Project 52: Week 44; Eve

[billtils]

Had the opportunity to join a few others for a portrait photoshoot today. The setting was a bit limited - indoors in a public place (the transport museum in Glasgow) - but the model, Eve, was experienced and a treat to work with.

First up is my favourite, shot in a dark doorway in the replica of an old Glasgow city centre building:





This one is a different treatment from the same setting:





Lastly, a contrasting image shot inside one of the old Glasgow Subway carriages on display in the museum:

[Rufus]

These are all lovely shots, Bill, and I would agree that the first is the best. The lighting of the face is best in that one and the detail you have captured in the plain white blouse is impressive.

[billtils]

Thanks David.

I was introduced to a new term when shooting that one - a Flashbender! The lighting was generally a problem at the venue - I was using my SB700 off camera on 1/8th power - but one of the group lent me his flashbender and it was great. I've ordered one. Anyone who, like me, had never heard of the thing, look it up! They are cheap, versatile and very effective.

[Manfred M]

Three nice images Bill, taken under some fairly challenging lighting conditions. Working with an experienced model is always a pleasure as it lets the photographer concentrate on what he / she does best without having too get overly concerned with delivering nice poses. The last one works best for me, but the second one has a lot of potential if you can pull out a bit more shadow detail.

Yes, these scenes definitely look like they need some fill light. I guess I'm a bit surprised that you didn't shoot in more suitable places where the light was more suitable, for instance, in shade. A touch of fill flash or a reflector to bounce in some light can do wonders.

As for a Flashbender; I own one (the largest model) but have not used it in years. The main issue with that tool is that it takes a small light source and makes it just a bit larger, but it is still a small light source and the result is quite harsh light. I really find no significant advantage over a camera mounted flash. For shoots like these, I take along a portable flash with a large modifier to deliver a better quality of light.

[billtils]

Thanks Manfred.

I understand your point about the first and second shots but they are are pretty close to the moody image that I was aiming for. The third is a different story though. We had a mentor semi-pro with us and she "helped" me at the Subway carriage, with an LED light and reflector. Eve and I both told her to cut the power but she insisted it was OK (and the histogram looked OK) but once downloaded there was no doubt that model and shooter got it right. Great pity, but it's still a keeper for me.

[Shadowman]

Nice series.

[Manfred M]

Thanks Manfred.

I understand your point about the first and second shots but they are are pretty close to the moody image that I was aiming for. The third is a different story though. We had a mentor semi-pro with us and she "helped" me at the Subway carriage, with an LED light and reflector. Eve and I both told her to cut the power but she insisted it was OK (and the histogram looked OK) but once downloaded there was no doubt that model and shooter got it right. Great pity, but it's still a keeper for me.

I've run into a similar problem working with a semi-pro. They tend to be working on the commercial side of photography and will be looking at images that will sell to their clients. In the "old days", this approach tended to be somewhat formula based and in traditional studio and wedding work it still is. Pretty well every successful wedding photographer I know works to a "shot list" to get the types of images that their clients are looking for. As one recently said to me, something along the lines that brides always want the photographers to take candid shots, but usually only buy the ones from the "shot list".

When it comes to the histogram, that only tells us about the exposure, not necessarily something that shows us that the lighting ratios are doing. That's something you are going to have to judge from what you see on your camera's screen and frankly, the small screen can be terribly misleading.

When it comes to high ratio / high contrast lighting; generally we tend to use that less on women than on men. I tend to stick with no more than a 2:1 lighting ratio when shooting women and children, whereas with men, I have no issues pushing things to 3:1 or even 4:1. I can see those higher ratios working well with women in roles that we traditional associate with men; weight lifters, martial arts, rocks star, fire fighter, etc. In the shots that you took, your model has dressed and done her makeup to look extremely feminine, so the high ratio lighting generally works less well.

[billtils]

... When it comes to high ratio / high contrast lighting; generally we tend to use that less on women than on men. I tend to stick with no more than a 2:1 lighting ratio when shooting women and children, whereas with men, I have no issues pushing things to 3:1 or even 4:1. I can see those higher ratios working well with women in roles that we traditional associate with men; weight lifters, martial arts, rocks star, fire fighter, etc. In the shots that you took, your model has dressed and done her makeup to look extremely feminine, so the high ratio lighting generally works less well.

Thanks for that feedback Manfred, much appreciated.

[joebranko]

Beautiful shots! Georgeous model.