On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Igor Roshchin <s...@komkon.org> wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > I also like the low-key shots better. > > If you are interested in some more detailed comments, their a below. > Please excuse the amount of text and the critical component of these > comments.
Igor, I welcome your critique, and I'm grateful to you for taking the time to write a thorough one. If I wasn't prepared to take the heat ... :-) > There are two main reasons why I like the low-key images better. > First, in the high-key, the "paper-white" (pun intended) > background makes the entire composition sort of "hanging in the air". > (And, in a more subtle way, if I realize (from seeing the floor) that > they are actually against the wall, that gives a strange impression > of them being pressed against the wall.) You are actually getting my intended meaning and look then, Igor. I wanted them to look 2D, flat like paper -- "paper-white" even (though the wall is actually warm off-white). I arranged the three softboxes around me where I was shooting from so as to give the scene completely flat lighting and produce those curious surround shadows typical of ring-lights. They become paper cutouts themselves. They look a little other-worldly and unnatural You are free to choose whether you like the look/effect, of course. ;-) > That's why the shadows in the low-key shots do their job well. > > The second reason is that the low-key shots do not contain the problem > discussed in the second part of this message. > > As for other minor comments: > I would consider bringing the shadows up a bit on the second image, as > it appears a bit darker (especially with the darke skin tone). > > To be very nit-picking (and I don't have much of personal experience of > setting up the studio lights this way), - in the image 3 (2b), > I would have the model turining her head just a few degrees to her right > (or widen the lights on the photographer's right), to reveal a bit more > of her shadow-side [left for her] eye. Yeah, that too-dark eye bothered me too. I'm trying to embrace shadow more though, and I've got plenty of examples of faces even more severely shadowed so I figured I'd leave it for now and see if it grows on me or what. > That's about the purely photographic side of this gallery. > > > > Now, I would comment on what has been increasingly bothering me recently > (my pet peeve, if you wish). > Usually this is not much about the photographer, but the subject of > the photos (models in this case). > Typically it happens in the shots that do not include much of "dynamic" > motion. Those are either posed shots (studio), i.e. > the shots where the motion is completely frozen, or on-stage shots (e.g. > not-the-top-level-show musicians on stage, not-the-top-trained fashion shows), > where the motion is not considered to be the 1st priority for the > main action (as in musicians on stage). > The reason for this is that the subjects are not properly trained for the > positions of their body, and especially limbs. > AFAIK, the top-level fashion models have at least some dance/ballet, > ... training as a part of their walking technique training. Nope, not that I've seen. Dancers are highly prized though. I hope to shoot with one shortly. > The same is applicable to many top-level music performers, especially in > pop, pop-rock, musical, etc. -- Those genres that give a lot of attention > to the on-stage action, and the musicians (especially the soloists) > get trained how to move on stage. > > > I think this is the first time I noticed this in your photos. > In this GESO, it is especially noticeable in the last two photos. > Those poses are rather awkward and non-ergonomic as seen in several > aspects (to various extent). > The first thing that struck me is how the feet are turned in. > This is most noticeable in the last two shots. The models appear > as they can barely walk in high-heels. > (My wife tells me that there is some niche of mid-level fashion shots, - > such as Macy's, J.C.Penny's, etc. sales advertisements, - that suffers > this problem. She says that apparently some consider it to be fine and > even beautiful.) The knees are also turned in (that's a concequence of > the feet position). > The right hand of the light-skinned model in the last shot also has > a bit awkward position. (The photographer can be partially blamed for > this, but I would argue if the model were well trained for this, > and the rest of the pose were less frozen, she wouldn't have had this > awkward hand position). I might have saved you some angst if I explained that I was trying to get them to dance The Charleston for me! :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJC21zzkwoE Note Step 3: turn your feet in and out. I was trying to coordinate them and capture some "typical" Charleston moves or looks. It was fun but only partially successful. > In the second to the last photo, even though the hand positions are > less unnatural, they still seem to be somewhat like those of a barbie-doll. Somebody suggest they try doll moves. I let them do that for a while. Samantha, the darker girl, is a dancer -- though not the Charleston -- and has very fluid and graceful motion. If I had stuck with just her and spent more time I could have gotten more natural, less awkward poses. > I actually discuss some related concerns in my "dancers and photography" > workshops, - primarily for the benefits of dancers, but also for > photographers to know what to watch for. There, it is even more important, > as most of the time the dance is the transition between poses, not > a frozen ("struck") pose. > > Last December, I was shooting at the jazz concert of the daughter > of our friend, a prominent professional photographer. At that concert, > I saw exactly the same situation: the poses the singer held > (and the moves) where at times very awkward. > I discussed that situation with my wife, who had exactly the same > impression. But the situation was such that we were not in position to > offer our advice. We both thought that it's possible that nobody ever > pointed it out to the young lady. > As a result, I scrapped a bunch of shots that contained an awkard pose, > and, in some cases, had to go with a somewhat technically inferior shots > (the ambient stage light was harsh, and I was shooting from a > fixed point in the middle of the audience, 4th or 5th row, frequently > pulled by my little daughter). > So, in most of the shots posted, the awkwardness of poses/motion is not > noticeable: http://42graphy.org/music/olivia_harris/ I certainly have seen for myself that the most seasoned and entertaining performers have the best poses and move more confidently than their junior and less interesting counterparts. > Igor > > PS. Apparently, I am not the only one concerned about this "trend". > Here is a fashion blog (in Russian): > http://fashiony.ru/page.php?id_n=33076 > that featurs a bunch of fashion photos that suffer the "clubfootness". > Google translation: http://goo.gl/x6if7R I'm not trying to follow a trend, that's for sure. I was pushing a personal envelope in trying to get two models to dance and catch some good poses, so I'm unsurprised to largely fail. But I got a few shots I was reasonably happy with. I really like shot #1: some action, the off-kilterness. Thanks, Igor! > > Sun Jun 8 13:07:41 EDT 2014 > Bruce Walker wrote: > >> These are all from a creative studio shoot I was invited to by Layla >> Azer, the designer of the newspaper dresses. I was the only one >> shooting with lights and I managed to produce two completely different >> moods with the models. >> >> http://off-axis.brucemwalker.com/post/87702525657/newspaper-dresses-designer-layla-azer-model >> >> Designer: Layla Azer >> Origami lily: FoldIT Creations >> Model: Samantha Liana >> Model: Krista Adler >> Makeup: Chantelle Krupka >> Hair: Nadia Amir >> Photo, retouch: Bruce Walker >> Location: Studio On Carlaw (Toronto) >> >> K-3, DA* 16-50/2.8 SDM, ISO 200. >> Lr, Ps, Nik Suite, Imagenomic Portraiture >> High-key: three Apollo softboxes forming a huge ring flash around me. >> Low-key: one Apollo Strip with 40 degree grid. >> >> Comments welcome! >> >> -- >> -bmw > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
