Here are some shots from my second sitting for the Homework series (I’ve another shot and waiting to process).  The model here works as a receptionist in a Doctor Surgery, with a presecribed uniform.

Bookmark This:

I wrote a blog post some time ago, on an old (and now defunct) personal blog, about space and time. Rather than being concerned with metaphysics, the space and time in question were actually the space on your hard drive(s) to store photo’s and the time needed for some shots that’s needed for you to go away and learn how to process them to your satisfaction.

I don’t have the time or the inclination right now to re-hash the article, though I’ll maybe have a crack at it tomorrow. However, the following shot was taken by me right the way back in 2005, on my very first digital SLR, in the village where I used to live (indeed, the village where I was born!). It’s taken me nearly 4 years to learn sufficient Photoshop skills that I’m now able to process it to a stage where I’m reasonably satisfied.

Crich Stand Monument

I’m very definitely a hoarder, but it’s worth bearing in mind that some things are worth keeping hold of.

Bookmark This:

Don’t worry, I’m not honestly suggesting that you go out and plagiarise someone else’s work or ideas. As creatives, it’s almost certain that the idea fills you with revulsion in any case. However, a certain amount of duplication can be entirely healthy when attempting to learn new skills, or to push yourself just a little bit further than normal.

Take the above picture of Ade, you might recognise it as the full version of the one that I’ve used as his avatar photo at the very top of the page… It actually came about as a discussion on an online photography forum. A bunch of people were discussing the influence of films on photographs, at which point someone else chimed in wondering how to get a “Sin City” effect on their photo’s.

A long discussion followed, most of which dealing with the processing after the the image had actually been taken. Hardly anybody, other than myself, made any mention of the lighting involved. In order to give myself a bit of a challenge (and also, I admit, to make a point) I set about taking a photo to see if I could replicate the style. I used this poster from the film as my starting point.

By dissecting the lighting used, we can see that Hartigan (played by Bruce Willis) is lit from behind and from either side, creating two strips of light down either cheek and backlighting the hair, but leaving the majority of the front of the face in shadow. I replicated this by using two speedlights 45 degrees to Ade’s back and above him. Another speedlight on-camera provided some fill to keep detail in the face and give catchlights in the eyes.

The resulting image was then processed to black & white, with a slight red tone added to maintain the feel of the film production.

So there’s today’s challenge: Find yourself a film poster or another image that you like (or find inspirational). As part of your ongoing photographic education, attempt to determine the lighting used and then go off and attempt to replicate it in a shot of your own. If you have the time, leave us a comment with a link to the original, and a link to your take on it.

Bookmark This:

I posted some time ago about the 50 States project curated by Stuart Pilkington. Well he is now starting one for the UK, called What is England? and is looking for 46 photographers to produce work for it.

I do wonder why he is just looking at England.. is he trading off the name for a global appeal, or is he planning one for Wales, Scotland and Ireland?

Via: A Photo Editor

Bookmark This:

In the second of two guest articles, award-winning photographer David A Williams shares his thoughts on studio spaces. For those of you who may have missed it, you can find his first article on wedding photography HERE.

Studio thoughts

(I’m going to share my experience of a small studio. Obviously, if you plan on a ‘get-em-in, get-em-out’ studio – your choices and needs will be different. And I can’t help you there.) A Studio is just a room. Its just a room where we make pictures. Any room is a studio.  Bear with me here… If you walk into a studio (which is after-all only a room) and the background is set up at one end, where must the camera go? where must the lights go? and where do your subjects go?

Forgive me for raising my voice here but: WHERE is the Creativity?

I simply have a room. I can move chairs, couches and tables – the walls are ragged/painted. If I need a light, I set one up.

Think of it this way… how many of us love shooting location work? Why? I would suggest it’s because we photograph in depth. My studio does that precisely because I have no fixtures that dictate to me what I must do.

Find a building or room that faces north. Use daylight. Frontally, or side or whatever.
Use One Studio light with a dirty great big softbox or preferably a Larson starfish or equivalent. One light. Use silver (not gold, not white) reflectors. Did I mention use one light? (there is only one in the sky). Do NOT bolt anything to your ceiling or walls – do NOT use scissor lifts etc. Especially if you want to aim for, or maintain a casual style of work.

What I’m challenging on is the concept that you MUST have this type of setup, or that you must have multiple lights to make great portraits. When I started in photography, I was told I should have at least three studio lights. Daunting, expensive and not quite correct. Fortunately, my father educated me that the work I most liked used one light (David Bailey, Snowdon, Irving Penn et al).

(Pretty much everything you ever see of mine is one light… FWIW)

My reception area IS my studio. Why would I take people from lovely light and nice furniture to another environment when its all right there to start with?

Think of it this way, why do we love environmental portraiture? Depth is one reason, a natural feel to the background is another. Personally, I appreciate really good environmental portraiture more that work against a background.

I did a series of ‘mentor’ lectures throughout Asia and India for Kodak a while ago…it was a very interesting experience. Every wanna-be photographer goes to a studio to learn.
Every Studio has five lights.
Very few Studios know how to use those five lights.
They use black backgrounds.
The lighting pattern as taught, is hairlight too bright, sidelight too bright and the rest totally flat.
I was photographed in a ’studio’ that was less than 8ft square with five lights.

During one of the seminars I shot a model, low angle, in a hotel at the bottom of some steps, with a single light and a car sunblock screen for a reflector. I dragged the shutter to incorporate the towering garden foyer and ’splashed’ colour up the stairs with a little flash wrapped in unexposed but processed film.

The resulting ‘kodak-roid’ (fuji disguised) when pealed apart caused absolute consternation, admiration and wonder. “Be-yoo-tifool Mr.Williams” “So ravishing M.Williams” “The quality is incrediable Mr. Williams”……..

The final comment from the guy most vocal in his admiration floored me: “But Mr. Williams, this isn’t professional photography – it hasn’t got five lights!”

My final comment on this subject is this:
A studio is simply a place where you make a controlled image. It’s an area out of the rain, nothing more. You don’t have to listen to music only in a music room. You don’t need a special shed to do carpentry. It should therefore be as versatile and as simple as possible. Make your decisions based on what is a natural extension of your wedding work. If you do beautifully controlled posed wedding work in the best tradition, your studio will need to reflect that. If you’re casual and PJ…..?

And yes, in Australia (southern Hemisphere) we look for south light.

A writer interviewing Snowdon was enjoying the comfortable ambience in the room were they were talking. He then said to Snowdon, “Perhaps we could look at your studio now?”

Snowdon replied “You’re sitting in it”

You can make wonderful clip together light diffusers. I haunt ‘Schmattah’ (sorry if that’s spelt wrong) that is, fabric shops. A simple curtain will probably cost less, and be less invasive of your area.

“Good portraiture has nothing to do with how many lights you have, how strong they are, and what brand they are….it has everything to do with the QUALITY of the light you have – and how you modify it, no matter how small.”

His name gets overly used in relation to portraiture, but what lighting system did Rembrandt use? What about Reynolds, Lely, Rubens, Van Dyck? …imagine:

“Mr. Rijn, (I so admire your work, and I’m just starting out in painting) what hair light did you use on that portrait of a man in a hat?”

It isn’t about multiple lights, it isn’t about expensive props, it’s about the subject, the light, the ideas and the expression.

Just further to my quotation about the quality of light, let me explain further, and the hotel light bulb point is part of it… A candle has a certain style of light, early morning light is a different quality to late afternoon (and a different colour) direct sun was something I avoided until I was exposed (sorry no pun intended) to the work of the Western Australian photographers…

We know that all of these light sources have widely diverse characteristics and intensities. Knowing how and when to use these, and how to replicate them in the studio environment is more important.

My point is that it makes sense to explore what you have to work with first, before you go accumulating gear which may or may not suit your requirements, environment usage, intent or throughput.

Throughout my involvement with photography, I always felt a new camera, lens,or a new light would improve my photography. It’s taken almost 30 years for me to fully understand my Dad’s maxim about simplicity.

A female photographer told me she has just acquired a great reception area filled with natural light.  I would really like to see what she comes up with… especially with her eye. Maybe she could show us what she does with a single diffuse studio light in the same position as the window?

Don’t get me too wrong – I love the studio, but I agree we can take it too far… there’s a little thought:

Why do Americans love making films in Australia & New Zealand? One of the reasons is that in the ‘States you have a team of brilliant lighting technicians that can direct 10 gigawatts of totally pristine light replacing and controlling the light existing on the scene’… ‘In Australia, we’re used to the last actor on the set leaving the door open’ (it’s a joke by the way…)

Not all existing light is wonderful, nor is all studio light. It’s down to the individual. At some time there will be a return to the Studio. How we respond to that will ensure our future. The biggest mistake we could make is to return to what has been done, rather than learn from other sources.

We found our portrait market decaying due to over-promotion 10 years ago. Many studios were producing work which simply didn’t compete with the in-store photographer (not different enough). I personally think that there will always be a demand for Studio photography, but I look to the beautiful editorial portraiture from ‘Vanity Fair’ and the like for direction.

For me, (and this is just my opinion) I don’t think the future lies with the standard lighting set-up, standard backgrounds, and standard poses. (BUT to know all of this is vital).

Many Aussie studios who experimented with glamour photography used exactly the same lighting they would for families – no study of Hollywoods Hurrell, Bull or Hesse, no study of Horst or Parkinson, no study of Schrebnezki, Bailey, Lategan or Scauvello. If they’d studied (particularly the latter) they would have realised that the lighting is the simplest you can find, and is not reliant on gobs of make-up and cheesy gauze to make a woman look superb.

I believe there will be a demand for the elegance of Norman Parkinson pictures from the 50’s – it’s already appearing in editorial portraiture… Are we ready?

Bookmark This:

It’s way too easy, photographically speaking, to lose your way a little. I find it very easy to become stuck in a rut with my work and it’s clear from discussions with the others (and a wider photographic audience on the web) that plenty of other people feel the same way too. The important thing is to recognise the symptoms and to work to counter them to stop yourself from feeling stale.

Mark has already mentioned one great blog post from Chase Jarvis: Shake Your Tree. It’s something that I’ve referred to a couple of times myself… Whilst my video-making antics in Cornwall might have seemed like I was solely looking to ridicule Mark (as if I would!), another part of it was curiosity to see if I could adapt to a different medium other than stills photography. Another good project that I’ve only just remembered is Learning to Love You More, which features a wider range of 70 different assignments for you to attempt.

It’s said that familiarity breeds contempt. My own personal opinion is that the best way to avoid the contempt is to move away from your familiar comfort zone. You love landscape photography? Then book a model and try some portraiture. Find yourself fixated by your histogram? Then tape over your LCD display and shoot fully-manual for effect (Hell, you could even shoot some film!)…

Ultimately, photography is a creative art and unless you actively challenge the boundaries of that creativity, then you’ll become stuck doing the same-old every time. Push yourself harder, reap the rewards…

Bookmark This:

What do you do when you’ve grown tired of samey landscape shots, yet your mate is still dead keen to go out and shoot the same old stuff…

Well I decided to take 3 strobes and light stands and use the landscape as a backdrop for a few shots of Dave – in this case it was a field of oil seed rape near Ferrybridge in west yorkshire. Set up literally 20 yards from the road as we’re quite lazy.

One thing I realised quite fast was that to get the landscape in to the shot, I had to use a landscape lens, so the 17-40 was the main one. Then decided to shove a polariser on there to lessen the light coming in AND make the sky deeper blue. Here are a few of the results, quite amusing seeing a hard looking character like dave surrounded by flowers

Found myself shooting at 1/160th cause the radio transmitters I used started to cock up at 1/200th, leaving shadows at the bottom of the shot. The polariser really helped reduce the ambient light so I could shoot at about F6.3 and lower the power on the flashes.

I’ve got a few all in one white suit thingies which I want to use too – putting gels on the flashes would colour the suits and make for something a little odd, so may do that in a field like this at some point.

Bookmark This:

Well the new boot camp at the Strobist blog has kicked off, and it starts with a doozy, head shots of you and your subject. We photographers generally like to hide behind the cameras and this is a good one to force us to get in front of it for a change.

I’m thinking about taking up the boot camp series as it will be good to push myself into some assignments that I don’t set myself, you know work to someone else’s brief for a change.

Matt, do you fancy doing some head shots?

Bookmark This: