Scottelly wrote:
DMillier wrote:
saltydogstudios wrote:
DMillier wrote:
saltydogstudios wrote:
Apropos of nothing, I've done fashion shoots (not runway, studio) with a dp Merrill and it was fine. You develop a rhythm with the model where they pose & you take a photo. Maybe 1-2 seconds between exposures is normal for me in this regard.
There used to be a video (no longer on the internet) of a fashion shoot that was done with a dp1 Merrill, but I've found some other Foveon photos from him.
http://www.sigma-sein.com/en/scenery/TakiBibelas/
Did I miss photos? Yes. Did the buffer sometimes fill up too fast? Yes. Was the AF performance poor? Yes. Did I use the Merrill a lot? No - just for when I wanted that detail & when we could develop a slower pace - typically for detail work like portraits, beauty, jewelry etc. & not for environmental portraits where there was a lot of movement.
Suffice it to say - this kind of thing is not the norm (this video exists precisely because it's not the norm).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbfWT-hSG8
I've been praised for the fact that I actually develop a rhythm with the model, unlike some photographers who "spray and pray." (I'm not accusing you of this - not by a long shot.)
That's why I have Foveon cameras & non Foveon cameras. There are a number of factors that go into my decision to use one camera + lens at any given moment. But when I want that look, it's nice to have it available.
That video is interesting. A perfect example of why I have always rejected any thought of photography as a profession. Watching paint dry would be as much fun. Maybe put the camera in time lapse mode, go get a cup of tea and let the camera and the model do what's necessary.
Helmut Newton did a series of self portraits where the model was given a shutter release cable & a mirror and photographed themselves. I couldn't find them through a cursory google - but you're welcome to try. They are rather NSFW though. I think he may have called this technique "photo booth" or something.
If photographing people were actually that boring, I wouldn't have kept at it for ~7+ years.
Most people prefer looking at pictures of people to looking at pictures of a rusty nail I would guess.Making a beautiful portrait is satisfying for the photographer, too, so I'm not attacking portraiture. But that video...
Like I said - that's not the norm. It's as interactive and dynamic as you want it to be.
Honestly - everyone should just throw their notions of what a "fashion" shoot is out the window, there is no "one" way things are done & getting from start to finish is as varied as the number of people who do it.
Heck some people shoot fashion with large format film cameras.
It looks like once the model, background and lighting has been selected, the process consists of taking an endless stream of images as fast as possible while the model dances through a hundred standard poses. At the point of action the photographer's contribution appears to be to mechanically press a button.
I've never done that kind of shoot but if it is as it appears from the video, the choice of final image is the result of a spray and pray process. If pro fashion photography is like this (set up lights and shoot 20,000 near identical photos in the hope of getting the perfect pose by sheer chance) and that is what I did all day, I'd lose hope very quickly. In fact, I'd use a camera that shoots video at 60 frames a second and allows you to select one frame as a still.
Or maybe the video doesn't do the process justice?
I actually believe that some day hot lights will be used, and 8Kp60 video (at least 10 bit raw) will be used to shoot fashion. Imagine the advantages, when a model has a fan blowing on her, with her hair and clothes changing all the time. Getting the right shot will be a matter of posing, directing, focus, composition, AND selecting the right frame from thousands or tens of thousands. Doing it that way actually makes a lot of sense to me.
Greg Williams has been doing shoots with 4k video for years now & printing the results.
This was done around 2010 with a RED 4k. The freeze-frames were printed in Esquire - 2 page spreads.
https://vimeo.com/8680516
There are advantage and disadvantages to that process - like strobe lights freezing the action, or being able to mix strobe & ambient light for effect (flash drag for example) - or using strobe to kill the ambient lighting altogether.
I also think the color fidelity & sharpness is improved with strobes vs LED panels and the like.
If you're talking about a fan blowing on a model, then you're talking about freezing the action so there's no motion blur - which would require a fast shutter. The sensor would have to be very sensitive or the strobes would have to be very bright.
I've measured my (on camera) strobes at around 1/1000 of a sec for max output. Faster for lower output. I've never measured my studio strobes for speed - but that's the sort of shutter speed you'd be looking at.
Not to mention issues with rolling shutter.
I experimented with using hot lights - Florescent, this was before LED really took off and it was what I could afford without breaking the bank. The results were OK, but LEDs are far superior for color fidelity and such - but I no longer bother with that technique.
What I liked about Greg Williams' technique is that it a) put the model at ease - it's less "posey" and b) you can capture the in-between moments.
I lusted after a 4k camera for years after that - but back in 2010 they were insanely expensive. Now I can afford one and... I'm not as interested in that technique anymore, but I'd definitely still be interested in trying it. I'd done it a few times with 1080p just to try and the results were OK - but obviously not as printable.
No, I'm a back-light shooter. If you check my gallery here, you'll probably see that. I don't think everyone knows about people with blue eyes being more sensitive to bright lights. I didn't know that until just recently, and I've been shooting models for about fifteen years. Maybe I never noticed, because I don't try to shoot models looking into the sun. Their crinkled up foreheads and squinting eyes normally don't look so good in those photos.
I'm also a back-light shooter. I shot back-lit almost exclusively for years. I went from this - daylight + strobe look - intentionally over-the-top and difficult to produce:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BjcT1r2jwNW/
To this naturalistic look basically overnight & never went back to the over-the-top look.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BO8y4qjgk8_/
Purposefully producing lens flare & etc. for effect:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BP3_P5lllBg/
This is one of my favorite indoor backlit shots:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BGfD0mexfSb/
I studied media in college - film making, television, radio, etc. I did lighting for the weekly campus talk show.
When I started learning lighting for photography - I thought... Oh I've done this before, except now it's with softboxes, well that's boring.
Which is when I stumbled on Greg Williams' work and thought - that's how I see the world, that style makes so much more sense to me.
I'm glad I have all of the above in my back pocket if the situation calls for it... even if I don't have enough studio strobes - not to mention space - to pull off good 3 point lighting.
Also if you like backlit - this 1983 music video (and movie) is everything. I watched the movie just for the cinematography.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILWSp0m9G2U
