briarrose

Kari--you can a) use regular acrylic paint (which will probably crack, over time); b) use fabric paint (which will be pricey) or c) use acrylic paint--and mix in a special paint softener, for fabric painting. I've never painted a muslin--but I've painted clothing--and the principal should be the same. Craft stores will offer the paint softener (there's a name for it--but I can't think of what it is, just now!). It's a thin, milky liquid that mixes right in with your paints. You would probably also mix in a paint extender, as well. You would need to toss the muslin in a dryer, after completion--to "set" the paint--but after that--it's washable, flexible, and soft! :-)

As far as costumes are concerned--it all depends on how authentic you wish to be. The least authentic will generally be the stuff you can rent from your local costume shop, but this will please many people. Community theatre will read well from a distance--but is rarely even remotely authentic--since they simply don't have the budget for authentic looking costumes--and, in fairness, usually aren't striving for it. (I speak as a former professional actress!)

 

University theatre departments will have really lovely costumes--with fantastic details, and will tend to be sturdy.

 

Thrift shops are unlikely to have much in the way of good authentic Victorian costumes (although they're fabulous for 40's and on)--but antique stores will sometimes have some wonderful things stashed away. If they specialize in Victorian clothing--you'll pay a mint for anything--if they don't--you can pay anywhere from $30 on up.

 

eBay is a FABULOUS source for authentic costumes--and my considerable collection has been primarily gained through careful shopping there, over the years. Prices are lowest in the spring/summer. In the fall/winter, antiquers aren't outside shopping--they're armchair shopping--and the prices go up, accordingly.

 

The problem with authentic costumes, of course, is that they are rarely wearable by anyone over the age of 13. (In fact, I usually put young girls, age 10-13 in them--and they look like heaven--but no one else will fit.) Also--for the BEST look--you need the proper undergarments--a period corset (not a Frederick's of Hollywood corset) and the appropriate petticoats and chemises...but if you're willing to move into the Edwardian period, you can get away with more, since the silhouette was less hourglass--more long and lean.

 

Another alternative (albeit a pricey one)is to find yourself a costumer, and have a period costume made...I'm doing that right now, myself, with a couple of good costumers who wish to build their portfolios.

 

And finally--in a pinch--you can do marvelous Edwardian things simply by using a tall, lean, girl with the right skin (pale)--and pin two super thin pieces of silk over her front and back...then wrapping a third piece around her waist, like this: http://www.pbase.com/briarrose/image/32596389 (This is from a test shoot from an audition I was holding for models for a year-long Victorian/Edwardian project I'm working on--and that is really and truly nothing more than two pieces of silk safety-pinned to her shoulders (over her street dress), with a third piece wrapped around her waist.

 

Good luck! :-)

Hmmm...I think we all may have strayed from Troy's original question, which was "what kind of trouble does this pose?"

 

Unfortunately--I don't know--since I've already said that my policy would be to try to avoid the scenario in the first place--but if push came to shove, I would simply obscure the employee in question in Photoshop, if nothing else would do.

 

I would like to point out that the issue of personal privacy in a public place is probably not one that can be resolved--because people seem to be divided into the "you were there--you should've known what you're getting into/rights of the photographer" camp--and the "respect privacy/individual wishes" camp.

 

The fact that I'd rather respect the individual's privacy/whims/wishes--doesn't make me somehow more "right" than anyone else--it simply reflects my own desire to make the world a more peaceful place...and I figure that starts by doing what I can to live harmoniously with others--even if that sometimes means I'm inconvenienced (as I most definitely would be, if I had to Photoshop someone out of 10% of the "keepers" of a shoot! ;-))

 

I'd also like to say that even though I don't necessarily agree with Mike--I think his photos are lovely! :-) (Yes--even his "street" photos. ;-))

But why, Mike? Why is what *you* (generic *you*--the photographer, not you, personally) want more important than what *I* (generic *I*--the person on the street) want? Isn't it simply that we both have wants? I just think that what someone else wants--is as valid as what I want--and think it's respectful to honor their privacy, if they ask me to--no matter where they are. I might have the "right" to play loud music in public--but if someone asks me to turn it down--it's courteous to do it. :-)

 

As to your rhetorical questions about why be in a public place--or why work in a public gallery if privacy is a concern--well, there are many reasons why people do things they'd rather not do--or don't feel happy about doing...many of them having to do with money...and what one wants to do. I might work in a gallery--but that doesn't mean I expect to have my picture taken! Now--if I was a MODEL, and didn't want my picture taken--that might be a little silly...but how many of us expect to have our photos taken at our place of business? :-)

There are many reasons a person may wish their privacy respected--and as a photographer, and a decent human being--I think it's important to allow them their privacy. The fact that we have cameras and want to shoot pictures--doesn't automatically give us the right to take pictures of anyone and everything, IMO. (That's a general statement--not anything directed at you, Troy--since it seems you did what you could to fulfill your assignment, while respecting her privacy! :-))

 

Since none of us have any idea why she didn't want her picture taken--we don't have any way of knowing if it was shyness, or something more serious--like perhaps not wanting an abusive ex to know where she is working--I think it's extremely important to protect her privacy. While it sounds pretty far-fetched--imagine how you would feel if a shot showing her in the background was published in the local newspaper--and a crazed ex saw it--tracked her down--and beat her, or killed her!

 

In the situation you've described--I would either a) do something to any images with her in them that obscurs who she is (selective darkening, blur, etc) or b)try to contact her--show her the photos, and ask if it's okay to use them.

 

And in future situations, if someone gave you a similar request--you might explain to them what you were planning on doing--and ask them to try to keep an eye you, throughout the evening, and stay out of your way--and you'd do the same. You might also discuss how the photos will be used--and explain that you have a job to do, and that much as you both try--it's possible that he/she might wind up in a few photos--in which case, would it be sufficient to darken or blur the person in question. My guess is that most people would be open to some negotiation here--and if they aren't--it's probably because they have a really good reason for it.

 

Not meaning to step on anyone's toes--it's just that I've had a few female friends who were in hiding from posessive men...including one whose boyfriend tried to strangle her--so I feel pretty strongly that privacy should be respected--it might be a matter of life or death for someone. :-/

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that perhaps the reason people were getting hung up on the c-section scar has more to do with the photo's ambiguity, than anything else.

 

Your model is in a glamourous, kind of high-fashion pose--so when people critique it, they're probably assuming that's what you're trying to show--and they're trying to very helpfully point out anything that takes away from that Madison Avenue look! :-) I probably would've done the same thing, had I critiqued it, withough knowing you were trying to show beauty in imperfections.

 

When I am critiquing photos--I try to critique them not in terms of what *I* like--but in terms of what I *think* the photographer was trying to achieve--and I comment on things that support this imagined goal, as well as things that detract from it.

 

I have found similar situations with my own work--where I was SO clear on my point--that I didn't realize that not everyone else would have the same background--and thus the same context--as me. A good example--was an image entitled "Temptress" that I did with a woman as an allegorical temptress--Eve, Circe, Morgan le Fay. I posed her in a very stagey way--half-nude--holding an apple in front of and slightly off to the side of her breast.

 

Having grown up with mythology and artistic symbolism being part of my everyday life--I assumed that this was a photo that didn't require an explanation--that the reference to Eve, holding out the apple--which is also near her breast, and thus implying a tie-in between knowledge of good and evil/forbidden fruit/sex--was almost over the top!

 

When I sent it to a group I belong to, for critique, however, I was dealing with people who primarily do standard portrait photography--and only a few people seemed to get the reference that, to me--was painfully obvious. One person told me that if I wanted to do nudes--I should just DO 'em--or if I wanted to cover up breasts, use a hand, because it was more natural--but I should definitely lose the apple! (Doh!)

 

Since then--I've tried to explain what I was doing with each photograph more carefully, before asking for critiques--and I've found that people's critiques are more aligned with my purpose then--and they don't say silly things like, "lose the apple". ;-) (This isn't to say that they don't think it--or that my art works for them any better than it did before--but at least I've provided them with some of my context, and that helps them decide what they do and don't wish to comment on.)

 

As for the philosophy behind beauty/perfection...well, as others have already said--it's a big subject--but there's no doubt that it's at least partically wrapped up in our genetic heritage, as has been suggested repeatedly by studies done with infants, like the one referenced earlier. BUT--people CAN appreciate other things--it just helps if they can understand WHY you're showing what you're showing! :-) (If you doubt it--go to a museum--to an exhibit for an artist you don't like and don't understand--and listen to the recorded guided tour, as you view the exhibit. You still might not like the artist when you're done--but you'll have a better undrestanding of their art--and a greater appreciation for it! :-))

 

Just my two cents...

 

(Oh yeah--and there's not much you can do with people who critique without reading any background/context you've tried to give them...you just have to sort of ignore them! ;-))

Ouch--the poor girl! That shot is a tribute to you and the trust the relationship the model has with you--because as uncomfortable as she looks, she chose to keep going! :-)

 

I can see why you wanted to work with her so much, though--she looks quite expressive--and obviously she's plucky! ;-) In the end, you gotta do what ya gotta do, I guess... I know I've put my sister through some things I wouldn't put anyone else through...like the shoot in late October...late in the day...when I had the poor thing shivering to death in her bare feet, posing for some really cool shots with her in wet, fall leaves, or perched on a stone wall, with her feet drawn up beneath her... The shots look good, right up until the very end, when she just took to glaring at me, in every shot, until I let her bundle up in her shoes and socks and winter coat and hat again! ;-)

 

(And--back in the days when I was a professional actor--I've put up with some amazingly uncomfortable things myself, without complaint, simply because it was my job...in fact--I rather prided myself on the things I had to suffer through--things I wouldn't have put up with for two seconds in "real life"--so the model herself could have professional reasons for wanting to keep going. :-))

 

Hope you wound up with some good black and white shots in the end--I like the direction you were going with the one you've shown us! :-)

As someone with light sensitive eyes myself--I can only tell you that unless you can find some way to protect her from the sun--you simply shouldn't be working with *that* model, in *that* situation. It HURTS to open your eyes around the sun, even momentarily--and the tearing up that happens as the result of opening your eyes to bright light--even momentarily--means that the face and eyes will get red, and makeup will run, if you try some of the "keep eyes closed then open quickly" techniques described by various folks here. If you MUST work with a light-sensitive model in a situation like that--then do shots where her eyes are downcast, or where she's shading her face with her arms or hands, if you can.

<p>

Your best bet? Plan in advance. If you think you're going to have problems with harsh light that you can't protect your model from--then ask about sun-sensitivity. Trust me--if you've got it--you know it! If you don't want to ask--think about the model's eye colors. People with light eyes are more likely to be sensitive than people with dark eyes--blue eyes are probably most sensitive, with green also being a problem sometimes. (I have green eyes, myself--and often walk around with my eyes downcast, to protect them--but my sister, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2272017">Willow</a>--with light grey blue eyes--has to wear sunglasses almost everywhere she goes or her eyes just *weep* constantly.)

<grin> Nah...I've just had plenty of practice, salvaging my OWN boo-boos! ;-)

I agree with Lacey--and would even take things one step further--if you make a mistake (or your camera does, since I'm sure YOU didn't have anything to do with it ;-)) with an image--make it a feature. In this case, where the image has something that interests or appeals to you--but is out of focus--I'd go beyond merely soft--and make it unambiguously dreamlike.

 

There are many ways to creat this type of effect--but in this particular version--I adjusted levels, added a hue/saturation layer with a sepia cast, then desaturated it until I liked the effect; added a white vignette, which I transformed to a diagonal, then feathered to force the focus in towards the faces; I then painted some slight adjustments on the vignette, to "de-vignette" a few places (her hair, his collar).

 

I merged the layers--created a duplicate layer--and added a diffuse glow to create the blown out, grainy effect...lowered the opacity of that layer some, merged layers again, and added some uniform, monochromatic noise.

 

Finally--I tweaked the shadows and highlights a little, and added an unsharp mask of something like 457/.02/0 .

 

Of course--it might not be to your taste--but it's useful to have many different ways to salvage an image! :-)