Checking in - Recent work

greenspun.com : LUSENET : People Photography : One Thread

OK, checking in- I've decided this year to work on my studio game- which was basically nil- my break came when I got to join a studio coop in Cambridge, (Mass) for $95 a month members get first sign up first serve access to a fairly decent shooting floor, lightstands, backgrounds, tripods etc, you bring your own lights and cameras... I picked up one of the photogenic 500ws monolights, very cool unit with infinite settings via sliders, coupled it with a photek softlighter umbrella-with-diffuser for my main light, using reflectors for fill. I have one of those Polaroid 110s converted by Four Designs, it helps me experiment with setting up- and it makes amazing negatives with the PN 665.... though it's a little wide for what I like to do. (The shot below was not done with the polaroid.... it's 35mm Plus-X, a canon zoom, probably 210mm... I have never worked with this speed of film before- or smaller apertures, now i can.)

I plan to do a series of non-headshot, no-frills "front elevations" of my friends, the singers and poets of Boston. I figure this camera-neutral approach will let the people themselves be the content, rather than a lighting scheme, (they can be some awesome looking people) and it will get me comfortable with basic lighting. People are already asking me to do headshots-press photos, and I've already figured out that I don't have the time, and they don't have the money to make me have the time, so these are going to be at my invitation and at my pace.

This is Esther, we've known each other a long time, she asked about photos and I told her if she'd come up and just stand there for a while while i tested stuff she could use the results... I photoshopped out the catchlights in her eyes, they were huge from the 60" softlighter... gotta do something about that... since this picture is really about the gaze, I'd like to know whether they obviously look altered to you... (of course now that I've told you about it...) Also notice the Boston style, vs NY, no makeup whatsoever....

It continues to be an occasionally very expensive hobby, and a fantastic way of connecting with the world- Ed Kang, Are you in Rome yet?



-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), March 05, 2001

Answers

The very first thing I noticed - before I read the text - was the lack of catchlights. Even painters put those in. Of course, you could start a new trend!

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), March 06, 2001.

I'm not much of a judge of studio portrait work, but I think this is a really nice portrait. I do like her gaze without the catchlights, though. But if you hadn't mentioned it, I definitely wouldn't have even noticed them missing. Its tonality seems a bit harsh - a tad contrasty for such a pretty face - lacking in some of those rich, subtle tonal gradations that we often like to see in studio style portraits such as this. Some bright spots in her face that seem too bright. The metal object, held with her slightly visible hand is a bit distracting with its bright spot. Other than a couple of knuckles popping up in the bottom, I think the composition is perfect.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), March 06, 2001.

Thank you two stalwarts for your comments. I agree on the contrast, I'm on the edge between high key and overexposed in the highlights, but the prints are a bit softer. The whites of the eyes are not as white either... The hands holding the mike were overexposed, but they are better cropped out... The metal object needs to be fixed too, it's an old dispatcher's microphone, from the studio's prop collection. This was testing, I can see next time I'll have to rotate it up to present its grooves better.... chrome stuff like that photographs fantastically- should have seen that but I guess for some reason i wasnt thinking clearly.... although the flash off the mike is probably what illuminates the fill side jawline so nicely...

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), March 06, 2001.

I like the gaze. I don't miss the catchlights at all, it makes it more unique. However, her nose is definitely a problem and I don't get what is going on with the reflecting object next to her head.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 06, 2001.

Hi Chris. I looked at the image before reading far enough to see your comments about the catchlights, and i have to say that i noticed the lack of them right away, but only in the sense that i was thinking " her eyes look so flat". i'm not at all a "portrait" photog so i don't have some built-in rule about catchlights. i just think that it's obvious from the strength of the light striking her face ( as well as the reflections on that mic), that there should be some reflections on her eyes. the deal is, that it makes them look dry when we know they're not. couldn't you have reduced the catchlights in size without losing them altogether? i like the look (sans makeup), a lot. if you are going for a "hot highlight" look, it's gonna be hard to have smooth skin tone gradations though ( from the hot spot to a mid tone), without using makeup to even out the skin values. without the makeup, i think a softer, more diffused lighting scheme would work much better.

i agree the mic is distracting. it's sharp, high contrast grabs my attention.

the studio co-op sounds great. i look forward to seeing more of your shots from there!

-- susan daly (slascaux@aol.com), March 07, 2001.



Quite nice. You've done an excellent job of eliciting and capturing her expression.

Regard the lack of catchlights, I completely agree with Susan. The nature of the lighting on her faces has me expecting them, but they're not there.

I thought the microphone was some kind of hairstyling tool when I first looked.

The approach you describe sounds reasonable, but while you have the opportunity, try to experiment more with the lighting. I don't mean that you should bring in more lights, but you can easily make big adjustments in the character of the light you have. A big, diffused umbrella can be a very flattering light source (like here), but it can also be a rather boring way to light some subjects.

You're doing your subjects a favor by photographing them. Require a bit more from them in return.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 07, 2001.


OK. the catchlights have it-

For softer light I guess I need to see if i can get the diffuser closer and power it down some more... here it was maybe 4-5 feet....

On the project, I'm requiring a model release so I can resell the images... maybe a book.... in return I give them reproduction rights limited to free flyer/promo handouts and probably CD artwork- this may seem like a lot but remember it was me who asked them to do this... also, the shots are to my art direction, not theirs, they are not meant to be promos/headshots (though this one damn sure looks like one..., but you'll see what I mean later) so they may not be able to use them as such.... and if they do its advertising for me, which i would not be able to buy. We'll see how it goes, but right now I'm deadly afraid of trying to make a business out of this.. Were not talking Tom Cruise or Madonna here, some of these people have never even heard of money....

And on the subject of expensive hobbies- pray for me people, I just ordered from KEH an old 4x5 Calumet CC401 long rail view camera with Ektar 14" f6.3- the complete rig, ex+...

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), March 07, 2001.


Hey Chris, nicely done. I gave up umbrellas for portraits, because I hate the catchlights they give.

Try a softbox (can you rent?) and put a bunch of stuff in front of it, between the front panel and your subject... flags (cardboard at angles), branches (with and /or without leaves) torn strips of bkgrnd paper, old t-shirts (washed!), cheese cloth, plastic bags... whatever. This means you need a pretty big box. 3x4 ft is about the minimum, so you can keep it fairly close, and still fit the stuff in between without pokin' your subject in the eye or getting wierd shit in the picture.

hmmm, wierd shit in the picture... there's an interesting idea, huh, Jeff?... see ya... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 09, 2001.


Congrats on the photo and on the purchase! You won't be let down... once you go bigger you can't go back! I sold my 4x5 to get an 8x10.. probably 11x14 will be next. :)

My "Martha" image was shot with a setup very similar to yours (30cm/4.5 Xenar, packard shutter). The most important thing I can tell you is to buy a Polaroid back! Get one of the old 545's; they can be had for $75 and are very durable. Visualization becomes much trickier under a focusing cloth, especially with the image reversed and upside down-- having the polaroid makes everything much easier, especially for lighting setups.

enjoy!

-- Josh Wand (josh@joshwand.com), March 09, 2001.


Tom, thanks for the advice- the unmbrella has a diffuser "front" that makes into a round-bounced-softbox, and the stem detaches at halfway so you can snuggle the diffuser up closely without the stem in the shot... still need to figure out best practices with it... the one I have is probably too big for this close and I might make a circular cutout to hang in front of ot... (or rectangle... ?) anyway for this project I dont want flat light of course but i don't want "interesting" light either.... just unobtrusive light... I will try flags though.... good to hear from someone whos dealt with the problem.

Josh, thanks for the encouragement, I'm stoked. I'm definitely a Polaroid believer and love the negatives too. It was this or an RB67, (or course one needs both, but can't have...) but I'm going to try this with Polaroid and rollfilm back, till I finagle a 4x5 enlarger...

I'm going down to DC this weekend to see among other things the Steiglitz installation at national Gallery.... (or wherever it is..)

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), March 09, 2001.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ