me, I will say THANK YOU once again to Diva, Jon, JM, D3, Hack, Zoomster and anyone else who takes the time and trouble to C&C. We just aren't gonna agree TOTALLY on this issue.

troopers

Hmmm...if I was trying to blur the background, I get closer with a wide(r) angle lens (assuming all other things are equal such as distance from subject to background).

jonh68

Bilsen wrote: »

We just aren't gonna agree TOTALLY on this issue.

That much is obvious. We have taken it this far, I'm wondering why sharp backgrounds appeal to you.

Vary rarely do I have a client or model want sharp backgrounds unless that is a specific goal. As a matter of style they do not prefer it. Most models and subjects want the focus to be on them with backgrounds complimenting, not competing for attention. A while back you were asking advice about how to improve pictures, the consensus was the backgrounds were bad, too sharp.

Bilsen

Trooper, as anyone who has tolerated me for years can tell you, I like the background in the story. However, as a result of many beatings on here, I do TRY to blur them out when possible but that means Open Av and LONG tele when I can. You'll be seeing that later this week when I post Jena's tribute to her home country.

Jon, I cannot answer why they like them as a general rule and (OMG wait for it ...) I actually prefer the bokeh when it's just generic fashion/swimsuit. Where I get in trouble is I will NOT pass up a shot just because of limited space or limited Av. That is never an "excuse" as mentioned above, it is simply my choice.

However, for the concept shoots (ie: Downton Abbey) I LIKE the BKG as part of the story (as do the models). Then again, I don't get out much.

divamum

I like the background in the story

When the background ADDS to the story, then fair enough. Your fabulous beach set in Bermuda. That time you had stone lions and marble steps and used them to frame the model elegantly. Etc. But "suburban pool and a few evergreen windbreak trees" DOESN'T really add to the story unless that's the story you're telling... But the problem is your background and your subject tell two different stories which don't complement each other; there's a disjunct which jars and pulls attention from the lovely subject.

I know you feel like we're beatin' on you, and that it's only here that you get these responses, but I thnk it's because people see that your work could be GREAT rather than merely "almost good". It is in the spirit of encouragement rather than destruction.

Bilsen

divamum wrote: »

When the background ADDS to the story, then fair enough. Your fabulous beach set in Bermuda. That time you had stone lions and marble steps and used them to frame the model elegantly. Etc. But "suburban pool and a few evergreen windbreak trees" DOESN'T really add to the story unless that's the story you're telling... But the problem is your background and your subject tell two different stories which don't complement each other; there's a disjunct which jars and pulls attention from the lovely subject.

I know you feel like we're beatin' on you, and that it's only here that you get these responses, but I thnk it's because people see that your work could be GREAT rather than merely "almost good". It is in the spirit of encouragement rather than destruction.

Diva, you know me way too well to think I am offended or pissed off. I'm not going anywhere. I'll be here, I'm just changing what I actually post so we can get by that issue to my other numerous deficits. YOU of all people know I have listened and take every comment seriously, even when we don't end up liking the same things. Wait for the next two posts (Angeique and Jena B.) and you'll see what I mean.

troopers

Bilsen, I'm not a fan of sharp background but if you are, that's cool. I was simply suggesting a way to achieve a blurred background if that's what you wanted...and a LONG tele is not what I would use to achieve a blurred background.

Bilsen

troopers wrote: »

Bilsen, I'm not a fan of sharp background but if you are, that's cool. I was simply suggesting a way to achieve a blurred background if that's what you wanted...and a LONG tele is not what I would use to achieve a blurred background.

Thanks Troopers. I can always use an new idea.

jonh68

divamum wrote: »

I know you feel like we're beatin' on you, and that it's only here that you get these responses, but I thnk it's because people see that your work could be GREAT rather than merely "almost good". It is in the spirit of encouragement rather than destruction.

What Diva said.

Your concepts are better than anyone here, but your backgrounds in most of your sets take the viewer out of the story. I have rarely seen one background from your sets that adds to the mood or spirit of the shoot because they are so sharp and draw attention away from the subjects. D3s is a master at telling a story WITHOUT using backgrounds.

Jon, I cannot answer why they like them as a general rule and (OMG wait for it ...) I actually prefer the bokeh when it's just generic fashion/swimsuit. Where I get in trouble is I will NOT pass up a shot just because of limited space or limited Av. That is never an "excuse" as mentioned above, it is simply my choice.

I didn't ask why the models like sharp backgrounds but you. You stated you like blurred backgrounds for swimsuit and generic shots but backgrounds are so much featured in your shots that it isn't just limited to gear but a conscious choice and that is everyone of your sets. You have a choice about your backgrounds.

I have rarely come across a situation where my 50 1.8 couldn't melt away the background. The only time I do not pass up a shot is if it is a candid moment during an event or family portrait time and I get an animated kid. Otherwise when I am selecting the backgrounds I don't try to fit a square peg into a round hole. I just don't understand the part of being limited by the background because you can take the subject and move them. The subject, poses, props, and lighting do far more of telling a story than the background.

jmphotocraft

I imagine that it is a rare model who is a qualified photo critic. I imagine most of them like or dislike a photo based solely on their appearance in it. I'll bet if you gave them A/B versions of the same shot, one with blurred bg one with sharp, they will choose blurred every time. NB, "blurred" doesn't have to mean obliterated beyond recognition. You can blur a bg just enough to make the subject stand out and give the photo the third dimension, while still providing context, telling a story, and revealing where the shot was taken.