Believe me I know full well how much of a minority report I am on here and I don't even argue that your opinions are wrong (if such is even possible). Conversely, I think I've shown that I can do bokeh when I think it works (which I TOTALLY learned on here thank you). but I'm stubborn (or dumb) enough to go the other way when that's what I see.
BTW JM, Cyndi does look good as a blonde but not so much bald and that's what the dye does to her hair.
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
once you start seeing the background as the frame for your scene, which is your model, progress can be made. sure once in a while you will take an environment portrait, but that is not what you have been posting here normally.
portraits are not landscapes.
Believe me I know full well how much of a minority report I am on here and I don't even argue that your opinions are wrong (if such is even possible). Conversely, I think I've shown that I can do bokeh when I think it works (which I TOTALLY learned on here thank you). but I'm stubborn (or dumb) enough to go the other way when that's what I see.
BTW JM, Cyndi does look good as a blonde but not so much bald and that's what the dye does to her hair.
To put it bluntly, I understand your vision for the themed shots. You have more ideas than most people. The execution is the weakest part. I have learned the best laid plans don't mean much if I have to force it. When I learned to stop being a slave of what I envisioned pre-shoot and then let the environment and surroundings "speak" to me my photography improved.
In regards to backgrounds, it doesn't come across as having artistic vision. Anybody with a camera or phone could take some of these shots. It is just a model put in a scene, and they are competing with each other. The models are working hard on their poses, wardrobe, and makeup but they are also competing with the setting. Artistic vision is giving us a taste of background that complements the vision, not competes with it. There are always exceptions naturally to when you do want the scene to be a part of the story. This goes back to my rule if the scenery is good on it's own then it might be good with a subject placed in it. The backgrounds in your example are not attractive on their own. However, move the models a little bit away and blur it out, it becomes hints of columns, elegant bowls, and plants. There shapes are there, but not the detail. The detail is on the models and it makes them shine.
I wish I could "like" posts here, as I'd hit the thumb on 21 and 34 as many times as I could - Michael and John ahve nailed it. YES.
I've continued to think about this thread, and reread it, for the last couple of days. I many of us are all kinda saying the same thing, but Ican't resist adding another 2c worth.
You say "I like to include backgrounds for context". GREAT. ABSOLUTELY. But unless the background is some kind of mega-landscape or achitectural wonder (like, you know, the Pyramids, or Grand Canyon, or Matterhorn Alps) only a *suggestion* is going to be needed. FOr me, this kind of model work needs to feel like "model in {scene X}" not "{Scene X} with model". So if you have your model against rocks? Sure. Rocks. Great. But why do they have to be in as sharp focus as her eyes, or shoes, or breasts, or hair? You ahve a location at home you use a lot (big ole river rock in a kind of rustic wood) and it's cool, but the rocks when SHARP don't add texture (especially when theyr'e brighter than the skin of the model) but distract.
I guess, for me backgrounds are the scene, not the play. If I walk out "humming the sets", something isn't quite working. The background should be an interesting and enhancing subtext, not the actual narrative (cf spectucular location exceptions).
I know you think everybody's just knockin' on you and preaching a groupthink "shoot wide open", but that's not actually what we're saying. We're saying that you could elevate YOUR vision to something great. Why not just TRY shooting a few frames every set with a wide aperture instead of avoiding it? Often, uou get plenty of context/texture from that, but without overpowering the subjects. And the worst that'll happen is you delete them. YES shooting at wider apertures is harder - you have to be much more aware of where you put the focus point or you'll miss the shot. Welcome to the world of shooting "safety shots" lol
Technically, I think you sometimes overlight your backgrounds, or at least let light fall where you don't want it (eg the park with the stone/wood property on it) Even if it's the sun, you have to make the sure the light is on what you WANT (best, most succinct and most memorable comment I ever got form dgrin about lighting was from RWells: "Good lighting is putting light where you want it, and not where you don't. How you do that doesn't really matter.").
Ok, off my soapbox. But, as I said, I kept thinking about this. It's an interesting and valuable thread, I think, and people have proposed quite a few different ways of dealing with less-than-perfect scenarios.
I agree Diva. This thread worked out pretty well. It is not always thus for me.:D
I also wasn't kidding about giving serious thought to what the perspective Zoomer and Jon outlined.
Honestly, I'm still torn between my "bkg as part of the scene" and this perspective as "hinting at the bkg" for virtually all purposes. BUT being torn is not a bad thing. Still not sure of where "that's my style and preference" morphs from artistic choice into excuse for poor photography. HMMMM
Curious about this image. Given the "dark and evil" feel we were going for, is the bkg integral or distracting here? I'm not asking about the technical (which I honestly think I blew) just the concept and the bkg as a necessary part of it? Yes? No? Maybe so?
In case you're curious this is 1/250 @ f4 at ISO 250. Single speedlight bounced in an small (24") umbrella to camera left.
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
It has potential for a "gothic" feel, sure. But that would also have been true if you had pulled her forward, used a longer focal length and/or wider aperture, and let that gothic arch be a little less right on top of her. Then you can focus the light more specfically on the model wihtout worrying about all the spill, too (why do we want her toes lit?). It would have looked way spookier, imo. The light on the curtains kills it more for me wayyyyy more than the harsh shadows on her. Also, I want the top of the arch - when it's in sharp focus, you HAVE to frame it as a feature. If she'd been further forward, we still would've got the "gothic" feel, but wouldn't care that it's not all in frame.
I'll repeat what I said above: even if you don't think you'll like it, make an active point of taking some further-away-from-the-background (often a problem in your sets), wider aperture/longer focal length (or both) shots in these settings, and see what you get. If that means changing lenses mid-series, change lenses. I mean.... why NOT? I can totally get not agreeing that you like that aesthetically once you've seen what you can get, but since you seldom shoot both options in a series (sometimes, but not usually), why not just TRY it before dismissing it? It's not like you're blowing expensive film. Experiment. You may surprise yourself
Shooting a Downton Abbey concept with the BilCyn team (Cyndi and Anylza) this weekend and I will consciously do that. That concept would usually BEG me to include the settings but I will very consciously do both and see what happens.
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
Nothing (photographically speaking) in these requires fancy equipment or a team of assistants..............
First two Photos from downtonaddicts.com, and credited as per the site.
They're some distance from the wall and it's not in sharp focus. Sets the scene just fine for me!
Ambient light (real or created)to keep bg context, but light focused on subject
Great use of FOREGROUND to set the scenem - any sharper, and it would compete rather than provide interest (Credit @carnival films)
Love the way this has been framed so her head is "inside" the contrasting area of background - eye goes straight to her. (From michelle-dockery.com fansite)
I wasn't kidding about either (1) considering the perspectives from you, Jon and Zoomer; and 2) trying your suggestions both ways this weekend.
Going back to the Gothic, here's Cyndi. This is a "pulled back" as possible in that space. I am less than 10' away from here with a 20' drop to the next deck behind me. Sh is deliberately lit from below (breaking the rules I know) to get at that spooky look and feel. Does the BKG belong in this scene?
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
So shoot it from off to the side, from an unusual angle, and/or open up the aperture. Just buy the 50 1.8 (or, even better, the new Sigma ART 50 1.4) and quit whinging
ETA: and in the case of that one, if you really only had ~6ft to work in, go for a headshot instead of full body. Some things you just CAN'T fix through technique.
I agree Diva. This thread worked out pretty well. It is not always thus for me.:D
I also wasn't kidding about giving serious thought to what the perspective Zoomer and Jon outlined.
And Qarik, and me, and...
Honestly, I'm still torn between my "bkg as part of the scene" and this perspective as "hinting at the bkg" for virtually all purposes.
I think you should step back and realize the overwhelming majority here is telling you to get out of your box and try it the other way, because your way isn't working most of the time.
Curious about this image...
I actually like that one because the setting is very interesting this time, and she is interacting with it. Same goes for the shots with the big vase. But you should also try a shot with her further away from the arch with the bg blurred (but not obliterated) as suggested.
The shot you posted of Cyndi in front of the brick wall sums up this issue perfectly. She is not interacting with the setting/background, and the background adds nothing of interest, therefore it is totally irrelevant. Yet there it is smacking us in the face.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Bilsen, I just wanted to share an image of my own family shot on an 85L at f/1.2 on a self timer. We are all in tack sharp focus. Even with the image blown up, as long as everyone has their body/face on the same plane, you can get a very sharp image. Trust me, you can easily execute the same thing with three models at a wide aperture. For starters, try f/2.8.. just my two cents
Comments
Believe me I know full well how much of a minority report I am on here and I don't even argue that your opinions are wrong (if such is even possible). Conversely, I think I've shown that I can do bokeh when I think it works (which I TOTALLY learned on here thank you). but I'm stubborn (or dumb) enough to go the other way when that's what I see.
BTW JM, Cyndi does look good as a blonde but not so much bald and that's what the dye does to her hair.
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
portraits are not landscapes.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
To put it bluntly, I understand your vision for the themed shots. You have more ideas than most people. The execution is the weakest part. I have learned the best laid plans don't mean much if I have to force it. When I learned to stop being a slave of what I envisioned pre-shoot and then let the environment and surroundings "speak" to me my photography improved.
In regards to backgrounds, it doesn't come across as having artistic vision. Anybody with a camera or phone could take some of these shots. It is just a model put in a scene, and they are competing with each other. The models are working hard on their poses, wardrobe, and makeup but they are also competing with the setting. Artistic vision is giving us a taste of background that complements the vision, not competes with it. There are always exceptions naturally to when you do want the scene to be a part of the story. This goes back to my rule if the scenery is good on it's own then it might be good with a subject placed in it. The backgrounds in your example are not attractive on their own. However, move the models a little bit away and blur it out, it becomes hints of columns, elegant bowls, and plants. There shapes are there, but not the detail. The detail is on the models and it makes them shine.
In the words of my mentor, Jed Clampett, "Lemme study on this here"...
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've continued to think about this thread, and reread it, for the last couple of days. I many of us are all kinda saying the same thing, but Ican't resist adding another 2c worth.
You say "I like to include backgrounds for context". GREAT. ABSOLUTELY. But unless the background is some kind of mega-landscape or achitectural wonder (like, you know, the Pyramids, or Grand Canyon, or Matterhorn Alps) only a *suggestion* is going to be needed. FOr me, this kind of model work needs to feel like "model in {scene X}" not "{Scene X} with model". So if you have your model against rocks? Sure. Rocks. Great. But why do they have to be in as sharp focus as her eyes, or shoes, or breasts, or hair? You ahve a location at home you use a lot (big ole river rock in a kind of rustic wood) and it's cool, but the rocks when SHARP don't add texture (especially when theyr'e brighter than the skin of the model) but distract.
I guess, for me backgrounds are the scene, not the play. If I walk out "humming the sets", something isn't quite working. The background should be an interesting and enhancing subtext, not the actual narrative (cf spectucular location exceptions).
I know you think everybody's just knockin' on you and preaching a groupthink "shoot wide open", but that's not actually what we're saying. We're saying that you could elevate YOUR vision to something great. Why not just TRY shooting a few frames every set with a wide aperture instead of avoiding it? Often, uou get plenty of context/texture from that, but without overpowering the subjects. And the worst that'll happen is you delete them. YES shooting at wider apertures is harder - you have to be much more aware of where you put the focus point or you'll miss the shot. Welcome to the world of shooting "safety shots" lol
Technically, I think you sometimes overlight your backgrounds, or at least let light fall where you don't want it (eg the park with the stone/wood property on it) Even if it's the sun, you have to make the sure the light is on what you WANT (best, most succinct and most memorable comment I ever got form dgrin about lighting was from RWells: "Good lighting is putting light where you want it, and not where you don't. How you do that doesn't really matter.").
Ok, off my soapbox. But, as I said, I kept thinking about this. It's an interesting and valuable thread, I think, and people have proposed quite a few different ways of dealing with less-than-perfect scenarios.
I also wasn't kidding about giving serious thought to what the perspective Zoomer and Jon outlined.
Honestly, I'm still torn between my "bkg as part of the scene" and this perspective as "hinting at the bkg" for virtually all purposes. BUT being torn is not a bad thing. Still not sure of where "that's my style and preference" morphs from artistic choice into excuse for poor photography. HMMMM
Curious about this image. Given the "dark and evil" feel we were going for, is the bkg integral or distracting here? I'm not asking about the technical (which I honestly think I blew) just the concept and the bkg as a necessary part of it? Yes? No? Maybe so?
In case you're curious this is 1/250 @ f4 at ISO 250. Single speedlight bounced in an small (24") umbrella to camera left.
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'll repeat what I said above: even if you don't think you'll like it, make an active point of taking some further-away-from-the-background (often a problem in your sets), wider aperture/longer focal length (or both) shots in these settings, and see what you get. If that means changing lenses mid-series, change lenses. I mean.... why NOT? I can totally get not agreeing that you like that aesthetically once you've seen what you can get, but since you seldom shoot both options in a series (sometimes, but not usually), why not just TRY it before dismissing it? It's not like you're blowing expensive film. Experiment. You may surprise yourself
Shooting a Downton Abbey concept with the BilCyn team (Cyndi and Anylza) this weekend and I will consciously do that. That concept would usually BEG me to include the settings but I will very consciously do both and see what happens.
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
First two Photos from downtonaddicts.com, and credited as per the site.
They're some distance from the wall and it's not in sharp focus. Sets the scene just fine for me!
Ambient light (real or created)to keep bg context, but light focused on subject
Great use of FOREGROUND to set the scenem - any sharper, and it would compete rather than provide interest (Credit @carnival films)
Love the way this has been framed so her head is "inside" the contrasting area of background - eye goes straight to her. (From michelle-dockery.com fansite)
I wasn't kidding about either (1) considering the perspectives from you, Jon and Zoomer; and 2) trying your suggestions both ways this weekend.
Going back to the Gothic, here's Cyndi. This is a "pulled back" as possible in that space. I am less than 10' away from here with a 20' drop to the next deck behind me. Sh is deliberately lit from below (breaking the rules I know) to get at that spooky look and feel. Does the BKG belong in this scene?
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
ETA: and in the case of that one, if you really only had ~6ft to work in, go for a headshot instead of full body. Some things you just CAN'T fix through technique.
I can't get Zenfolio to upload those last images. Apprently they don't like them either.
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
And Qarik, and me, and...
I think you should step back and realize the overwhelming majority here is telling you to get out of your box and try it the other way, because your way isn't working most of the time.
I actually like that one because the setting is very interesting this time, and she is interacting with it. Same goes for the shots with the big vase. But you should also try a shot with her further away from the arch with the bg blurred (but not obliterated) as suggested.
The shot you posted of Cyndi in front of the brick wall sums up this issue perfectly. She is not interacting with the setting/background, and the background adds nothing of interest, therefore it is totally irrelevant. Yet there it is smacking us in the face.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Anyway, I see the concept and I've promised to give it a shot. Let's see what happens.
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