Yoga Portrait session.

cameron_flaisch_photo · May 11, 2015

1.

1U5A3337 by Cameron Flaisch, on Flickr
2.

1U5A3389 by Cameron Flaisch, on Flickr
3.

1U5A3406 by Cameron Flaisch, on Flickr
4.

1U5A3451 by Cameron Flaisch, on Flickr
5.

1U5A3489 by Cameron Flaisch, on Flickr
6.

1U5A3569 by Cameron Flaisch, on Flickr
7.

1U5A3638 by Cameron Flaisch, on Flickr
8.

1U5A3650 by Cameron Flaisch, on Flickr
9.

1U5A3684 by Cameron Flaisch, on Flickr
10.

1U5A3659 by Cameron Flaisch, on Flickr

tirediron · May 11, 2015

Interesting series. I think #3 is an absolutely brilliant image. Other than that, I'm not fond of the 'old factory' background images however. To me, yoga makes me think 'peace', 'serenity', 'calm', etc, and I do not get that from the setting of those images. It's a great location and you could do a killer grunge fashion shoot there, but yoga? Not so much. The forest series are nice, and the setting works, but I think the lighting could be improved. I'd like to see the background knocked down by 1-1.5 stops to make the subject stand out more, and eliminate those blown highlights.

funwitha7d · May 11, 2015

loved shot #1, 5 and 8 and would have preferred a clear shot in 10, she is very strong and for me the strength works in the first setting and the calm comes through in the forest setting, nice detail on the hands in 2 and interesting perspective, great

Derrel · May 11, 2015

What I get is that she is able to be tranquil and relaxed in any environment...even a run-down, cluttered, dirty old abandoned factory environment, as well as a peaceful, wooded place. I feel like these are using deliberate incongruity, the sort of anti-expectation, of what yoga "is", and that works for me.

If there's anything to pick, it is the lens's slightly nervous background rendering on cluttery backdrops, or high-frequency background material. By high-frequency I mean things like bricks at a distance, or the many small sticks and branches in the forest shots...to me that type of bokeh is distracting. I'd like to see more smoothness to the background.

I REALLY liked the way you used the window as backlight and as an element of the photo in shot #4, the one of her on the mat, with the background window sort of representing stained glass...as if she is in a temple of yoga! NICE! It is so strong it could even be cropped to a vertical and have terrific impact! your second B&W, the hand stand one, is also nice. Shot #4 shot with the longer lens magnifies the background, smooths it out, and reduces the hashy nature of the bokeh; shot #5 shows the backdrop smaller, but with that nervous bokeh rendering, which I don;t like as much. Bokeh becomes a sort of integral part of these types of shots when the background has large expanses that are lighted objects, which is the case in five of these shots. Overall, I like these pictures...they are well-conceived and generally pleasing,and I think she will like these. You've taken very static poses, and made them feel "alive", which is tougher to do than most things in photography.

cameron_flaisch_photo · May 11, 2015

Thank you all for your replies and CC so far! My thinking behind the choice of locations( other than the fact that i love industrial style locations) was all about balance. Derrel you nailed it with the whole "being relaxed" anywhere comment. I wanted something a little grungier/ rougher for the first location, and then super tranquil and calm in the second location.

BrickHouse · May 11, 2015

Lovely series! I completely get the notions of balance and peace no matter what the environment.

snowbear · May 11, 2015

Number three and number eight, for me.

Designer · May 11, 2015

cameron_flaisch_photo said:
Thank you all for your replies and CC so far! My thinking behind the choice of locations( other than the fact that i love industrial style locations) was all about balance. Derrel you nailed it with the whole "being relaxed" anywhere comment. I wanted something a little grungier/ rougher for the first location, and then super tranquil and calm in the second location.

I just don't get it. The forest shots are nice, but the dilapidated building shots are incongruous at best.

Here's why I think so:

Notice the mat? It's clean. She does not place her bare feet and hands on the broken glass and bird **** for a reason. That reason is she wishes to remain calm and disassociated with the "industrial" setting.

So why do photographers insist on taking pictures in a crappy place?

Next I suppose you will pose her on some rusty, weedchoked, creosote-ey railroad.

Do you have any clear notion of why you like "industrial style locations"?

Designer · May 11, 2015

Ha-ha! John, I see you censored my post. Thanks.

tirediron · May 11, 2015

Designer said:
Ha-ha! John, I see you censored my post. Thanks.

Not me... the forum software did that!

Gary A. · May 11, 2015

#3 is wonderful ... but I wish it was symmetrical and perfectly balanced. Converting to B&W was a wise choice. Sometimes opposites and differences work and sometime they don't. For me, the industrial decay look doesn't work with your images ... too much conflict and too distracting. The last image is very special. Unfortunately, as Derrel noted, that nervous bokeh isn't helping you any. I like #7 as well, the shadow is great ... I'd go for the square crop on that one.

terri · May 12, 2015

Designer said:
Balance nice with crappy?

I just don't get it. The forest shots are nice, but the dilapidated building shots are incongruous at best.

Here's why I think so:

Notice the mat? It's clean. She does not place her bare feet and hands on the broken glass and bird **** for a reason. That reason is she wishes to remain calm and disassociated with the "industrial" setting.

So why do photographers insist on taking pictures in a crappy place?

Next I suppose you will pose her on some rusty, weedchoked, creosote-ey railroad.

Do you have any clear notion of why you like "industrial style locations"?

Did you read all of the replies, including the OP's, before posting this rudeness? Derrel had already picked off what the OP was going for with the deliberate opposite use of backgrounds, and the OP thanked him and explained further what he was doing.

Your choice of disparaging words and comments are out of line. Crappy? The dismissive "next...some rusty, weedchoked...railroad"? Wow, you come off looking poorly here. You also challenge this photographer with your generalization of "photographers insist on taking pictures in a crappy place" and asking him if he even knows why he does what he's doing. He is only 3 posts in and deserves some consideration, with your questions to him perhaps a little more engaging in tone.
Thanks.

Austin Greene · May 12, 2015

1, 3, and 5 really stand above the rest. Good job

Austin Greene · May 12, 2015

terri said:
Designer said:

Balance nice with crappy?

I just don't get it. The forest shots are nice, but the dilapidated building shots are incongruous at best.

Here's why I think so:

Notice the mat? It's clean. She does not place her bare feet and hands on the broken glass and bird **** for a reason. That reason is she wishes to remain calm and disassociated with the "industrial" setting.

So why do photographers insist on taking pictures in a crappy place?

Next I suppose you will pose her on some rusty, weedchoked, creosote-ey railroad.

Do you have any clear notion of why you like "industrial style locations"?

Click to expand...

Did you read all of the replies, including the OP's, before posting this rudeness? Derrel had already picked off what the OP was going for with the deliberate opposite use of backgrounds, and the OP thanked him and explained further what he was doing.

Your choice of disparaging words and comments are out of line. Crappy? The dismissive "next...some rusty, weedchoked...railroad"? Wow, you come off looking poorly here. You also challenge this photographer with your generalization of "photographers insist on taking pictures in a crappy place" and asking him if he even knows why he does what he's doing. He is only 3 posts in and deserves some consideration, with your questions to him perhaps a little more engaging in tone.
Thanks.

I think there might be a misunderstanding. While I disagree with designer as per the choice of location, I took his use of "crappy" to mean "run down/industrial/dilapidated". I don't believe he meant to say it was literally a "crappy" choice.

terri · May 12, 2015

Quite possible. Yet, there are ways of making one's comments on a forum like this to not leave things open to misunderstandings. The other posters also commented on the locations, leaving no question as to their intent. When commenting to a newcomer on the forum, it may be worthwhile to take the time to make sure your meaning can't be misconstrued.