Strobist model shoot, final set

[davidc]

Well one of these will be my 365 entry for 31st Oct when I finally make my mind up but these are the final finished images I've settled on and will be passing them to the model today. The chaps at work were quite impressed and as a result have coerced me into running a "photographers only" shoot tomorrow! Flattering, but I'm not entirely sure I'm qualified to teach anyone anything!

There are four main images with two alternate versions I like.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cedarsphot ... 372566173/

I think this has worked really well in mono but I can't decide if it's my favourite or not

Karen I - B&W by cedarsphoto, on Flickr

This is possibly my favourite, it's a bit different and she has a very interesting expression.

Karen II - Atmopshere by cedarsphoto, on Flickr

More of a classic, simple portrait

Karen III - Simple Beauty by cedarsphoto, on Flickr

And finally I like this because of the backlighting and the warmth that comes through, not to mention her sassy pose!

Karen IV - Sassy! by cedarsphoto, on Flickr

Thoughts/critique welcomed.

[Mike Farley]

Some quick observations.

Karen III

• Would a more central placement have been better?
• Should the image have been cropped below the bottom of the necklace?
• Although out of focus, the strong pattern of the wall is a distraction

Karen IV

• Like the highlight, but it is brighter than her face which is where we should mainly be looking
• Would it have been and improvement to see her elbow and all of her left hand?
• Background again

[davidc]

Some quick observations.

I could have predicted these Some of them (the background ones) do sound like a camera club judging handbook!

Individual responses -

[*]Would a more central placement have been better?

"Better" in what sense? I wanted to avoid a straight on, centrally posed portrait because I wasn't going for a "make up demonstration" image or passport photo - I deliberatedly placed her off centre to produce a more informal, less "posed" shot rather than more of a straight up mugshot. Having said that I've not tried cropping it in tighter, will give it a go.

[*]Should the image have been cropped below the bottom of the necklace?

Maybe, I've not thought of this during or after taking the shot. Looking at where the end of the necklace hangs that'd have made it less of a portrait and more of a torso & portrait shot. Would have been nice to have got a shot like that to compare the two really.

[*]Although out of focus, the strong pattern of the wall is a distraction

This made me laugh, really? It's a brick wall and more subdued than any part of her face! By extension, what kind of background would be better, surely plain/neutral is boring and is approaching "passport photo" territory. Maybe burned a bit could help but I'm really not convinced Though the reason why I included this one in the first place was because the others were all "different" in some fashion (angle or processing) and this is more of a simple shot with the least amount of processing or quirkiness in the setup/posing/background.

While looking at this one her eye jumps out at me - though I did dodge the white part as part of a standard portrait retouch, her pupil and iris are essentially indistinguishable and this is with even illumination from two sides. Going back to the one in the other thread I'm now even more convinced there's not much I can do to the eye that won't make it look artificial. In other words, there's no colour to bring out even in a "fully" lit shot.

[*]Like the highlight, but it is brighter than her face which is where we should mainly be looking

I've debated this myself and settled on no - tried burning it down and in doing so it felt like I needed to burn the rest of the backlit highlights to compensate too, which ended up being a vicious circle and lost the point/effect of the backlighting. It was the lowest flash power setting and maybe she could have been an inch to her left but I'm pretty happy with how it came out. It's extremely close to the focal interest and for me is part of setting the mood of the scene rather than being a blob of light at the edge (which I have cloned/burned out already on the version you see here).

So I see your point, but don't think so.

[*]Would it have been and improvement to see her elbow and all of her left hand?
This was the first thing I noticed between this and a more complete version. It's not ideal about the elbow, though I'm less bothered about the hand - in a way, missing off the elbow annoys me in the same way her hand looks in the Karen I portrait - arm appears from nowhere For the hand I don't think that applies so much, we all know what a hand looks like and why part of it is "missing" (in the same way your composition talk mentions we don't need to see a fully articulated circle to think "that is a car wheel").

The shots where I did have the whole lot in the scene meant she was further away and it just felt more distant. Ideal solution might have been a wider angle lens or, better still, another shot with her elbow in and I could have stitched the two together.

[*]Background again

That was very deliberate - shows she's a sassy gal out and about and this isn't a studio shoot. I did also notice the (already burned down) window frame lines formed a portrait "rule of thirds" grid and positioned her accordingly

One thing that I'm not 100% sure about, when you say the background is distracting, is how? What is it about the background that's distracting you from the pretty model, if I can put it as bluntly as that!

What I mean is I look at this and it's VERY clear the background is a distraction. It provides context & information but it's hard to separate the subject & background.


Spotted Moray Eel 2 by cedarsphoto, on Flickr

(contrast that to the superb examples we saw last night, for example)

So I wanted to include SOME background to add context or impression to the shot while keeping it familiar & lowkey enough so that it's not intrusive. I don't see what is wrong with the background other than that it's composed of lines and colour rather than a ganzfeld

I guess, do you have an example of a non-studio shoot that has a background you think DOES work?

Enjoying this, the chance to get actual detailed responses rather than just people clicking a favourite button (or not) is much more useful.

[Mike Farley]

Karen III

The off centre placement and cropping of her hair on one side only looks unbalanced and awkward to me. I appreciate that you are trying to be different and there is nothing wrong with experimenting, but the tried and tested compositions are used again and again for a reason. A while back there was a vogue for an extreme crop and only showing half of the face, although I have not seen it recently. What it does prove is that moderate crops can be less successful and seem more like a mistake, whatever the photographer's intentions.

Unless the necklace was long and dangly, showing all of it should not detract from the portrait. Either that, or crop much higher and maybe clone out any traces of the necklace if it looks too obvious.

Regarding the background, I refer you to the Gestalt Law of Simplicity.

I have no issues with the eye, it is a strong feature.

Karen IV

I am happy to disagree about the backlit hair, but to me her face was not lit sufficiently. The highlight being brighter means I am more likely to look at that rather the model's other features. You have probably tried to do too much here by going for moody illumination on the face and backlighting. One or the other would have worked better.

The elbow is subjective, but a different pose with it extended not so far from the body might have been better. You have not fully understood what I have said about elements extending beyond the image. The eye will complete objects which are round or oval in shape, but not others. For me, the cropped hand looks awkward and a mistake.

It is not obvious that the background here is a window, so it just seems that lines have been added for effect and can be viewed as a distraction. I am happy to accept that this is subjective and the lines are trendy, although I would also say that there are some strange blobs and shapes in the window which do not add anything.

Your underwater image is good for showing the fish in its environment, but it is confusing to the viewer because there is so much else happening and all in different colours, so fails as a documentary shot. Patterned backgrounds such as the brick wall in Karen III can be distracting, especially if there is no good reason for it to be there. That's another reason why the off centre placement works against you as we see more of the wall. The same background is there in Karen I, but is not obvious.

There is the question of context when it comes to backgrounds. When I processed my Brighton or Bust image, I wanted to show the car was in a modern setting, but I removed a number of lamposts and signs, and desatured the background so as not to draw attention away from the vehicle and its occupants. It can be a fine balance.