- This topic is empty.
my first post and first studio photography attempt
-
Hello, I’m new to this forum, I’m from Holland, but in a couple of days I’ll be living in Dublin. anyway, that’s what the introduction forum is for, here’s my first picture post. I took these about a year ago. it was the first time I took pictures in a studio, I tried to play with odd shadows. I’d love to get some comments on my pictures :)
I like thr ight-hand photo. nice balance of tones and a good “feel” to it.
Si
Excellent inte :) Exceptional for your first studio shoot. I really like the first – i think i could have done with a little bit of light maybe just to
give a bit of definition to the lower part of body – that said, i still like it this way, love the position in the frame, the grain, the expression. Very original style.thanks! both of you :)
about the first one, I’m always annoyed by the ‘too-white’ spot in the upper left corner [what’s the english term for this?] but I don’t want to mess with the composition.. maybe I can make it a bit darker
I wish I could edit this picture to see what more light [like you suggested] would look like, but I lost the original due to a HD crash [several crashes, actually]i love these. :-)
very individual style and as others have said great for first studio shoot!d
very strange/cool that you all say something about the style of the picture, I’ve never seen myself as having a style. well of course you’ve only just seen 2 pictures, but even within one shoot I can never make out what is ‘me’ about it.
:)
… and “style” is not a word that’s bandied about all that often here Inte, yet these do have a certain style about them. Very moody shots. Like them both.
Rob.
For me, based on these two photos, it would be that you don’t just take a straightforward shot but try to get across something more than is in front of the lens. Personally I prefer shots that have a bit of creativity in them, where you can see an idea being played out – can be composition, lighting, use of colour, post processing, yadda yadda. I find technically perfect, perfectly exposed, composed and lit photographs to be a bit souless and dull. Mere technique can be studied, learned, applied and regurgitated ad nauseum. Having an idea and a vision, now, that’s an entirely different thing.
I’m with you 100% Mick. I don’t comment much here on the studio stuff because, honestly, I don’t see anything that moves me. It all seems so false and calculated. These shots are at least an attempt to be, as you say, the person that took them’s, view. All this model stuff leaves me cold. Posing and, ah I don’t know. Image kinda. Photography IS technical but shouldn’t feel that way to the viewer. That is the difference for me between here and Boards. I feel that everything here is analysed more from a technical point of view rather than from a gut, instictive feel. There ya go I’ve said it, all be it with a few pints.
Let rip, I say, and the old creative juices will get their reward eventually. Books can be restrictive.
inte, if you didn’t guess already, I like them a lot!
Valentia wrote:I’m with you 100% Mick. I don’t comment much here on the studio stuff because, honestly, I don’t see anything that moves me. It all seems so false and calculated. These shots are at least an attempt to be, as you say, the person that took them’s, view. All this model stuff leaves me cold. Posing and, ah I don’t know.Wow,thats a statement and a half Valentia :lol: I suppose there is two schools of thought here.(1) Shooting for commercial gain be it portraiture or editorial and (2) shooting for personal fullfillment and enjoyment.
Most of us i guess would like to think we have a style in how we shoot or express ourselves in what we specialize in. If you pick up any high fashion magazine they would be filled with all of what you dislike about posing and lighting etc but this is the stuff that sells because it has created a mood or an emotion in the viewer to be compelled enough to purchase the product. The portraits displayed above are indeed beautiful and are unique but probably are more dare i say it abstract rather than typical people portraits. Personally speaking if i can catch an expression that brings out the best in the model and shows her best features i would consider that to have emotion,feeling and soul.
Ben 8)I was a bit nervous about reading my post from last night. Especially after it was written after a night out with friends.
I am happy with it though. I do realise it is an extremely personal opinion and is really based, I think, on my loathing of glossy advertising and the bombardment and manipulation, especially of young people, with technically excellent but dubiously motivated images. Most of the “model” photography I see looks soulless and the expressions come across as strained. I find it difficult to see beyond the manafacture of the scene and into the subjects’ heart.
Portraiture, where there is a glimpse of the personality of the person being photographed is different and can move me greatly but model/fashion type stuff leaves me wondering “why?”.
I have been involved in both directing and acting for many years and I think my bias for a raw, reality type style also effects how I look at photographs though I admit my own photography wouldn’t give that impression.
I have stayed away from expressing these views before because I didn’t want people to think that I was getting at them. I am not and fully accept that I am probably in a minority and I also feel that if others get something from it then who the hell am I to contradict them. As I’ve already said it is just a personal view with no insult to others work intended. Not easy to get across in print sometimes.
I suppose there is two schools of thought here.(1) Shooting for commercial gain be it portraiture or editorial and (2) shooting for personal fullfillment and enjoyment.
I’d have to disagree with that, being a professional photographer shooting for personal gain doesn’t mean you can’t be personally fulfilled or enjoy the work. The two schools of thought, for me, would be
A the person who takes a photograph with the technicalities of getting things right being first and foremost in their mind; following rules of composition to the letter, making sure everything is evenly lit, yadda yadda yadda hohum. This would be what I’d imagine chartered accountants would be like if they were professional photographers. Everything in it’s place, well balanced, they can point to this and that and say it’s correct according to the BIG BOOK OF RULES that they’ve spent years studying and can recite backwards…which they do.
BThe person who knows the rules but trusts their instinct and gut feeling before letting technicalities get in the way of a good shot;who breaks the rules where necessary to create an image that has something uniquely theirs about it; who’s willing to risk making mistakes and trying something new in order to learn the limits of their abilities; who has a personal vision of some kind. This kind of photography is far more interesting to me because it’s about ideas, emotions and raw talent. It’s very personal and can be very hit and miss, and, depending on the photographer, their vision and the idea they’re trying to express can fly or flounder. But, when it hits the mark there’s a far bigger reaction.
As creatures whose primary sense is vision any visual medium should have an edge when it comes to generating a connection with the viewer. Photography may be one of the hardest visual mediums to excel at simply because anyone can buy a camera and with a bit of time and effort produce an image that satisfies most technical criteria. Alls you have to do is browse Flickr to see it’s not beyond a helluva lot of people.
I don’t have a problem with any kind of photography, studio / location / still life / advertising / editorial / portrait / landscape / street / abstract / documentary / etc, because in each and every category there’s people doing wonderful and inspiring work. What bores the arse off me is technical competency and rules being seen as the heights to which all amateur photographers should aspire and also being used as the only merits by which their work should be judged. Certainly, technique and learning can improve your photography the same way as taking driving lessons will help you stay on the road. But that’s as far as it will go if that’s all it takes to satisfy what you want from photography. Passion, vision, effort, and, most importantly of all, ideas (leaving aside being born lucky and having a genuine rare talent), is what makes photography interesting. Seeing that in someone’s work, in any creative medium, is far more inspiring in my humble ass opinion.
Mouthy git, ain’t I.
;)Sorry Mick,i should have pointed out that shooting for commercial gain can also envelope enjoyment and satisfaction although the lines can get blurred when deadlines,briefs,graphic designers,locations,punctuality of models and agencys intervene with the workflow. Visions set out by the photographer can be mis-interpreted by all of the above. This is taken in context that its a shoot say for a mag or advertising house although in a studio envoirnment this also exists only through different circumstances.
Its great to see people breaking the rules and not playing it safe although there will always be those whom judge an image based purely on its technical merits and not on the vision or context of what the photographer was trying to achieve.Such is life.. :wink:
Lets not deviate from Inte excellent post as we could go on and on and on,maybe we will debate this under a suitable post? :)
Ben 8)great debate it is, but I’m sure there will never be a final outcome.
this has got to do with likes and dislikes and we all know you even disagree with your best friend.I have to say I don’t like Glossy mags and their photography, I’m usually hesitant towards studio photography as I like models that interfere with and are influenced by and maybe even in awe of their surroundings.
I like spontenaity [spelling!!!] and actually don’t aim for the person being photographed to look pretty. I aim for their expression, thoughts, emotions to come across. Of course there are photographers that can do this in the studio, but [based on this one experience] I find it 10 times harder than with the world of trees, cars, ants, movement and sunlight around me and whatever I photograph.
I actually don’t photograph human beings very often!I guess I should soon post some more photo’s I’ve made, cause this is really not representative of my makings. actually I can’t think of anything that is, but maybe I’m too close to see. :)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
