Had first model shoot and looking for advice

[john_miller38]

Hi, as my subject says, I recently had my first model

shoot.

 

Sadly, I did not get the results I wanted. First, I was

shooting in an abandoned building hoping to get a great

juxtaposition of beauty and decay, but after getting

home I realized I focused too much the model and not

on both model and building so I didn't get t that effect.

 

Secondly, I'm not happy with my processing and looking

for suggestions on how to improve. Currently all I have

is Lightroom 5.

<a

href="

722021/" title="Untitled by Dr_Fu_Manchu, on Flickr">

<img

src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7546/16243722021_

9fb2bac0c5_z.jpg" width="640" height="428"

alt="Untitled"></a>

 

<a

href="

579535/" title="Untitled by Dr_Fu_Manchu, on Flickr">

<img

src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8612/16245579535_

19e223936e_z.jpg" width="640" height="428"

alt="Untitled"></a>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>Double posting</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>Don't know exactly what type of advise you are looking for.</p>

<p>The theme 'model in an abandoned house' has been subject for many photographers, and consequently resulted in just as many interpretations. For me personally the ones that really stuck out and still left an impression after many years were the one taken in the 80's (1987?) by French photographer Dominique Isserman of model Anne Rohart http://www.argentic.fr/product-12337.html (warning, nudes NSFW).<br /> <br />Just as you describe what you're after the building plays a major part in deciding the atmosphere of the pictures instead of just being an interchangeable backdrop.</p>

<p>As far as the postprocessing is concerned, I think it's a matter of personal taste. Keeping the Dominique Isserman pictures, maybe a B/W conversion could be the trick.<br /> I downloaded the pictures and found especially the second one quite fit for that procedure (hope you don't mind)</p><div></div>

[john_miller38]

Thanks Paul for your informative post. I guess what I'm

looking for was validation or that I missed the mark

entirely in post processing and portraiture. I know I

missed in the fact the at my backdrop was not

emphasized. I've shot a ton of landscape but rarely

shoot models. So I wasn't sure if I was o. The right track.

[john_miller38]

<p>Here's another following your thoughts? Critiques?<br>

<a title="untitled by John Miller, on Flickr" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_miller/15628780373"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7542/15628780373_f572217b53_c.jpg" alt="untitled" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>You might want to keep it simple texture wise when juxtaposing the smooth surface and curvy figure of a female portrait model with the coarseness of a decaying building in order to minimize a way too busy composition.</p>

<p>Your use of available lighting is quite compelling and well thought out but you have way too much going on with all those lights and darks vying for attention where it distracts to the point of inducing viewer fatigue.</p>

<p>One tip I use when shooting any scene that's new to me is to first note what first grabs my attention and then start changing my perception of it by placing it way off center of frame and make sure whatever is filling the rest of the frame is either texturally simple or complex depending on its opposition to the subject's complexity or simplicity which can be influenced by the character of light, its shape, angle and orientation within the frame. Your subjects are primarily centered among a busy background. Change that up.</p>

<p>Your post processing seems a bit heavy handed on noise removal and skin color is a bit too magenta on the second one but overall you've got good control maintaining tonal balance and contrast.</p>

<p> </p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>Hi John</p>

<p>hope you don't mind I'm posting a second reaction, but looking at your third picture some thoughts floated to the surface you might appreciate to hear (maybe not, in which case, sorry and please ignore the below).</p>

<p>First thing that popped up in my mind was that as a landscape photographer you're probably very much used to always shoot literally in landscape mode i.e. horizontally. I don't think that is always the best approach when photographing a model.<br>

In your case it has in two of the three pictures posted e.g. resulted in arms that seem cut of quite randomly, while at the same time the figure of the model in a similar way as a consequence ends up pretty stockily.<br>

That together with the way the arms are draped (straight down parallel and close to the body) pretty much defies the intention of creating a contrast of elegant/sweeping bodylines with the straight lines of the building/rooms.<br>

I'm not saying you should have posed your model in the strangely contorted ways many 'model' photographers have their models 'pose' in pictures you find on the web these days.<br>

But a simple arch of the back and elegant positioning of the arms that help show something of the figure of the model can IMO sometimes do little miracles http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/156857544<br>

<br />Also, as a consequence of shooting in landscape mode, there's a lot of building/room fighting your model for attention, when in reality it's intended (I assume) as an element to play a part in the atmosphere of the picture, rather then being the main subject (which after all is the model).<br>

Following that train of thought, maybe shooting in a less sharp from corner to corner way (quite understandable for, and probably next to second nature to a landscape photographer) with a model also could be recommendable for the next shoot. I must admit I'm a sucker for shallow DoF http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/61045668 , so not completely unbiased in this.<br>

But in the third picture posted there a lot of quite distinguishable details floating around, ending up as somewhat or more distracting, and thus pulling the eye away from the model, which most likely will not have been the intention.<br>

IMHO (with an emphasis on humble) when taking pictures of a model the attention should be on her, with the rest of the elements in the picture (background, selective sharpness, DoF, light/shadows) secondary to her and used in such a way that that is best achieved.</p>

<p>My two cents, HTH</p>

[john_miller38]

Everything thus far has been good feedback. Thanks.

Per the DoF, I did purposely shoot at F4 or greater. The

reason is that while the model is the main subject the

building was a close second (almost think as if I was

shooting two models) I could have shot at 2.8 or used

my 85MM and gone even further to 1.8 but I didn't want

to lose the atmosphere.

 

I appreciate your all's great critiques!

[dave_wilson1]

I like what you did. It's your expression and it's very nice. So you'll stretch out more next time, but I think it's a very good

job. One small point, I avoid cutting hands off like in the first shot, but it's your deal.

[jordan2240]

<p>John,</p>

<p>Just throwing this out there. There is a 'Weekly Post-processing Challenge' in the digital darkroom forum that is a great place to submit a shot you want some processing ideas on. Feel free to check it our and participate.</p>

<p>Bill</p>

[mark_harrington1]

My opinion is the cropping is not right on any of the images. The one that comes closest is the 2nd image. I like the black

and whit treatment but you could also apply a grunge texture. Your camera angle is a bit low and the cadt shadow on her

face is very distracting and detracts from the image. The first image really just doesnt work for me but with a tighter crop

may improve.

The crop on the third image is showing too many competing elements. For a tighter shot like this just the hint of the decay

may have more impact, or go all the way and show the full body in its surroundings. I feel your disappointment, thinking

you have this great location only to review the images and find they just dont look like you hoped. These environments

are challenging but other factors working against you are poor posing, uncontrolled lighting, blown highlights and lack of

an easy to see main subject or point of intrest.

I think that with proper cropping and processing you can improve the images but they still fall short with exposure, light

control, posing and impact. Sorry its a bit harsh of a technique but you are on the right path by admitting the images need

improvement. You'r next shoot will be better as you keep in mind some of the tips you are getting. I cropped the third image to show you how less is sometimes more.<div></div>

[mark_harrington1]

Another thought, its not just the location, its how the model interacts with the location. Take the image by the broken

window, instead of a basic glamour pose (straight arm should have been bent) turning the model's face into the light for a

2/3rds view which would give you a short light pattern (good for women :)) and putting the left hand on the top of the

window or lightly on the window pane and the lower hand doing the same with the bottom of the window you can ask the

model to give you a forelone look, then an insecure expression, a sense of anticipation as if she's waiting for a secret

lover or have her cast her gaze down and sensually stroke the side of her body to be lost in a fantasy, and many more

looks and feels from the same location, minor adjustments but the same basic pose to yield 4 or more unique looks in

about one minute.

[michaelmowery]

<p>From a lighting point a view it is ok. I love rays of light and splotching lighting patterns but you have to make good use of them in a flattering way. Most importantly you can not forget about the shadows as they can take over your lighting and composition if not controlled properly. As far as composition a photographer once said to improve your pictures just take a step or two closer to your subject. Good advice. When you go wide then you really need to control the model and how the model inter acts with the background or environment. Wide angle shots are much harder to pull off than tight shots. Good job over all.</p>