|
|
|
First
stop, the back stairs, which gets the best light
of the house.
I
think I'll take this opportunity to interrupt
the running commentary to talk a little about
pacing.
|
|
By "pacing",
I'm thinking about how often do I host sittings. I've been
thinking about it for a while, because so far this year, I don't think
I'm getting it right.
Something I notice
if I don't host sittings often enough: the pictures are
typically not all that original. I guess that since I haven't
done any photography in a while, I tend to fall back on my old &
familiar habits.
The funny thing is
that the same thing happens when I host a sitting too
frequently. I tend to plan a sitting & most of its
setups/concepts in advance, and if I don't take the time to
"process" a sitting before the next one, I fall back on
those preplanned concepts (instead of developing new ones).
|
|
|
|
| Nice
light on those back stairs, huh? |
|
|
(More
on pacing).
So,
this year, I got the pacing all wrong. I'd
have a few sitting too quickly together,
followed by long periods with no sittings.
This sitting with Brooke was only 6 days after
the sitting with Yulia -- hence, here we are,
Brooke & I, wandering the house & trying
to utilize it, just like Yulia
suggested.
Don't
get me wrong -- I really liked the
semi-unplanned sitting with Yulia, and I really
like many of the images we made together.
I also like many of these images.
Now
here, Brooke & I get together, and in some
ways it's almost like the first time because we
hadn't seen each other for nearly two
years. So, I'm a little bothered that I
couldn't think of overly original concepts for
Brooke. |
|
("Pacing",
continued).
On the other hand,
usually just changing the model is enough of a different dynamic to
make the images significantly distinctive. Although I'm reusing
many of the same concepts here with Brooke that I did with Yulia, I
find the resulting images to be quite different. Both models are quite beautiful.
The difference is "chemistry",
which is difficult to define.
|
|
|
|
| Although
indefinable, an interesting aspect of "chemistry" is that it
varies from photographer-model to photographer-model. Meaning
that some photographers can make spectacular photographs of a model
while other photographers simply can't. With Brooke, I'm doubly
lucky -- I think we have good chemistry, and she certainly is quite
good looking. I like these photos a lot. |
|
|
Here's
an area of my house I don't think I've
shown before. This is my
office, in the finished attic
upstairs. The walls are
painted a rich dark green, and
there are two skylights that
puddle light under the right
circumstances. We use
that light.
|
|
Okay, the good
news: it's nice light on a stunning figure.
The bad news:
it's semi-soft oblique single source light source, where the off side
of the figure disappears into the shadow. To me, that's a bit of
a cliché and one that I don't particularly like.
I already know that
we'll not dwell too long in this spot. But before we move on,
here are a few more images.
|
|
|
|
We
move over to a favorite
alcove. Look -- you can
see the street
outside.
If
I recall, the weather was
slightly overcast that day
(overcast in Oregon -- who
would guess?). The
window light is quite soft
& lovely.
|
|
If I recall rightly,
it was a touch chilly during this sitting. Brooke uses this
lovely chenille throw to keep warm.
I have this posing
guideline: I don't like it when a limb is pointing towards the
lens -- it tends to make the limb look short & stubby. Look
at her (covered) left thigh -- it doesn't look quite in proportion,
does it?
Anyway, I ask
Brooke to lose the blanket & adjust her poses slightly.
|
|
|
|
See?
Does that make a difference?
That's
my typical sitting in
microcosm. I start with
some general concepts &
ideas, which usually involves
lighting, location, and rough
posing ideas. Then, we plop
down in that location, with
that light, and we work on
it. We make fine tuning
adjustments to the light,
angle, and poses.
I'm
not one of those photographers
who fine tunes a models pose
-- I usually don't tell the
model how to pose. I prefer that models move
naturally, and I'll select a
shape that they hit.
This pose is all Brooke.
I haven't told her to arch her
back or position her hands
just so -- this is how Brooke
moves.
Anyhow,
you typically will see 3-5
setups per sitting from me,
and several images from each
setup. Some are better
than others, and some of the
failures & near-misses are
more educational than the
successes.
|
|
(I've told this story
before) -- In contrast, I remember meeting Ruth
Bernhard (who turns 100 in October), an old master of classic fine
art photography. I asked her how many exposures she makes during
her typical photography sitting, and she said, "Just the
one".
Well, I suppose
that if I was working with an 8x10 view camera, I'd cut down on the
number of exposures I'd make, but in the meantime, I can't conceive of
reducing the number of exposures I make per sitting. Making this
many exposures is part of my process, I guess.
I am sensitive to
repeating myself -- I don't like thinking that I'm making the same
image over & over. Each image to should different from the
ones that preceded it. I've got to try new ideas, and when I run
out of ideas, it's time to do a different setup.
|
|
|
|
And,
see, when you let yourself
make many exposures during
a sitting, you have latitude
to experiment.
We
were using natural window
light, which wasn't all that
bright. That resulted in
fairly long exposure
times. So, I exaggerated
the effect, changing the
exposure to have a smaller aperture
with an even longer
exposure. With the
digital camera on its new
tripod, I had Brooke shake her
head, and I just made an
exposure that was purposely
blurred.
I
think a common trap for many
"art" photographers
is that they take themselves
too seriously. You've
got to shake things up a
little, and embrace the
occasional whimsy.
|
|
One last image before
we move on.
There's something
special about this image -- there's a more intense feeling to this
one.
And one final
point: I hate photographic clichés. Earlier on this page,
I talked about the single light source against a dark background cliché,
which is why I didn't stay under the skylight for long.
Another cliché is
the "nude model looking out the window" one -- we managed to
avoid that. I like that her attention remained inside the room,
and the eye contact in this image is very nice (at least, to
me).
|
|
|
| Okay,
I'm aware that I'm still working from
Yulia's suggestion, that we utilize
the house more. But at this
time, I'm somewhat stuck using window
light, which tends to mean
single-light source images. With
her classic figure, I'm tempted to
apply studio lighting techniques, so I
invite Brooke back to the
"studio" in the living
room.
This
sitting continues with Classic
Figure As Art
|
