Sean's Recent Shoot: Panos Galore

EDIT: Go to the last page for the most recent shoot information.


I've photographed Sue before, but I wanted to give it another go at it. This time we met at her family's farm. The farm was located on a hilltop which provided something rare in my area--sweeping views for nearly 360 degrees. You see, in TN, you're usually closed in by tall vegetation or large hills/small mountains nearby. This location was perfect for grabbing shots with good views of the sky in nearly any direction. Unfortunately, its greatest strength also created a huge challenge--wind. There was nothing around to block the constant high winds at the location. In fact, one of my lightstands (fitted with a 60" Softlighter, affectionately called a "wind sail" in this instance) blew over while we were setting up even though it was weighted down with more than 30lbs of equipment.


When it was all said and done, we got some pretty good shots. I wish the wind hadn't been so bad so that we could have utilized the sweeping view of the location a bit more. Regardless, it was a good day. I got about 15 selects out of the session (shots that I really liked). It was difficult to narrow the selection down to just a few to post to Flickr. In the end, these are the shots I chose. Click on the pics to see individual descriptions, EXIF, or larger sizes.


These were posted to Flickr:



http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6213/...3f7910c2_z.jpg



http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6047/...973dafc5_z.jpg



http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6101/...61308c84_z.jpg



http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6117/...185e87df_z.jpg





These were other shots that I liked, but ultimately decided not to post (Note: Picasaweb is experiencing a bug where the picture disappears if you click on the link. They are working on a solution to the problem):


2nd EDIT: I removed the picasaweb hosted album, so the images I was referring to will not display (obviously).

Nice job Sean. Usually when I am dealing with wind, which is most of the time, to put the subject in the best orientation fort he wind is the worst orientation for the sun. My subjects usually squint in the bright sun during a photo shoot like this.


I looked though your whole photostream on flicker this morning. I like looking through others galleries. I get a lot of good ideas that way.


Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

Nice job Sean. Usually when I am dealing with wind, which is most of the time, to put the subject in the best orientation fort he wind is the worst orientation for the sun. My subjects usually squint in the bright sun during a photo shoot like this.

---

You're quite right about that. In fact, for the best polarization effect, I should have been pointed in another direction. However, this view provided the best background/polarization compromise. After my lightstand blew over, I put two more sandbags on it and had an assistant holding the umbrella (it kept wanting to turn at the mono's pivot point where it connects to the lightstand no matter how much tension I applied to it). With everything in place, we were finally able to shoot without much interruption.


Note: I added the non-Flickr pics after your original post.

Always helps to have a beautiful subject.


I like the last one. The pose looks natural.

Nice work Sean, I like the last one as well and the third and fourth last ones.


It sounds as though you need and have created a good team with your assistant, to get shots like these.


Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve U

It sounds as though you need and have created a good team with your assistant, to get shots like these.


Steve

---

Oddly enough, I didn't have my usual assistant with me (Maher). Instead, Noelle tagged along this time. She was certainly a great help, and I hope she grows to enjoy aiding me and my ridiculous photography obsession....





Note: Looks like picasaweb is still having issues displaying images. Oh well...

Very nice set, Sean! I love anything with a country feel to it but my favorites here are #7, #8 & #11.


Seems to me that whenever you are up against a challenge, that is when you really shine! Many would have packed up and called it a day when the wind started to take over ...instead, you go full force and produce absolutely winning shots!

As always...your shots are brilliant. Well Done Sean


Wally

Very nice sean, I love the first one. Something about the wind blowing her hair makes it seem more spontaneous.


Question: What do you mean when you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocco

Question: What do you mean when you're talking about the "polarizing effect"? Talking strictly about mixing your lighting with the ambient sun?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

I was using a circular polarizer on the lens. Several things effect how much of an effect the polarizer has on your image. By turning the polarizer, you can change the amount of polarization that the filter applies to the scene. However, an even more important factor is where your lens is pointing in relation to where the sun is in the sky at any given time. Generally speaking, the greatest polarization effect is possible at about a 90 degree angle to the sun. However, the best backround isn't always found 90 degrees from where the sun is in the sky.

Very nice set Sean! If I'd have to pick one, it would be #3, it has a very strong look. I like that.


I know how a polarizer affects the general natural light, but how does it affect your flashes? Does it even affect them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jan Paalman

I know how a polarizer affects the general natural light, but how does it affect your flashes? Does it even affect them?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

A circular polarizer does block a bit of light, effecting flash and ambient equally; so using it equates to having a .5 to 1.5 stop ND filter on the lens. Mine also imparts a bit of color shift to the scene, which can also be corrected in post or in camera (by adjusting white balance).

Oh ok. I guess you're not constantly turning the filter then? Or do you need to adjust white balance quite a few times?


I was more wondering that when you do, the flash lighting part may be differently affected by the polarizer than the general lighting is. I guess it can make some background look weird compared to the model? Or is the effect not great enough to have such an impact?


The main reason I'm asking is that light of your flash and ambient light have different directions and should therefor be differently affected?


I never used a polarizer and a flash at the same time, so I'm curious ;)

Sean, you were using two strobe, with softboxes. At least, for most of the shots.


Could you have used the sun as the hair light? Or, would that have given it a different color balance on the right side of Sue (her left shoulder, hair)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jan Paalman

Oh ok. I guess you're not constantly turning the filter then? Or do you need to adjust white balance quite a few times?


I was more wondering that when you do, the flash lighting part may be differently affected by the polarizer than the general lighting is. I guess it can make some background look weird compared to the model? Or is the effect not great enough to have such an impact?


The main reason I'm asking is that light of your flash and ambient light have different directions and should therefor be differently affected?


I never used a polarizer and a flash at the same time, so I'm curious ;)
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

As far as a polarizer affecting the flash illuminating the subject(other than the ND effect), I'm unsure. I've never set up a controlled experiment with the filter on and off to see the variation of light on the subject. My inclination is that there is little difference, other than the color shift and ND effect. I could be wrong, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Could you have used the sun as the hair light? Or, would that have given it a different color balance on the right side of Sue (her left shoulder, hair)?

---

The sun was being used as a rim/hair light. It's visible on the subject's left shoulder (viewer's right side of the frame). The light from the sun is certainly warmer in color than the output coming from the flash. However, I was using a 1/4 CTO on the mainlight, but I left the fill ungelled. I was actually wanting there to be a certain color difference between the fill and main, just to add another dimension to the lighting (albiet, one that doesn't mimic natural lighting in any way).


That said, I ended up applying yet another layer of warming to the subject only on the sweeping sky images. I used a warming photo filter in photoshop and masked it so that it was only applied to the subject. I felt this helped balance out the subject with the warm-colored vegetation. After this shoot I realized that I desperately need to color calibrate my monitor so that I don't over-apply warmth to images (which I have done in the past on many occasions). I'm currentlyinvestigating solutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

The sun was being used as a rim/hair light. It's visible on the subject's left shoulder (viewer's right side of the frame).

---

Sorry. It looks like a rim light. You did a good job of carefully placing her so that it cast a nice light on her hair and shoulders.


If it had been cloudy, would you have used a rim light, to compensate?


And, if it were cloudy, would you just use a flash for catch lights in the eyes, and nothing more than the catch lights?


I'm picking your brain a bit here, to find out what would work best on an overcast day.


Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

If it had been cloudy, would you have used a rim light, to compensate?

---

Possibly, but not always. I would have added it if I thought the scene would have been greatly helped by it. I didn't have my stripbox with me, so it would have meant using another softbox in the wind or else positioning a bare strobe very carefully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

And, if it were cloudy, would you just use a flash for catch lights in the eyes, and nothing more than the catch lights?

---

No, I would have used the lights to illuminate the subject, but at less power so as not to completely clash with the ambient.

Thanks for the explanation Sean :)

This weekend, a young lady wanted some shots taken to give to her husband this holiday season. Initially, she wanted bare trees and an overall "wintery" look for the images. However, she decided she wanted the pictures sooner rather than later, and asked for a more "urban" look. I suggested we shoot at a location I had used before, because I thought it would be a good combination of urban and landscape foliage. I also envisioned letting the sky play a dominate role in the photo.


The location was a high spot overlooking a Hobby Lobby / Dollar General Market shopping center. I shot from a low angle. In fact, I was laying on the ground with my camera about as close to the ground as I could get it. If I hadn't been that low, the framing would have included much of the parking lot (as you can see in the setup shot).



http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6102/...bd4ee21e_z.jpg


In the uncropped version, there's a little more of an urban look to the scene. However, I cropped out a billboard on the left, the Hobby Lobby building on the right, and cloned out one parking lot light for the version I posted to Flickr.


The lighting setup was 1 White Lightning x2400, camera right, 1/4 CTS gelled, diffused by a 22" Paul C. Buff HOBD (High Output Beauty Dish). 1 White Lightning Ultrazap 1600, camera left, diffused by a 64" Paul C. Buff PLM (Parabolic Light Modifier). Strobes triggered via Cybersyncs and Cyber Commander; powered via Vagabond II &amp; Innovatronix Explorer XT. A CPL (circular polarizer) was used. Of course, a picture is worth 1000 words...



http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6221/...e050236e_z.jpg

I actually shot these next two shots before the one I posted above, but I've been holding onto them to give the bride and groom a reasonable amount of time to pick up their images before I started broadcasting them to the world.


Both were shot with the same basic setup: monolight left and right, with a 64" PLM with diffusion panel in place and a Large Softbox.



http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6037/...0101847e_z.jpg


This is probably my favorite groomsmen picture yet. For this shot, I positioned the groom in the shade of a tree so that I could control the light completely. However, I let his buddies stand outside the shade of the tree (and well outside the range of the strobes with modifiers). I knew there would be harsh shadows on the groomsmen, but with a CPL on the lens I was able to cut the depth of field enough so that the groomsmen were well out of focus--and therefore, less of a draw to the viewer's eyes. Don't get me wrong, the groomsmen are an integral part of the image; their placement was exactly as I envisioned it. However, the lack of detail pulls the viewer right back to the groom where it's supposed to be.


http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6233/...3c0b97a6_z.jpg


We did several shots of the bride, but this ended up being my favorite. I thought this particular pose would work well for her, and was so sure of it that we shot it several times before I finally caught this one and said, "Yep, that's it. Let's move on." ;-)

And for this particular shot,the setup was quite simple:


1 White Lightning Ultrazap, camera left, diffused by an 8"x36" gridded stripbox. I put a Botero black collapsible background along the wall behind her because we were in a small room and the light kept spilling onto the background.


EDIT: I chose a different version from the same shoot than I posted originally. I think I like this one better.



https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-J...MG_2426_ps.jpg

Nice one Sean. Very sharp portrait which suits her make-up I think.

Wow Sean....Great work...Well done.


Wally

Sean, this studio shot is great. It intrigues me because with the black background, you were able to eliminate lighting up the background.


I've done shots like this, too, and occasionally run into too much light on the background. However, I might have really liked the shot, so what I've often done, rather than try to recapture the same pose (sometimes, that's hard to do), I'll use Photoshop to completely black out the background. I'll touch the lightest area with the Levels or Curves eyedropper, and it will make the entire background black. Of course, it might also affect the eye color or hair (sometimes a little, sometime more than that). In that case, I'll duplicate the image, and blacken only the top layer, then erase the critical parts of the top image away, revealing the correct eye/hair color.


Just something to consider if you get one of those keepers, and the background wasn't quite right. This works best with black or white backgrounds. It's more work, and I think it would be better to get the shot right, from the beginning. But, in a pinch, the layers method helps.


Alan

Originally, I had planned to use a narrow enough aperture to eliminate light on the background (I thought the background was far enough back from the subject to allow for this). However, I found out that the stripbox I was using was reflecting enough off the walls to cause a slight amount of spilling onto the background (which happened to be a wall with a white door). My solution was to pull out an old black/white Botero collapsible background I have and place it against the wall. I had to be careful about framing the shot (or else I'd see where the edge of the collapsible background was), but overall it did what I wanted it to.

Sean, do you agree that the studioshot would have better when you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pieter

Sean, do you agree that the studioshot would have better when you'd used a longer lens? In my humble opinion, the women's nose gets a bit exaggerated. I can imagine that there was simply no room to use a longer lens.

---

I was using the 50mm/ f1.4 on a 1.6x crop body, so that's actually a pretty good focal length for general portraiture in my opinion (my 30mm Sigma, with the same framing, would not be ideal). I think the "exaggerated nose" you're seeing is the result of the lighting more than anything else. The fact that 1) I wasn't using a fill light and 2) my light was positioned in such a way that the shadow created stretched well beyond the crease of her nose, means that the beginning of the crease doesn't blend in smoothly with her cheek. Instead, the edge of the shadow is the perceived beginning of her nose, thereby making it look larger than it really is.

Like the catch lights in her eyes Sean, nice image.

For this next shot, I dragged out my largest softbox, the 70"x48" behemoth. I used the Genus Variable ND Filter so that I could shoot using a wide aperture in the middle of the day while still achieving a (relatively slow) max flash sync speed of 1/250 second. As I've noted, the Genus does add a significant warm color cast to the image. A global color correction can offset it entirely; however, I generally enjoy leaving a touch of warmth in the image. As I was facing the sun and couldn't use the lens hood with the Genus, I lost quite a bit of contrast in the original shot. I added more contrast in post.



http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6092/...f06837a0_z.jpg


And here's the setup shot:



http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6239/...45017b4d_z.jpg

Nice well done


Wally

And I can't take full credit for this next shot. For it, Noelle was behind the camera. However, I did set up the lighting and choose the location--so I'm giong with 40% my shot, 60% hers. ;-)

The background is the "Minister's Treehouse" in Crossville, TN. It's the stuff of legends--it's 100 feet tall, 10,000 sq feet, and features a huge swing, a bathtub on the roof, and a congregation sanctuary. It's freaking amazing. If you're ever passing through middle-Tennessee, make a point to see it. Lighting info on the click through.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6043/...edbeec61_z.jpg

Sean

You picked a good spot..I like it.
The title "Sean and the Minister's Treehouse", I thought maybe you had taken up writing children's books....nice title.

Let there be light and it was brought by our resident padre of strobism, nice shot Sean.

Very cool. ;) You should totally do it again next year when the leaves are just starting to change.

Most of the "Christmas time" spent with my family was actually enjoyed before Christmas. Therefore, I was quite bored when Dec 25 rolled around and everything in town was closed (that is, except for Walgreens and the random gas station). As I had a couple of camo items lying around, I thought I'd try a military-style self-portrait. After trying a couple of different things, I ended up settling on a 14" Lumodi beauty dish boomed overhead. As I say on the Flickr caption, the lighting "...seemed to capture and convey the toughness of a soldier and the thread of darkness and regret that comes from having to make tough decisions with lasting consequences."

After posting the photo originally in color, I made a couple of changes in post. Generally speaking, I don't do drastic changes to a photo in post--but the ample free time I've had over the holidays allowed me to play around with the image more than usual. I ended up adding a texture to the background and changing it to black & white with a slight color tint.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7018/6...0ff68996_z.jpg
Military Test Shot by budrowilson, on Flickr

I'm still not 100% sold on the texture, but I like how it gives the camo a bit of context (by letting it blend into something).

Sean, I really like this shot and the way your lighting amplified the "intensity" in the face. If your interested in going further with this theme/technique, I have a couple of suggestions:

1. IMHO the beanie conveys more of a gangster message than a military one. Try and get your hands on a military ball cap with the same digital camo. I think it would add to the shot considerably.

2. I actually like what you did with the back ground, but if your looking for more blending with the subject, you may try a piece of digital camo netting normally available at your local military surplus or even a piece of realtree camo netting available at your local sporting goods store---both are fairly inexpensive for a 6x6 sample.

Regardless--cool shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob williams

Sean, I really like this shot and the way your lighting amplified the "intensity" in the face. If your interested in going further with this theme/technique, I have a couple of suggestions:

1. IMHO the beanie conveys more of a gangster message than a military one. Try and get your hands on a military ball cap with the same digital camo. I think it would add to the shot considerably.

---

I think a military ball cap would make the same style lighting very difficult. The cap bill would shade most of the face. In order to get a decent amount of detail, I could use a low power on-camera fill (I don't have a ring flash, so it would likely be a large softbox behind the camera), but it still wouldn't be the same. However, the soldier would need some sort of headgear if he were bald, because the light would be way too overexposed on his head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob williams

2. I actually like what you did with the back ground, but if your looking for more blending with the subject, you may try a piece of digital camo netting normally available at your local military surplus or even a piece of realtree camo netting available at your local sporting goods store---both are fairly inexpensive for a 6x6 sample.

---

I wasn't necessarily wanting the subject to completely blend into the background. What I really wanted was some type of common looking background where the soldier might use the camo effectively. It's not quite the same if you're blending into the same material that your clothes are made out of--it's just cheating (says the guy who faked a background in the image...the irony is not lost on me). :-)

By the way, the background texture in this image is plain ol' asphalt. If only buildings were clad in asphalt, this image would make perfect sense!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

I think a military ball cap would make the same style lighting very difficult. The cap bill would shade most of the face. In order to get a decent amount of detail, I could use a low power on-camera fill (I don't have a ring flash, so it would likely be a large softbox behind the camera), but it still wouldn't be the same. However, the soldier would need some sort of headgear if he were bald, because the light would be way too overexposed on his head.

---

I agree, The lighting would really be a challenge with a ball cap, but I was thinking this: Same setup as you have now, but add an additional light about 15 degrees camera left, just below the subjects eye level and at a much lower power level. The intent would be to maintain the structure on the face but light the eyes just under the brim of the ball cap. The eyes should still be shadowed by the brim of the cap but just visible enough to see.

Please keep in mind, when I make a comment regarding strobist technique, I don't have a clue what I am talking about, just thoughts I have if I were presented with similar situations. I also like seeing your responses on why it would or wouldn't work.

As far as the camo background, I see your point with the digital camo, but the realtree or woodland may be just what you are looking for ---both natural prints of wooded areas but the realtree is a little brighter and a little more detailed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob williams

As far as the camo background, I see your point with the digital camo, but the realtree or woodland may be just what you are looking for ---both natural prints of wooded areas but the realtree is a little brighter and a little more detailed.

---

That's a really good point--you'd simply be simulating an actual wooded area. I wonder how well the digital camo would work there? I always got the impression it worked best against sand and stone/dusty urban areas. I'd kinda liked to see that now...