The Model (now x 2)

[rogerxnz]

My camera club was invited to photograph a fashion parade. I thought I would try slow shutter speeds on with a hand-held 150mm lens and bounce flash.

Here's what I think is a lucky one.

What do you think?
Roger

PS Another shot but with a conventional background was posted below in reply #21.

[francois]

Roger,
I like it a lot but I'm not too sure about the slow shutter speed and processing. Did it bring something compared to a more standard exposure or was it just an experiment?
Please, note that I'm not a fashion photographer but I'm also wondering why you left the feet out of the frame. Doesn't it make the model look shorter than she is?

[Rob C]

Roger,
I like it a lot but I'm not too sure about the slow shutter speed and processing. Did it bring something compared to a more standard exposure or was it just an experiment?
Please, note that I'm not a fashion photographer but I'm also wondering why you left the feet out of the frame. Doesn't it make the model look shorter than she is?

Two possible causes come to mind: it was shot using a rangefinder; her tits still look young and so it really didn't matter.

Coldly put, I'm surprised you looked that far down. Get with the biological programme!

;-)

Rob

[Otto Phocus]

Do most fashion models have that zombie "walking dead" look?   

[stamper]

Do most fashion models have that zombie "walking dead" look?   

IMO they do. They all seem to strut in the same manner. I am still trying to make up my mind about the merits of the image.

[Otto Phocus]

I know that the model is a mannequin and should not do anything that would distract attention from the outfit.  So I can understand why these fashion models don't have huge smiles like other models, but to go to the other extreme and have a zombie?  Yikes!

An outfit to die for evidently. 

As for the photograph, it is a bit over processed for my liking.  But if that was the effect the photographer was going for, they did a good job.

To the OP, I understand why you wanted to diminish the appearance of the people in the background. Often we are stuck with the background we have and not the background we want.  Could you please explain why you chose this specific way of handing the background people?

Personally, I find my attention being drawn to the background because of the effects.

[francois]

…
Coldly put, I'm surprised you looked that far down. Get with the biological programme!
…

Me too! 

[RSL]

How slow was the shutter speed? Obviously you were on rear curtain, but I don't see much movement in the over-processed background crowd, nor do I see background blur behind the sharp image of the model. What I see is a pissed-off looking girl in a skimpy top and a ridiculous bottom in front of a background that looks like a B&W negative.

[Jeremy Roussak]

How slow was the shutter speed? Obviously you were on rear curtain, but I don't see much movement in the over-processed background crowd, nor do I see background blur behind the sharp image of the model. What I see is a pissed-off looking girl in a skimpy top and a ridiculous bottom in front of a background that looks like a B&W negative.

Reminds me more of a colour negative, but otherwise I'm with you, Russ.

Jeremy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

May I suggest a crop?

[RSL]

Reminds me more of a colour negative, but otherwise I'm with you, Russ.

Jeremy

Yeah, you're right, Jeremy. Mea culpa. What I can't figure out is the lack of any contribution from light other than the flash.

[RSL]

Well, I shouldn't have said that either. The metadata is gone from the image, so I'll have to guess that Roger has his shutter speed at about the max for flash. That would account for the lack of a halo and background movement.

[Kevin Gallagher]

May I suggest a crop?

 Slobodan, you naughty boy..tsk tsk tsk 

[rogerxnz]

Thank you, François, for your comments and sorry for the late reply.

I wanted less of a record shot and more of a differently looking, "artistic" image.

I can't say that I deliberately left the feet out but I consider, doing so, means more interesting aspects are emphasised.
Roger

Roger,
I like it a lot but I'm not too sure about the slow shutter speed and processing. Did it bring something compared to a more standard exposure or was it just an experiment?
Please, note that I'm not a fashion photographer but I'm also wondering why you left the feet out of the frame. Doesn't it make the model look shorter than she is?

[rogerxnz]

Actually shot with an H2 but I agree it is hard to ignore our instincts!
R

Two possible causes come to mind: it was shot using a rangefinder; her tits still look young and so it really didn't matter.

Coldly put, I'm surprised you looked that far down. Get with the biological programme!

;-)

Rob

[rogerxnz]

I processed the image to avoid a record shot, to get an artistic effect and (wait for it) to get some negative space!

I agree the negative processing is attractive but I hope the model is more attractive.
R

To the OP, I understand why you wanted to diminish the appearance of the people in the background. Often we are stuck with the background we have and not the background we want.  Could you please explain why you chose this specific way of handing the background people?

Personally, I find my attention being drawn to the background because of the effects.

[rogerxnz]

I was on 1/80 with a H150mm lens. I used bounced flash. The result is very smooth skin tones. I wasn't after lots of blur.

I'm not responsible for the outfit!

Think of the background as negative space. It works for me!
R

How slow was the shutter speed? Obviously you were on rear curtain, but I don't see much movement in the over-processed background crowd, nor do I see background blur behind the sharp image of the model. What I see is a pissed-off looking girl in a skimpy top and a ridiculous bottom in front of a background that looks like a B&W negative.

[rogerxnz]

If that's all you can see in the image . . .

May I suggest a crop?

[GrahamBy]

Ok, it's not just about bounce flash: the background has been transformed into colour negative. It's an interesting idea, but it immediately created a distracting edge effect where the model has been lifted out and pasted back, to save her from being negatived.

Second thing: the point of bounce flash is to avoid looking like there was on-camera flash. But the reflections in her eyes and off her cheek bones still say "on camera flash". What happened? What was the flash meant to bounce off?

Was there any designed lighting? Ie spots, floods etc set up by a lighting designer? There is something to be said for capturing the look the lighting designer has tried for, rather than fighting against it. The result may not be "easy" or conventional (strong shadows, false colours etc), but it will look like what it was. That will at least be more interesting that the rather bland look the model has here But maybe you only had shopping centre commercial ceiling lighting?

If I were pompous enough to give advice (obviously I am, but up to you to treat it seriously or not), it would be to take your flash and stuff it way down the bottom of a bag where it is hard to access, then bring it out only where it's really necessary (ie 6400+ ISO and image stabilisation and f/2.8 are not doing it, or you have only the dreaded ceiling neons).

[rogerxnz]

Thank you, Gaham
I used an old Metz potato masher unit on a bracket. The head was pointing up into a 45º Lumiquest bounce adapter. I wanted the negative effect to reduce the (dark) impact of the rest of the people in the background.

The Lumiquest adapter is fairly small and that probably caused the catchlights in the eyes. There was not much ambient lighting and my sensor unit (IQ180) is a CCD one and cannot be used above 200 ISO, IMO. There was no designer lighting.

All the "effects" you noticed are caused by the slow shutter speed. I was trying to get an impression because I knew I had to use flash and I did not want a boring record shot.
R

Ok, it's not just about bounce flash: the background has been transformed into colour negative. It's an interesting idea, but it immediately created a distracting edge effect where the model has been lifted out and pasted back, to save her from being negatived.

Second thing: the point of bounce flash is to avoid looking like there was on-camera flash. But the reflections in her eyes and off her cheek bones still say "on camera flash". What happened? What was the flash meant to bounce off?

Was there any designed lighting? Ie spots, floods etc set up by a lighting designer? There is something to be said for capturing the look the lighting designer has tried for, rather than fighting against it. The result may not be "easy" or conventional (strong shadows, false colours etc), but it will look like what it was. That will at least be more interesting that the rather bland look the model has here But maybe you only had shopping centre commercial ceiling lighting?

If I were pompous enough to give advice (obviously I am, but up to you to treat it seriously or not), it would be to take your flash and stuff it way down the bottom of a bag where it is hard to access, then bring it out only where it's really necessary (ie 6400+ ISO and image stabilisation and f/2.8 are not doing it, or you have only the dreaded ceiling neons).