Back Where I Belong with Ann Marie

Bilsen · March 23, 2012

New outdoor season, new model and a totally new appreciation for the direction, co.lor and clarity of all light, ambient or otherwise. Turns out the studio experiments had real value outside.

Anyway, this is Ann Marie in her first shoot with me. No, there is no white balance issue, she is a gorgeous Fillipina with the most wonderful peanut butter skin tone.

Let's see what y'all think. Click the first image for her full gallery:

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

and, of course, the headshot

zoomer · March 23, 2012

She is really beautiful, and you are right, that skin tone is amazing.
I looked through your gallery 40 43 are my favorites of all with 51 close but missing the pocket just a bit.

For me the relationship between subject and background seems to be the recurring thing that still needs work.
You have made great progress over all.

The background is equal to the subject in importance....but only as it accentuates/showcases your subject. Choose backgrounds first. 1 2 3 4 have nice backgrounds, just not feeling they were fully utilized....maybe 7's on a scale of 10.

Nice series overall.

Moving Pictures · March 23, 2012

#6 works for me as the best of the bunch.
Now, I'm not strong on single people portrait pics, but I was intuiting that something didn't mesh with some of these. Until I read the comment and realized that - without being able to put words on it, the subject wasn't *popping* out for me. That's why I like #6, I guess. My personal style in such situations (dont' shoot people portrait setups that often) is to use a narrow depth of field to bokeh the background away.
#1 - that door handle is distracting to me. Hence, #2, works better even though it's the same general backdrop.
#3: too much of what's behind her - the rocks - are in focus, methinks.
#5: the tree to the right seems distracting to me.
Now, I'd like to ask two questions:
a) what were you trying to achieve in #4, and
b) did you achieve it?

Bilsen · March 23, 2012

OKAYYYY, here we go for a new season of kickin' and spittin'.

On the bright side, this year you'll all be criticizing many more intentional (good or bad) choices more than pure mistakes

Anyway, thanks to you both for the comments. Zoomer, particularly thanks for actually going to her gallery. I'll go see what you liked right now.

Zoomer- query on how you feel the backgounds can be better used. Not an argument, this may be another teachable moment

.

The Backgrounds were left "as Is" in 1 & 2 because we were using the door as a frame for her. Likewise, the rocks in 3 & 4 are part of the framing and, to me, add to the rustic feel of her wardrobe. Your mileage may vary.

Movie - the objective in # 4 was to simply give her a different pose and perspective. To that extent, we were successful, whether correctly or not. Like the shot ot not, it was all intentional. I do agree that I should have removed the door handle in # 1 though. My bad.

Conversely, in 5 & 6 I was shooting the 70-200 f4 wide open with the intent to blur as much of the BKG as possible. I might have been able to add to that in post, but that bokeh was the limit of the lens and I left it as is. I can't afford (whether in cash or in carry) the 70-200 f2.8 so this is what you'll be seeing all summer.

By the way Zoomer, here's Gallery # 51. Did you notice my attempt at Rembrandt lighting using just the sun??

Moving Pictures · March 23, 2012

Th' reason I asked about #4 is that I liked the pose. It's wacky, and I like that. What triggered in my head, immediately, was the thought that had I been in your shoes, I would have been tempted to shoot that pose from vantage points left (and up, if possible.) Again, loved the pose ...

Whatcha got for f2.8 lenses? I'm in LOOOOVE with my new-to-me 24-70 Sigma, which, combined with the 70-200, covers 99.7 per cent of what I need to shoot.

Bilsen · March 23, 2012

Hi Pictures, we're kinda just meeting so let me tell you that I get a charge out of the give and take on this board. So if I argue with you, I am listening, just not always agreeing.

On #4 I didn't think of the moving around but maybe I should have. Still, if I go too far left it's an ass shot, too far right and she's upside down, which is a perspective I acknowledge but don't particularly like.
Still, if you give it a shot, I'd love to see it.

I have NO 2.8 zooms. My 24-105 & 70-200 are both f4 and my 50 mm is f1.4. I've been thinking of getting a 24-70 f2.8 but can't afford the Canon and know nothing about Sigma or Tamron. Feel free to educate me ( in fact, I'd appreciate it).

Moving Pictures · March 23, 2012

JohnGalt_ny wrote: »

Hi Pictures, we're kinda just meeting so let me tell you that I get a charge out of the give and take on this board. So if I argue with you, I am listening, just not always agreeing.

No prob. Expected, and understood. And believe me, if it ain't sports, much of my work has serious room for improvement.

On #4 I didn't think of the moving around but maybe I should have. Still, if I go too far left it's an ass shot, too far right and she's upside down, which is a perspective I acknowledge but don't particularly like.

It's hard for me to explain. I'm a left-brain shooter, most times (i.e. I calculate, rather than "feel" my way through pictures), but I'm envisioning something from a little higher altitude, I guess. Though I see what yer getting at with the tush-inclusion factor.

I have NO 2.8 zooms. My 24-105 & 70-200 are both f4 and my 50 mm is f1.4. I've been thinking of getting a 24-70 f2.8 but can't afford the Canon and know nothing about Sigma or Tamron. Feel free to educate me ( in fact, I'd appreciate it).

Well, I poked about a helluva time looking at the Tamrons. Seems they're hit or miss in terms of sharpness, but they're $300 new (ish). The Sigmas are 2.5 times that, but have better ratings. I foudn one used, on this forum, that I paid $250 for, and it's ... well, it's dreamy.

Lemme put it this way. I love bokeh. Always have, and the 70-200 can rescue pics that would have been wrecked by background clutter - vital in a fast-paced newspaper kinda environment. But I reworked my bag last week so my "go to" lens ain't the 70-200, but the 24-70. That 70-200 has been virtually welded to my camera body, be it a 30d, 20d, 10d, or old film camera, for most of the last 13 years. And last week, I parked it in a corner so that the 24-70 is the primary lens of choice.

Dreamy.

Given the amount of portrait work you do, I'd heartily recommend it. It's really made a difference to my general news/portrait pictures.

Art Scott · March 24, 2012

this is a very nice set...all of them.... I am not going to pick on them as that has already been done.
I have loved all of my past and present Sigma Lenses a 24-70f2.8 is a wonderful lens and the
Sigma 70-200 is a great lens also ... ... ... I have heard horror stories of bad copies and such, however
I have never experienced this and I have been shooting with Sigma made lenses for almost 30 yrs.
A couple of things I really like about Sigma Lenses is:
1- the ability to close focus: almost all of Sigma Lenses will focus at about 18 inches...my current Nikon 70-200
closest working distance is 6 feet and at 6 feet will not fill the fame with an eyeball.

2- they will save you money over the camera manufactureres lenses and they have great warranties also ( usually 5 yrs).

when I first started out I had a 50mm lens and hated it to death and started looking for something that agreed with me more,
a company named Vivatar Came out with a 70-210 and I bought the 1st one that came to town and I was hooked, then I needed
a new camera and new lens but Vivatar wasn't offering that lens any longer I bought from Sigma 70-210f2.8 and I shot with that single lens
for over 20 yrs doing weddings, portraits, model portraits and concerts... ... ... it was my only lens for all that time for my 35mm gear ... it moved to
digital with me and kept me going but I added the Sigma 24-70 to y arsenal along with a 2nd body ... I do not feel you can go wrong with Sigma Lenses.

jeffreaux2 · March 24, 2012

...theres something about your compositions that just isn't singing for me.

1-I think...maybe...it's that you are cramping the subject into the frame. In number 1 , for example, I think the image would be MUCH stronger if the bottom and top of the door frame were visible.

2-The pose for #2...and light are very nice, but including the stonework here relly detracts from the composition. I think its a poor choice of location for that particular pose.

3-Really nice -but- give me more of the background....again she is cramped in the frame..... More BG above her head would allow for a nice rule of thirds composition.

4-I dont get the pose. Looks too un natural. Doesnt work for me at all.

5- Nice image but again with more care taken during frame up you could have shot this for a rule of thirds composition and REALLY nailed it.

6- My favorite of the posted images, nut...again as in most of them she is barely in the frame. Give her more space above her head and below her feet. Let her head lie at the intersection of the top and right lines of a rule of thirds composition.

7 - the headshot. The sliver of lighter colored woodwork to the right of the frame should be cropped off. Then you should try to straighten the whole image. It appears tilted due to shooting angle.

..and don't be totally alarmed about my comments. Technically the images are sound.....but on an artistic level....I think they could use a little.....MORE.

Thats my $.02! Dont spend it all in one place!

Hackbone · March 24, 2012

I'll jump in with Jeff if you want nits. These are by no means bad shots just tweaks that would make them better. I know enough to make me dangerous but not enough to get myself out of a jam so take them as you will.

1. more of a fuller crop but her knees really catch my eye and not in a good way. I would have liked her legs spread some in a more femine defiance stance.
On my laptop expoure might be brought down a tad.

2. This one is really cute, maybe her arms folded leaning on the shoulder and again too tight in the crop. You coached a great expression out of her, wow.

3. I like three but loose the leg, crop just the upper body and add a vignette. Watch out for the claw hand. Keep the fingers together.

4. just awkard. Crop to just the hips and see if it has more impact. The horizontal boot is throwing off my eye.

5. This kneeling pose looks very awkard to me and the lighting is very broad lit. This is a great example for speed lights and ttl to help you out. With a flash in a box or not the shutter could have been adjusted to do whatever you wanted the background to do.....light as is or darker.

6. I just have a thing about using trees in photos cause all the mwac's think that it is the greatest, have you ever tried hugging a tree........brrrrrrrrrrr. I do like the pose however. Maybe turn the head more and lay the head on the tree.(oh just lets call it a background)

7. Did she have a stiff neck.....nuff said about the pose. Flat lighting but that face can take it.

In the gallery I liked 4-9-24-25-43-51

Hope you get some ideas from this.

Bilsen · March 24, 2012

Moving Pic and Art, thanks for the Sigma/Tamron lessons. If I can find a Sigma 2.8 that I can afford, maybe I'll try it even though the range is the same as my 24-105 f4 (which is my walk around lens).

Jeff and Hack, as always THANK YOU for the detailed ideas. I look forward to a great 2012 season with the two of you, as well as Zoomer, Diva, Nik, Qarik et al.

Right now I have 4 requests for shoots plus I'll always have Cindy, Vanessa and Tere so it looks to be a busy spring/summer. Can't promise I'll always agree but you know I'll always listen.

My counter nits would be that in #s 3, 5 & 6 she is, in fact, set with her head on the rule of thirds point. I have the grid set up in ACR in the crop tool and I almost always put the eye or at least the ear on a line if not an intersection.

As for all the other comments, I have plenty of room to play with in the RAWs so I'm going to go back and try out these suggestions on every one. We'll see how they come out and maybe I'll post them as side by sides. Will keep you advised.

Just as an aside, my personal favorite of this set is # 3 with the rocks. I just love her expression and pose (though I agree I missed the claw).

jeffreaux2 · March 24, 2012

JohnGalt_ny wrote: »

My counter nits would be that in #s 3, 5 & 6 she is, in fact, set with her head on the rule of thirds point. I have the grid set up in ACR in the crop tool and I almost always put the eye or at least the ear on a line if not an intersection.

Right....her head is very near a rule of thirds follower on the vertical lines. If it also met the rule on the horizontal lines it would have much more impact. Her head is too high in those frames IMHO. Give her more room above her head and below her feet so that you can meet the rule of thirds at an INTERSECTION. I can guarantee the resulting image will be much more dynamic.

If I have mistakenly supposed that you are open to critque then please forgive me.

Still though...if you keep shooting as you've always shot, you keep getting what you've always got.

Rule of thirds: @ intersection of vertical and horizontal

Hackbone · March 24, 2012

Jeff is right. Think of the rule of thirds as the Golden Corners......where are lines intersect at four places. There abouts should be the center of interest.

Bilsen · March 24, 2012

Jeff, if you've seen any of my threads on here you know I'm not only open to C&C but I welcome it. I just don't always necessarily agree BUT, as I said in thanking you and Hack, I am gonna go back and try out your comments on the RAWs.

As proof that I do look at comments, here's a side by side of another image from this shoot. The right side has her left eye dead on the 1/3s intersection. Let me know if you like it better.

jeffreaux2 · March 24, 2012

JohnGalt_ny wrote: »

As proof that I do look at comments, here's a side by side of another image from this shoot. The right side has her left eye dead on the 1/3s intersection. Let me know if you like it better.

There are other problems with the image that keep me from "liking" it.:D

You've given her head more space.

but.... if you really want ME to like it....

Her right foot needs a bit more room. It falls too close to the edge.

Also, I don't really care for the full frontal pose. I'd rather that her shoulders were quartered/angled a bit from straight on.

The BG works better for the full length. In the tighter crop it looks like the column of boulders is about to fall on her. Not a good balance to the image.

If her chin were turned slightly away from the camera....just slightly....the light and shadowing would have given you a great looking short lighting pattern.

I'd prefer that, with this background, her blouse was a darker tone than her skin.

...and that the boots were at least as dark as the pants.

...and of course that a shallower depth of field(larger aperture) had been chosen.

Some of these nits are a matter of taste or style, perhaps, but some of them could also change a ho-hum image into a wowzer!

I'm just sayin'.....

Bilsen · March 24, 2012

OK Jeff thanks.

You make very valid points. I agree about the crop being too tight on her boot but unfortunately that's all the room I had if I put her eye on the intersection. Perhaps next time I'll leave more wiggle room.

Anyway, always feel free to C&C on anything I post.

Back Where I Belong with Ann Marie

Comments