Beauty Portrait

A couple of weeks ago, I did a test shoot with some friends of mine. The approach for the shoot, despite being in a very familiar environment (my apartment), was different. The portion I had spent most of time my pre-visualizing was the portrait of Kim, the female subject. The aim was a beauty portrait. I do not normally do beauty. Bluntly speaking, for me, photographing female subjects is very difficult, much harder than photographing male subjects. Although some of the challenge can be attributed to a number of items, I think much of it is due to the society and the well defined parameters it has set for what should and should not be seen as "beautiful." It sounds cold, I know. I do believe in the mantra of everyone being beautiful in their own way. But at the same time, no one can fully deny that mainstream media has not shaped our perception of what is attractive to the human eye. Clothes, hair styles, make up, the human body. It's all included in the list. But what is even more interesting is how this affects self-perception. As a result, people, women especially, spend more time criticizing themselves than complimenting. From a photographer's standpoint, these societal pressures create a bit of a challenge. 

Onward...

The second big difference coming into this test shoot was my mental approach. A few months ago, I dove headfirst into the realm of film photography and put myself on digital hiatus, during which I learned two main lessons. The first was being more critical of what was in my frame. I started a "Project 120" on my Facebook page not only to share the images I had captured, but to force myself to post images I had not framed perfectly. The goal was to learn how to frame the hard way, which meant learning through failure and posting those imperfections, not as punishment, but rather as a method of reinforcement. In practice, it simply forced me to be more aware as I shot.

The second lesson I learned was to shoot at a slower pace, which compliments the first. Having to physically wind the film after a shot forces one to recompose and refocus, assuming the camera is hand held and not on a tripod. I lugged along my film camera on my rock climbing trips and asked a few of my buddies to let me take their portraits. They were gracious enough and let me harass them for 3 minutes in front of their peers (thanks guys!). One frame in 3 minutes. Not exactly snapping away. Each portrait had a slower pace than with my DSLR and in a way, it helped the portrait come together because the subject assumed the process would take longer than with digital, thus allowing more time for me to compose and, more importantly, for the subject to relax and simply be themselves.

Fast forward to two weeks ago. I wanted to do a studio-type portrait session again with my digital set up along with my strobes. I wanted to see what impact going on digital LOA had done for me.

Here's the set up I had pre-conceptualized:

Diagram of the set up

The set up was meant for the female subject. The overall feel I wanted was a comfort, "at home" type of beauty portrait. I asked Kim to bring clothes she felt comfortable in and were somewhat revealing but still PG-13. As for the lights, I used a large octabank on my main light and a beauty dish on the back light. The purpose of the backlight was to simulate sunshine coming through the window, which is what my subject's back was against (not shown above). Why not use real sunlight? Well, it was winter time in Seattle. That should be enough to tell you why I could not rely on the sun to make an appearance. But despite (or in spite of) my cruel assumptions, the sun DID show up and it came full force. There wan't a single cloud in the sky. Here's an ambient light shot at f/11, ISO 100 at max sync speed WITH a 2 stop ND filter:

Snapshot of the ambient light at (an effective) f/22, ISO 100.

I originally planned to shoot at a wider aperture, but quickly realized that wasn't going to happen. The space in my apartment is less than ideal as a portrait studio, but I can make things happen if lights and props are positioned strategically around, almost like cramming one last object into a full closet and then quickly closing the door before it all comes tumbling down. I had set up the lights and rearranged my apartment furnishings to make the shot work at a specific shooting angle. But with the unexpected appearance of the sun, the shot now involved really intense flare that I could not frame out without compromising my composition. 

I decided to turn the negative into a positive and utilized the sun as a third light. I metered my lights in such a way that the sun was now a second kicker. The new orientation for my subject still involved the window but instead of her laying comfortably on the couch, I had her sit up on the window sill. I used a piece of white tulle I had leftover from another shoot to help diffuse the harsh sunlight that was blasting through the window (seen above). It also helped blur out the unsightly building behind her. 

Diagram of final set up

Shooting film changed the way I shot this session. Simply comparing how many frames I took in this session (about 50 including test shots) compared to what I did a year ago (over 200) was pretty revealing. I felt more at ease and spent more time communicating with my subject instead of on the back of my camera. Always a plus. Below is the final shot. It's not going to win awards, but I believe it is a step in the right direction and I think I am finally starting to find my "style" (more on this in a future post). Keep scrolling for more shots.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

...and a fun behind-the-scenes shot!  

Keep Shooting

Photographing Paint

Inspired by the work of Alberto Seveso, a graphic designer and illustrator in Italy, I decided to recreate his photographs of "ink in water," which he has called a Due Colori. At face value, the concept of photographing ink or paint in water seemed simple. Throw paint in water and press the shutter button. But as I began the process and produced my first images, I quickly learned getting from point A to Z was going to require a bit more finessing and (more importantly) a lot of patience.

My first set up was fairly simple. I began by gathering the bare essentials: a clear container to hold water, the paint, a background, a light and of course the camera/tripod. I had most of the items I needed already. I started off using a round glass pitcher, but ended up having the purchase a square glass fish tank (see below for explanation). The only items I had to purchase for my first set of shots were a background and the ink/paint. Off I went to the local art store! For the background, I grabbed a small piece of white foam core board for roughly $5. I love foam core board. It's such a great material for portrait backgrounds and if you're artistic enough, you can paint on your own background. I prefer to use solid/uniform backgrounds (sorry tangent).

Anyways, for the ink/paint, I chose to use acrylic paint. When I researched this, I found that others have used cream and food dye. Some have tried dye alone, but the examples I saw for this were not what I wanted. The cream and dye was a possibility, but I didn't want to mess with more ingredients/steps than necessary, so I spent a little more money for the paint. As a side note regarding paint, please be sure to research what you can and cannot pour down your sink and into the sewage system. I learned a lot from talking with the one of the employees at the art store. 

Below is an artistic rendering of the first set up I ended up with:

Diagram of the set up used to photograph paint in water.

View fullsize

For the set up, I used two flashes. Flash A had a soft box on it and acted as my main light. The second flash (B) popped my background to white. The image to the right is an unedited photo from my initial set up.

As you can see, I was immediately running into problems. It was during this shoot that I began to really appreciate product photography. Every detail counted. The above shot was good, but it was still far from what I wanted as a final image. There were bubbles in the frame, which I constantly ran into in all of my attempts. The edges of the pitcher were not helping. My biggest concern at this point was the huge rectangular reflection from the soft box. No matter where I placed my main light, I always ended up with a reflection which effectively killed a large portion of the photo. At this point, I decided I needed to have a square water tank. 

The second major issue I had was the level of detail I had with the image. For the first set up, I was shooting with my 85mm lens. I was able to get close, but the moment I zoomed into the image for more detail, the shot was ruined because the detail simply was not there. Solution A was to sell my car and buy a digital medium format camera and lens. Solution B was to obtain a macro lens. I considered A (I always consider A, rather I make an excuse for A), but eventually went for B. My final images were shot using a 100mm macro lens. 

Another item I had to deal with was finding the correct thickness of paint to pour. Having too thick of a mixture would lead to clumping and improper dispersion. Having too thin of a mix would not yield the abstract formations and shapes that I wanted to see. This portion required quite a bit of trial and error, but I eventually ended up with something I was happy with. If you do decide to try this, just note that thicker is better. Of course, this is subjective. 

Triggering my camera and pouring the paint proved to be pretty tricky, kind of like walking and chewing gum simultaneously. When I first started, I used only one color and I was able to do that on my own (one hand for the paint and another hand for the camera). When it came to pouring two colors, I needed another set of hands. I called on one of my good friends to come assist me which made things a lot easier. The only downside is that your assistant will be bored out of his/her mind between pours. This is assuming you are not paying him/her, which I wasn't. Guilt lead me to do all of the set up myself, which took around 20 minutes per pour. I also ran his patience out and only had time to do four or five pours. I had to figure out a way to make it a one-man show since I still did not have the shots I wanted. My end solution was to get a wired remote trigger for my camera, which I taped to the floor next to where my foot would be when I poured the paint. I had the cheap wireless Canon remote, but it seems you cannot do continuous shooting with it, only single shots. Below are images of my final set up:

One last note for photographers, I would suggest not using speedlights for this set up. If you got them, use video lights. If you do not have video lights, use monolights that are plugged in directly to the wall. If you do not have either, speedlights will work. The issue I ran into with speedlights was that they would not recycle fast enough to give me consistent exposures with each frame. As you can see in the photo above, I ended up using both of my speedlights for the background, which allowed my to reduce the output of each flash unit by one stop and gave me a couple extra pops at the correct power level. My main light was a monolight plugged into a wall. 

What started as a simple concept ended up being long hours of experimenting and many lessons learned, the most important of which is a recurring one: patience yields reward. 

Below are a couple of images. More can be seen here.

Keep shooting.

View fullsize

View fullsize

Lighting and the Best Photo of a Soccer Ball on a Box You Have Ever Seen

I am obsessed with lighting. 

I believe a lot of beginner photographers overlook the importance of how to light a subject and the overall impact proper lighting can have on an image. I do not blame them, though. When anyone starts out on their journey in photography, it is so easy to get lost in the myriad of technicalities, which often progresses into obsessing over gear. Often times when I find myself thinking about which piece of gear to purchase next, I have to pull back and think about what photography really is.

The word "photography" derives from the Greek word phōs ("light") and graphé (representation by means of light or "drawing"). So by definition, photographers are "light painters." To me, it is important to create something beyond a simple two-dimensional image and there are multiple ways of adding that extra level of complexity, that extra "Umph!" One of method is through lighting. 

There are two main ways to light a subject. The first is through available light or utilizing the light present in our environment. Luckily, there is an abundance of it everyday (to a lesser extent in Seattle...). But the best part about it is that it is FREE! The challenge with available light is that it is often unpredictable due to things like changing weather or an unexpected shadow cast by a tree. But as photographers, when we have a scheduled shoot, we do not have a choice. We have to take what we have and run with it. This is where understanding how to properly light a subject can have a large impact. But there are times where available light can be so crummy that even having the greatest lighting knowledge can lead to a stale image. 

Enter strobe lighting or "artificial" lighting, the second way to light a subject. The best example is on-camera direct flash, which most people have experience with on their digital point-and-shoots. As a note, by "best" I mean most common. I personally do not endorse direct on-camera flash, as this still yields a flat and (often times) unflattering image (see below).

Strobe lighting is most often utilized in the studio setting to create images seen in popular fashion magazines such as Vogue or GQ (see my headshot portfolio for more examples). Similar to the flash on simple point-and-shoot cameras, strobe lights release a quick burst of light when the shutter button is pressed supplying the extra bit of light in the areas that would normally be dark. The main differences are that these flash units are typically off-camera and, depending on the needs of the photographer, are in various locations in relation to the subject to create a more dynamic look. The number of flash units can vary from one to five or even twenty, although I could never see someone using twenty flash units (I would ask that photographer to reevaluate...everything). Purists will state using available light is the only true way of photographing, to which I respond "pfft...No!". 

Do not get me wrong, though. I do not side with either cult of available-only or artificial-only lighting. Again, I think it is important to understand the fundamentals of lighting and choose which tool is best for your needs. I am currently experimenting with one of the more extreme situations: utilizing strobe lighting outdoors while in mid-day sun. As a note, mid-day is the worst time to be photographing a subject since the sunlight is the harshest at this time of day and the direction of light casts downward shadows, which all add up to a poorly lit image. But when applying the basic principals of proper lighting and utilizing both available and strobe lighting, a well lit image can still be made. This past Saturday was a great opportunity to experiment. Unfortunately, having a bright sunny day in Seattle is a double-edged sword. No one was available to be my test model! So I called in my most reliable, high-profile model: soccer ball on a box. Keep in mind these images are straight out of the camera (no photoshop manipulation).

On-Camera, Direct Flash (yuck!)

Combination of Available and Strobe Lighting

Bring it on Seattle Summer Sun! I am ready for you.