The Photography Thread

[North Star]

^^^

Yeah. I'm also liking it 50/50 and 90/10 from the top - although the latter a different application.

Yeah I think I tried something around 50/50 but the grass on right was feeling awkward. It's fine if I crop just above them, of course. And the 10% off from top option is indeed another good suggestion.

[NikF]

Yeah I think I tried something around 50/50 but the grass on right was feeling awkward. It's fine if I crop just above them, of course. And the 10% off from top option is indeed another good suggestion.

It's good you think that way - although you're probably already aware of that. Then again, the hell with my thoughts or those of anyone else/the hoi polloi; it's you who releases the shutter and you who puts it out there. It's your work.

[NikF]

Satiny.  Nice tones.

Thanks, Karl.

[North Star]

It's good you think that way - although you're probably already aware of that. Then again, the hell with my thoughts or those of anyone else/the hoi polloi; it's you who releases the shutter and you who puts it out there. It's your work.

True, outside input can be helpful (or not ) but I have to make the choices.

[NikF]

Frau Doktor - got me into listening to music. Patiently introduced me to Brahms and Ravel and Mahler.

This was previously a profile photo.

[NikF]

Also a former profile picture/avatar



135 neg held up against the window, photographed then converted to a positive.

[NikF]

Anyone remember z cards? Or Zed/Sed cards, depending on your locale? An agency or model or dancer or actor or whoever comes in. You tell them to bring three different wardrobe looks. Then you light those in natural, glamour, stage/catwalk (ditch your coffee table books and check out Stanley McCandless for lighting) and print them on a post card - headshot one side, montage on the other.

[NikF]

Infinity curve in the kitchen. Why does the Internet need to change the name to Infinty cove?

An aside: Iain always had a way with words. His description of a new model "A big old fetus head on stilts". Charming.

[NikF]

True, outside input can be helpful (or not ) but I have to make the choices.

Good.


Did I ever tell you why I stopped posting my work, thoughts, and professional insights on photography message boards used by amateurs and hobbyists?

Years ago when Flickr was still Yahoo! Photos there was a photography forum I lurked and occasionally posted on. I won't name them directly, because they were happy to take financial help from me but then ban me when I rocked their little boats, so f--k them. Anyway, one member - the equivalent of the president of the school camera club - announced he was writing a book about photography. Specifically, about photographing women. So he posted a draft, an outline. And in one chapter he spoke about glamour photography. To illustrate his words, he used an old Playboy(?) pictorial, saying he would shoot his own photos for publication.

The pictorial was fairly typical for that era. The first photo showed a woman's gloved hand putting a key in the lock of a front door. The second was an interior shot, showing her removing her gloves and placing them on a table, the third image is her face revealed in a mirror as she's removing her hat. Photo number four is full length profile of her hanging her coat (a nice opportunity to see her lordosis/anterior pelvic tilt combo) then in image five a rear view as she's walking through the a door that's acting as a frame, to help isolate her hands reaching behind the waistband of her skirt as she unfastens it. And so on and so forth, until finally she's seated and removing one stocking, then lifting her second leg to remove the other, eventually standing with her drawers at her ankles, naked, looking over her shoulder, eyes on camera axis 'Come hither...' Heh.

Anyway, the guy dissected the piece, regaling us all with that shot by shot description of the pictorial, of the how and why it was photographed, a nice, neat little storyboard. The clique applauded and in the echo chamber it was deafening. But I (politely) told him he was wrong. No one believed me at first. Then I told him why he was wrong. And it didn't go down well at all. Really, I was polite about it and genuinely thought I was helping them understand the difference between the working practice of a pro and an amateur. But they banned me. Oh dear. Anyway, that's why I no longer post as part of any photography community online. A bunch of amateurs discussing a pictorial showing a girl taking her clothes off, but they didn't know what they were looking at.

[Baron Scarpia]

What subtlety could they have missed in such a spread?

[NikF]

What subtlety could they have missed in such a spread?

I didn't explain that very well. It's the early hours here and I've been enjoying an aperitif.

The point I was trying to make, is that the guy mistook a pictorial of a girl taking her clothes off in a magazine, with a girl actually taking her clothes off in real life. And because he confused those two things, the method he described of shooting the pictorial was completely wrong. Completely. So I told him why he was so wrong. Then he took the huff. And I got banned because he didn't know what he was looking at.

[NikF]

What subtlety could they have missed in such a spread?

And in the light of day I can now see you were asking me what specifically the posters were confused about. Sorry...
The pictorial depicts the model getting undressed. The guy writing the book spoke at length about taking photos of the her getting undressed. But that's not what happens.
The last photo in the pictorial where she's finally naked? - that's the first photo you shoot. The second last photo of the pictorial when she's divesting herself of her drawers - that's the second photo of the session. And so on and so forth.

tl;dr You photograph the model  getting dressed and then when it's published the pictorial is in reverse order to make it appear as if she's getting undressed. That's why I told him he was completely wrong in his method. And I was polite about it too - all hearts and flowers - but he was first unbelieving and then angry.

[Baron Scarpia]

Interesting. Why is it easier to shot it in the reverse order from the scenario ultimately depicted? You want to familiar yourself with the assets that the model has to offer before mapping out the shoot in your mind?

[NikF]

Interesting. Why is it easier to shot it in the reverse order from the scenario ultimately depicted? You want to familiar yourself with the assets that the model has to offer before mapping out the shoot in your mind?

Yeah, sounds a cool gig when you put it that way. But I can't afford to leer. And I'll point out that in my country we have the option to have background checks made on employees if they're working with people who are considered vulnerable in some way - elderly, children, handicapped etc - with three levels of scrutiny. I paid for the enhanced version for myself and my assistant and some of the regular creatives we work with. It's not foolproof (and not cheap) but when agencies are sending you young models, you do all you can to cultivate not just a creative and productive environment, but also a comfortable and safe one. Still, a beautiful girl is a beautiful girl and I'm only human and so enjoy that beauty.

Okay, I'm just finishing an answer to your question about the "Why?" of working in reverse order. But first, I must eat!

[NikF]

There's a tl;dr

Why reverse order? There are a number of reasons. I'll provide examples, but it's important to remember I'm talking about the difference between a professional and an amateur. That's the biggest thing. Otherwise the reasons might sound trivial.

Also, I'm going to stick to the era and scenario the guy was writing a book about. Finally, I'll leave out details behind reasons for stuff that only a pro needs to concern themselves with - how the important question you'll ask a client is "First use? Or single use?" (not to be confused with similar terms referring to selling your image rights to a magazine or newspaper) regardless of the job being glamour photography, fine art, or commercial work photographing a bowl of soup for a menu. I'm trying to keep this brief. And already failing.

The pictorial llustrates a girl taking her clothes off. It's for a magazine. And we're shooting 4x5 or 5x7 or 8x10.

The day of the shoot and here's first thing you are shackled by - time and money. This isn't an afternoon pottering about taking photos, looking at the LCD/tethered to a computer and endlessly reviewing each shot, or sticking a Polaroid back on a 120 or 135 format camera. You need to get it right in camera. No excuses. Heh.

So the model goes into makeup. She has her face made up. But back then it was also commonplace to use body makeup. And that's one example of why you start with her naked and reverse the order of the photos in the published pictorial -

You can apply the body makeup fully and have no issues when she's putting a stocking on her foot and then along and up her leg to her thigh, and then place the shot in reverse order in the pictorial so it looks like she's taking the stocking off.
Or you can have her wearing the stocking and then makeup the bare skin above the stocking top, so that when she takes it off (as seen in the pictorial) you stop shooting, bring the MUA in to makeup the now exposed leg and make sure the tone and contouring etc match the top part of the leg that was made up earlier.

Obviously you choose the former. She's already made up from head to toe and all you're doing is covering it up, rather than exposing her thigh (or shoulders or chest or whatever) that's made up and then trying to match/contouring each newly revealed part.
That's one example.

Another example can almost be explained by saying "The next time a woman takes her clothes off in front of you, look more closely" Hahaha. But it's true. Remember, time and money. So you have two choices -

1) The model is wearing a dress or jeans or a skirt or whatever. She takes the dress off and she's down to her underwear. Even a perfectly fitted bra (and often on glamour or even fashion shoots, that's a rare luxury) when removed can leave red marks/impressions from the straps on her shoulders. Or if it's under wired, you'll find red crescents below her breasts where it's been cutting in. So what do you do? Every time she exposes something are you going to wait ten minutes or so for the marks to fade? Okay, the bra strap marks have faded. Then she removes her knickers and there's elastic marks. When those fade, maybe she's wearing fishnet stockings and when they're off her legs look like they have snakeskin scales and so you wait again. Her feet - look at a woman's feet when she takes off her heels. You going to wait until they gain their shape and form? Add all those delays up.

2) the model comes in, gets undressed, wears a lightweight and loose robe for 10 or 15 minutes so that when you're ready to shoot her skin blemishes are already gone. Then you shoot her getting dressed and run it in reverse order for the pictorial.


So that's just a couple of reasons. But keep in mind they need to be considered from a professional perspective, not an amateur who can afford to not meet the standard and consistency required. Nowadays, post is something like Photoshop. Back then, you would use an *ART (Adams Retouching Machine) or similar. In both cases, they can add more time/money to the budget and your client won't like that. But that's not a concern for the hobbyist.

tl;dr you shoot in reverse order to save time and money.


* we had one of those years ago. I never used it and can't remember if it was an actual Adams Retouching Machine or some generic version. Anyway, it vibrates in order aid the touching up process - and my boss swore he used to get models to sit on it. 

[Baron Scarpia]

Interesting. And the real goal, of course, is that the person viewing the pictures is never aware of those practicalities.

[NikF]

Interesting. And the real goal, of course, is that the person viewing the pictures is never aware of those practicalities.

You read all that? Cheers.
But yeah, that's it, help the viewer suspend disbelief, that's the point. And the thing is, once I learned to start thinking that way (more than 30 years ago) it lead to an added perspective, another tool in the box. And it extends further than stills photography. Sometimes I watch a scene in a film and I know it's less of the 'director's vision' and more of a decision made for practical reasons.

An aside: a John Wayne movie where he's fighting with some dude - an Indian brave? - in a river, amongst the rapids. He's holding the guy down, by the throat, trying to finish him off. But he can't do it. Then, he hears someone whistle, hailing him. He turns and sees on the river bank his friend who tosses a knife to him. We cut to Wayne, who in one movement grabs the knife out of the air and plunges it into the chest of his adversary, killing him dead. It's either that, or the take begins with Wayne holding a prop knife in his foes chest, then pulling it out and raising it above his head and tossing it backwards out the frame. Then for the movie edit it's reverse cranked to make it seem he's catching it and stabbing the guy. That's the way I learned to view stuff, kind of backward engineering.

Anyway, I've said enough. And I want to point out I'm not demeaning amateur photographers. It's more about how they - and all of us - probably don't know as much about stuff as we like to think.

[North Star]

I'm reminded of Columbo
"You take our friend here, the murderer. He's very smart, but he's an amateur. I mean, he's got just one time to learn. Just one. And with us cops, well – it's a business. We do this a hundred times a year. I'll tell ya, doc, that's a lot of practice."

[Baron Scarpia]

You read all that? Cheers.
But yeah, that's it, help the viewer suspend disbelief, that's the point. And the thing is, once I learned to start thinking that way (more than 30 years ago) it lead to an added perspective, another tool in the box. And it extends further than stills photography. Sometimes I watch a scene in a film and I know it's less of the 'director's vision' and more of a decision made for practical reasons.

An aside: a John Wayne movie where he's fighting with some dude - an Indian brave? - in a river, amongst the rapids. He's holding the guy down, by the throat, trying to finish him off. But he can't do it. Then, he hears someone whistle, hailing him. He turns and sees on the river bank his friend who tosses a knife to him. We cut to Wayne, who in one movement grabs the knife out of the air and plunges it into the chest of his adversary, killing him dead. It's either that, or the take begins with Wayne holding a prop knife in his foes chest, then pulling it out and raising it above his head and tossing it backwards out the frame. Then for the movie edit it's reverse cranked to make it seem he's catching it and stabbing the guy. That's the way I learned to view stuff, kind of backward engineering.

Anyway, I've said enough. And I want to point out I'm not demeaning amateur photographers. It's more about how they - and all of us - probably don't know as much about stuff as we like to think.

I tend to think it would be harder to reverse the scene and make it look natural, throwing the knife in a way that looks like catching it when reversed.  Plus the water would be going the wrong way. I suspect a simpler trick. The guy throws the knife out of the shot, and Wayne already has a knife in his hand when he "catches" it.

[NikF]

I tend to think it would be harder to reverse the scene and make it look natural, throwing the knife in a way that looks like catching it when reversed.  Plus the water would be going the wrong way. I suspect a simpler trick. The guy throws the knife out of the shot, and Wayne already has a knife in his hand when he "catches" it.

Yeah, you got it - that's the story board. I'm just too lazy to find a video clip of it. But it's something along the lines of -

Establishing shot
Two shot
Medium shot/MU
Close up/CU