Found Images or Produced Images – Rob Van Petten
There are two basic approaches to photography. The first is to find images of something appealing in the real world that you can crop into a frame and capture. The second kind of image is the produced image, where you set up, control and construct every part of the image.
1) Discovered shots. 2) Set up shots.
The first kind of photography is found imagery. That’s the kind that I originally set out to do as a photojournalism student and street photographer – and the kind I enjoy doing on my days off from the studio.
Shooting in natural light or at least available light (whether or not my speed lights are available) is about searching, discovering, developing photographic seeing, finding angles and approaches to subjects that are personally expressive, and gratifying to discover in some way. Shooting nature, landscape, urban, street images all inhabit this category. It’s also documenting a time or place that deems being memorable – events, concerts, sports.
The second approach to making a photograph is to set things up in front of the camera. Starting with a backdrop of some kind, designing the lighting, adding the subject, props, and every element of the shot. All the components of the photograph are pre-determined or at least controlled by the hand of the photographer. Color, white balance depth of field, focus, timing, directing a subject and any post production effects can be adjusted for the final impact on the image.
That’s most of what I have done for a living for many years.
These are two completely different approaches. Although some overlap does exist, I think we can say the basic fundamentals are different in both cases.
There are also hybrids of the 2 approaches.
There have been times I dressed up a model with studio wardrobe, hair and make-up, then rode around in search of some cool public place for a spontaneous reaction. Shooting weddings also requires studio appreciation for the portrait shots and a journalistic approach to the events of the wedding.
Where do you find yourself in the approach to your shooting? How do you define these different approaches?
A discovery of Lily having an early morning chat with Knight all ambient light, and shot in Aperture Priority with almost no post processing except for a touch of Shadow Protection in Nikon NX2 to open up the detail in the horse’s eye.
A pre-conceived produced image with Lily – lit, propped and processed with a deliberate layout in mind.
A hybrid image of Lily running with the addition of a speed light to reveal her face against the setting sun. Not all natural, but a legitimate mix. Gives a sense of place, time, mood, color and depth.
At the end of the day, waiting for dinner with Lily, I amuse myself by searching for something illuminating. The dinner table candle behind the water glass is a textural, sensory, and tonal play on the look and feel of ice-water. The monochrome mode sets an appropriate mood. This is shot in very low light with a Nikkor 24-70mm F/2.8 lens wide open to allow for a very soft low depth of field.
Shooting with ambient light, mostly. Having a toddler makes set-up photography tough. (Heck, it makes picking up a camera tough!) Granted, I can throw on the speedlight and still “discover” a shot rather than plan it out, but those moments are rare and rarely seem “artistic” according to my own sensibilities.
How do I define them?
You did it far better than I could. I just try not be defined BY either one of them individually. (You know what I mean. The person whose photography website says that they only shoot or prefer to shoot in natural light. I might prefer natural light too, but I better be able to use artificial light well if I’m going to advertise my skill-set through a website.)
This originally caught my eye because of the way the water was falling on the kids. I think it was a pleasant surprise when the water came from the other direction (Sunshine only)
I have on many occasions used the hybrid approach. This woman is a bartender in a club. the tattoo and bare shoulder was interesting. I set the flash on the bar so it would bounce off the ceiling and then called her name. The glance over the shoulder worked for me. (One strobe) This is more taking advantage of the existing situation (one you really do not control) but manipulating the existing light.
I do sometimes get the time to, as you put it, “plan” some in the studio, However, in my case (even if I know what I want) it is more accurately known as “Trial and Error”. This was done for our Halloween Card one year. (4 lights and modifiers – creating images)
Edson_Matthews:The photographer Dads and Moms can all identify with the terror of a toddler around photo equipment, and the chaos they wreak on your concentration and creativity. At the same time they make for great opportunities and documents of a very short and fleeting time worth capturing. You can always get your gear repaired. My daughter grew up in my downtown NY studio.
The found or produced distinction is not necessarily about lighting – studio or available light. I think it’s more about how much you participate in the planning and construction of an idea as opposed to searching with your photo seeing mechanism in gear to find something that already exists. A portrait is a produced shot. You have to direct the subject, choose the background and control the affect of light on the subject, even if you have to say, “Come stand near this window so the light hits the side of your face.”
The found shot can be just as much a search with or without a speed light. The speed light just gives it a style and effect – filing the shadows of what you have discovered, providing a snap shot look, or an electronic zap to a street image.
This distinction helps the photographer know what the approach, discipline, process will be.
I know the reference to available light, or natural light is semantic at best. I have all kinds of lights available to me. Sometimes the sun is one of them. It feel quite natural shooting with studio lights. I do it everyday. Of course I am being facetious and I know what you mean. Can I say one is discovered and organically unencumbered, untouched or influenced by the hand of the photographer. The second – the produced shot – is deliberately constructed whether inside or outside and arranged to fit a concept rather than to be discovered and applied to a concept.
I think whenever you aim a camera at a toddler you are in for some kind of a test. They will either perform for you or run and hide. Even if your deliberately tying to set up a portrait of a toddler, you may end up searching for your reluctant subject.
shottwokill:Opportunity is one way of describing a discovery.
The “found” stuff is searching or waiting for that opportunity. Some of it is digging and reframing and recomposing until you arrive at the essence of the shot that works for you. But that is all part of the found shot. It is looking for a rare opportunity as you say.
You’re hybrid shot in the bar is a good example of how to set up the opportunity for something to happen. If you’re using flash at an event or speed light outside at night, and your approach is still looking for something special to happen for that good visual opportunity, it’s still “found” more than produced except that you lit it.
You’re right that we should leave a loose window open even in the strictest studio situation, to allow for something unexpected to happen. Most of my best studio images were accidentally derived – or at least, within the zone of light and range of possibilities something beyond what I was imagining happened as worked. The dancer jumped higher, the laugh was bigger, the expression was more believable…
The sword got stuck in the case forcing Devon to yank it a little harder and swing enough for her hair to fly sideways and make a better shot.
Your Zombie Bartender is definitely all concept and production. Although I like the shot, especially the colors together, I won’t be having what he’s having.
Nice to hear from you again.
The theme was ‘Gone with the wind’, and I decided not to go for the movie association, but to show wind blowing.
For the theme ‘Alien’ I took a picture of me with my Zambian ‘Aliens registration card’.
Both photos are conceptual, they existed (more or less) in my mind before I took them.
On other occasions I just take my camera and see what comes along, for instance wildlife in the garden:
or the expressive faces of my students:
I would call this type of photography opportunistic rather than conceptual. Now that I think about it, it would perhaps be good to combine both approaches. One aim of my photography (and work) is to show Zambia to the people that support projects here. Maybe I could take ‘Zambia’ or ‘poverty’ or ‘churches in Zambia’ as a theme, interpret it, imagine the shot beforehand and then make it, to get a clearer image of what I’m trying to convey…
johannekekroesbergen:Yes, shooting a theme is a production. It’s working from a concept. Illustrating a concept, or theme is part of working from a blank slate, and choosing your elements to construct an image, as you have done with the leaves blowing. Sometimes the simple gesture is more powerful than the major motion picture approach. I really like the motion in the leaves and fingertips moving here. It’s that magic of motion.
“Alien” is pretty witty as well. There are all different kinds of aliens for sure. One of my favorite genres of photography is the street photographers urban alienation images – Lee Friedlander – and a hundred others who observe without participating. They are solitary outside observers to the point of defining their own alienation against the rest of the activity surrounding them.
The wildlife in the garden is a found, or discovered image requiring a search process instead of a construction process.
The reason that this distinction is important is that we as photographers need to establish rules or boundaries for what our process will include. Do we shoot what we see and keep it there? Do we ask people to pose? Do we only quietly observe? Do we build everything from the ground up and shoot a concept that is in our head?
Then as you have asked yourself – Do I try to use the faces of my students and interpret what I see with a message that I am trying to tell my audience?
At that point you are telling a story, being a photojournalist, and communicating a message. This is exactly why I posed this question here. What are the boundaries you define to use your skills. How far do you go to get your message across?
Some of the most renown street images had a little adjustment in them to make the point stronger. We have so many tools at hand now to influence the impact of a shot. Photojournalists are under a strict code of conduct not to alter the content of an image – not manipulate in any way – to tell a true story. But when you choose a lens to distort the perspective or telescope in on action it alters the story. Action within the frame does not tell the influences of whats going on outside of the frame. If the bodies on a battle field are shot in B&W does the blood look less real than if the same shot is in color and the red is saturated to be dramatic? Just the act of shooting and framing and capturing a given moment is a different story than the one before if and after it. It is our own attitude and intention that makes our images tell the story we want to tell.
In the studio the same thing happens. If I shoot a model performing in front of the camera, I tend to pick certain subtle gestures and expressions that appear recurrently in my portfolio. I like models fending off danger in a moment of jeopardy – hands up, hair flying a touch of wildness in their eye. I do that shot habitually over and over. I have to be aware that I am falling back into my habits. Another photographer with a different attitude will capture the same model, with her hands down at her sides, calmly gazing into space. We choose different decisive moments.
What I asked her to do. What she think of what I asked her to do. The way she normally poses for other people.
This is a book, not a reply. In the process I had a chance to visit your photo stream which I really enjoyed and I suggest anyone else visit too. You are documenting so much of your life in Zambia with a skillful and beautiful approach. I encourage you to join in the discussion here as I begin another season at NDLC. Thanks.
Rob Van Petten:That’s a great endorsement, thanks!
In response to one of your challenges, I took this shot to demonstrate that you could get an image at the fastest flash duration, in this case 1/41,600 sec.
You can take your studio tools into the field to capture shots like this with gels and multiple speedlights at 1/8000sec.
One of my favorite ways to hone in found photography skills is in the museum working with available lights and exploring the power of a fast prime. My favorite museum lens is an old 50mm F/1.4 AI from the 1970s. Many photographers use AF to find shots, but it’s amazing what you can find when restricted to manual only and then taking that thought process when using AF lenses.
Museum lighting also hones in your skills when trying to achieve a certain look in your everyday images. The power of metering gives a skill set that comes in handy in a fast pace shooting environment.
So when you are taking your next pet shot, the same principles apply.
Or using the subtleties of light and shadows in your photojournalistic shots.
Don’t forget about playing around with your camera’s features. Sometimes, very cool shots can be found (or produced) with a change of settings.
Nikon has some interesting new offerings that are tweaking my next creative directions. For produced images, which could render gallery sized shots, will pair the D810 with the 105mm f/2.8. For wandering about and seeking that elusive as of yet unknown shot, the new D750 (having a tilt screen on an FX is a nice creative tool) and hooking that up with the 85mm f/1.8G.
This one is in a way a combination of ‘found’ and ‘produced’ since I know this was going to unfold and used flash to augment the lighting.
The others were when doing interviews with bounce flash:
Or shooting weddings using bounce flash ‘in situ’ without any backdrop.
Or none at all:
For me it is all about reacting to the light, finding the right composition and getting the feel for the tonalities and texture in the scene. With and without flash are options I always explore and more often than not, I try to augment ambient light with or overpower it when possible.
When shooting I am always reminded to think of tonal rendition by Ansel Adams, whimsical subjects by Elliott Erwitt and Garry Winogrand and the everyday object transcendence (‘more than a pepper’) of Edward Weston.
Some of my photos are lucky finds, but many come from waiting for the right moment to shoot. Maybe a moss covered rock would look cool in the fog, or maybe that lone tree will drop all of it’s leaves in a perfect circle on a windless day. Sometimes I wait for years after coming up with the concept.
This past week I was hoping that a butterfly would land on one of my sunflowers with some decent light hitting it. Yesterday I got my wish:
BioArt:Thanks for submitting these examples. I think your breakdown is right. Hybridding “found” subjects and locations is where we ultimately end up. A bit of control on a radom occurrence whether it be in the field and street, or in the studio. We are looking for that magic moment when something unexpected and inexplicable occurs. It’s when we really discover what being inside the moment is all about.
Shooting apparel in motion for Reebok, I did a bunch of these images. These dancers and athletes were moving faster than I could anticipate, but I knew they would be playing to the camera. We planned to have them play to the camera and be on camera. That provides a deliberate connection with the models. From then – it’s about what millisecond I can anticipate and capture.
This hybrid place does require some technical skills and through practice becomes second nature and works in harmony with good instinct.
I understand your comment about older manual focus lenses. I too have been putting an AI 85mm F 1.4 manual lens on my D800. Initially I used it because of the longer “pull” of focus shooting video. Then I was challenged by watching the focus change subtly and slowly shooting faces close up.
There is a control in the choice of focus targets that reveals other focus options slowly. It was a fun experiment. I got some very nice shots. But for 99% of what I do, and with my eye sight, Auto Focus is going to get me there more confidently and sharper.
shottwokill:Thanks for your comment. We are all subject to repeat the shots we feel are successful. We respond to the same expressions in subjects repeatedly. I was showing a friend who was also a psychologist an image of three gentleman having dinner which I had just completed for a period silverware illustration. He laughed and said they were all my own goofy expressions that I make all the time. When we recognize these repeated habits in our portfolio, that’s when we should ask ourselves, “Do we like this and keep shooting this way?” or “Are we in a rut and need to deliberately change to force ourselves to grow?”
Zeroneg1:
Zero – Nice to hear from you. I think your approach is from the “found imagery” school. You are on a search even at a wedding. The fact that you may fill with a Speedlight is only a technical way to reveal more of what you find. The light is not a conscious subject in the shot. Luckily I think you usually find what you are searching for. When I look at your NYC street images, I think I might be walking right past you – that other guy staring at the Brooklyn Bridge with a Nikkor 14-24mm.
platypusstudios:I like that improvisational jazz vs. orchestrated piece analogy. Not sure it completely fits, but I like the idea of adding a sound track to this discussion.
Thanks for your description of your approach by waiting for the right time, light or fog on a found subject. That is a big valid part of being lucky. What’s the expression? “Luck happens when preparation meets opportunity.” Great texture in that sunflower.
Rob Van Petten:Thanks for the reply. It is a hard habit to break since I did photojournalism for a university paper when I was in college and eventually became the photo editor as well for 4 years.
So the question is how do you translate this ‘found imagery’ approach in the studio? I guess this is done by conveying to the model the concept and creating a background story to anchor to?
Yeah we are lucky to live in a city that never sleeps and everything is always changing and every section dynamic. I do always love walking across the Brooklyn Bridge and maybe one of these days I’d bump into you! 🙂
Zeroneg1:It’s not necessary to break that habit. It’s just applying the search to a photo story style using the controls of a constructed environment. I too was the Photo Editor of my college paper with dreams of being a photojournalist. Then ad agencies started calling and they paid a lot better. I can be bought.
The process is to set up a light zone, and construct a set where the action can take place. Light the area where the subject will be. If it’s a shot requiring motion and movement, pull the lights back and make the zone a little bigger and looser. Even if the action is as small as the turn of a head and the bouncing of hair with a fan, this is the way I think of lighting a shot.
This way there is a stage set, the area is lit and the subject can move within a given area so you can shoot pretty loosely and allow good accidents to happen.
BTW I could not see the video above 🙁
Zeroneg1:I just tried the video – It seemed to work fine although out of frame a bit. Let me try another computer and I will possibly reload it. The video tells the story.
Zeroneg1:Hi Zeroneg – The concept drives the shot. If the concept is something that’s easier to produce in a studio then it’s a studio shot. It’s often easier to shoot jobs in a studio because that’s where I keep all my gear, sets, props, dressing room, computers… If it’s a location like yesterday, I drag all that stuff to the location and set up camp. The light changeable and whether is a consideration. I got rained out on September 12 and had to reshoot on the 19th. That can be time consuming and expensive. The light is changeable and whether is a consideration. I need a location fee, sometimes a permit, extra crew…
It’s always about the concept. If you have a good idea, you have to be true to the idea and create the shot wherever it best supports the concept.
Sometimes art directors have an idea of a place, a football field or a mansion, something big, and that’s harder to build in the studio. One time I got a job for a lingerie company that required building a complete Caribbean house including bedroom furniture in the studio. It took a couple of days – everything came up the freight elevator and looked like St. Barths on a sunny day. It was easier and cheaper than sending 10 models, crew and gear to St. Barths and renting a location. Those are the practical considerations that come to play sometimes.
It’s surprising how little you need to pull off a convincing illusion of another place and time. Suggestion is a powerful tool.
And then as you said, you build the zone, and create the moment. You might retry and take the moment 1000 times. That is pretty common. I use a process called shoot and review. Shoot 50 or a hundred, then review picking the 5 best. Define the attributes of the 5 best, then shoot 50 more of just that preference. Continue unto I’m happy.
From the video it looked you were using continuous lights or was that flash packs/monolights with modeling lights?
Zeroneg1:It is a collaboration with a team. The model, make-up artist, stylist, assistants, digital artists all have to be on the same bus or it doesn’t look like what you wanted it too. Shooting this way does require some managerial skill to continually remind the crew what the intention is. When you have a team of creative people working together it’s very easy to have the shot become a hair shot to the hair dresser, and a make-up shot to the MUA when really you might be trying to make the apparel the hero in the shot.
There is no working with amateur models at that level. They don’t have the chops or the command of their movements to get it right every frame. There is also no protection from liability or usage rights without a proper contract with an agent. I’ve been working on a series of fashion shoots in Miami for about 8 months. The models are all really great. Top professionals, They hardly ever miss a frame, and if we get out of step, they apologize for missing one frame out of 100. They are just that constant. It’s like the dialogue between a choreographer and a dancer.
Lighting in the video. I almost always use studio strobes in my studio work. I prefer Dynalites and almost always use them. (There are some instances where I am shooting fast and need only a little fill light on camera and use a Nikon Speedlight.) Most of what I do has multiple flash heads and the positioning and tuning of the lighting is very crucial to the concept of the shot. The studio strobes have 2 lights in them – modeling light for reference of where and what it will look like, and the flash tube which goes off at the moment of exposure. The modeling lights are tungsten and the flash is 5100K. The flash is vastly brighter than the modeling lamp and also is a very fast duration providing stopped action and sharpness not attainable with continuous light.
The video frame rate was slow and sometimes missed the flash going off. You can hear the pop and the recycle beep signal which I use to confirm that the flash has gone off and recycled. If I am using 3, 4 or 5 flash heads, the different beep tones will confirm that all of the heads are working. Most of the flash looks like a white bar across the frame because the video camera shutter missed the full blast of flash. You can hear the beeps. It is a very different process and a bit more complicated than most people realize. So much is done digitally and with radio transmitters to trigger the lights and wifi the images to the computer too. Most of the time now I am shooting with a camera tethered to the computer. It’s a very dependable workflow and is fast. Fast is key.
Zeroneg1:Here is a quick shot of me explaining a lighting diagram. It’s about collaborating and managing all the details of the shot in mind.
So with the amount of Art Direction and project needs, how much creativity does the photographer have in the input specially if the concept is restrictive? Does this mean getting the money shots and then doing some experimental fun stuff and rely on serendipity or go with the flow and see what evolves. Dancing can be both choreography and improvisation, I guess it is a matter of degrees i which one contributes more in the end.
Also how much has digital changed the way you work? I mean there is not more polaroid backs or instant slide films to check setups but are you shooting more now than when you were shooting with bricks of film?
Zeroneg1:Yes – The flash does act as a cue to the models. It is the cue for the next move definitely. FLASH > Next move. That dictates the rhythm as in the video.
Client/photographer creative balance. The photographer has his finger on the button – ultimate control. When it’s a job, the client is trying to get the shot that will market his product or brand the best. The photographer is trying to fulfill his job and get the coolest shot within those boundaries. The photographer is hired for his particular style usually. The client sees something in a shot that fits the vision for his company. The photographer has an advantage at that point because the photographer knows how to get that shot. At that point the clients tend to recede to their role as observers and watch the monitor as images file in.
Good point about a shoot being part practiced choreography and part improvisation. Very perceptive of you. That is definitely the game. Shoot the safe stuff for the layout and then stretch it out and see where we can take it beyond the layout. It could be finding a different point of view, different lens, lighting or just random action, but usually it’s directing the model to go beyond what the layout dictates, with something that is unexpected and special.
The digital workflow is much better than the Polaroid preview days. Polaroids weren’t very accurate. We now have instant monitor feedback from the group who monitors the monitors. The whole team can comment in real time about how it looks. We can check highlights and shadow density to ensure a perfectly plotted file, and composition. More importantly we can see the position and attitude of the model, the fit of the clothing and the drape of the fabric. The finished shot comes right up. There may be cosmetic things to fix in post production but those determinations can be made right at the shoot as well. We know how much time and money we need to allot to retouching. In the film days we had to overshoot and hope we got the shot. Now we know when we have it and get on to the next one. Clients are more at ease, and photographers sleep a lot better knowing they have the shot, and don’t have to wait until tomorrow to see the film.
Since we can see the actual image on the LCD or monitor, does this means that the use of flash meters have stopped? If so even for establishing lighting ratio? Chimping or looking at the monitor is the norm now?
For shooting for end use that goes to the Press (web offset/CMYK), do you compress the tonality (the 4 stop limit) via lighting or is this now done via post production?
I love this subject, it gets to right where I am living at the moment. As for which method I am using, it became at times a studio like environment, other times photo journalistic .
I do not think I have the image available as a frame of reference, except it is stored in my archives, which I will try to locate and when I do I will come back as post it for you.
The image was created to mimic the look, texture and feel of hot molten lava, and it was produced by shooting a liquid emulsion inside an amber medicine bottle which was back-lighted. In this insistence, it was more photo art than anything else. The point I am making is that a produced image as in a studio can be made anywhere. A studio can be as well equipped as Rob.s New York studio, or a spare room in ones house. It might have a “set” as large as a Broadway stage, or as small as a small cocktail table.
I had the opportunity to shoot some professionally, but the vast amount of my photography has been for my own consumption, pleasure and use. In the past year due to health issues I have done little shooting, and when I do break out a camera I stage no lights, often it means shooting daylight photos or with a single strobe. Even so one can gain a unique vision and perspective from a limited role.
I admire the expertise of Rob, and his team shooting in the busy fast paced world of New York shooting Ads for the industry he has there. Rob has a wealth of knowledge and can create from concept to finish using such variables as lighting, and more importantly a whole team of pros who in turn has their own world they influence. To be able to direct so many players to produce one musical concert is no small feat.
We may not have a team, we may not have a studio, or even a single flash, but we can improvise, we can use a coffee table as our stage, or we can use the Grand Canyon, and visit the scene as Ansel Adams did, at various times of the day to get that shot, or to create the moment that we envision.
Here is a CD cover concept which will probably be adopted for the back cover. I intentionally brought the artists to this location where I could carefully set up these seemingly candid shots and still fit within the project specs. I just asked them to kick up the dust as they were walking.
I do tend, probably because my primary shooting is in ambient concert lighting, to seek out ambient light even for found shots such as this ‘I was there’ shot with the female singer and an admirer.
I can still goof around though with portable lighting. Here we are at an outdoor BBQ party and the theme was, what else? rock stars. I set up 2 speedlights high and far behind and then used an Aurora Firefly modified to act as a beauty dish as the main light to emulate hard stage lighting. The kids had fun with it.
I suppose one could say that I shoot contrived found situations?
Unless of course I’m shooting a show where I have to take what I am given.
Zeroneg1:You asked about flash meters. I have one sitting there. I used it once about a year ago to see if it still worked and after I changed the battery it still did. I am much more inclined to look at the monitor and check my histogram and info levels in all three RGB channels to see what my light level is. The delicate balance and blending of tones to make a shot totally work is something that the meter doesn’t tell me and the screen does.
I am very likely to use the histogram first. That is pretty safe, and insures that images shot back to back for a catalog or ad usage will be consistent.
The only time I have used a meter lately is to check the even distribution of light when trying to get a background lit evenly. But still I go to the info eye dropper to read the measured light levels in Nikon View NX2. I usually keep the blacks between 4-8, and the highlights below 250 – 253. I try not to max out the highlights to 255 ever.
As far as shooting to include the compression – no. I shoot the fullest file I can, the most inclusive amount of zones, so that retouching and post processing has the smoothest transitions and max amount of colors to blend. Then I let the printer make the conversation to CMYK based on their ink, paper, color preferences etc. The most successful color renditions I have had, are from first making a good ink jet soft proof print from my file, and asking the printer to match that print generated by my file. If I can get it really looking good on an ink jet print, the printer can’t deny that it’s not in the file.
So the next question then becomes how do you deal with matching swatches when dealing with fashion work? Is the majority of it done in post or in situ (WB,lighting, filters etc) while making the photograph?
GStrader:Working with the team does make the shot more complete. The stylist attends to clothes and accessories and watches those details throughout the shooting. The hair dress and make-up artist watch their respective details. The model and the photographer work together to compose, animate and act out the action to create the desired illusion. But still, the camera sees little imperfections, the skin is never as perfect as you would like, the make-up clumps up, the hair flies into the lipstick. The buttons don’t match, the shirt is the wrong sample, the model has a tattoo of her boyfriends fraternity, and the vendor sent two left shoes… There is always something to fix in every shot.
You’re totally correct that a produced image can happen on the kitchen counter or on the basement workbench. The studio is where you find it. I have a pretty well equipped studio. That just means I have been doing this for a long time. Setting up an off camera speed light in the garden to catch a butterfly as they land on your prize sun flower is a produced shot. It doesn’t have to be Hollywood. Thanks for all your input Dr. Strader.
Ivan Sorensen | www.ivansorensenphotography.com:“Found Set Ups” I like it. The hybrid now has a proper name. I think portraits are all set up – produced images. You have to come up with the idea, the place, direct the subject, light it, even if it’s augmenting with what you may find existing there. It’s still constructed by you. You are doing the thinking about what goes into it. There is a part of this that is searching for stuff to add from the lights and the location. Pretty wild stuff. Nice to hear from you.
Zeroneg1:I handle color balance and color matching at the time of the shoot. If I am shooting studio flash, I know that my white balance is 5100K. The D800 has a Kelvin setting for 5200K. Close enough. I use the X-rite Color Checker Passport in my first or last shot in a series. The model holds the color checker in place and that records the color values. X-rite uses a Light Room plug-in that does a really nice job of identifying the Color Checker Passport and balancing the file to match the profile of the calibrated computer. The computer and the printer need to be calibrated for this to work. Not very expensive to get set up. I use the X-rite i1 Display Pro Calibrator for the computer. Easy and self guided. We usually set that up and recalibrate before each important shoot. Then our digital artist is set up with the same calibrator for the retouching and the proofs are made from that calibrated computer.
You can very simply use a grey card and get it very close with the grey eye dropper in Lightroom or Photoshop too. That will get the white balance correct, but will not profile each separate color the way the Color Checker will.
Model holding the Color Checker for a calibration frame, at the beginning of a shoot after the lighting is all tuned in and ready to go.
This is a subject for a completely dedicated topic. But this is the color workflow I use at this point at this point.
So do you never go light and portable ever in a project? What I mean is doing it the McNally/Strobist way (multiple OCFs) and shooting only with portable flashes? Of course there is less control this way overall.
This whole threads is now reminding me of George Hurrel vs Weegee or even Avedon in the Studio vs Avedon doing ‘In The American West’ 🙂
Zeroneg1:This has become a thread about everything in my digital workflow… which is OK. But I am really here to get everyone else thinking about defining a deliberate digital workflow and creative thought process as they pursue shooting better and better pictures.
My particular workflow is a bit specialized to commercial or editorial, fashion, and catalog photographers who need the immediate proof and protection of knowing they got the shot before moving on to the next one. The clock is ticking and the client is tapping his foot and there is no room for error. Every shot counts. And – there is plenty of hungry competition. It’s different than leisurely enjoying a personal passion.
There are times when I do want to shoot looser and leave the lighting and timing open for blurs, flares, and random action to make a shot more spontaneous. That’s why it’s always fun shooting subjects in motion and especially outdoors. I do often shoot with portable lights, speed lights and portable location flash. I shoot a lot of frames and I like to shoot fast. Speed lights are great for the Creative Lighting System solutions to control and accuracy. Other times I need something a lot more robust with really long battery life. It’s fun to shoot with less control and see what happens by instinct and even by accident.
Speedlight
Battery powered Flash with receiver.
Using the sun to create flary back light and filling with contrasty flash.
Flash head with diffusion over a warm reflector.
*Nick_Cool*:The tooth brushes caught in the anticipation of a romantic embrace… Looks like a produced shot for sure. Concepted, composed, constructed and lit carefully.
Then the cotton candy girl looks like a discovered situation with no input or involvement. This is not a portrait. It’s a found moment. Richard Avedon said, “A portrait is a picture of someone who knows he is being photographed, and what he does with this knowledge is as much a part of the photograph as what he’s wearing or how he looks.” In this case the girl is not aware or participating, so it’s a found image.
Most people gravitate to one pole or the other. What do you prefer? And – how do the two approaches merge in your shooting style?
Rob Van Petten:Thanks for showing your wonderful images outside the studio. I did a session last weekend with a single flash outdoors:
One thing however I did not fee restricted by working with a single flash since it worked with the concept. Surely adding more flash would also have worked but that means needing more assistants because placing tripod/lightstands would have necessitated a photo permit.
So I guess for some people being in a studio gives more freedom/control of the workflow vs those needing to work on location or outdoors. I guess the end result is the most important thing in delivering for what is needed.
Zeroneg1:
“…the end result is the most important thing…” Yes. The end result justifies the means. In most cases the end result can be accomplished with various degrees of complexity. Usually the engineering of a fancy fashion or advertising shot can be simplified and done gorilla style. If it’s for myself or editorial, with little budget, there is a way to pull it off and make it work. That may mean there are fewer options, less time to play, smaller gear with batteries instead of generators and big lights… Sometimes compromising the actual optimum camera settings, like leaving the shutter open for a looonnng time can create some very nice effects too. If there isn’t enough light, see what else can be done with higher ISO and slow shutter speed.
As with your guy with Brooklyn Bridge. You could have done with less flash, and more shutter speed and it still would have worked – looked different but would have been good. Mirrors make good 2nd lights. Bounce the flash into a mirror for a fill light or back light- or just reflectors make good fill lights. I saw some very nice images of a girl with her Harley at sunset, lit with car headlights.
Here’s a new one from the weekend. I used one flash to fill her face while shooting into the sun for backlight and flared highlights. It was a warm time of day but I raised the white balance a little more to give it even more yellow. One portable light. I needed more diffusion on the flash and found a white plastic bag to put over it. No filters. One D800, one lens. One CF card. That’s pretty small scale. Small scale acting comp.
Rob Van Petten:Oh Yes I agree there are things I could have done differently. The concept however dictated that he be in the ‘light’ and everything else in darkness or in shade. He is the ‘Rock’N Imam’ who sings in a rock and roll band which was controversial to say the least. I had to underexpose the background by 2.5 stops and light him with flash. It wasn’t a straight portrait since it needed the light and dark concept to work.
Dragging the shutter would have resulted in a brighter background BUT thanks for the mirror/reflector tip I shall try that next time!
Yes as you said if there were more resources for this shot it would have been different, I would have had a permit, closed off a section of the street, get a million dollar insurance and treat it more like a studio/set and setup flashes on lightstand.
Sometimes it is not easy to decide between the controlled possibilities of the studio and the openness of being on location.
I go for the lucky pot shot.
I have started building up kit. I now have an sb700,soft box, umberella defuser and small reflector. I have done some outside setup shots and now include fill flash in some of my shots.
I am not a photographer in my line of work but not sure if I developed it I would lose the love of it. Would also love to do a course but as I have no defined style. Which one. Not a question just a muse.
Thanks for reading.
Rob Van Petten topic here shows, this is about discovery of making the images either FOUND or PRODUCED or something in between. Having the equipment helps minimizes surprises but having the lack of it forces you to be creative as well. They key is having the concept in mind and pursuing that concept and making it work with the available tools you have at hand.The other side that most people do not talk about enough is rapport with your subject which is the most important aspect of shooting people. This might not amount much for Street Photography (Winogrand or Weegee style) but is important in commercial,fashion,event,editorial and lifestyle shooting. It is the instrument where both of you work together towards a common goal. Style will come later once you have the cohesive vision like
does.I do like it when i get shots like this where the lighting was all from the window and no setup
Or just a hap hazard shot
I did recently try and do a shoot for a friend daughter. She had made a dress for collage and needed pictures.
As i had no experience at all with this i read a lot of magazines and went online for idea’s and setup.
I agree a rapport with all aspects of a shoot are vital for the shot. My shoot was a prime example of no rapport to start with.
I had arrange for the Model to have makeup done but the Model was addiment she did her own
only to turn up that day with no makeup on. Fortunately my daughter was there.
I had someone set up the props and with mind on other things I realized after two shots he had faced it all into the sun which was the opposite of what i wanted.
with everything setup I started to get at least some close to good.
I know they are not fantastic but for a first time i was happy.
The dog and plane shot i would imagine are found images and the shoot a hybrid as there were a lot of random factors coming into play.
The only thing i have with regards to produced is this one as i don’t have a studio.
This was shot in my kitchen table on a glass chess set in pitch black. The illumination was the light on my led key ring shone down a rolled up £20 note as a snoot to painted onto the scene.
I apologies if my spelling and grammar are bad. I am dyslexic
I can’t say I have a favorite as the amount of work that goes into all of them makes them all interesting and satisfying to achieve.
Even the found images don’t just jump out at you. You have to know your camera settings and that itself takes a good degree of work.
0bender0:Going for the lucky shot is part of the search for found images. Being lucky is part good planning, preparation and persistence. Hard work. The approach is still looking for the opportunity.
These set up shots you have done, are a different approach. You are designing the opportunity instead of hunting for it.
Taking a course, is a great idea. That’s one of the ways to expand your vision, be exposed to a variety of styles and dabble enough to see what path appeals to you. I think you have to try all these different kinds of shot styles to know what fits for you. Finding a style is not key to progress and learning. Style comes with experience. A style will find you while you are learning to shoot, becoming second nature with your camera, watching and looking at other peoples images. I think I shot every type of photographic style there is from food to landscape, medical procedures and fashion.
My favorite organic search is street shooting which I still do on my day off. I find shooting fashion and beauty challenging creatively and from a managerial point of view and that is most of my professional work. These styles found me when I was out shooting pictures. I lay all the prints out on the bed and said, This makes me happy and this one doesn’t. That’s how a style evolves. Slowly and deliberately for me over many years.
As for gear, there is a saying I read recently again.
An amateur photographer thinks about his gear.
A professional photographer thinks about his lighting.
A master photographer thinks about his concept.
There’s some truth to this over simplification.
I think of going through this early period when I was concerned about what camera I had, or what lens and how many lenses and having every possible item available.
Then I began to develop skill at lighting and learned to create a variety of moods by seeing and understanding lighting,
Then it was all about the good shots created by illustrating a strong concept. Only as good as the idea.
That may be a good way to think of the major points in the path.
It’s all about learning something new. That’s what you seem to be enjoying.
Think i will be searching for a long time as its such fun.:-)
0bender0:It gets better and better. The more I learn the more I have to learn. But the more satisfying the pictures become.
Thanks for joining the discussion. RVP
Rob Van Petten:Gee, I loved watching Devon at work, even though I felt a bit badly for her having to endure the mister, and if a wet face and hair was not enough getting a case of whip lash. Bravo Devon, and I promise if you ever do a shoot with me I will not ask you to get a case of whiplash. 🙂
GStrader:Devon is a very dedicated performer. She works that hard for every shot and never complains. In fact I think she enjoys putting the extreme effort into a shot if it’s working. She is a student of martial arts and weaponry as well as make-up, hair and working a camera better than most. So I don’t remember her getting any real whiplash as a result of that shoot. She once brought me a layout of a ninja girl shooting fire arrows around the set and was ready to light up and shoot.
We haven’t quite gotten to that one yet. But nothing would intimidate her.
