Yet another Project Runway shoot

[Sweetneers]

If anyone remembers my thread a week or two ago, I shot a collection for project runway Alum about a month ago. Well, she ended up hiring me to shoot some more shots for her, and I just wanted some C&C on them. Be harsh. Be picky.

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:

1. I tried to straighten this a little in post, but it looked a little wonky when I did. Also, it made the shot REALLY tight. Do you think I need to straighten it, or is it good as it is? OFC, any other C&C welcome.

894IMG_1883.jpg by ZackCarpenterPhotography, on Flickr

2. Adjusted and split toned

644IMG_2133.jpg by ZackCarpenterPhotography, on Flickr

3. Again, adjusted and split toned

455IMG_2323.jpg by ZackCarpenterPhotography, on Flickr

4. Adjusted by hand painting a vignette

434IMG_2344.jpg by ZackCarpenterPhotography, on Flickr

5. Straight from camera, no post

224IMG_2561.jpg by ZackCarpenterPhotography, on Flickr

6. Adjusted

49IMG_2741.jpg by ZackCarpenterPhotography, on Flickr

 

[runnah]

#1. Spot on.
#2. Something isn't clicking for me. Maybe it's the pose of the moedls cloths.
#3. Great. Tattoos seem out of place but other than that I like the tone choice.
#4. again something not quite clicking. I think it's the fact that the model's clothes don't suit the background.
#5. Good pose and nice composition. I wish I could see her eyes but I get the effect.
#6. Wrong clothes for background.

Over all very good stuff. Technically, very good, everything it well exposed and sharp. My only negative feedback is that the background doesn't really suit some of the model's clothing. #1 and #3 are spot on for location and clothing.

Take it with a grain of salt I could never do such a good job. :mrgreen:

 

[Studio7Four]

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?

 

[tirediron]

Excellent critique! ^^

 

[amolitor]

4, 5, and 6 strike me as being way too dark all around. I am just not loving them. The "fashion" look is generally pretty punchy, popped contrast, or at least high key. Lots of light, although it may be very selective. These are moody pieces with some fashion tropes in the composition, and the mixed messages just are not working for me.

2 feels crooked and is way too busy. It's also "flat" looking, as if you're going for a sort of vintage/Polaroid look? Again, it has fashion tropes (albeit less so, this could almost be a portrait) but it's pretty much not cohering for me.

1 is great. Pure fashion/model shooting, no problem there. It looks straight to me -- her body appears to be in balance, who cares about the background?

3 is, as has been noted, a very strong shot. Again, it has fashion tropes going on, but lacks the pop we associate with fashion, however. I think you've got some post processing ideas that aren't quite there. The slightly vintage brown/low saturation/low contrast feel works with the truck and the clothes, but not with the "fashion" idea. The dude has tattoos, and he's making a duckface, so we know this guy's a model. So we know it's supposed to be fashion, and then we look for the popped light, and it ain't there. This looks like it was shot on an overcast day? Anyways. I would bang on the contrast level a little.

Not to be super negative! There's a lot to like in all of these things. Your compositions are solid, your models are doing good stuff. I think you lighting is a little dull, and while you're clearly experimenting with ideas in post -- which is great, experiment your heart out! -- I think your ideas for post need to get pushed down the road a little further before they're ready for prime time. You're definitely trying out stuff that's NOT the same boring old crap we're tired of, but it's not fully baked yet.

 

[Sweetneers]

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.

 

[Sweetneers]

4, 5, and 6 strike me as being way too dark all around. I am just not loving them. The "fashion" look is generally pretty punchy, popped contrast, or at least high key. Lots of light, although it may be very selective. These are moody pieces with some fashion tropes in the composition, and the mixed messages just are not working for me.

2 feels crooked and is way too busy. It's also "flat" looking, as if you're going for a sort of vintage/Polaroid look? Again, it has fashion tropes (albeit less so, this could almost be a portrait) but it's pretty much not cohering for me.

1 is great. Pure fashion/model shooting, no problem there. It looks straight to me -- her body appears to be in balance, who cares about the background?

3 is, as has been noted, a very strong shot. Again, it has fashion tropes going on, but lacks the pop we associate with fashion, however. I think you've got some post processing ideas that aren't quite there. The slightly vintage brown/low saturation/low contrast feel works with the truck and the clothes, but not with the "fashion" idea. The dude has tattoos, and he's making a duckface, so we know this guy's a model. So we know it's supposed to be fashion, and then we look for the popped light, and it ain't there. This looks like it was shot on an overcast day? Anyways. I would bang on the contrast level a little.

Not to be super negative! There's a lot to like in all of these things. Your compositions are solid, your models are doing good stuff. I think you lighting is a little dull, and while you're clearly experimenting with ideas in post -- which is great, experiment your heart out! -- I think your ideas for post need to get pushed down the road a little further before they're ready for prime time. You're definitely trying out stuff that's NOT the same boring old crap we're tired of, but it's not fully baked yet.

I agree, mostly, with everything you've said. Let me ask you this, though: Do you prefer the non-split-toned images over the ones in my OP? I was going for a vintage-y look, but I may have missed it a bit, haha.


644IMG_2133.jpg by ZackCarpenterPhotography, on Flickr


455IMG_2323.jpg by ZackCarpenterPhotography, on Flickr

 

[Studio7Four]

Thanks for clarifying the intent of the shoot. For model-selecting purposes I think you nailed the shots. I can look at these six shots and immediately tell who I'd hire (or at least who'd pass the first cut) and who I wouldn't.

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.

I do love this shot, largely due to the rapport she has with the camera. The only quibble I have now that you mention it is for Fashion Week selections is that this kneeling, side-on pose doesn't showcase her runway attributes as well as a standing shot might. This shot would get me to hire her in a second for a photo shoot - and, frankly, it shows enough to get her a second look for runway as well, I just don't get as good a feel for length as the other shots give me.

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.

Weird or not, I love it too. And I think it was a good call to highlight her midsection. With such a slender model I'd want to know that she has a bit of hourglass rather than a straight stick figure. (I consider it a pro, but I guess some designers might consider it a con depending on their line - either way, useful to know.)

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.

Okay, since we're not selling clothes here I'm fine with the plants at his feet. I do see your point about it making him seem less posed, and there's certainly enough left of him to be a good model shot. As for the tattoos, you should certainly leave them for the version you're sending for Fashion Week selection. As you pointed out with #6's underarms, you want the casting people to know what they're getting. Now, if you're talking about adding this shot to your portfolio, I could go either way on keeping or removing the ink. I can see how they're out of place (with the outfit, the retro toning, etc), and the placement of the forearm in the window actually makes the ink fairly prominent. Personally I like tattoos and the fact that they're unexpected in relation to the rest of the shot, so I'd personally tend towards keeping them.

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?

Since it's not selling the clothing no, I wouldn't worry about going back and trying to adjust it to get more detail into the clothes. Now that I'm looking at this shot on its own merits and those of the model, I love it - arguably my favorite of the set. I get a great feel for the model's frame and how she knows to control all her limbs.

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'm impressed - particularly with such a large shoot I was half expecting to read that you hadn't noticed that detail, and certainly not that you had the courtesy to contact the client about it.

Let me ask you this, though: Do you prefer the non-split-toned images over the ones in my OP? I was going for a vintage-y look, but I may have missed it a bit, haha.

On their own merits I do like the vintage look versions. It particularly works for the shot of the male model and the rusted truck. I don't know how much it adds to the midsection shot, but it doesn't detract from it either. However, for Fashion Week selection I think I would submit the non-vintage versions. They're also strong shots on their own, but they give a better representation of the models' skin tones.

Some very nice work here! I'd be interested in seeing anything else from this shoot that you choose to share.

 

[Sweetneers]

Again, thanks so much for the awesome responses! :thumbup:

 

[amolitor]

I think I do like the non-split-toned ones better.

That said, they're less interesting! They're much more "ordinary model shots" although still pretty nice. Your processing definitely gives them a look that makes look at them more closely, it gives the images a "second chance" if you will. So, you're most of the way there! The trouble is that while I do think 'hmm, that's different..' and I take a second, deeper, look, I wind up ultimately unsatisfied.

Does that make sense? I have a tendency to just babble and hope that something can be pulled out of the flow of words.

 

[Sweetneers]

I think I do like the non-split-toned ones better.

That said, they're less interesting! They're much more "ordinary model shots" although still pretty nice. Your processing definitely gives them a look that makes look at them more closely, it gives the images a "second chance" if you will. So, you're most of the way there! The trouble is that while I do think 'hmm, that's different..' and I take a second, deeper, look, I wind up ultimately unsatisfied.

Does that make sense? I have a tendency to just babble and hope that something can be pulled out of the flow of words.

I think I understand? Because they make you want to look at them again, you end up noticing even more flaws?