Recent Professional Works

[Frank Doorhof]

Still great weather over here, so lots of outside sessions/workshops.
A few from this weekend.

[Dick Roadnight]

...and including people ...

.. so it doesn't look empty & deserted.
.. to add interest.
.. to draw the viewer's eye through the image.
.. to make a statement.
.. to give scale.
.. to indicate a level of service.
.. to make the place look more inviting.

.. to complete the Story - that you are trying to tell.

Those are just some of the reasons why we would include people in our images, when doing this type of thing.

I agree with everything you say, and I admire your work.

Do you normally do this kind of shot in a single shot?

I have been thinking of using hand-held battery flashes, combining several exposures with PS merge-add. (I only have 12 flashes)

[JoeKitchen]

Photographers have been doing it for years - long before digital.
Shooting with a digital system just means you have alternative choices to achieve the desired result... if it's needed.

Normally we would shoot the room first without people in it - then introduce them and then take it from there.
Do the same thing when shooting homes for magazine features... so as to give the Editors a choice.


Two to three lights is usually all you will ever need... but we would usually bring a lot more than that, just in case they are needed.
Better looking at it than looking for it - as the saying goes.
Same thing with cameras, lenses, props & everything else.

Ashley,

For your image sharp and in focus images, which almost all of them are, do you always use pro models when introducing people?

[CBarrett]

From a recent furniture shoot at the Grand Rapids Art Museum in Michigan. Available light, P65+, Rm3d. Great location!


That's right, I said "available light.". I know when to hold 'em. Then again the next day we used 14 strobe heads to light one chair.  It's all good fun, tho.

CB

[AlexM]

That's right, I said "available light.". I know when to hold 'em. Then again the next day we used 14 strobe heads to light one chair.  It's all good fun, tho.

CB

Wow, can you show us the chair that was lit with 14 heads? It's hard to imagine what you did with it

[fredjeang]

As in: when you can get away with it - which is part of the reason why you need to know who your target market is and what all the images are going to be used for - because you could easily make this image look very different by simply changing the light, to add drama or create mood.

It's why I would often say, the first question one needs to ask is: "who's the market ?" and / or "who's going to buy it ?".
Because there are more than 100 different ways to shoot any subject - and depending on which way one chooses to shoot it - that will, in some way or other, determine one's costs.. and ultimately affect the value of the images.

Which is why it's hard to put a price on what we do sometimes.

I saw the Renzo Piano website and I guess it depends on the arquitect or client. There are different styles of pics and lightnings in his portfolio imagery. Some are dramatics and contrasted, others aren't.
Renzo Piano seems to be open to "each project, one identity".

[CBarrett]

I've got a pretty good handle on my audience and for most of my work that means architects. With the heavy impact that green design, natural resources and the desire to bring available light to interior spaces have had on architecture... The moody, dramatic lighting style has become largely irrelevant... To my core audience.

CB

[fredjeang]

I've got a pretty good handle on my audience and for most of my work that means architects. With the heavy impact that green design, natural resources and the desire to bring available light to interior spaces have had on architecture... The moody, dramatic lighting style has become largely irrelevant... To my core audience.

CB

What's happening now with arquitecture is indeed very interesting from many points of view as you mentionned the tendency. I see it here too. Projects are getting more mature and exiting and the sensation to work on important concepts like environments, recycled materials etc...
I see a lot of creativity and potential more than ever here.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

From a recent furniture shoot at the Grand Rapids Art Museum in Michigan. Available light, P65+, Rm3d. Great location!

That's right, I said "available light.". I know when to hold 'em.

CB

This is a classic example of completely natural interior lighting. I like it, but sadly its rarely an available option especially in my local. They key behind this lighting is to have the light source (windows) come from the side and match in height the width of the room. So the space you were shooting was ideal, but make that room three times wider and those windows will not suffice. In fact, they will create a very concentrated light in one area of the room and leave the rest of the room dark.

Thanks Chris for bringing this, I almost forgot about this topic. That is one topic that I would love to see Ashley include in his workshop. When shooting an area with side windows, what to do if the width of the room far exceeds the height of the of the side windows (key light). Judging from his pictures he is managing this well.  

Then again the next day we used 14 strobe heads to light one chair.  It's all good fun, tho.

You used 14 lights to light the chair, or to light the chair plus its environment? Sounds amazing, but what is the goal of using so many lights?





Below is a picture with the same side lighting, the only difference is that the windows extend far in front of the place I was shooting, so in a sense they are also filling shadows in the scene. Hint you can see in the picture you posted the fist wood structure having a dark side shadow and the last structure having a very light side shadow. The scene in my picture would be in the same spot as the last structure in your picture.

Just for the record I don't like this style of furniture but its very popular here.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

The dark areas looks natural - filling in doesn't - IMO

Why are photographers (clients) so afraid of darkness ?

I find your comment very odd, because typically, people new to photography complain about cameras rendering shadows too dark. Could it be that you have been shooting for so long that you developed the opposite reaction (no pun intended) you perceive pictures with darker shadows more realistic?

Most people would find the second scene (fill) more natural including my self especially before I picked up photography as a hobby 4 years ago. I still remember very well being disappointed when I first photographed the forest. Trees cast deep black shadows that I never perceived in real life.

[Craig Lamson]

I've got a pretty good handle on my audience and for most of my work that means architects. With the heavy impact that green design, natural resources and the desire to bring available light to interior spaces have had on architecture... The moody, dramatic lighting style has become largely irrelevant... To my core audience.

CB

I'm seeing the request for drama lighting being reduced as well.  Actually I was getting tired of it.  I'm sure I'll get bored of this soon too   Everything is a cycle.

Last week....

[K.C.]

The dark areas looks natural - filling in doesn't - IMO

Why are photographers (clients) so afraid of darkness ?

With all due respect, that question tells me you probably haven't worked as a commercial photographer.

This is advertising we're talking about here.

Natural ?

No chance.

[MichaelEzra]

ZD + 80mm

[K.C.]

Somehow I like the atmosphere of the first shot better.

I like the dark ceiling and the overall contrast in the first image, second image seems a bit to artificial for my taste.

It seems like a parodox that the first image has a stronger presence of light, but it is the second one that has been lit.

BTW is it the building, or do your lens suffer from strong barrel distortion ?

Now you're confirming my point.

[Rob C]

They have always fascinated me too, Michael.

Were I a poet, life would have been much easier and I would have a site dedicated to such things. And at much less cost as well, I might add!

Love black and white.

Rob C

[Phil Indeblanc]

ZD + 80mm

Ahhh...Wow. Simply lovely!

By any chance do you keep the temp a little extra cool in the studio, or is that post?

Its that little detail that stirrs up the subconcious and makes me appreciate the piece more...Actually it helps me feel close or relate to the model, as its a reaction of sharing the same space and knowing how that feels,...It helps connects with reallity of being with the model...Beautiful shape.

well done!...now turn her over...HA! I kill me:-)

[fredjeang]

ZD + 80mm

Beautifull image! as always.

I have a question regarding the B&W rendering. As you work a lot in B&W and with the Mamiya, I guess you have worked both on film and digital.
I've read many times that B&W is still one of the things that do better film.

I've been tempted by the gigabite kind of film (although just available for 35mm) because I saw a big print in a gallery that really impressed me,
but I'm not sure if using back film for B&W is not more an hassle than a real interest. In the end I'm not deciding myself because it is changing the all chain.

What are your thoughts when comparing film and digital in black & white for fine arts prints?

Thank you.

[Rob C]

Beautifull image! as always.

I have a question regarding the B&W rendering. As you work a lot in B&W and with the Mamiya, I guess you have worked both on film and digital.
I've read many times that B&W is still one of the things that do better film.

I've been tempted by the gigabite kind of film (although just available for 35mm) because I saw a big print in a gallery that really impressed me,
but I'm not sure if using back film for B&W is not more an hassle than a real interest. In the end I'm not deciding myself because it is changing the all chain.

What are your thoughts when comparing film and digital in black & white for fine arts prints?

Thank you.

I'm not Michael, clearly enough, but having spent many years using black/white film, I must admit that converting Kodachrome to b/w is a revelation for skin, at least. Kodachrome is no longer an option, but using Ektachrome E100S also gave me very good b/w skin tones. The beauty of using transparencies as originals is this: you can see how good or otherwise the shot is on a lightbox, or even against a window which is not true with negatives at all (I could lie, but I'm afraid the truth is that I could never tell without making contacts, a pain in the ass); when you are making the camera exposure, you do so for the highlights and everything takes care of itself. Stuff all that nonsense about DR - it makes no damn difference with people shots because to light them well for colour transparency implies they are perfectly balanced for b/W, to say the least!

I understand others will think differently, but I see that as their problem, not mine.

Sadly, I have not shot people with digi at all (in the pro sense of doing it properly) so I can't give any realistic advice on that for either colour or b/w. But using digi and converting to b/w for landscape subjects works very well, so why shouldn't skin? All the b/w skin shots on my website come from colour transparency - I have no negatives left, other than the BB ones. You can make a direct comparison between a colour and b/w rendition of the same shot on the site because they are in the first gallery side by side, but the b/w is reversed left to right. In fact, it's an interesting example where the original Kodachrome is not filled at all and, I think, the b/w version takes it all in its stride to give a better image.

But you are speaking of art prints, so it strikes me that it might be better doing it all in-house if you are contemplating girls, which makes colour film at least a bit of a problem. In the end, I really wonder if there is much difference other than in granularity which can or can not be a help in creating atmosphere. It probably is all in the lighting and the rest just peripheral. I certainly wouldn't like to get back to using b/w film - a lot of work for not a lot of return.

The ideal might have been 120 tranny and dedicated film scanner, but the price... Keith travelled that road but with drum scans for many years and he says he wouldn't go back; perhaps if I had the opportunity of doing some serious people shots in digital then neither would I, but as I have not had that yet, perhaps the best advice would come from Cooter or someone else with both disciplines.

I await Michael E's thoughts, like you.

Rob C

[fredjeang]

I'm not Michael, clearly enough, but having spent many years using black/white film, I must admit that converting Kodachrome to b/w is a revelation for skin, at least. Kodachrome is no longer an option, but using Ektachrome E100S also gave me very good b/w skin tones. The beauty of using transparencies as originals is this: you can see how good or otherwise the shot is on a lightbox, or even against a window which is not true with negatives at all (I could lie, but I'm afraid the truth is that I could never tell without making contacts, a pain in the ass); when you are making the camera exposure, you do so for the highlights and everything takes care of itself. Stuff all that nonsense about DR - it makes no damn difference with people shots because to light them well for colour transparency implies they are perfectly balanced for b/W, to say the least!

I understand others will think differently, but I see that as their problem, not mine.

Sadly, I have not shot people with digi at all (in the pro sense of doing it properly) so I can't give any realistic advice on that for either colour or b/w. But using digi and converting to b/w for landscape subjects works very well, so why shouldn't skin? All the b/w skin shots on my website come from colour transparency - I have no negatives left, other than the BB ones. You can make a direct comparison between a colour and b/w rendition of the same shot on the site because they are in the first gallery side by side, but the b/w is reversed left to right. In fact, it's an interesting example where the original Kodachrome is not filled at all and, I think, the b/w version takes it all in its stride to give a better image.

But you are speaking of art prints, so it strikes me that it might be better doing it all in-house if you are contemplating girls, which makes colour film at least a bit of a problem. In the end, I really wonder if there is much difference other than in granularity which can or can not be a help in creating atmosphere. It probably is all in the lighting and the rest just peripheral. I certainly wouldn't like to get back to using b/w film - a lot of work for not a lot of return.

The ideal might have been 120 tranny and dedicated film scanner, but the price... Keith travelled that road but with drum scans for many years and he says he wouldn't go back; perhaps if I had the opportunity of doing some serious people shots in digital then neither would I, but as I have not had that yet, perhaps the best advice would come from Cooter or someone else with both disciplines.

I await Michael E's thoughts, like you.

Rob C

Thanks Rob, Ekta is an option that I thought.
Generally, when this topic shows-up, always comes into consideration the hassle and cost of shooting film again. Yes, perfectly understandable. But forgetting these 2 sides, strictly talking about rendering in Black and White for fine arts, I have serious doubts about digital being better than film. Saw a Rio Branco exhib in film, very big enlargements and it does not joke at all! The same I could say for Burtynsky etc...those are colors yes but why don't these top photographers do not work with digital equipment is a mystery.

[wolfnowl]

ZD + 80mm

Must be something wrong... her skin has texture!    

Mike.