C&C per request:
On the first shot, since you specifically asked, I don't mind the tilt terribly much here (and I usually find myself a stickler for aligning obviously vertical or horizontal lines). I think I see what you're saying about it appearing wonky if you straighten it. Her toe and knee give a nice foundation to her pose, but if you rotate it clockwise to get the verticals correct the line between her toe and knee will be at an obvious angle and make her feel off. I agree that it surely would have been too tight if you rotate and crop - maybe a reminder to shoot a bit wider than you think you need, to allow for options such as rotating or cropping to different aspect ratios.
One general question: how much control did you have over the locations and the overall feel to the set? Were they your choice or the designer's? I'm asking because most of these shots are very nice model shots but the clothes get lost, and that's largely due to them blending into the background. The collection is very dark (in palette, not theme). In some of them (notably 1, 2, and 5) you had the unenviable task of balancing the dark clothes with pale skinned models, and in those shots my eye is drawn too much to the models' skin and not enough to the clothes. Had these been shot against lighter backgrounds their skin would have blended in and the clothes stood out more.
A few additional, specific comments. I'm going to try to keep them in the perspective of a fashion shoot since your client was the designer. Some are nitpicky, but you did ask for it...
Shot 1) Nice job lighting for the clothes, I can see a good amount of detail in the jacket, jeans, and boot. This does make her skin perhaps a touch bright, particularly her left wrist (which I'd recommend burning so it doesn't draw the eye quite so much). I don't particularly care for how her hair falls across that left wrist, creating a rectangle of skin and in essence creating an amputation of that hand. The bit of back showing between the jacket and jeans is also unfortunate.
Shot 2) A couple things are holding this shot back. One is her bare midriff. It's bright, and it's interesting (her pose offsets her narrow waist from her hips creating an asymmetric shape, and her belly button is almost perfectly centered vertically) - great for a model shot, but it distracts from the clothes next to it. The other unfortunate element is the plant at her feet. It obscures the bottom of the pants, and the tall stem that goes right up to her crotch distracts from the cool tie on the pants.
Shot 3) IMO probably the strongest of the six. The clothes catch the eye here better than any others, probably because the white shirt, the relatively darker skin of the model and the relatively brighter surroundings allow you to expose better for the clothes. Here again I wish I had been able to see his feet better - his right foot is totally hidden and his left shoe is partially obscured by the plant. In an essentially full length shot like this it helps the model appear grounded to show the feet. And even if the shoes were not part of the client's design, as a viewer it helps sell the design if you can see what shoes the designer had in mind to pair the outfit with.
Shot 4) IMO the weakest of the six, but largely not the fault of the photographic capture if you will. The pose does nothing to show off the clothes, but I'm not sure what would be a better option. The jean jacket completely hides the top of the dress, so other than a glimpse of the neckline we can't see what's going on up there (strapless/straps/sleeves?), and it hides the side of the dress so we can't see how it hugs (or doesn't) her curves. If the model isn't going to work the camera and engage the viewer (as in shot 1), I'd rather see her look off camera (as in shots 2 and 5).
Shot 5) Arguably the most "fashion" of the set. Great pose - interesting angles yet positioned to show of the clothes. A true full length shot, capturing everything from the hat to the shoes. Nice attention to detail by the model, hitting the overall pose as well as details such as her fingers and mouth. I like that her eyes are shrouded in darkness, making this much less about her and more about the clothes. However, you were really hampered by the dark clothes, dark location, and pale skin as I mentioned above. Her skin is very bright, but while I can still see a little detail in the jacket I can't see any in the pants or hat (maybe it's just this monitor, but that tells me that even on a better monitor there'd be little detail at best). I also would have liked to see her positioned more to the left of the frame. That would give her more of the frame to look into as well as leaving more space for text should this be used as an add.
Shot 6) Another very nice fashion shot; interesting pose, showing off the dress nicely (though the bottom is so dark I can't tell if it's floor length or if she's wearing shoes). It does appear too dark to me, if not actually underexposed. Did you perhaps use the same settings as with shot 5? In 5 you had to worry about blowing out the model's skin whereas here you could have brightened up a bit to get more detail into the dress (and her hair, etc). (I understand if you wanted the background to be consistent between the two and intentionally left the settings the same.) One last nitpick - armpit views don't always bother me, but if they're visible they should be stubble-free.
Overall a solid set of pictures, I just don't know if they do as good a job of showcasing the clothes as might be desired.
On a side note, I've been a fan of Project Runway for a while. I notice you've been careful not to mention who the designer is - not sure if that's because you don't want to name drop of if you have an agreement in place to not use the designer's name to promote your work. But just to satisfy my own curiosity, would you be willing to PM me who it is?
Wow! Thank you so much! That is an
awesome critique. I'm going to start hiring you to come with me and yell at me on set! Haha.
My OP made it sound as if I was shooting for the designer. These shots, were not actually of her collection. She is just running this event. The other post I made in regards to shooting this designer, actually was her collection though. At this particular shoot, we shot 98 different models, these shots are being sent to New York, for the designers to pick their models for fashion week. So, they're not really used to show off the clothing, but you're probably right, I should have paid more attention to the clothing. I am happy you said that you liked them as model shots though, because that is the goal. :thumbup:
As far as location, they did most of the picking, with me telling them what I absolutely could not make work. They wanted dark shots, because in the other two shots that are being sent along with this, they're both against white backdrops. We wanted to show a bit of contrast. I did, however, do almost everything except drop to my knees and cry to shoot against this beautiful aqua door, but alas, no luck.
Now, I'll kinda go back and respond to your individual critique,
Shot 1) I totally agree with you on the hair/wrist issue. Though, like I said we shot 98 models, so we didn't have a ton of time for adjustments. As far as the skin showing, she actually didn't have a shirt on under the jacket, with the way she's posed though, it's hard to tell that.
Shot 2) I agree with everything said here, because it's a model shot, I really wanted to show off her mid-rift. It's one of those shots though, that I just can't tell if I like it or not. It's like that, "It's weird, but it's so weird it almost looks good" shots.
Shot 3) I think this is one of the stronger shots, as well. Personally, I like the plants at his feet, just because I think it helps pull him into the set and not make him look so posed and detached. I do see what you mean, though. Here's a question for you though, do you think I should remove his tattoos or do you think it adds to the shot? I'm going back and fourth between liking and hating them.
Shot 4) I agree that this was the weakest. I picked it because I liked the lighting, due to the HDR-ish feel. The model didn't really know how to pose very well, The artistic director was at lunch, and I am a male, so I suck at posing.
Shot 5) I agree with everything you said. I have a fairly bright monitor, and see what you mean about the pants. Though, since it's not a shot selling the clothing, I didn't adjust it. Do you think I need to, since it's not a clothing shot?
Shot 6) Yes, this was the same lighting as shot 5. Like I said with 98 models, there's not a ton of time to make adjustments. I ended up making the shot darker because it looked a bit flat, since it was all dark dark dark. I might go back and lighten it a bit. I almost started to smooth her armpit, but because it was a model shot to be sent to the designers in NYC for them to choose models, I didn't, just because I didn't want to create an unrealistic portrayal of the person. I did however, text the PR designer to ask if she wanted me to.
I do not have an agreement in place with her, I didn't want to name drop. I'd be more than happy to PM you her name. Again, thank you soooo much for the awesome response.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/30/30990-df3df397f705643bc2c207cc9d579d08.jpg?1734159052)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/30/30991-43abf4dfee0a54010692c71c43f40981.jpg?1734159055)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/37/37104-99933b18ee16678a8299f12747336d48.jpg?1734169829)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/41/41904-bc50f4d1903ad14e244dbad5cf8e5aa4.jpg?1734176269)
