David Hou asked me to upload 4 images of a model we have both shot (the same girl as from my first and second image posts, here and here, respectively) in order to gain insight on the differences a 'shooting style' can create (among other reasons you'll have to ask him about...). Hope this works, cuz all this cutting-and-pasting html is a stinks timekiller drag:

Three more of David's images of the same model can be found here.

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), February 25, 2000

Answers

Should be: Hope this works, cuz all this cutting-and-pasting html is a stinks timekiller drag...shawn

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), February 25, 2000.

PS, Number 3 is my favourite, David, and comes closest to the Kathryn I'd like to shoot myself :-)

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), February 25, 2000.

(Shawn, all I get from the link is a black screen with 3 frames.)

Mr. Hou: What's with the lower corners of this (above) image? They only serve to distract. Study composition, David, and printing technique. 3 out of 4 corners and one pants leg are lighter than the whites of your model's eyes. The light is sooooo flat, the only thing that adds modelling to this woman's (extra fine) features is her hair styling. Print the whole image down, and hold her face back to normal or lighter and bump the contrast up, if this is supposed to be a shot for her (or your) portfolio. (terse, but helpful?)... t

p.s. I can see why she's so popular as a model (very much at ease with good presence and great hair).

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), February 25, 2000.

Thanks Shawn, for putting the images up; though, I am also having problem seeing the other images.

In response to Tom's comment: never can be too terse, Tom. I asked Shawn to put them up because I want to learn more. So, go crazy, guys. I agree that the bottom left corner is distracting--I knew this when I printed it, but that's the way it was shot; so, tough. While I have been planning to do some more shoots with her, she's been really busy. I photographed her about 2 summers ago and then introduced her to Shawn who shot her last year. Subsequently, we were only able to squeeze in two more shoots since then because I think she is a bit overwhelmed by being photographed so much. So, the images Shawn has so kindly posted for me are whatever I can manage to get out of one of the shoots. I wish I have more to select from, but I really do not want to intrude with her schedule too much. If I do photograph her again, however, I will post them again for comparison.

Lastly, I should say that I also wanted to post these image because Shawn and I work very differently when photographing. Professionally, I am a theatrical photographer. I photograph mostly ballet, modern dances, and operas. So, I tend to leave my model alone, minimizing the interactions. I just watch and watch and watch and shoot. Shawn is very interactive with the model and shoots much faster than I do. I like his work for its spontaneity. I tend to go for the quieter look. I am interested in getting feedbacks regarding our different approaches.

Thanks again, all. Thanks again, Shawn. And, Tom, a cat didn't shoot these ones.

-- David Hou (dan2367@hotmail.com), February 26, 2000.

tom, I don't know why it's not working? Anyone else having problems viewing them, the linked images appear fine on my screen...?

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), February 26, 2000.

Sorry Shawn, I get the same black screen as stated above.

-- Artie (Artie@artiephotography.com), February 26, 2000.

blank screen here too. Too bad it is in frames, Internet Explorer only gets the source for the top level of the frame. Shawn, it might be showing on your computer and no-one elses because the image urls are to your box. Even if you uploaded the images to the server, they might not be pointed correctly.

-- grant groberg (grant@emeraldp.com), February 26, 2000.

I'll have to start previewing in Netscape, I guess. In the meantime, to view the other three images got to:

http://causasui.homestead.com/files/kathryn3.jpg

and replace "kathryn3" with "kathryn1", "kathryn2", and "kathryn4" respectively. sorry guys...

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), February 26, 2000.

Well, to be blunt, I don't see a "shooting style." In fact, I'm not sure what genre these shots are supposed to be in: fashion, casual portraiture, fine art? Kathryn may be vivacious, but she is not a fashion model. There doesn't seem to be enough emphasis on form, composition, or tone to classify these as fine art or fine portraiture. That leaves casual portraiture (the yearbook photo look - for which there is quite a market today). As such, these are ok.

Kathryn1 is the only one that has strong composition and an interesting combination of textures and tones. Unfortunately, her cheeks are bit chubby at that angle. But I'd certainly like to see more of her done in a similar manner.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), February 26, 2000.

I've always thought I would be an OK yearbook photographer...:-)

-- David Hou (dna2367@hotmail.com), February 26, 2000.

"that's the way it was shot; so, tough"

Totally bogus cop out. If that's the best you could do under the conditions available, fine, but there are measures you can take thereafter:

1) employ creative printing techniques, which is my favorite option, 2) don't make the shot that way, 3) make the shot and learn from it, but don't exhibit it (except in critique, as you have done here).

I'll look at the other images soon (mouse eye veiw?)...t

p.s. I was born a Dragon.

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), February 27, 2000.

Tom...I swear...it was the best I could do given the available condition. Immediately after I clicked the shutter, the whole place burned down. The earth was shaking so violently that it was a matter of life and death...I was only able to get a quick print off using the local Starbucks coffee (mild brew) as my developer...no time for a second print. Later, I found out that there was a dragon that escaped from the local pet zoo. Then, I decided to exhibit this print because it is absolutely brilliant only if you look at it much more carefully...can you see the reflection of the dragon in her eyes now?

say cheese,

mouse :-)

-- David Hou (dna2367@hotmail.com), February 27, 2000.

oh... now I get it. But I still want contrast. gimme gimme gimme... man, am I a pain in the ass, or what?... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), February 28, 2000.

<< man, am I a pain in the ass, or what?... t >>

T, your sexual preference is more information then we really need...

-- steve vancosin (steve1chsn@aol.com), February 28, 2000.

David mentions that he is a theatrical photographer. I imagine that his job involves capturing "the right moment" during rehersals. Thus in shooting a model, he lets her pose herself while he watches her and chooses the right moment to press the shutter button. My guess is that David's primary intention is to capture something about Kathryn's personality, and I think he succeeded with the "balancing" photo--this photo has some spark. I feel that the other three photos of Kathryn taken by David are less successful--these are standard portrait-type shots and thus David's "style" of watching for the decisive moment is not good enough. A lot of thought also needs to go into the technical aspects of creating the photo. Otherwise, you just have good snapshots of a pretty girl (life could be worse).

-- Matt Shimao (flymatt@yahoo.com), February 28, 2000.

Of all the responses above, I think Matt's observation comes closest to my own. Personally, I think the balancing shot is only one that is not so posed. Kathryn seems to be less aware of my presence in that photo. The other three, like Matt said, are more of the portrature style. Shawn likes Kathryn3 the best. I like Kathryn1 the best as a portrait. I think this difference is representative of the very different ways we see Kathryn. In fact, I really don't like Kathryn3...I posted it only to annoy Tom. I would like to hear more opions (how to improve) the picture wher Kathryn is standing in front of the chains. Thanks again.

-- David Hou (dna2367@hotmail.com), February 29, 2000.