Sienna Hayes - NUDES

[Manfred M]

In addition to shooting Sienna outdoors at the farm, we moved into the old abandoned farmhouse and semi-abandoned barn to continue the shoot. The images I took here were nudes and not implied nudes. The shots used a mix of natural light and a battery powered studio light.

This was my first nude shoot and first location shoot where I made extensive use of natural and studio lighting. I hope to get a chance to do another shoot at this location this summer and apply everything I learned over the past 10 months. There are lots of things I don't like in the way I did and processed these shots.

1. In the old barn





2. Posing on old hay bale





3. In the abandoned house

[chaman]

I like #1 and #2. Nice lighting and composition. Number 3 I feel she gets lost in the frame. The opened door is distracting and seems to compete with her. It also looks tilted a bit. The strongest one is #1, IMO.

[Shadowman]

Nice series, in #1 I would change the bottom cropping either or, less or more. #2, nicely done but that whitish wall is a bit distracting. #3, nice effort but a bit too much distortion in the body and the door frames. I plan to do a bit of boudoir shooting at the end of the month and plan to use my 24-70 for some shots and will have to watch the distortion at the shorter focal length.

[Ken MT]

Don't your haybales have thistles in them?

[Manfred M]

Nice series,

Thanks

in #1 I would change the bottom cropping either or, less or more.

No, the crop is just about perfect. It's not on a joint, so it works quite well.

#2, nicely done but that whitish wall is a bit distracting.

Agreed. If I were not printing this shot, I would have cropped the white part harder or perhaps burned it down hard or even toned it with the background colour. I may have another go at it when I get home again and do a reprint.

#3, nice effort but a bit too much distortion in the body and the door frames.

This is more of an environmental shot and part of what I wanted to show is how much the house has warped and settled. The effect might not have worked out quite as well as I had hoped.

When it comes to portraiture, there is no need or use to aim for verticals or horizontals as the subject is the person and enhancing certain body parts is accomplished by not shooting with the camera level. Shooting down will accentuate the bust, shooting up will accentuate the legs and neck. Ignore the "rules" of shooting architecture and urban landscapes, they don't necessarily apply. In fact they make for boring shots.

Given the camera to subject distance, there should be no noticeable distortion on the subject. The wall and door which were a lot closer, yes, there is plenty of distortion and that is something I did on purpose. Based on the comments, it did not work the way I had hoped.

I plan to do a bit of boudoir shooting at the end of the month and plan to use my 24-70 for some shots and will have to watch the distortion at the shorter focal length.

My normal "go to" lens for portraiture on a FF body is the 70-200mm lens. The house / room was a bit tight, so I did end up going to the 24-70mm; it is not the ideal lens for this type of shooting.

[Manfred M]

Don't your haybales have thistles in them?

She is sitting on a thick towel that is hidden under her. We checked for things that scratched before getting her to sit there.

[Shadowman]

Thanks



No, the crop is just about perfect. It's not on a joint, so it works quite well.



Agreed. If I were not printing this shot, I would have cropped the white part harder or perhaps burned it down hard or even toned it with the background colour. I may have another go at it when I get home again and do a reprint.



This is more of an environmental shot and part of what I wanted to show is how much the house has warped and settled. The effect might not have worked out quite as well as I had hoped.

When it comes to portraiture, there is no need or use to aim for verticals or horizontals as the subject is the person and enhancing certain body parts is accomplished by not shooting with the camera level. Shooting down will accentuate the bust, shooting up will accentuate the legs and neck. Ignore the "rules" of shooting architecture and urban landscapes, they don't necessarily apply. In fact they make for boring shots.

Given the camera to subject distance, there should be no noticeable distortion on the subject. The wall and door which were a lot closer, yes, there is plenty of distortion and that is something I did on purpose. Based on the comments, it did not work the way I had hoped.



My normal "go to" lens for portraiture on a FF body is the 70-200mm lens. The house / room was a bit tight, so I did end up going to the 24-70mm; it is not the ideal lens for this type of shooting.

My second choice will be the 85mm 1.8, I've had some success with that lens for this type of shooting.

[Manfred M]

My second choice will be the 85mm 1.8, I've had some success with that lens for this type of shooting.

Depends on where you like shooting from. I tend to be a bit further back and will occasionally shot with the f/2 105mm DC, but only if I have a lot of room to move around. Usually the zoom gives me more flexibility when working around all the light stands that I typically use in a studio shoot.

Boudoir shoots can be a bit cramped, especially when shooting in a real bedroom, so wide is sometimes the only option. Ladder shots tend to require a wide zoom.

[Shadowman]

Depends on where you like shooting from. I tend to be a bit further back and will occasionally shot with the f/2 105mm DC, but only if I have a lot of room to move around. Usually the zoom gives me more flexibility when working around all the light stands that I typically use in a studio shoot.

Boudoir shoots can be a bit cramped, especially when shooting in a real bedroom, so wide is sometimes the only option. Ladder shots tend to require a wide zoom.

I like the flexibility of the zoom to move between full body and closeup as I have a tendency to not watch where I'm going, I have to remind myself of what might be at my feet (camera bag, tripod legs, etc.) and if in the vicinity any pools of water.

[rpcrowe]

IMO, Sienna has the most graceful physique of all your recent models...

[Manfred M]

IMO, Sienna has the most graceful physique of all your recent models...

She was very experienced. She's now closer to your part of the world. She moved from Toronto to San Rafael CA a few weeks after the shoot.

[rpcrowe]

Manfred BTW: along the lines of your explanation regarding camera height when shooting portraits, here is a short but, (IMO) quite decent YouTube video on that subject...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSgERZKb3o4

Re the 24-70mm focal length... I tend to like that focal length better for portraits when using a crop sensor camera. In fact, I have an older Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 ATX Pro lens that I really like on a crop camera for people shooting because the 28mm side (44.8 equivalent on my 1.6x Canon crop cameras) has very little distortion since it is "almost" a normal angle lens equivalent. The 70mm side which is a 112mm equivalent on my Canon crop cameras is a decent focal length even for head and shoulders portraits. However, I do prefer the 70-200mm on either a full frame or a crop camera for head and shoulders portraiture...

[Manfred M]

Thanks for the link Richard. He covers off a few main points, but the important one is that camera position and angle will accentuate certain parts of the body and downplay others. Get close to the model and shoot up, and the legs and neck are accentuated. Shoot down a bit and the head and bust are. Shoot down too much and the legs look far too short.