How do I...?

[heatherrrrrrr]

Hi!
I was browsing this photographers website and I fell in love with her photos.
Here is the link: http://sharonmontrose.com/

Her photos have a strange quality to them that I have no idea how to acheive. I am trying to decide if they are taken with a film camera or digital, or if they are just really edited. Does anybody know how to acheive this quality, which I can't really explain. Specifically in the dog section where they were shot on location, not in studio. This probably sounds so vague and silly but I am in love! I currently have a canon digital rebel xt to work with, so I don't know if it is possible for me to take photos like this. Thanks

 

[duncanp]

Hi there, welcome to the forum!

unfortunately this isnt the best place for this thread, so hopefully a mod will move it.

As the photos, i dont know where to start or how to advise you.

 

[Bifurcator]

Me neither. I looked at two categories and thought the photog was a beginner. :-/

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

I think I know the effect you are referring to. Many of the 'on location dog shots' were done outdoors but with additional lighting used as well. This allows her to use the sun as a back light and then a light for 'fill'. It could be a flash/strobe light, a hot light or even a reflector. She might even be bringing her 'studio' lights outside and using them there.

When doing this, you need to balance the exposure from the lights, with that of the ambient light. This can be tricky but she appears to be very good at it.

Film or digital, that doesn't matter...but it does appear that she's using top quality lenses.

 

[Chewbecca]

I liked the pictures on her site.
She doesn't appear to be a beginner to me.
And she is, man, I wish I could be that good.

 

[Bifurcator]

Hmm, well, maybe I looked at the wrong categories..

 

[Big Mike]

I found that the dogs section was much more impressive than the kids section...those were the only two I looked at.

 

[Chewbecca]

I found that the dogs section was much more impressive than the kids section...those were the only two I looked at.

I had only looked at the babies and the dogs sections.
But after reading your post, I went and looked at the kids section and wasn't as impressed as I was with the babies and dogs sections.

 

[ChrisOquist]

Some bizarre cropping choices on some of those shots.. A quarter of a dog in one of them, lots of children missing the top of their heads....

 

[Chewbecca]

Some bizarre cropping choices on some of those shots.. A quarter of a dog in one of them, lots of children missing the top of their heads....

Do you think it's possible that the photographer just left out the majority of some of the shots intentionally?
Because that's what I assumed.

 

[JerryPH]

I liked the pictures on her site.
She doesn't appear to be a beginner to me.
And she is, man, I wish I could be that good.

well SHARON's site (whether male or female, doesn't matter), really doesn't show anything more than average skills in my opinion. I would not say beginner, but not all that much more than that.

Certainly not professional quality by any stretch of the imagination. As matter of fact, that was the biggest part of it... all pics were ho-hum, if technically ok.

 

[Chewbecca]

Yeah, that should have been typed:
"And if she is, man, I wish I could be that good."
Don't know if my typo came out like I was saying she is a he.

And I'm a real beginner who probably doesn't have half the equipment she does, I don't photograph many people, and the only dog I photograph is my own, really.

 

[tsaraleksi]

I'm not sure what photos you all were looking at but these are certainly professional quality work. The comments made in this thread speak more to amateurism on the part of the commenter than anything.

To the op, she's working with medium format cameras, it looks like they are digital cameras. She's getting her look through extensive lighting, it seems.

 

[JerryPH]

The comments made in this thread speak more to amateurism on the part of the commenter than anything.

Some bizarre cropping choices on some of those shots.. A quarter of a dog in one of them, lots of children missing the top of their heads....

Lol... I suppose we all have different expectations of a pro. I expect complete heads and dogs, lighting thats not flat, catchlights that do not occupy 25% or more of a subject's eyes, composition that is better than average and shows forthought. If that makes me an amateur, I will accept the compliment and thank-you in the process.

 

[tsaraleksi]

Lol... I suppose we all have different expectations of a pro. I expect complete heads and dogs, lighting thats not flat, catchlights that do not occupy 25% or more of a subject's eyes, composition that is better than average and shows forthought. If that makes me an amateur, I will accept the compliment and thank-you in the process.

Look through a high end fashion magazine or even a catalog (this website is a good place to look-- these push the envelope even further). Internet expectations of photographers and what people are printing in magazines are really different. Check out this photographer's list of clients, there really can be no doubt she's a professional. Like her work or don't, but she's a pro.