Meet Proudmother...[2 imgs]

Chuck Gardner said:

Chuck Gardner wrote:
You have a severe case of tunnel vision...

Click to expand...

Chuck, tunnel vision implies seeing things in only one way. I find that ironic since an objective of this post was to illustrate an attempt at breaking my rutt of the same portraits shot against the same muslins with the same lighting, etc. Tunnel vision implies a refusal to branch out. Yet that's exactly what I'm doing. I've always appreciated your criticism and find your advice appropriate for those particularly who are just starting out. Yet, over and over you have preached the same COI/leading line gospel that if anyone were to be accused of tunnel vision here, I would suggest that it's you. Let's face it, we both have one thing in common: We like to be creative. Your form of creativity might differ from mine. That's o.k. While we may disagree on art form, if everyone were identical, expression would be quite dull. I will offer my advice and opinions at times, but I won't cticize you as an individual.

-proudfather

proudfather said:

proudfather said:

Chuck Gardner wrote:
You have a severe case of tunnel vision...

Click to expand...

Chuck, tunnel vision implies seeing things in only one way.

Click to expand...

Actual the definition is this:

Contraction of the visual field to such an extent that only a small area of central acuity remains, thus giving the affected individual the sensation of looking through a tunnel.

What I meant is that you are so focused on such a familar subject that you may be less than objective in your self critique of the overall composition.

For example I do not disagree that table, lamp and painting in the wall are important for the context of the photo so its says "living room" instead of "sofa in studio". All I'm suggesting is that you ask yourself whether the placement of those elements in the photo was the most effective arrangement you could have created for the photo.

Your stuff is so good that improvement comes down to subtle nuances like moving the sofa over a bit so more of the painting was identifiable and its form balanced the shape of and visual "mass" of the table on the opposite diagonal, and moving the table and lamp closer and behind her so when you saw her you also would see the lamp and not need a side trip to the edge of the frame to take it in. Making those two very subtle changes in the setting would create the desired context in a way that complemented and framed - with counter balancing shapes of equal visual mass the lovely lady so skillfully lit and composed along the opposite diagonal of the frame.

A critique is a comparison to some external frame of reference. My frame of reference is being able to see the type of potential for dynamic balance and context I've just described above. Maybe you still can't see it; all I can do is try to share my insights...

CG

Very nice and pretty wife.The only thing that I noticed was in the first shot. The white of her left eye is a lot brighter than the right.Looks like a spot light.Otherwise great.

Nice works. Don't spend too much time listening to photo critisms and opinions..just listen to your own heart and vision.

PF, I really like number 1 very much - a sure wall hanger. Great tonality. Excellent choice of wardrobe. Setting has personal meaning, being your home, and works well (BTW I have the same wall color - love that color).

Only nit is the shirt tail over her left leg is too hot - a flag during the shoot or dodging now would help.

As for number 2 - you should know why she prefers it. In her mind you were documenting her hair. In #2 her hair looks nicer.

Joe

Truth is, I do appreciate others' points of view. I'm a little more open-minded and willing to try new things. I may not like them, and I may rvert to my old ways. But I'll always consider them (what I understand),

-proudfather

singlo said:

singlo wrote:
Nice works. Don't spend too much time listening to photo critisms
and opinions..just listen to your own heart and vision.

Click to expand...

The angle at which that portion of her shirt was seemed to reflect light disporportionally to the rest. Hadn't thought of a flag. That would've created a nice natural vignette. I think you mean 'burn' rather then 'dodge,' though.

Thanks,

-proudfather

Joe Marques said:

Joe Marques wrote:
PF, I really like number 1 very much - a sure wall hanger. Great
tonality. Excellent choice of wardrobe. Setting has personal
meaning, being your home, and works well (BTW I have the same wall
color - love that color).

Only nit is the shirt tail over her left leg is too hot - a flag
during the shoot or dodging now would help.

As for number 2 - you should know why she prefers it. In her mind
you were documenting her hair. In #2 her hair looks nicer.

Joe

Click to expand...

I see what you're suggesting now. Admittedly, I was at work trying to read your responses. It's hard to get through even one sentence without some interruption or other. So I couldn't quite get your points. What you're suggesting is that repositioning the lamp and perhaps camera angle to include more of the picture frame might have been better, compositionally. I can appreciate that.

Though I don't disagree, I will say that I purposly left the lamp where it is so as not to compete with her head. I only wanted about half of the lamp to show just to get a hint of its presence. Bringing it closer to her, and dropping the picture would perhaps have made everything look condensed, busy, cluttered and bunched up -- contradicting the relaxed mood. Their current positions currently help to accentuate the horizontal composition of the image. Finally, that picture frame has glass, and I've battled against relfections on every living room shot I've taken to date because of it.

Now I appologize for not interpreting correctly your suggestions. You have been the only one offering suggestions, which I appreciate. I will never discount others opinions or suggestions. I might not agree. But it's always nice to get others' perspectives.

Thanks,

-proudfather

Proudfather,

Fabulous image #1 for sure. I read through a bunch of this and it seems to me (novice that I am) that your crop and posiitioning is dead on. Seems like one of those instances where you have to know the rules in order to confidently break them. If I were lucky enough to come up with this shot, it wouldn't be by design (sadly enough)...

I'm curious as to your actual shooting technique. Camera on tripod? compose. tweak. compose. tweak...? Many of the shots I see on here seem like obvious candidates for handholding. Like others have said, you just feel the need to move faster than the tripod will allow. But I'm guessing the sofa shot was thoughtful and several looks through the viewfinder were made before the first snap...

If you tell me that she laid down and you plopped the lights down and then snap! you were done... I don't know if I could take that

Thanks for sharing a lovely image of your lovely wife.
Doug.

Doh! I absolutely meant burn. :-D

Joe

proudfather said:

Thanks,

-proudfather

proudfather said:

Joe Marques wrote:
PF, I really like number 1 very much - a sure wall hanger. Great
tonality. Excellent choice of wardrobe. Setting has personal
meaning, being your home, and works well (BTW I have the same wall
color - love that color).

Only nit is the shirt tail over her left leg is too hot - a flag
during the shoot or dodging now would help.

As for number 2 - you should know why she prefers it. In her mind
you were documenting her hair. In #2 her hair looks nicer.

Joe

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

These were handheld, using a 24-70 mm lens. I prefer handholding for quick alterations in camera angles. Though, with my 70-200 mm lens, I'll typically use a tripod due to its weight. For this particular shot, nothing was repositioned except for having moved the coffee table. The angle was somewhat limited by space. Moving the camera back or to the left just a tad, and the softbox would have been included in the field of view. Any higher, and reflections from the picture may have been an issue.

-proudfather

dhowell said:

dhowell wrote:
Proudfather,
Fabulous image #1 for sure. I read through a bunch of this and it
seems to me (novice that I am) that your crop and posiitioning is
dead on. Seems like one of those instances where you have to know
the rules in order to confidently break them. If I were lucky
enough to come up with this shot, it wouldn't be by design (sadly
enough)...

I'm curious as to your actual shooting technique. Camera on tripod?
compose. tweak. compose. tweak...? Many of the shots I see on here
seem like obvious candidates for handholding. Like others have
said, you just feel the need to move faster than the tripod will
allow. But I'm guessing the sofa shot was thoughtful and several
looks through the viewfinder were made before the first snap...

If you tell me that she laid down and you plopped the lights down
and then snap! you were done... I don't know if I could take that

Thanks for sharing a lovely image of your lovely wife.
Doug.

Click to expand...

proudfather said:

Well, this was a rarity for me that I had to take advantage of. My
wife actually granted me 20 minutes to photograph her...but, from
her standpoint, only to document her new haircut. Nevertheless, I
took this opportunity to try and produce some wall hangers. I
think I got one with the first image. These really weren't going
to get posted, but I figured I didn't have many shoots this week &
wouldn't mind peoples' opinions on them.

-proudfather

This was the first of 2 settings (second shown below). A single
light was used for this image with a 36x36" softbox feathered
toward a 42" silver reflector positioned obviously relatively far
from her face.



We moved to the foyer for this shot, trying to incorporate a little
more of my house in the image (as opposed to my routine use of
homemade muslins). This is a three-light setup: The same 36x36"
SB for the main, a snoot positioned high & behind for a hairlight,
and a colored gel lighting the tree from behind. Admittedly, I
don't prefer this image. Though this was her favorite for some
reason, so it must have merit in others' eyes.

Click to expand...

Joe Peoples writes:

Your lovely wife's portrayal is less than appealing. There's no sense of her personality. Aside from adding more depth to the lighting, I would have experimented with more color to the face. Why is the only true "color" in the fingernails and no other place? I always turn a lamp on, if it's visible, even if only at a low level. I understand that your wife only wanted to "document" her new haircut. Please tell her for me it looks fantastic. Using a little rapport skills would have had her glowing. Just translate your terrific bedside manner, Doc, and you're home free. If you want to expand your horizons, I suggest you read "A Man With A Camera", by Nestor Almendros. Be more playful and have fun. Let others do photography with a "paint by the numbers" approach, if they wish.

Lovely pictures and lighting. I always enjoy your posts. Keep up the good work.

Thanks. I'm guessing her hair was partially creating a shadow on her right sclera, resulting in a darker effect. Either that or the silver reflector was significantly disproportionally directing light into her contralateral sclera. Either way, however, I'm not noticing that much of a difference. Could be my monitor, perhaps.

-proudfather

TPinUSA said:

TPinUSA wrote:
Very nice and pretty wife.The only thing that I noticed was in the
first shot. The white of her left eye is a lot brighter than the
right.Looks like a spot light.Otherwise great.

Click to expand...

Joe, I always love your critiques, which seem to transcend beyond the technical, and highlight the philosophical, an arena in which I am lacking. Your interpretations elude me in ways that I'll never comprehend. Regarding my wife's personality, unfortunately, I must say that she is rather boring. She & I lead pretty dull lives, pathetic as it sounds. Rarely do we go out to eat, go to movies, parties, etc. So in that sense, I'm affraid that perhaps I did capture her true personality :-( But I know what you meen about bringing life to a portrait. Spontenaety I find works well for that.

I was seeking muted colors for the 1st image, which is how our living room is decorated. Interestingly, it was suggested on a previous post of mine that red fingernail polish is inappropriate under such circumstances. But I do rather enjoy red fingernail polish on women.

Good point about the light. I considered turning it on (and perhaps should have experimented in that sense). Had the light been much further in the distance, unquestioningly would I have turned it on, and probably would have added even more lights. I was affraid it might compete with her face, however. Perhaps next time I'll try it, though.

Thanks Joe. Your critique is much valued.

-proudfather

Member said:

Joe Peoples writes:

Your lovely wife's portrayal is less than appealing. There's no
sense of her personality. Aside from adding more depth to the
lighting, I would have experimented with more color to the face.
Why is the only true "color" in the fingernails and no other place?
I always turn a lamp on, if it's visible, even if only at a low
level. I understand that your wife only wanted to "document" her
new haircut. Please tell her for me it looks fantastic. Using a
little rapport skills would have had her glowing. Just translate
your terrific bedside manner, Doc, and you're home free. If you
want to expand your horizons, I suggest you read "A Man With A
Camera", by Nestor Almendros. Be more playful and have fun. Let
others do photography with a "paint by the numbers" approach, if
they wish.

Click to expand...

Thanks Steveg...I'll try

-proudfather

steveg said:

steveg wrote:
Lovely pictures and lighting. I always enjoy your posts. Keep up
the good work.

Click to expand...

proudfather said:

I see what you're suggesting now. What you're suggesting is that > repositioning the lamp and perhaps camera angle to include more of the > picture frame might have been better, compositionally. I can appreciate > that.

Click to expand...

Common sense tells us that an object placed in a photo will attract attention at some point. Thus the first question to ask when considering introducing a prop in a photo is, "Do I really want attention drawn away rom the face to this thing?" If the answer in no, then the photo will always be better if it is ommited completely. If yes, the questions become how much attention do you want it to get, and how long do you want the viewer to take before noticing it?

I've devoted quite a bit of thought to the rule of thirds and why it works so well. The fresh insight I got was that it works not only because things are placed on the four intersection nodes near the core of the photo, but more importantly because putting everything which is important inside that inner ROT "fence" keeps anything which will attract attention away from the extreme edges of the photo. The ROT works because it eliminates distractions at the edges of the photo.

In a photo where the ROT works effectively there is usually a buffer of visually uninteresting "negative" space around what is truly important in the photo which helps direct the eye towards what is most important in the photo. Regardless of how the eye enters the photo from and edge or the middle it will get drawn in and "bounces" back to the center when it decide to wander off like the cushions on a pool table keep the balls in play.

The fact the eye will wander is a given. Where it wanders to is something you can control with the composition. Predicting and controlling where it goes is the essence of effective composition.

proudfather said:

Though I don't disagree, I will say that I purposly left the lamp
where it is so as not to compete with her head.

Click to expand...

I figured as much, but what you didn't realize is that by putting it off at the edge of the frame some distance from her face it actually competes more with her for attention. It would be less distracting directly behind her but smaller via perspective, significantly darker, and blurred to provide contrast so the view would notice it at the same time as the face but immediately tune it out as unimportant... You see we get tunnel vision when looking at photos too... Darker, blurry, smaller are all visual clues which tell the brain, "ignore it, its not important!" Thus you see it for context but really don't notice its there ... Finesse..

The same is true for that corner of the painting; its very noticable and tugs on the eye to go check it out. There's no compelling reason for it to be there, but if its there it should serve some compostional function, like as I suggested provide visual balance the table, helping to make the face exactly in the middle between them the visual "fulcrum" or balance point between them. It's similar to the balance you get if you add a big red hat to someone wearing a red dress; it emphasizes what's between them, the face.

proudfather said:

I only wanted
about half of the lamp to show just to get a hint of its presence.
Bringing it closer to her, and dropping the picture would perhaps
have made everything look condensed, busy, cluttered and bunched up
-- contradicting the relaxed mood.

Click to expand...

One of the wisest things I ever read and learned about posing large groups was to treat each part of the group as if it were being photographed separately. That is to say each person should be posed in a way which would look flattering in a solo portrait, parents in a family shot should be posed as they would to look good in a shot of just the two of them, etc.

That same "whole is the sum of the parts" concept can be applied an environmental portrait which the room is in effect part of the "group". If you took the wife out of these shots would they be an effective composition for a photo of the background?

The reason we shoot portraits on plain backgrounds is to eliminate unnecessary distractions and focus attention on the subject. An evironmental portrait purposely adds potential distractions. An effective environmental portrait is one which combines and well composed shot of the backgound with a harmoniously composed subject.

proudfather said:

Now I appologize for not interpreting correctly your suggestions.
You have been the only one offering suggestions, which I
appreciate. I will never discount others opinions or suggestions.
I might not agree. But it's always nice to get others'
perspectives.

Click to expand...

Not a problem... I make the effort because we've had very collegial exchanges. I too force myself to think and learn more when my ideas are challenged. You may have noticed that suggestions I make to you always involve composition, tonal balance, and the overall visual dymanics of the presentation. Most of what I've learned about effective compostion has come from sources other than photographic texts; art history, studies of human perception, books on drawing and composition for painters, etc. If you haven't yet explored those avenues for increasing your understanding its a visual path I'd recommend...

CG

I had to cut this out of the ohter message due to space constrains, but it applies to how people and objects are arranged:

Spacial relationships of objects and people - side-to-side and front-to-back are also important. Point of view can convey mood and context.

Consider two people standing three feet apart. If you compose head-on them so there appears to be a huge gap between them it creates a feeling of separation and conflict. That feeling of conflict intensifies the closer each of them get to the edges of the photo. In a very wide shot where they are in the middle with a lot of negative space around them it will appear that two people are having a normal collegial conversation, but in a close-up with each face on the extreme opposite sides or the photo with a huge gap in the middle it will appear that there is some differnce or conflct between them. The distance between them is exactly the same, but how they are composed in the frame completely alters the perception.

Now take the same two people, still 3 ft apart, and move your point of view so from where you are standing one is in front of the other, slightly overlapping. Now even though they are physically apart they will be perceived to have some connection, even in a close-up because they have become unified as single center of interest. Changing the shooting distance would change the near/far size relationship between them. If you shot close the person in front would loom larger. If you shot from 10-15' the perspective would be about the same as you see in person. If you shot from 60 ft away with a telephoto the person in back would seem larger than the one in front.

CG

PF what strength of light did you use for the main (watts) in the soft box?

proudfather said:

Good point about the light. I considered turning it on (and
perhaps should have experimented in that sense). Had the light
been much further in the distance, unquestioningly would I have
turned it on, and probably would have added even more lights. I
was affraid it might compete with her face, however. Perhaps next
time I'll try it, though.

Click to expand...

Just a thought PF, inspired by Joe's comments, that you might find useful. I will now be sure to have on hand a low watt bulb (15 or so) just to have an option for very subdued lamplight (since my lamp has a 50-100-150 bulb). Not sure how it will look but I want to try it.

Joe