Here We Go Again... One Year In Asia 2014-2015

[Mike Farley]

I think that in a number of these shots you could have been more creative with such a good looking model rather than having her standing against a plain background. It's a start and probably how many begin with glamour work. I can see that you have already appreciated this and made efforts to move away from the cliche by varying the in shoot lighting and treatment in post process. The two shots which work best for me are the head and shoulder shots where you have introduced some mood.

I do not under estimate the challenges involved in such photography, so if this is something you wish to pursue further I would try looking for examples of boudoir photography to give you an idea of what can be achieved. I have linked to one such blog of a female photographer shooting other women. It gives an idea examples of how the subject can be portrayed in a way which is appealing and interesting, as well as background information about how the shots are achieved.

http://www.inbedwithsue.com/blog/

Edit - Start of post revised, partly as some further images were subsequently added to the gallery which went some way to addressing my opening comment.

[davidc]

I've been adding to and removing from the gallery a bit now so not sure which ones you have/haven't seen.

In studio conditions it's relatively easy to take a "good" photograph - I'm sure anyone in the club could have come away with the same photos in my shoes. However, the situation here is that the shoot wasn't under my complete control and even that was intentional. Interacting with the model and setting up studio lighting in a similar way to the strobist stuff I did last year,was the real reason to go, especially the interaction. Sometimes I get a bit bored of macro/landscapes/ stuffthat doesn't require a bit of thought or stretch me. Working with others/pushing myself was the name of the game

It was, initially, a bit stressful I must admit.

So though the plain background isn't exciting it's also not distracting and that led me onto the second goal - how to process these to get results that belie the simple studio setup and move them away from being straight up record shots. That's not to say having vanilla background photos like this would harm the portfolio but I did want some variety. Maybe even some that were "appealing or interesting"

Once I'm completely comfortable directing a model and working the lighting to achieve the look I want then it all comes down to my imagination and the story I want to tell. That's the real challenge and what sets the good photographers apart but I don't get there by hiring models, MUAs and set dressers until I know exactly what I am doing. Even if I had that confidence and ability, it wouldn't have changed what was available in the studio for setting the scene.

I'm not sure it counts as glamour or boudoir though, I looked up the definitions and it doesn't seem to match . Art nude is may something for the future but beyond simple "bodyscapes" that too will need more experience

[davidc]

Also will have to check the blog out tomorrow, thank you. Too tired now though.

[Mike Farley]

I've been adding to and removing from the gallery a bit now so not sure which ones you have/haven't seen.

In studio conditions it's relatively easy to take a "good" photograph - I'm sure anyone in the club could have come away with the same photos in my shoes. However, the situation here is that the shoot wasn't under my complete control and even that was intentional. Interacting with the model and setting up studio lighting in a similar way to the strobist stuff I did last year,was the real reason to go, especially the interaction. Sometimes I get a bit bored of macro/landscapes/ stuffthat doesn't require a bit of thought or stretch me. Working with others/pushing myself was the name of the game

It was, initially, a bit stressful I must admit.

So though the plain background isn't exciting it's also not distracting and that led me onto the second goal - how to process these to get results that belie the simple studio setup and move them away from being straight up record shots. That's not to say having vanilla background photos like this would harm the portfolio but I did want some variety. Maybe even some that were "appealing or interesting"

Once I'm completely comfortable directing a model and working the lighting to achieve the look I want then it all comes down to my imagination and the story I want to tell. That's the real challenge and what sets the good photographers apart but I don't get there by hiring models, MUAs and set dressers until I know exactly what I am doing. Even if I had that confidence and ability, it wouldn't have changed what was available in the studio for setting the scene.

As I thought, you were working in a studio environment with a model to gain experience in that area; nothing wrong with that. And yes, as I originally stated, some of the shots in the gallery have moved beyond record shots to create a more artistic effect.

I'm not sure it counts as glamour or boudoir though, I looked up the definitions and it doesn't seem to match . Art nude is may something for the future but beyond simple "bodyscapes" that too will need more experience

Glamour is a fairly loose term and covers quite a range of options. Given that the model is depicted in her underwear in more than half the shots (in the current gallery, at least) and in all of them you seem to be playing on her sexiness, glamour seems the most appropriate term. For me, boudoir is a more gentle form of glamour where more is left to the imagination. It is not uncommon for women to commission a photographer (usually female) to shoot them in that style.

So, if not glamour, under which genre would you classify your images?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glamour_photography

[davidc]

Lingerie/fashion. Glamour, as per the wikipedia link you so handily provided, implies a focus on "bits" that are deliberately covered up in my shots

For example, the adverts of women in their undies in M&S are not glamour and are in a very similar vein to what I shot. This was basically the same as that really and the full length shots I've posted on my site (so as not to spam Flickr or the forum) look like adverts for American Apparel

Glamour is page 3 & lads mags IMO. I've got nothing against it and will probably try it at some stage but as with the other long term plans I'd do it when I have a sufficiently good idea to warrant paying for the shoot Boudoir is different again and my understanding (since reinforced by wikipedia) is where the scene is set in a bedroom/dressing room. She could be sitting in a full-on Victorian frock in a bedroom and it'd be boudoir, it's not necessary for even boudoir to be in lingerie etc.

Probably splitting hairs. But given the shoots I could have attended are advertised differently - and included lingerie, studio portrait, boudoir, glamour, nude and art nude all in separate sessions - I think the distinction is probably valid. Maybe if I do one of each shoot we can sit and analyse the results in detail

[davidc]

That last sentence sounded inadvertantly pervy. You know what I meant, I hope!

[davidc]

Shot 3 of 4 from the shoot. As you can see I've gone for slightly more unusual titles


I Think I Left the Iron On by cedarsphoto, on Flickr

[davidc]

The final one from this shoot. One of my personal favourites.

Identical strobist setup to the other portrait, all I changed for this one was the processing workflow and some tidying up.


Untitled by cedarsphoto, on Flickr

[davidc]

Anyone following the 5 in 5 thread will have seen this already.


TETRIS by cedarsphoto, on Flickr

[davidc]

Kopitiam Aftermath by cedarsphoto, on Flickr