Recent Professional Works

[K.C.]

Those are just some of the things you need to think about & work-out Abdulrahman - because there are more than 100 different ways to shoot any subject.
It's the difference between taking a picture and creating an image... for others to use.

Somewhere around here I still have the Sinar film holders that kept my film perfectly flat so I could do in-camera masking and create composite shots long before digital made it a piece of cake. Those were the days.

The only carry over is keeping that 20lb sand bag on the Gitzo and brightly marking off the legs at the floor so nobody trips over them and moves the camera.

[Craig Lamson]

No the 6th is the last floor. I can probably shoot the first room from the fifth floor too without loosing too much sea view. This way there would be one floor on top, but what is the reason you ask?

By the way, looking at your picture again I have to wonder did you shoot the main exposure standing there holding the stand and light and then shot the windows clear and pasted that in top of the main exposure?  Is that why you are in the picture in the first place, or was it a quick test before going placing the stand and light?




Ok, so you shoot the center area empty and the shoot the left area and on until you have all sections empty. Later you paste them together, very practical provided the camera does not move.

Like Ashley says...think outside the box.  Digital makes so many thing possible and easy to do...

take 4, make 1

[K.C.]

Craig I was going to post your 4 into 1 tutorial but thought I should wait and see if you did.  I think it's great that you share this information.

I've never had the tight quarters of a trailer or a boat like you work in but have used similar techniques for years.

[haefnerphoto]

I've had some spare time the last few weeks and have been working on the next edition of my book, Rare and Exquisite: Vehicles of Distinction.  Here's a 1931 Bentley that I shot recently, the background came from film shot in the mid 90's both in Louisiana and North Carolina (rock wall).  Also, the interiors Ashley has been posting are phenomenal, each one more incredible then the last!  Jim
[attachment=22578:1931_Ben...056_dc5b.jpg]

[PHOTO ZARA]

I've had some spare time the last few weeks and have been working on the next edition of my book, Rare and Exquisite: Vehicles of Distinction.  Here's a 1931 Bentley that I shot recently, the background came from film shot in the mid 90's both in Louisiana and North Carolina (rock wall).  Also, the interiors Ashley has been posting are phenomenal, each one more incredible then the last!  Jim
[attachment=22578:1931_Ben...056_dc5b.jpg]

BEAUTIFUL

[Craig Lamson]

Craig I was going to post your 4 into 1 tutorial but thought I should wait and see if you did.  I think it's great that you share this information.

I've never had the tight quarters of a trailer or a boat like you work in but have used similar techniques for years.

Its nothing new, and I'm glad to share.  I often use this to spot a small section or item to give it a bit of pop where I can't with one shot light, like Ashley has suggested for the bed.  Worse case for me is that tight spaces can make it really hard to NOT bump the camera.  I've savaged a few, not impossible but more work to be sure.

The food on the table was dying in this shot, so I added a 200w pepper, which you could see in the scene on the right and took another frame.  The table top was added to the original photo in post.

This process can work for anything that does not move.  I'm sure Jim has used it many times in his auto photos to get a frame of just a logo, like the Chevy bowtie, wheels and tires, grills etc.

[Craig Lamson]

I've had some spare time the last few weeks and have been working on the next edition of my book, Rare and Exquisite: Vehicles of Distinction.  Here's a 1931 Bentley that I shot recently, the background came from film shot in the mid 90's both in Louisiana and North Carolina (rock wall).  Also, the interiors Ashley has been posting are phenomenal, each one more incredible then the last!  Jim
[attachment=22578:1931_Ben...056_dc5b.jpg]

That background plate is a great fit with the car, nice work.

[Dick Roadnight]

Like Ashley says...think outside the box.  Digital makes so many thing possible and easy to do...

This is what I like about digital... it give you the tools to be creative.

[bcooter]

This is what I like about digital... it give you the tools to be creative.

Whether we get it in one shot or multiple images it still takes creativity and vision.

The issue of digital is we now manipulate everything and to the point that a lot of humanity and realism is washed off the image.

You really do get the impression of Henri Cartier-Bresson was shooting today, somebody would be standing behind him asking, "can we see that image on the computer, because I don't think there is room to strip the Eiffel Tower behind the people".

The second issue of digital is there is usually a lot less payout to the photographer for putting an image together in post rather than on set in one shot.

Don't get me wrong, the toothpaste is all over the bathroom mirror and it won't go back in the tube, but from the moment I saw photoshop I knew the days of shooting singular non manipulated imagery would be over.

Take Jim's shot of the car.  I like the shot, it's nice, very professional but I think Jim knows as well as anyone that had the budget and the time been available, taking the car to the location, lighting it, moving it, just driving it through that spot would probably make a much  ore compelling image.

(This is not a knock on Jim's work as I like his work and believe he is talented) and I'm not a car photographer, so I'm speaking of a genre I know little about, but still I think the talent and effort on the day did/should be more important than the talent in post.  Sometimes they go hand in hand quite well, but usually too much post, looks like too much post.

This is one of my favorite images.  

[attachment=22584:magicsmall.jpg]

I originally shot it during a location scout to pitch a client in partnership with a creative director and ad agency.  I went to the venue to shoot a few stills to set the tone and when I realized what was there I  put the camera on 10fps and started shooting a sort of hybrid still video shoot.  I saw it as still, but shot it to move.  Then we went back and added what was needed to complete the story, but by then the project had become personal and I didn't want to pitch it as a pure commercial project so I left it alone.

http://ishotit.com/magic/

Now I'll admit since I shot it and edited it, I'm very biased about this imagery, but had it been a commercial project, it would have looked way different and in my view would have lost a lot of the believability.  The cigarette would never have been in the shot, the driver would have been replaced through a casting call of "people that look like race car drivers", the background would have probably been cgi with a mountain, a river, a stream and three doves flying overhead.

Maybe that's one of the things I like about motion.  Obviously it still can be manipulated, but major manipulation in post is very expensive and something as simple as a piece of trash on the ground, or a blown out window scene can take a lot of after the shoot effort to correct.

Also major hollywood style manipulation in post always reminds me of those Will Smith movies where  LA or NY get blowd' up only to move to an ending scene where the main characters walk hand and hand through a lush field of golden sunlight and natural love and prosperity.

Now being a commercial photographer this may sound strange, but I think that we need more believability in imagery not less.   I don't mean to say that Ashley's photo of the hotel bedroom isn't nice, but I know if I rented that room expecting to see Lake Como and instead the view was pushed  up against a block of row flats, I'd ask the manager for a discount, all the while waving that photo in his face.

Well, maybe not, because by the time we get into the hotel room it's usually dark and I'm too tired to care what's out the window anyway.

IMO.

BC

[haefnerphoto]

Guys, There's no doubt that a well conceived and executed photograph is what makes our world go round, though how we get there has certainly changed!  Having spent years scouring the country for great locations I know that what makes a great image can be the little things that happen quite by accident, the thunderstorm followed by beautiful sunlight or a dusting of snow that wasn't in the layout.  In a business where you're as good as your last shot, lucky accidents don't pay the bills, consistent excellence does.  It's a tall order, some jobs get written off as not worthy, for others there are logistical problems but anticipating all the variables that can add up to creating a great image and pulling it off still makes my day.  I'm primarily speaking of location work, studio work (product) is the absence of variables and lucky accidents (although they can occasionally occur).  So now you're wondering where is he going with this.  My point is that the current method of working digitally allows for more variations in lighting, composing, views, lenses, etc with the ultimate result being an image that wonderfully communicates your intentions (Idea or Concept)!!  We are so much freer to make changes, explore, test, compare, then revisit, all with instant input.  How can we not make a better picture?  All it takes is an idea.  We're professionals, at best (usually rarely) do we create significant images (art) but we still try too, everytime I approach an assignment it's in the back of my mind (or front) to take it a step further, somehow make it transcend the subject matter.  I don't think everything I show here does that but I'm still happy with the result or I wouldn't include it in this thread, believe me there's plenty of images I create that don't even come close.  Keep in mind, I shoot products, there's not much interaction with the subject as James has with the people he shoots.  I don't think there's as great of a chance of the realism disappearing in the post processing as there would be with fashion, people, etc.  I do think there's more retouching in these areas then I'd like to see though but that's just a personal preference.  Anyways, I'm losing my focus here but I'd like to add that this forum has been of tremendous interest to me.  There's been lots of incredible work, excellent ideas and even resolved technical issues that have greatly added to my photographic experience.  Thanks for participating!  Jim

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Take Jim's shot of the car.  I like the shot, it's nice, very professional but I think Jim knows as well as anyone that had the budget and the time been available, taking the car to the location, lighting it, moving it, just driving it through that spot would probably make a much  ore compelling image.



IMO.

BC

I agree with what you say especially about doing on location versus manipulating different elements. Without knowing or thinking about it I find work that was done in one shot more appealing. When realism is combined with creativity it creates stunning results, versus only creativity in the form of manipulation, etc. This also applies to my work where I usually see people reacting more favorably to my single shots than manipulated images.

Take the shot below for example. It was shot with 9 gelled flashes on set all hidden except for the back one which I liked the way it appeared in the final picture so I never edited it out. People react to this picture more favorably versus the bedrooms, so much so that they don't even notice the distracting reflection on the glass and burned details in the candle cover. Maybe that is because they like the way the place looks more, but I also get a sense that they can relate to that place more because it looks more real, hence the lighting is more natural and seamless.  

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Like Ashley says...think outside the box.  Digital makes so many thing possible and easy to do...

take 4, make 1

Craig,


Thanks for posting your lighting technique that is very kind of you. I want to make a small point relating to this lighting technique and please don't take it as a personal attack, because it's just a personal observation.

When I checked your portfolio several months ago I liked your photography, composition, styling, etc, but did not like the lighting on some pictures. I wasn't sure why but it felt like the lighting was over done or unnatural or something, but I could not point my finger to the cause. Interior lighting was very challenging to me back then especially that I was just starting out.

Now as I revisit your portfolio with more experience and the knowledge of the technique you kindly shared with us it is more clear to me why the lighting looks that way. Given difficult circumstances this lighting is probably better than the available ceiling mounted lighting, but the results reinforce the point that manipulating lighting using several shots does not produce the same impact as single shot light or "natural simulated lighting". This applies to my two bedroom photos too especially the top one.

That being said I think I can benefit from your lighting technique on many occasions.

[Rob C]

A problem with threads like this one is the one of personality. It's difficult to see something as does another and even more difficult to comment without giving offence in such hallowed territory.

BC has come up with what I see as key:

"The issue of digital is we now manipulate everything and to the point that a lot of humanity and realism is washed off the image."

This not only affects the way any picture looks, but also the way, I believe, in which it's made and in what it says about the photographer.

Take the Bentley shot: great in any man's language, but think about something else: all of Jim's published shots look great and that, in its own way, mitigates against the shock or surprise of any single one. Is that self-defeating? Would it be better were nature the arbiter of what's going to soar with the eagles whilst the rest maybe can waddle around with the other ducks? An ordinary duck is still beautiful. I don't know; perhaps too much excellence is its own sedative.

Turn the spotlight onto BC's work. Look at the site and it also shows you beautiful pics that can't really be faulted in any way at all. But how does that contribute to the overall feeling when visiting the site? Again, it gives off the vibe of a very accomplished photographic team, but does the photographer's personality come shining through or only that of the team? Yes, it's a commercial offer, and that's what's being bought by Mr Client, and how else could it be, but I think that by the time people are together on this thread they are not selling 'team' or anything else, they are expressing how they feel about the photography in their lives.

So in the case of the two stars above, it becomes difficult to separate the mind of the man from the effect of the team. I would dearly love to know where the individual's soul might lie in all that excellent work. Obviously, it's there as each is the guy with the camera, but would it have been easier to see in a non-digi guru world? Would the photographer shine through rather than the team? Would the art have scored over the pyrotechnics? Or are the fireworks the art?

Rob C

[fredjeang]

I liked the BC and Rob's posts.
Many parameters are involved in your statements and I would like to add my thoughts on the matter.

What is the main difference between what Avedon was doing and what B.C is doing? Nothing in my understanding except the level of PP allowed.
But like it has been pointed, it does not mean because it is possible that the shot not has to be done before the PP stage, with proper lightning and technique.
Avedon was also working with a team and the wet-room guy and printer where very important at that time.

Photoshop has just brought on the table a more systematic and efficient way to acheive a task that existed before. Like the war weapons are indeed more sofisticated, but the all game is no different. They have just powered and refined the art of killing. Photoshop boosted the image manipulation that existed before, actually if you remember the very first versions it was first based on the analogic task of retouching with the same lexicon.

But it has also transformed radically photography that has now its painter tool. This maybe is the sign of maturity. Painting exists from a very long time, photography does not.
Photoshop is simply a trap if you think as a traditional photographer and in that sense it is very important not falling into the trap of loosing the instant, or instantaneous wich is the essence. But if you think photography as just a medium support, then photoshop brings you the paintors tools. And this is not instant any more but a long process that is exactly similar to the painting approach. And everybody knows that painters are generally starving...

In the moment that you add a single light, it is painting the scenery, it is trick. You are just manipulating like the magician does.
In the moment that you are not out with the Leica with what is available and nothing more, you loose the instant.
In the moment there is a make-up artist, this can not be instataneous.

The problem of the image, is that it has not all the senses the reality brings. Smells, air, touch but just light in 2 dimensions. So an image of a fashion shot, a car or a building made with no artificiality will simply appears boring. And the only way that is not boring is to catch this special moment, but that is impossible to predict so artificiality is needed in order to compensate. But you have the control on the amount of tricks, I mean the balance between controled and uncontroled parameters.

For an image to be great, it has to have both and just one failure in one or another will have consequences. Too controled would not work but too uncertain neither. Give freedom to the unexpected, but drive the boat. You can not decide of the waves, of the wind, but you can decide how to handle the conditions.
That is all the freedom we do have.

But look, just take Frank and James, because they are into the same kind of imagery. I can see a clear style in both, and this style is consistent and permanent. Their approach of color, contrast, lightning etc...is just different. So photoshop has not killed the personal style. I guess, if B.C was painting and Frank was painting the same subject, the pictures will not look similar. The post production involved can never be unlinked to the style.

You can miss the spotaneous but you can not miss the style, because personal style is like your shade. It goes always with you whatever you do and wherever you go.

So, what about this new jpegs that will not be manipulable in order to regain the truth of the news? but the reality is that such truth has never existed.

Maybe what you guys need, is having always with you a kind of little digital Leica that fits in the pocket. After all these cables, lightnings, retouching etc..just keeping contact with the essence, in your pocket so it is always with you. That is what I'm doing and I noticed that I do better picks since I have my street pocket cam always with me.

[Jonny Gawler]

Boru's Porterhouse[/url] bar in Limerick:

quick question for mr morrison... i know this isn't why you've put this image on here but it illustrates something i've been wondering especially now i've seen a few examples of what you produce:

you seem to have a very consistent "look" across your work as far as perspective is concerned, it seems to me a more "normal" perspective than some interiors/arch work and (at least for this know-nothing, ie me) that adds a lot to the success/strength of the image. is that deliberate? do you go for as "normal" a lens as possible, or think of it more as only going as wide as you need and no wider?

also can i ask (because i know each image is a lot of work) do you shoot options for anticipated size of use? for example this one seems like it would look amazing for a poster or a spread but less so across two columns or 400px wide on the web... or is it a case of designing-in cropping potential?

[SecondFocus]

Very Cool!

I've had some spare time the last few weeks and have been working on the next edition of my book, Rare and Exquisite: Vehicles of Distinction.  Here's a 1931 Bentley that I shot recently, the background came from film shot in the mid 90's both in Louisiana and North Carolina (rock wall).  Also, the interiors Ashley has been posting are phenomenal, each one more incredible then the last!  Jim
[attachment=22578:1931_Ben...056_dc5b.jpg]

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Yes - to me it's about framing the image and only showing the viewer what you want them to see, in the way that you want them to see it.
So in the above image, for example, I use a 50mm lens to compress the image slightly - after having tried wider lenses first.

Are you using a 50mm lens with a 35mm or MF camera?

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Consider thinking outside of the box Abdulrahman..

... a 3K out the window will usually do the trick.

The final image produced for Doonbeg Golf & Spa Resort in Co Clare.

lol i just noticed you replaced the previous picture with this one. This picture clearly shows what you did. I also like the way the lady next to you is smiling, like she knows you are pulling off one heck of a trick.  Thanks for posting!

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,


Thanks for posting your lighting technique that is very kind of you. I want to make a small point relating to this lighting technique and please don't take it as a personal attack, because it's just a personal observation.

When I checked your portfolio several months ago I liked your photography, composition, styling, etc, but did not like the lighting on some pictures. I wasn't sure why but it felt like the lighting was over done or unnatural or something, but I could not point my finger to the cause. Interior lighting was very challenging to me back then especially that I was just starting out.

Now as I revisit your portfolio with more experience and the knowledge of the technique you kindly shared with us it is more clear to me why the lighting looks that way. Given difficult circumstances this lighting is probably better than the available ceiling mounted lighting, but the results reinforce the point that manipulating lighting using several shots does not produce the same impact as single shot light or "natural simulated lighting". This applies to my two bedroom photos too especially the top one.

That being said I think I can benefit from your lighting technique on many occasions.

Thanks for your comments.

It's really interesting, but my online portfolio only contains two images created using the lighting I outlined in my tutorial.  All the rest of the marine/rv interiors were shot using one shot lighing, with exception of a few where spot enhancement was used.  Far and away the bulk were exposed in a single capture.

I guess it really boils down to what you expect from your images and what your client expects.  My clients, for the most part want every detail of every fabric selection, every wood selection, every carpet selection etc. shown as clearly as possible. Why?  Because they use the photos as sales tools in addition to trying to set a mood in a brochure.  For the most part the dealers in the field many not stock each and every model and color combination.  Nor will the dealership sales personel have any real product knowlege.  So you try and balance the real and surreal, the "natural" and un-natural, the art and the need for maximum detail.  As Ashley likes to say, its all about producing a photo the client wants to use.

There is also the consideration that you know you will be shooting this same product with a  few minor changes again EACH year.  These are model year products.  Everything I shot last year is currently headed for the trash heap.  We are working on the photos for THIS model year now.  So what happens quite frankly is you get bored, so you look for a new look,  One year it might be strong window light and hard shadows, the next soft and open.  You need to remember I ( and my competiton) shoot these products form many different companies each year, and for the most part a product from one company looks pretty much like the product from another.

I know you like natural, and thats fine.  However what is natural when you are given a rolling box inside a dark studio or factory?  

This is natural, what would you do?  (I don't generally keep the working shots for a unit, this is the only one I could find)

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

I guess it really boils down to what you expect from your images and what your client expects. My clients, for the most part want every detail of every fabric selection, every wood selection, every carpet selection etc. shown as clearly as possible. Why? Because they use the photos as sales tools in addition to trying to set a mood in a brochure.

Sometimes customers force you to make less pretty pictures because of their product specification requirements. Hotels are notorious for this, they design the space like an animal cage and ask you to include everything in the room, all the while forgeting there is no place for you, camera, and lights.  

There is also the consideration that you know you will be shooting this same product with a  few minor changes again EACH year.  These are model year products.  Everything I shot last year is currently headed for the trash heap.  We are working on the photos for THIS model year now.  So what happens quite frankly is you get bored, so you look for a new look,  One year it might be strong window light and hard shadows, the next soft and open.  You need to remember I ( and my competiton) shoot these products form many different companies each year, and for the most part a product from one company looks pretty much like the product from another.

This is very true, making changes to your lighting style can give a fresh look to the same product.

I know you like natural, and thats fine.  However what is natural when you are given a rolling box inside a dark studio or factory?

Those are difficult circumstances and you are certainly wise to make the best you can with that lighting technique.  

This is natural, what would you do?  (I don't generally keep the working shots for a unit, this is the only one I could find)

I don't know, lol!

Actually if you shine a light from the outside through the window and build the rest of the light around it will that work?

Do you have the final picture of this space to show us?

I had a similar request from a customer two days ago (pilgrimage space in Makah) and I thought about your technique because there were no windows and the space is super tight.