C&C for my first three photoshoots - Sadie

[ElNico]

I'm splitting these into three threads so as not to dump too many images in one place; and because I suspect each shoot has its own unique merits and issues, so it makes sense to have a separate discussion thread for each. If I shouldn't be doing that let me know.

This is my most recent shoot. This one definitely could have benefited from proper lighting equipment (of which I currently have none); a lot of otherwise good shots didn't make the cut either because the model was closing her eyes (or looking down so much that she might as well have been) due to the sun, or because the lighting effect just wasn't good. There were still some that I thought came out pretty well though, and these are the ones I think are the best. More photos from the shoot can be seen in the album on Flickr.

Critique very much appreciated!


DSC01669 (2) by El Nico, on Flickr


DSC01676 (3) by El Nico, on Flickr


DSC01879 by El Nico, on Flickr


DSC01909 by El Nico, on Flickr

 

[tirediron]

Again, too many images for which to provide detailed, individual critique, however a few overall points.

1. Avoid shooting under a green canopy; your model looks like she needs another week to ripen!
2. Avoid the 'disembodied limb' type pose where a bit of hand/arm/leg/foot appears around an object without connection to the model.
3. Your hot shoe is a place to put a bubble level, a flash trigger, or even your bubble-gum. It is NOT a place to put a speedlight!
4. There's a reason why a bra is considered underwear!
5. Watch your backgrounds (and don't forget to level in post!). If you must shoot around messy, cluttered or distracting backgrounds use the longest focal length and largest aperture possible.
6. Fill light, Fill light, Fill light, Fill light, Fill light, Fill light, Fill light, Fill light, Fill light, FILL LIGHT!

 

[KmH]

Yep. Fill light.
The light quality and direction on your subject was poor in all the shots.
She was under exposed, over exposed, or had dark eye sockets (racoon eyes).
There is not a single shot that has her lit so she has the most visual weight from a lighting perspective.

If you've got someone that can assist you, they could hold a piece of white foam board or some other kind of reflector to reflect some sunlight onto your subject.
Neewer 5-in-1 31 x 47 Collapsible Light Reflector

For shooting outside I recommend using a longer lens focal length and a larger lens aperture - preferably no smaller than f/3.5.
Also it's usually better to keep your subject 8 to 20 feet away from a wall.
Even better is if you have an f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens you can stop down to 2 stops (f/2.8 for a f/1.4 max aperture lens - f/4 for a f/1.8 max aperture lens)
Note f/3.5 is a larger lens aperture than f/8 is.
When I was still working, for shooting full length portraits I mainly used 200 mm as my focal length and that lens was an f/2 prime lens.

Invest in some inexpensive portrait lighting & posing education:
Direction & Quality of Light: Your Key to Better Portrait Photography Anywhere
Off-Camera Flash: Techniques for Digital Photographers
On-Camera Flash: Techniques for Digital Wedding and Portrait Photography
500 Poses for Photographing Women

 

[ElNico]

Trimmed it down to four images. If that's still to many, feel free to just pick one; if you want to go into deep detail, no one person need feel obligated to analyze every image.

2. Avoid the 'disembodied limb' type pose where a bit of hand/arm/leg/foot appears around an object without connection to the model.

As I understand it, the typical way to fix this problem is to make it clear that Hand A is connected to Arm B, usually by making the arm sufficiently visible. With that in mind, do you have any insight into how to apply that to this kind of pose, where the model's leg is up against a column? Should she just not be holding onto it with her "rear" hand? Should her torso be further away from the column, in order to show more of the arm inbetween? (I feel like that wouldn't look good...) Should I try to use a thinner column (or something so thick that her hand doesn't come out the other side)?

On reflection, it seems to me that the best fix in this case would be to try and get the hand further around the tree, and hold onto it with the hand vertical rather than horizontal, so that the wrist can clearly be seen (this may or may not be possible with the size of the tree). Would you agree?

3. Your hot shoe is a place to put a bubble level, a flash trigger, or even your bubble-gum. It is NOT a place to put a speedlight!

It's not a hot shoe. It's a point and shoot camera with a non-removable flash.
That said, this statement confuses me. You seem to be saying "never use a speedlight." Isn't a speedlight one of the most basic and common types of flash, if not THE most basic and common? It doesn't seem like something that can be entirely done without. One of KmH's references below is about "on-camera flash." Am I misunderstanding you here?

4. There's a reason why a bra is considered underwear!

For which of the outfits do you consider this a problem? For the long blue dress, I for one think the result is quite tasteful. For the blue two-piece outfit and the gold top, personally I find it neither here nor there; objectively, it is clubwear after all.

5. Watch your backgrounds (and don't forget to level in post!). If you must shoot around messy, cluttered or distracting backgrounds use the longest focal length and largest aperture possible.

What do you mean by "level in post?" Post is post production, but what does "leveling" and image mean?

Yep. Fill light.
The light quality and direction on your subject was poor in all the shots.
She was under exposed, over exposed, or had dark eye sockets (racoon eyes).
There is not a single shot that has her lit so she has the most visual weight from a lighting perspective.

At this time, for a number of different reasons, I am devoid of lighting equipment. (And in retrospect I probably should have clarified that at the start, for context.)
I agree that getting an image where the model isn't either underlit, covered in stripes and shadows from harsh sunlight, or made oversaturated and fake-looking from the flash, is proving very difficult; is there any way of addressing this problem without spending a giant chunk of money?

If you've got someone that can assist you

I do not.

For shooting outside I recommend using a longer lens focal length and a larger lens aperture - preferably no smaller than f/3.5. [...] Note f/3.5 is a larger lens aperture than f/8 is.

I'm aware that a "higher" f-stop number means a narrower aperture; with that in mind, I'm still not sure what you're saying here. Should my f-stop be strictly higher/narrower, or lower/wider, than f/3.5?

Also it's usually better to keep your subject 8 to 20 feet away from a wall.

That... does not square with what I've seen of studio photography. Is this different for a "wall" versus a "sheet" backdrop? Even then, I've seen plenty of studio shoots with the model up against a brick wall, closed door, or window.

Even better is if you have an f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens you can stop down to 2 stops (f/2.8 for a f/1.4 max aperture lens - f/4 for a f/1.8 max aperture lens)
[...]
When I was still working, for shooting full length portraits I mainly used 200 mm as my focal length and that lens was an f/2 prime lens.

I don't have interchangable lenses. I have a point and shoot camera.

 

[tirediron]

If you want to incorporate the tree in the image, my inclination would have been to have her lean against it, rather than toward it. This pose just feels too 'stripper on a brass pole' to me.

Okay, if you're doing all this with a point & shoot, that puts rather a different light on things (pun fully intended). Given those limitations, you're doing rather well.

I didn't say "never use a speedlight" I said, never use a speedlight in your hot shoe (or at least that was my intention, if didn't come out that way, apologies!). The reason I say that is because the WORST angle for light is directly on-axis; this causes centered, pin-point catchlights as you have in #2 which really aren't very attractive. Getting the key light off-axis is critical to properly lighting someone.

Your aperture should be whatever it needs to be to create sufficient depth of field for the scene your shooting. That said, it's best practice to always stop down at least one or two stops (eg, if you're using an f1.4 lens, than stop down to at least f3.5 - 4) as NO lens performs optimally wide or nearly wide open.

With respect to your comment on brick walls; I see people drive through red lights; that doesn't mean it's right! Like all things in photography there are no rules, only guidelines. The problem with the model being too close to the background (whatever it is) is that it will be a distraction. a 10-20' separation helps to reduce that by rendering the background less sharply focused. There can be artistic or practical reasons for having the model directly against the backdrop, but not often!

 

[chuasam]

It comes across as a guy with camera sorta feel (GWC)
Why is she humping a tree?
Why is she wearing lingerie in the park?
Don’t use your gear as an excuse. Either get better gear or understand limitations and work within it.

Here's something I shot with a Canon P&S (G5x)

 

[ElNico]

Why is she wearing lingerie in the park?

Because I don't want to pay for a studio.
In the case of the long blue dress, I really don't think that the stockings and the fact that her bra peeks through are in bad taste. The way that the tree shot makes it look like she's wearing no underwear is indeed a bit much though; that was not intentional. She and I both agreed that she ought to have been wearing less skimpy underwear for this shoot, but we could hardly change that once she was there. Due to the highness of the split, something with more coverage and that doesn't look like lingerie would have been much better. (The kind of thing you see dancers wear in routines where panty shots are unavoidable.)

If you want to incorporate the tree in the image, my inclination would have been to have her lean against it, rather than toward it. This pose just feels too 'stripper on a brass pole' to me.

I really wanted to get a pose with her leg up, showing the stockings. Though maybe doing that with the tree, as opposed to something more like the third picture with the red dress, wasn't the best combination.
That said, while I wouldn't say that this is what I was going for, I'm not sure that "stripper on a brass pole" isn't a valid artistic choice, if done well and done tastefully.

Okay, if you're doing all this with a point & shoot, that puts rather a different light on things (pun fully intended). Given those limitations, you're doing rather well.

Thanks.

I didn't say "never use a speedlight" I said, never use a speedlight in your hot shoe (or at least that was my intention, if didn't come out that way, apologies!). The reason I say that is because the WORST angle for light is directly on-axis; this causes centered, pin-point catchlights as you have in #2 which really aren't very attractive. Getting the key light off-axis is critical to properly lighting someone.

Your aperture should be whatever it needs to be to create sufficient depth of field for the scene your shooting. That said, it's best practice to always stop down at least one or two stops (eg, if you're using an f1.4 lens, than stop down to at least f3.5 - 4) as NO lens performs optimally wide or nearly wide open.

That's helpful, thank you.

This one of the images I was specifically thinking of, with respect to a model being close to the background. Would you say that that's a problem with this photo? Or is there something about this photo that makes it work here?

 

[ElNico]

Here's something I shot with a Canon P&S (G5x)

Okay, here's a case of me not understanding what constitutes a problem and what doesn't. Please educate me.

While those photos look great to me from the torso down, the brightness and glare of the sky looks to me very much like it's washing out her face. Her face to me looks at least as improperly lit as Sadie does in the last two photos I posted here, and as Skye does in the first photo in her thread, if not more so; just in the opposite direction. Can someone please explain to me why one is a problem and the other is not?

 

[chuasam]

Why is she wearing lingerie in the park?

Because I don't want to pay for a studio.
In the case of the long blue dress, I really don't think that the stockings and the fact that her bra peeks through are in bad taste. The way that the tree shot makes it look like she's wearing no underwear is indeed a bit much though; that was not intentional. She and I both agreed that she ought to have been wearing less skimpy underwear for this shoot, but we could hardly change that once she was there. Due to the highness of the split, something with more coverage and that doesn't look like lingerie would have been much better. (The kind of thing you see dancers wear in routines where panty shots are unavoidable.)

If you want to incorporate the tree in the image, my inclination would have been to have her lean against it, rather than toward it. This pose just feels too 'stripper on a brass pole' to me.

I really wanted to get a pose with her leg up, showing the stockings. Though maybe doing that with the tree, as opposed to something more like the third picture with the red dress, wasn't the best combination.
That said, while I wouldn't say that this is what I was going for, I'm not sure that "stripper on a brass pole" isn't a valid artistic choice, if done well and done tastefully.

Okay, if you're doing all this with a point & shoot, that puts rather a different light on things (pun fully intended). Given those limitations, you're doing rather well.

Thanks.

I didn't say "never use a speedlight" I said, never use a speedlight in your hot shoe (or at least that was my intention, if didn't come out that way, apologies!). The reason I say that is because the WORST angle for light is directly on-axis; this causes centered, pin-point catchlights as you have in #2 which really aren't very attractive. Getting the key light off-axis is critical to properly lighting someone.

Your aperture should be whatever it needs to be to create sufficient depth of field for the scene your shooting. That said, it's best practice to always stop down at least one or two stops (eg, if you're using an f1.4 lens, than stop down to at least f3.5 - 4) as NO lens performs optimally wide or nearly wide open.

That's helpful, thank you.

This one of the images I was specifically thinking of, with respect to a model being close to the background. Would you say that that's a problem with this photo? Or is there something about this photo that makes it work here?

The door here is used as a framing device

 

[ElNico]

The door here is used as a framing device

I wouldn't say that that's the case. You can barely see the edges of the door, and in the one case where you can see beyond the door, the edge isn't straight. On the other side, while you technically see the outer edge of the door, I don't think it stands out enough compared to the detailing on the door to provide framing; it just looks like more door. If you could see part of the brick wall on both sides, and the edges were straight with respect to the edge of the photo, then I'd call that a frame; but to me it just looks like "the door is the background."

Do others agree/disagree with me on this?

 

[KmH]

Use as a reflector.
Pacon Foam Board, 22” X 28”, White (5557), Set of 5
$18 for 5 sheets, or $3.60 per sheet.