Beginner: How to emulate this style

[Woollbert]

Hi There,


I really like the "me in my place" shoots by Michael Edwards, both in composition and style (the big bright, natural looking light) and wish to emulate this as a learn portraiture.
I was wondering if anyone would be able to give a hand in the best way to go about creating the style. From the photos does it look like he uses any studio lights or just the natural light in the place? Also roughly what settings would give these results on an average day (UK based so the sun isnt always that bright...)?


Examples of the shots can be found (warning: some may consider these NSFW):


http://meinmyplace.com/thewomanofmeinmyplace
or
http://thechive.com/2012/11/20/the-me-in-my-place-photographer-is-giving-my-job-a-run-for-the-money-30-hq-photos/


Thank you for any help

 

[Derrel]

1) procure hot, sexy, single actress
2) make sure her place is cleaned up
3) photograph her using a decent camera on a tripod, using LARGE reflector panels, and either natural window-light OR strobes shot through huge scrims OR strobes palced outdoors and fired IN through windows, and bounced back using HUGE reflectors.
4) retouch all skin flaws and undergarment mishaps and such to a fare-thee-well
5) publish
6) repeat

it's a good formula, and a welcome change/addition to the same tedious, tired old chit that Esquire and Maxim et al have been doing for the past decade.

 

[boborone]

1) procure hot, sexy, single actress
2) make sure her place is cleaned up
3) photograph her using a decent camera on a tripod, using LARGE reflector panels, and either natural window-light OR strobes shot through huge scrims OR strobes palced outdoors and fired IN through windows, and bounced back using HUGE reflectors.
4) retouch all skin flaws and undergarment mishaps and such to a fare-thee-well
5) publish
6) repeat

it's a good formula, and a welcome change/addition to the same tedious, tired old chit that Esquire and Maxim et al have been doing for the past decade.

To get that look from the lighting, what would it be? Like a fast shutter and slow film speed like a Stanley Kubrick movie?

http://www.replikultes.net/medias/uploads/films/full_metal_jacket/full_metal_jacket_08_gueule.jpg
http://www.imcdb.org/i171917.jpg
http://www.hdwallpapersdesktop.com/Movies/Full-Metal-Jacket/images/Full Metal Jacket Wallpaper 6.jpg

Where every light is blown out. But still looks like a good picture. How would you achieve this?

 

[amolitor]

I am sort of baffled by why anyone pays much attention to this sort of commonplace cheesecake shot any more. As a guy, sure, I like looking at cute young women's butts, why not? But the photography is utterly uninteresting, and wildly overdone. This is like someone getting accolades for making the MOST INCREDIBLE McDonald's hamburger, like, you gotta see this guy fry, I mean, he's just following the instructions and producing the 99,394,197,967th identical burger but it's AWESOME.

The burgers are pretty ok. I like McDonald's burgers. The guys makin' em? Not mysterious hamburger-geniuses. Just guys that can follow simple instructions.

 

[enzodm]

1) procure hot, sexy, single actress
2) make sure her place is cleaned up
3) photograph her using a decent camera on a tripod, using LARGE reflector panels, and either natural window-light OR strobes shot through huge scrims OR strobes palced outdoors and fired IN through windows, and bounced back using HUGE reflectors.
4) retouch all skin flaws and undergarment mishaps and such to a fare-thee-well
5) publish
6) repeat

it's a good formula, and a welcome change/addition to the same tedious, tired old chit that Esquire and Maxim et al have been doing for the past decade.

I suspect the only crucial point is 1) . Substitute her with her grandmother, and the picture suddenly becomes ugly. Unless genetics plays some strange trick .

 

[Derrel]

It is a formula, yes. And that's why my analysis began with step #1, "procure hot,sexy, single actress". And why it ended with 5) publish and 6)repeat.

Both amolitor and enzodm are making observations about the Me In My Place feature...it *is* formulaic. It's basically the same stuff, over and over. The tast of the readership is so low that it's amply good...the people reading Esquire these days are mostly 20-something men who gave very little visual taste or sophistication. They cannot recognize good technique...all they see are nice t*+$ and nice a$$es...the editors of that magazine could hand a Canon d-slr to any of 1,000 shooters, and the readers of Esquire would still be drooling over the pics turned in--as long as the SUBJECTS are of interest to the readers. Once again, we see the same old principle that has held sway for decades; as H.L. Mencken has been credited with having said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

See, that's one of the single biggest things about popular taste and popular culture and popular photography: the MAJORITY of the public cannot "see" anything in terms of photographic technique or vision or artistry...all the majority sees is the SUBJECT MATTER. And hence the brilliance of enzodm's comment--if the pretty,sexy actress were to be replaced with an elderly, grandmotherly type of woman...the feature would not appeal to the magazine's current demographic...of course the AARP set might however be kinda' turned on by it...

I think it's a decent photo feature, as far as cheesecake goes, but it is not "all that" however. The gals are invariably cute or cute-ish. But the pics are never memorable...I cannot think of a SINGLE Me In My Place image that sticks in my mind...not one,single image...

 

[Mike_E]

Import the shot into photoshop, go to the shadow/highlights adjustment and slam the shadow slider all the way to the right.

If anybody asks, you didn't hear it from me!