Options
Cindy 2
From my second shoot with Cindy. On the advice of a friend and instructor, I've pulled WAYYY back on my usual high contrast/ high sat style.
As always, click the first image --- yadda, yadda, yadda
2.
3.
4. That's her husband drooling in the reflection:azn:
5.
6.
As always, click the first image --- yadda, yadda, yadda
2.
3.
4. That's her husband drooling in the reflection:azn:
5.
6.
Bilsen (the artist formerly known as John Galt NY)
Canon 600D; Canon 1D Mk2;
24-105 f4L IS; 70-200 f4L IS; 50mm 1.4; 28-75 f2.8; 55-250 IS; 580EX & (2) 430EX Flash,
Model Galleries: http://bilsen.zenfolio.com/
Everything Else: www.pbase.com/bilsen
Canon 600D; Canon 1D Mk2;
24-105 f4L IS; 70-200 f4L IS; 50mm 1.4; 28-75 f2.8; 55-250 IS; 580EX & (2) 430EX Flash,
Model Galleries: http://bilsen.zenfolio.com/
Everything Else: www.pbase.com/bilsen
0
Comments
It is about how that thing looks photographed." Garry Winogrand
Avatar credit: photograph by Duane Michals- picture of me, 'Smash Palace' album
That said I like image #6. This is a keeper. I might crop off some of the bottom, but she really projects herself and captures your eye.
Sam
www.cameraone.biz
Don't care for 4...looks like a snapshot.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
Brian, you are, of course, correct about the crop. I should know better. It's been fixed.
Sam, interesting comment. I don't honestly see the discomfort and we laugh the whole time but I'm curious if others see that.
Hack, we call # 2 a cardiac shot. Put it in an ICU and hear the BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP. Especially from me.
Zoomer, thanks. Interesting because # 4 was THE most posed of the set, getting her reflection, posing hubby etc.
Canon 600D; Canon 1D Mk2;
24-105 f4L IS; 70-200 f4L IS; 50mm 1.4; 28-75 f2.8; 55-250 IS; 580EX & (2) 430EX Flash,
Model Galleries: http://bilsen.zenfolio.com/
Everything Else: www.pbase.com/bilsen
Canon 600D; Canon 1D Mk2;
24-105 f4L IS; 70-200 f4L IS; 50mm 1.4; 28-75 f2.8; 55-250 IS; 580EX & (2) 430EX Flash,
Model Galleries: http://bilsen.zenfolio.com/
Everything Else: www.pbase.com/bilsen
I'm not 100% sold on the styling in this one - it works in some shots, but not in others. I know you say you leave it entirely to the model, but I think they need input so that the vision for the "whole shot" is cohesive. It's really tough without a stylist, I know - I have to deal with this all the time (not always successfully)!!! I'm going to assume that she did her own makeup for this shoot since the foundation looks darker than her arms and neck in quite a few shots, and the bright pink blush looks a bit blotchy and doesn't actually emphasise her pretty cheekbones in many of the shots. Do you let her see test shots and both of you discuss makeup for the lighting? This might have worked in high contrast studio context, but not in outdoor light, IMO. (btw if this one did use a MUA then SHAME ON THEM!!! Lots of things that could/should've been cleaned up)
1 suffers from bg distractions. It's reeeallly close to working as a kind of "catalog" look (to my eye), but I'm distracted by having the plant AND the building. Could you have had her step back 3-4 feet and just slightly to the right to cut out the potted plant and take the leading line of the building right to her?
I like #2, but I'd crop it to lose the bit of brick wall on the left, and the orangey light behind to the right - I don't have a problem cropping into her hair (especially since this has quite an actress-y look to it, and headshots often crop the top of the head).
3 is potentially terrific (I also find her skintone the most pleasing in this one), but the high contrast between the brick and the plain area at the bottom breaks the lines so that I don't first notice her great pose and expression; it probably would have worked against grey brick so you had a monochrome thing going on, but with the red wall, pink eyeshadow/lips and green nails... it doesn't quite take off for me. How does it look in B&W? You might get a great Marilyn-ish effect out of it with a conversion and some high-contrast, 60's-ish processing. I love the pose and while her expression isn't intense, it does connect with me. It also shows off her figure the most in some ways.
In 4 and 5, I find the poses super-awkward. Also, I have to ask: what does the background in 4 serve in the photo? What is it about that shot that you like? It's not necessarily something that comes across to those of us who weren't there.
Now 6... that's cooking. Engaged expression. The fresh-faced, pink cheeks look goes with the ice-cream, but with just a little bit of naughty (even if Brooke Shields kinda cornered the whole "sexy ice-cream" thing with the Calvin Klein jeans ad, no reason not to revisit it, I guess!) I would also crop from the bottom, and either crop or clone out the back of the chair in the bottom rh corner and might even clone out the vertical distractions on the lh side; a stronger vignette might also help minimize that.
I feel like a nit-pickin' fool here, but... you asked!!!!
I also really agree with Sam about her looking uncomfortable in most of them, especially in #4. I like the outcome of #4's concept better in image #46 in the portfolio(although there is some odd reflection splotched on his face, possibly from the blinds in the window??). When she is standing more straight up, imo it displays more confidence and sexiness. After reading a lot on body language, having her feet turned in is a sign of insecurity. It could be possible that from studying body language to help with bringing a better connection in posing, that I notice it more than others... In addition with the pose, I think I'd connect more if I could more clearly see the yearning and desire in his face rather than him grabbing his *jewels*. To me it looks like some random creepy guy stalking the background. (Maybe that's why Zoomer got the 'snapshot' feeling?) But, then it would be more of a creative shot than an "all about her" modeling shot. Hmph, whoever came up with the "can't have your cake and eat it too" concept was crazy; why the heck would anyone want cake if they couldn't eat it???
I do have to say other than the blush being a tiny bit uneven, I like her make up hair a lot, a lot. It helps gives her a more light-hearted Lolita look verses it being too dark... (If you're thinking that's a discriminatory comment, I get the Lolita feeling mostly from her style of pants. For some reason they remind me of Selina, who was gorgeous btw.) I also LOVE 58 and 99, and 101 best in the set, but I too agree with the skin smoothing comment above... That could just be personal preference. So many gorgeous girls in front of the camera, I can't imagine them needing much more than a few touch ups and barely-there skin smoothing to be breathtaking any ole' way. I suppose that will forever remain debatable.
Just one more nit-pick since I've spent so much time already -wink-, do you spend a lot of time telling your models how to position/adjust their feet and legs better???? I haven't gotten the privilege to see any of your other work so I don't know if it's just this specific girl or not... But that's the biggest issue I had with having each image getting a grip on me. I just can't go for her bent over while pushing up against something, it just makes her look so awkward and it's mostly those shots that I can feel the uncomfortable insecurity in her face. I know, you may say I'm crazy that such a gorgeous woman could feel insecure at moments, but sometimes even the most gorgeous people don't fully understand how to embrace their inner beauty just as much as their outer beauty.
I suppose I better quit rambling now. Hopefully I had some sort of insight to help you at all. To end on a good note, I hope that one day I am able to come as far with quality as you have. And always feel free to get revenge by poking at my work sometime hah.
ETA: This is a decent set, John - all the nits in the world don't take away from that. Also, let's bear in mind that plain ole fashioned personal preference is going to be a big part of some of these opinions. What I would suggest is what you, as a musician, will already know: take the stuff that's helpful. Ignore the stuff that isn't. And if multiple people from different sources comment on the same things, those are probably the ones to ponder for the future....
It's all good!
Diva, I was also a pitching coach in a former life and that is exactly what I told my pitchers all the time: "Listen to everything and pick out what works for you". It is great advice in music, baseball, law or photography (maybe not so much in medicine
Anyway, as you can tell from these threads, I like encouraging discussion (positive and negative) with my stuff and I rarely get offended (although the term "snapshot" without explanation always sets me off). I have a strong enough ego to listen to everyone and then still decide I like something or not. I also take it as a high compliment when an agency model (and her agency) uses my stuff for her professional material. Then I can go NYAH NYAH NYAH.
I also am fully aware of what I don't know. For example, I know NOTHING about makeup so if we don't have an MUA (which is most of the time) I leave it to the model. I do suggest hair but that's more in the line with moving it around to get different looks (50/50, all to one side, mussed up etc).
I didn't include 97, 105 and 115 because they are from a different day and were posted here some time ago.
The crotch grabbing wasn't an intended part of the shot. It's just the way that guys from his generation stand sometimes. I'm an old guy so what do I know.
Anyway, I appreciate all the discussion and I promise you I consider every bit of it, even when I eventually decide that I like it my way. By the way, as a guy, Cindy is one GORGEOUS Dominica, no matter what I do to her.
Canon 600D; Canon 1D Mk2;
24-105 f4L IS; 70-200 f4L IS; 50mm 1.4; 28-75 f2.8; 55-250 IS; 580EX & (2) 430EX Flash,
Model Galleries: http://bilsen.zenfolio.com/
Everything Else: www.pbase.com/bilsen
Re the makeup: I think you could help your girls by learning just a little so you can be a "mirror" for what they can't see for themselves. Bottom line is that you CAN'T see yourself as other see you. I know I hugely appreciate guidance with MU if there's nobody there to do it for me - I'm decent applying my own, but I *can't* see everything for myself (and we don't always feel it either). Think of it this way - if your fly was down in a shoot, wouldn't you want the photographer to tell you rather than hope you'd notice it for yourself?
(Aside: I like her hair a lot, btw, except for the stray bobby pin which shows up in some on the CR side - visible bobby pins is a personal peeve of mine....
Nobody expects a 'tog to be a full-blown MUA, but if you learn just a little about the basics (or whatch a good MUA at work and pick up a few tips) it could really help your ladies out.
Fwiw, some very basic rules of thumb:
- light makes things pop out, dark makes them recede, hence hilighter and shadow.
- metallic makeup (eg "frost" and "pearl" eyeshadows)will always reflect light regardless of how dark the colour - fine in colour shots, but sometimes does funky things in BW (not such a big deal in digital where we can deal with that in post, but fwiw).
- blush contouring should follow the contour of the jawline to look most natural, and sit below the cheekbone, either in the hollow for that sucked-in-cheeks look, or on the apple for a younger, more natural look. That will slim the face and bring up the bones. Highlight on the bones themselvess can help define (and/or raise) them a bit.
- blush which extends onto the apple of the cheek will make the cheeks look fuller (and can create a fresh-faced or old-lady look, depending on the face). What i don't like about what she did on her right side is that it looks like there's blush ALL over that cheek - it's a big mass of colour rather than accenting the cheekbone, the apple OR the contour; it's all three in the same colour (or appears to be).
- IMO if colour is going for contrast against skintone rather than naturally blending (eg in a more extreme high fashion look rather than "natural"), it needs to be more precisely applied and really Make. A. Statement. I think that's what I was missing in Michelle's grunge look with the shorts over cobweb tights - I wanted more goth styling in the makeup so that the whole "club" feel jumped out at me. Again, that may not have been what YOU wanted (fair enough!) but I think a stylist might have pushed you both to go a little further on that one and created a more total look which in turn might have "sold" the emotional ideas you were playing with. I think you achieved that very successfully in the previous shoot you did with Cindy that I liked - hair, makeup and clothing in the shots with that short purple skirt is cohesive and presents a very polished, fashion look to my eye.
Just musings - - thanks for being so open to dialog, which is of great interest to all of us, I think. Again, I am NOT a fashion shoot expert (ha!!) and certainly don't intend to present myself as one; much of what I say is simply my (overinflated
I don't know if any model will listen to me but I can try.
As for the discussion, I think in depth C&C helps even the lurkers so I don't mind being beat up a bit.
Lastly, feel free to bring all that knowledge to NY anytime and let's see if I can make YOU look as terrible as I made Cindy and Danielle.
Canon 600D; Canon 1D Mk2;
24-105 f4L IS; 70-200 f4L IS; 50mm 1.4; 28-75 f2.8; 55-250 IS; 580EX & (2) 430EX Flash,
Model Galleries: http://bilsen.zenfolio.com/
Everything Else: www.pbase.com/bilsen
Back to business: I think if you start looking at fashion shots you love and "reverse engineer" the makeup you'll start to notice some more of what's going on to guide your own eye more confidently. If I may be so bold I think, as a straight guy, you may be ..... uh.... distracted by some of the other attributes of a pretty lady and forget to detach and look at her clinically as the "PHWOAR!!" reaction kicks in :giggle. But, as her photographer, step back and forget that she floats your boat and look at the details of what's there to help bring out her very best.
Once again, thanks for the dialogue!!!
In reality, at my age (58) I am objectively fully aware of how beautiful the 20 somethings are BUT I am MUCH more physically attracted to the 30 and 40 somethings I shoot. All the 20 somethings do for me is remind me I'm SOOOO over.:cry
I am fully prepared to acknowledge being a hetero male (defined here as "pig") BUT I absolutely am not ready to be a dirty old man just yet.
I keep re-reading all these threads and I will incorporate as much as my old brain can remember.
Canon 600D; Canon 1D Mk2;
24-105 f4L IS; 70-200 f4L IS; 50mm 1.4; 28-75 f2.8; 55-250 IS; 580EX & (2) 430EX Flash,
Model Galleries: http://bilsen.zenfolio.com/
Everything Else: www.pbase.com/bilsen
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
www.cameraone.biz