Stephanie Katharine

[Manfred M]

I did a shoot with Stephanie Katharine this evening. A number of the models I've had the opportunity to shoot with over the past couple of months had some tattoos and piercings, but nothing compared to the amount that Stephanie had.

I'm planning to post a set of both implied nude and nude shots as I get around to processing this evening's shoot.



I had some of the Japanese costumes and fans that I had used with my shoot with Becky. but also had access to a Japanese screen. I shot about half against a white background and the other half with a dark background with a more moody look with a more defined lighting ratio.

[rpcrowe]

Very nice portrait. Although I am not a fan of extensive tats, I can see how much work and artistic ability went into her body art. Great backlight separating her from the background. Is her face a shade green (in comparison to the rest of her body that is)?

[Manfred M]

Is her face a shade green (in comparison to the rest of her body that is)?

Looks fine on my calibrated and profiled screen. I checked the white balance on the background and on the white background and I am getting totally neutral readings when I test. We changed the white seamless just before the shoot and it looks completely white. The WB settings are identical on both images.

[Shadowman]

Nice shots, are those scars or red blemishes on the arm real or added effects?

[Manfred M]

They are real scars. I tend to leave scars and permanent blemishes alone in PP as they are part of the model.

[rpcrowe]

Manfred,
Sorry, it was the monitor on my old Chromebook that caused the problem...

[pschlute]

Nice work Manfred

[Shadowman]

They are real scars. I tend to leave scars and permanent blemishes alone in PP as they are part of the model.

They sort of, the scars; fit the look.

[george013]

I first thought of a junkie.
I just don't understand. There's totally no added value showing the scars.

Manfred,
May I advise you to tell a joke when shooting. Your models are looking dead. That's not the fault of the model but yours. You're the director. That's why I liked your working shoes: there was a story in them.

George

[Manfred M]

I first thought of a junkie.
I just don't understand. There's totally no added value showing the scars.

Manfred,
May I advise you to tell a joke when shooting. Your models are looking dead. That's not the fault of the model but yours. You're the director. That's why I liked your working shoes: there was a story in them.

George

Thank you for your opinion George.

There are a number of different views regarding photographing people. At one extreme there is a view where no retouching whatsoever should be done and another view is that we need to retouch for a level of perfection where all flaws are to be retouched out. This second view is widely held by the "glamour" and fashion sectors of portrait photography that we see in magazines and advertising. The level of retouching, especially in the higher end involves hours of work on a single image.

The view I subscribe to is that I will generally retouch only temporary blemishes; pimples, bruises and minor, current wounds, flaws with hair or makeup. Anything that is permanent including moles and scars, I will only remove with the explicit permission of the subject.

In terms of the expressions, clearly you have never worked with trained, professional models. The look you are complaining about is what they have been trained to deliver. They go into their posing look the moment they step under the studio lights. The most challenging group to work with, as a photographer, are the runway models who have been trained to model clothing and accessories. They have a single expression that turns them into a human manikin as their job is to complement and not compete with the clothing, shoes, accessories, etc. that they are modelling at a fashion show.

Most of the shoots that I do are portfolio shots, i.e. shots that the models will add to their physical and on-line portfolios that they use to market themselves to their clients. I have done an occasional shoot for a client who is looking to use the shot in a for a commercial purpose, so these are tailored to the clients needs; for instance the shoot I did with balloons a couple of months ago.

Ballooning - the hard way

Just as an aside, because there is an intellectual property component to these shots, I and the model have a signed model release for every one of these shoots specifying what the model can uses the images for, and what I the photographer can use them for. Outside of the fairly narrow personal use I have outlined, neither I nor the model can use them for anything else without a new agreement. I can use them for my personal portfolio and I can use them in my own social media postings as well as in my personal portfolio. If a publisher wanted to publish the images, the model and I would need a new agreement; and that has come up.

In fact, part of the agreement is that I may or may not use their names with the postings, sometimes I am obliged to use their professional names; in the case of this thread, I know the model and "Stephanie Katharine" is not her "real name". Depending on the language in the agreements, I sometimes have to identify the makeup artist and / or the hair stylist and / or acknowledge the clothing / accessory supplier.

There is a level of photography that is referred to as "time for prints" (even though there are likely no actual paper prints that are made, just electronic images), where I get to shoot the model and supply him or her with images with no money changing hands. The model gets high quality, professional level images and the photographer gets practice shooting, with no money changing hands. Both the model and the photographer add to their portfolios without any monetary transactions.

[george013]

You don't shoot people. You shoot models. You're the director/photographer. The image is your product, with the use of that model. And of course both of you can add those images to their portfolio.
You started this studio series as an exercise in studio lighting. I enjoyed that. But now you're a step further. You forget the content of your product: illusion, suggestion,emotion, expression etc. There's nothing left when shooting just one person.

In terms of the expressions, clearly you have never worked with trained, professional models. The look you are complaining about is what they have been trained to deliver. They go into their posing look the moment they step under the studio lights.

You're reducing yourself now as a machine taking pass photo's.

The most challenging group to work with, as a photographer, are the runway models who have been trained to model clothing and accessories. They have a single expression that turns them into a human manikin as their job is to complement and not compete with the clothing, shoes, accessories, etc. that they are modelling at a fashion show.

In those photo's the model isn't the subject, the shoes, clothes etc. are the subject. But look at the mode photo's. Sometime you see a model with some expression. And you see that immediately.

You can compare it with an actor doing audition. The difference between reading a scene or playing a scene.

Tell them a joke

George

[xpatUSA]

You don't shoot people. You shoot models. You're the director/photographer. The image is your product, with the use of that model. And of course both of you can add those images to their portfolio.
You started this studio series as an exercise in studio lighting. I enjoyed that. But now you're a step further. You forget the content of your product: illusion, suggestion,emotion, expression etc. There's nothing left when shooting just one person.

You're reducing yourself now as a machine taking pass photo's.

In those photo's the model isn't the subject, the shoes, clothes etc. are the subject. But look at the mode photo's. Sometime you see a model with some expression. And you see that immediately.

You can compare it with an actor doing audition. The difference between reading a scene or playing a scene.

Tell them a joke

George

Always good to read a friendly post by the gentleman from Amsterdam ...

[selig1656]

Well done , terrific lighting especially on the second capture.

[James G]

As I have previously posted, this is not really my genre so I have very little constructive C&C that I can feed back on.
However, I am learning a lot ...

I've always 'known' that fashion models are 'clothes horses' and as Manfred has pointed out are schooled to complement the clothing rather than compete with it.

I had also thought that many of the models Manfred has presented are somewhat 'serious' , but I had never understood his point about their professional 'look'. I also had not considered the portfolio aspect of the shoot from the model's perspective.

So all in all, for me, this is proving a very educational thread. I'm not sure I will ever follow up with a studio shoot, but, I'm starting to appreciate the complexity and the 'language' of the genre a lot more.



Lastly, regarding Stephanie Katharine's scars, we all create different stories for ourselves when we view an image.
In my case, unlike George, I thought they could relate to 'self harm'.
My late wife worked extensively with young adults with learning difficulties, and often mental health issues etc. So, my personal story lines, when viewing images, tends to spin out in the context of our many discussions about her students, and the often difficult issues they were confronting.

Following the explanation of his 'retouching' standards, along with (possibly), the use his model may have for the image as part of her portfolio, Stephanie Katharine becomes a much more intriguing and real personality, challenging what was necessarily a stereotypical first interpretation of the image on my part.

[Manfred M]

In my case, unlike George, I thought they could relate to 'self harm'.
My late wife worked extensively with young adults with learning difficulties, and often mental health issues etc. So, my personal story lines, when viewing images, tends to spin out in the context of our many discussions about her students, and the often difficult issues they were confronting.

Following the explanation of his 'retouching' standards, along with (possibly), the use his model may have for the image as part of her portfolio, Stephanie Katharine becomes a much more intriguing and real personality, challenging what was necessarily a stereotypical first interpretation of the image on my part.

Thanks for the comments James.

This was the first time I had shot a model that specialized in body modification, so it was definitely a learning experience for me.

Your comments regarding the self harm aspect struck me as well, as some of the markings appear to have been made quite recently and that was something I tried to include rather than hide. It definitely showed something "personal" about the model and it is something that will probably make most people a bit uncomfortable. I like that because I am definitely working on trying to evoke an emotional response from people who view my images. The body modifications and scarring are definitely going to have an emotional impact on people.

That being said, I am definitely still very much near the beginning of the learning curve. I started shooting in the studio again about a year ago and started doing nudes a few months later. Fortunately, I have managed to connect with a number of local photographers who are much more experienced than I am with this type of work, so I continue to learn and improve my skills.

[Manfred M]

You don't shoot people. You shoot models. You're the director/photographer. The image is your product, with the use of that model. And of course both of you can add those images to their portfolio.
You started this studio series as an exercise in studio lighting. I enjoyed that. But now you're a step further. You forget the content of your product: illusion, suggestion,emotion, expression etc. There's nothing left when shooting just one person.

You're reducing yourself now as a machine taking pass photo's.


In those photo's the model isn't the subject, the shoes, clothes etc. are the subject. But look at the mode photo's. Sometime you see a model with some expression. And you see that immediately.

You can compare it with an actor doing audition. The difference between reading a scene or playing a scene.

Tell them a joke

George

Thank you for your views, George.

The one aspect of my photography that I am working on is strengthening the emotional impact of my images. Your reaction is wonderful as these images seem to have had a very strong impact on you - dislike is a very strong emotion.

As I have said before, I am fairly new to this type of photography and have only been at it for about a year (eight months when it comes to nudes and implied nudes), so I am still learning. Fortunately, I have connected with some of the best local photographers who are well regarded in this type of work for direction and guidance. I find their advice and direction very helpful.

That being said, I'm not sure how much stock I should put into your views. I have not seen any formal portraiture from you. None of your work seems to deal with experienced models, shoot planning, use of accessories, posing, studio lighting and model direction. Please prove me wrong by posting your work in these genres that show the members how you would approach this aspect of photography. I am always willing to learn from someone who can demonstrate their expertise.

[george013]

Thank you for your views, George.

The one aspect of my photography that I am working on is strengthening the emotional impact of my images. Your reaction is wonderful as these images seem to have had a very strong impact on you - dislike is a very strong emotion.

As I have said before, I am fairly new to this type of photography and have only been at it for about a year (eight months when it comes to nudes and implied nudes), so I am still learning. Fortunately, I have connected with some of the best local photographers who are well regarded in this type of work for direction and guidance. I find their advice and direction very helpful.

That being said, I'm not sure how much stock I should put into your views. I have not seen any formal portraiture from you. None of your work seems to deal with experienced models, shoot planning, use of accessories, posing, studio lighting and model direction. Please prove me wrong by posting your work in these genres that show the members how you would approach this aspect of photography. I am always willing to learn from someone who can demonstrate their expertise.

I think we arrived at the level yes,no,yes,no etc.

I didn't mention I dislike your pictures. They're good but I'm missing an important thing: the difference between a window dummy and a human.
When I talk about emotion I don't mean mine or yours, but the expression that's in the picture. I'm sure you know that.
By the way, dislike is not an emotion, it's a personal taste.

I don't have portraiture, formal or not. And I like Miles Davis but don't play trumpet.

Your pictures may be technical correct but not artistic. That's where you should work on.

George

[Donald]

I don't have portraiture, formal or not. And I like Miles Davis but don't play trumpet.

I think that seeing any pictures that have been made by you would be helpful George.

[Manfred M]

Your pictures may be technical correct but not artistic.

Good, I accomplished my goal. These pictures are not meant to be artistic. I was trying to figure out the best way to light and photograph a model where her tattoos are important to the shot.

This is and art shot:





As is this...

[george013]

Good, I accomplished my goal. These pictures are not meant to be artistic. I was trying to figure out the best way to light and photograph a model where her tattoos are important to the shot.

This is and art shot:





As is this...

It looks as if there're two different Manfreds.


George