The shot: Natural light
Photographer: Philip’e
First of all, the model did not have much time, so I thought if I was going to do this shoot with natural light, I better move fast.
Inspiration/concept
The inspiration came from the model. I saw the model and was inspired. I wanted something dramatic, mysterious and kind of film noir. I also wanted it to be timeless and not dated. I did not want to do anything that looked trendy or go for a look that everyone else is doing.
More specifically, I wanted the model to look mighty, larger than life, and I wanted the model to look mysterious.
I chose the location because it was the end of summer and wanted to do a pool shot. The model had a bikini, but I did not want to do Maxim bikini style shoot (it just is not my style).
To avoid the typical Maxim bikini style, I give direction to the model to keep her chin up and elongate her body. Fashion is about elongating the body and that’s why shorter models have a problem when shooting fashion.
The style is not about seduction. It’s more like a scene from a moment, a film, or even dream.
The shot
The camera I used was a Canon 5D Mark II, with a 24-70mm lens, and it was shot in JPEG.
The lighting is natural sunlight – no reflectors and no board to bounce light. When shooting in natural light I don’t take breaks because the sun and clouds shift and move. So even taking a five minute break can end the good natural sunlight needed to create the effect I want.
Post-production
I’m an in camera type person. I shoot a lot and to save time in post I try to do everything in camera. Exposure, light, and even black and white is done in camera.
I shoot RAW too, but, like I said, I try to do everything in camera. It works great when working with clients who want to see instant results, rather than having to wait to see it after post. In this type of situation you can’t hide behind Photoshop. The shot must look good prior to post.
And, that meant post was easy… I deepened the blues and pumped up the saturation, keeping an eye on the skin tone to make sure it did not come up too warm (yellow), which can easily happen when you punch up the saturation.
The result
The shot was featured in a print magazine editorial. The model’s agent was happy with the pictures and the model got tear sheets.
These days everyone is getting tear sheets and it’s much easier than it used to be. But, it still comes down to whether the model and agency like it and if it’s strong enough to add to the model’s portfolio. Just having a tear does not make it better – the bottom line is it has to be a good shot to make a good tear.
March 21, 2013 at 9:43 am, Keith Selle said:
Whoa! What’s going on here?
March 19, 2013 at 7:03 pm, Jeff Pittman said:
Hi Phillipe,
I like your work and appreciate you taking the time to share your reflections on this (beautiful) image. Frankly, I don’t understand why other photographers are “disappointed” and think you owe them more. Last I checked, none of of paid you for your time and advice. Keep up the great work. Cheers, Jeff
September 21, 2012 at 1:05 am, Amanda Swan said:
Brilliant photographer.
October 23, 2012 at 2:19 am, john wayne said:
I wouldn’t call him brilliant. I’d say Talented.
September 07, 2012 at 9:31 pm, Jyn said:
Hi Phillipe- first of all, you dont have to address everyone’s comments individually and certainly not rudely. It does show you feel defensive and you come off as arrogant. Constructive criticism is how we grow- sometimes you can just agree to disagree and say, “Thank you for your perspective.”
Don’t forget you did not write this article for yourself.
This wasn’t a personal diary you had 2 minutes to jot down & remember the experience by. It’s a public article listed under /education/photography/ . Being minimalistic in your work is one thing- but writing minimalistic is just unproductive. Your readers are expecting more meat to the article, but I think the issue is that you rushed through it mostly stating the obvious and your intentions.
It’s a beautiful shot. The colors are very rich.
However, all I got out of the article was, “So not being a smutty photographer- I pose the model properly, take the picture after setting my camera up properly and then tweak it a little in post.”
That’s it.
So what, exactly, did you want us to learn? That Phillipe knows how to take a natural light shot on the go? I learned that you took the shot with a Canon 5D Mark II, 24-70mm lens and that no props were used. Everything else was your preferences to style and the such.
Ruben Vasquez was so on the dime and he was eloquent, professional, and kind, and you stink-nosed him. Sorry- I’m not for that. Im with Ruben. My 2 cents. Nice shot, poor article.
September 06, 2012 at 1:31 am, A person said:
Why is what Philip’e has done here thought provoking to Me.
1. It show’s beginners, that having money to buy everything/every single piece of equipment they believe they need to make a photo is not overly important, note (can you imagine, a beginner with everything they would ever need to take the perfect capture?, (can you say tears – also what is the perfect capture?, subjective much, or a general subjective opinion share by a group of people), can become very confusing at an initial stage), mainly because there does seem to be a a slight misconception of what you need, yes you need the tools to make something a reality, but firstly you need an idea and some know how, or else what are tools?
2. It show’s good images can be created using the basics and the minimal necessities, in my opinion a better way of teaching/ informing aspiring photographers on other avenue’s or ways of doing things.
3. For me, I am a bare necessities worker, I don’t like a lot of things around me, I like to shoot, and really feel freedom, and free. But everyone works in a different way, times changes, things go forward and things revert, all personal opinions aside, a photographer has posted an image, explained a little about how he did it, I’m sure if someone wants to know more they can request more information, he said you can contact him by message?. It’s not really about who’ trumpet’s bigger. Why are pro photographers ripping other pro photographer’s about photography, surely that’s a little counter-productive, why not keep in with deconstructing the photo, on a constructive level, why did Philip’e choose to shoot in such a way/, would be a good question, and that was self-explanatory, he said he didn’t have much time, but also he evidently wanted to show you what can be achieved with virtually nothing, if that cannot be considered a masterclass well I should probably stop taking photo’s. Or better yet why don’t some of these un-approving pro’s give us some of there enlightening advice?.
September 05, 2012 at 10:28 pm, Philipe said:
You don’t even know me..
Just because I have a certain way of shooting I’m an ass?
Then you say blah, blah, blah..
Lets see your work Paula..
January 09, 2013 at 10:59 am, dennis said:
Wow bro – sorry those comments went south from the other photogs..it’s a great pic and I like the part about pumping up saturation. (oh the egos one finds in this business…usually its envy)
September 04, 2012 at 3:11 pm, Scott Boden said:
WOW… my work is fun and way off from being the quality of photographers such as Philip’e. I have however watched his work for years in awe and hoping to make it to that level myself. I read these posts and it reminds me of messages I have received about my work the whole time I have been here. While still a nobody in this industry you can say what you want about me. But I would like to apologize for the arrogance of some of the people here and thank Philip’e for his time. I personally like the sample provided. It’s natural light so there wouldn’t be a lot to divulge for the set and shot. Anyway, why people are so nasty I have no clue. I do know I always look forward to his new work and am inspired by his work. Not to duplicate it, but to allow it to influence my work and gain knowledge from him and his experience to better my work. Do I like all his work, no. But that’s the beauty of art, I don’t have to. Thumbs up Philip’e! I must be getting better, I have haters now as well. 😀 That’s a good thing I think…hahahaha
Side note: Normally I refrain from any posting on this site because “a lot” of the people are just flat out nasty and rude. Someone will always be better and someone will always be not as good. Why not help fellow photographers and be respectful rather than cut someone down for what you feel isn’t quality. Am I a pro, no. But I do have covers, ad’s and websites featuring my work. I also have local galleries for my fine art. I enjoy photography for what it is and hope to achieve a small taste of what Philip’e has accomplished.
My critique if I may: Beautiful exposure! I myself don’t like tilted images but it works, keeps your eye where it is wanted, on the subject. I love the vantage point as well. The wall was mentioned in a previous post. It’s a complimentary color to the greens and makes the black outfit pop. I love the textures and sharpness. I am not a huge fan of the blown out light on the shoulder, but in natural light you always have to sacrifice something and again it keeps your eye on the model. I could go on, but I think I have expressed all I can without getting slaughtered here.
Thanks again for sharing!
Scott Boden
Boden Photography LLC
September 03, 2012 at 4:03 am, jacopo manfren said:
In my opinion the pic is cool but nothing special, just ok!
Styling and make up could have been more interesting and less banal, location is nice, model normal. Everything works in this pic but my sensation is something is still missing and we have sensation of already seen. It’s just my opinion obviously!Ciao
September 04, 2012 at 11:43 pm, Philipe said:
Its not meant to be special and there was not goal to get it published..
I don’t know what your model type, so that’s bias and subjective..
Sensation? Its just a picture..
As far as how it got published, and editor wanted to know what I’ve shot lately, I told him, he asked to see it and he liked it..
September 02, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Guest said:
If you can’t take feedback, don’t post on here pal 😉
September 02, 2012 at 10:13 pm, seriously1 said:
Seriously, no professional photographer shoots JPGs. You still messed with it in post, why not shoot it RAW? No matter how much you try to make it sound cool to shoot with just raw sunlight, you need a fill card to get more detail in the bathing suite. It’s a fashion shot isn’t it? The angle is great, so is the tonality and your model looks amazing. The pool idea is nice, although it seems to me that not much thought was put into the location scouting (the yellow wall in the background looks sad) and the palm tree camera left is extremely loud, hurts my eyes.
September 02, 2012 at 7:50 am, Darkness Overcomes Me said:
The substance of your article states you are an “in camera person.” However, your portfolio is filled with blurred and plastic skin. Do you mean you like to capture the essence in camera and then use a program to blur it?
I am not trying to be an ass. I just can’t reconcile the idea of in camera with extensive skin blurring… so I wanted further clarification. Thanks!
September 04, 2012 at 11:21 pm, philipe said:
I don’t think my whole port is filled with blur and plastic skin..
Please, I would like to see your work.
Post by example…
As far as the blur… It comes from me resizing the pic very small (for model mayhem)
The result, not the same quality as the original or in the tear sheet..
You were pretty sarcastic in saying I may use a program to blur it.
Its the resizing that does it…(so I guess that’s the program)
As far as plastic skin, some clients request smoother skin…
Even some fashion ads do it, (such as Chanel, Jean Paul Gaultier etc..) but not all..
It depends on the impact they want get in return. If they can, why can I?
So many that have strong opinions go by an alias and not by their real name..
I don’t think your being an ass.
But I think you got a wiff of what your were saying, so I guess you had to address it.
September 02, 2012 at 7:22 am, Jamil said:
It seems no good deed goes unpunished. Philipe was asked by MM to contribute an
article, and he did so. He’s undoubtedly
very busy, there’s no pay for the article, English is not his first language,
and he’s a photographer, not a teacher, but he took the time and made the
effort. Not to show off, because he
doesn’t need to do that, but to try to be a good member of the MM
community. So what happens? He faces a storm of criticism, even
abuse.
If
people really do want to learn to be better photographers, my advice would be
to get what you can out of the EDU articles and move on. Does anyone think that MM’s best
photographers are going to be lining up to write such articles if the result is
this kind of nitpicking and crackpot invective?
Why do they need the aggravation?
The ones we want to hear from don’t need the exposure, so why take the
trouble? Assuming that what the
commenters want is to be better photographers – which I’m beginning to doubt –
all this criticism is completely counterproductive.
September 02, 2012 at 1:05 pm, Drayton Kennedy said:
Well said, Jamil. With regard to your last sentence, I think your assumption is far too generous. It’s patently obvious to me that the hostile commenters believe they have nothing left to learn and/or are threatened by anyone who works differently from themselves.
September 06, 2012 at 8:17 am, Cgkades said:
Did you read the comments? Most are asking for more information. He left out a great deal of info for new photographers. And Rubens comment above was spot on for the info missing. If Phillipe can’t explain how he shoots, then maybe he should have declined writing an article that basically says “look at me.. I can shoot with no strobes…oh how did I do it? Simple. It was easy for me. Why cant you figure it out?”
September 02, 2012 at 6:17 am, Ruben Vasquez said:
Philipe, I’ve been a fan of your work for several years now, but I’m sorry to say that I’m pretty disappointed with this article. The thing of it is, even some one who isn’t familiar with your work need only take a cursory glance through your portfolio and they’ll immediately realize that you know what you’re doing. So its readily obvious that there is a great deal of knowledge that people can learn from you but this article so short and vague, the reader comes away with very little, if any, practical knowledge. Especially if they’re new to photography.
Working out in the sun presents quite a few challenges even for those who have expensive lighting equipment. And working out in the sun with nothing at all, even a simple reflector, quite often yields pretty garish results such as squinting racoon eyes, blown out highlights or plugged shadows, etc. Unless of course, you know what you’re doing. And thats where this article leaves a great deal to be desired. You made no mention of looking for natural reflectors such as the swimming pool or light colored bricks. You gave a couple useful tips about posing the model, but made no mention about positioning him or her relative to the sun so that you get flattering highlights and shadows. And what about exposing so that the scene is within the dynamic range of your camera? Are there certain things to look out for that would suggest the need of additional lighting equipment? Since you’re shooting in jpeg, do you have any advice regarding picture styles and/or colorspace? Anything on composition perhaps? You wrote that you wanted the model to appear larger than life, so what did you, as the photographer, do to accomplish that?
Do you see what I’m getting at? These kinds of things might be obvious to you and other experienced photographers who’re used to working in such conditions, but it’s not so obvious to others. There is so much that photographers of nearly every skill level could potentially learn from you but with as vaguely as this article was written, I suspect the only people that will learn much of anything will be those who already know quite bit themselves. I can well imagine the kind of frustration that inexperienced photographers will have when attempting this for themselves because they have little to no idea what they’re doing or what to look for. Isn’t that kinda the idea of an article like this? To not only inspire someone to shoot something similiar but also to enable them with the knowledge to accomplish said goal?
On a positive note, you did give good (abeit rather short), advice about posing the model and its nice to see someone encouraging others to get as much correct in camera without demonizing post production in photoshop. I just hope that if you ever happen to write another educational article like this, you’re a little more forthcoming with your expertise.
September 04, 2012 at 11:35 pm, Philipe said:
Ruben the shoot was simple and basic..
What more did you want?
Personal message me if you have any questions not addressed,
Also the shoot went fast.
On the contrary it is good for those who are new to photography.
How so? New photographer often have no budget..
So not lights were used.. I made No mention as natural reflectors because there was not any. Did the pool act as a reflector, no, not much.
If any reflection from surrounding areas were used, you would see it in the skin.
The sun was so bright it canceled out any reflection.. Reflection from the brick? No,
that’s really reaching. But you did not mention was the side walk which can be reflective. But not in this picture… and not where the model was standing.
As far as me wanting the model to appear larger than life..
I gave the model direction, I told her how to pose..
September 05, 2012 at 11:52 pm, Ruben Vasquez said:
Philipe, I asked quite a few questions on what more I and/or other readers may have wanted to know (composition, exposure, settings, natural reflectors, ect). And I understand that new photographers have little to no budget, but its not at all uncommon for new photographers to go out in the sun and get terrible results (i.e. excessive contrast and racoon eyes).
And there were natural reflectors in that scene. Just look at the right side of her legs. And water does reflect quite a bit of light (though its more direct reflection than diffuse reflection). Next time you’re by a pool, take some light meter readings and you’ll see.
Anyone who has ever read the book, “Light, Science and Magic” knows that light colored objects reflect quite a bit of light where as dark colored objects reflect very little light. Those bricks that your model is standing on is the brightest object in the scene and they’re also a matte surface (as opposed to glossy), which means they reflect light in a diffuse pattern (which is typically more flattering).
So no, its not reaching to point out that the bricks as well as the pool acted as natural reflectors. I’m willing to bet that had you moved the model to somewhere that didn’t include those elements, the contrast ratio of the scene would have exceeded the dynamic range of your camera.
And while you told your >>model<< how to pose, you told your readership very little in that regard. I'm pretty sure you were looking at the lighting, so what were you looking for? These are the kinds of things your audience would want to know.
I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I am trying to give good, constructive feedback.
September 01, 2012 at 6:26 pm, Karl said:
Looks like a fun shoot, brill use of natural light
September 01, 2012 at 6:24 pm, Guest said:
Looks like a fun shoot! Great work and good show of using natural light to create brill work
September 01, 2012 at 12:31 pm, Jamil said:
Awesome shot; the colors aren’t “muddy” – that’s an evocation of old Hollywood style coloring. Very noir look to the shot, great light – directional but not blinding. In my own opinion, technical perfection is less important than the feeling: and this is mysterious, definitely a moment from a story. Love love love.
September 01, 2012 at 8:21 am, TimR said:
The real point here is, if you want to create a photo that looks like it’s out in the hot, midday sun, then do just that. Don’t ruin it by filling in the shadows or, even worse, changing it to an in-the-shade photo. Out in the sun you’re then faced with the challenge of getting the extreme light and dark patterns looking good and working together (there’s no place to hide), and this gets it pretty good.
September 01, 2012 at 6:56 am, Ryan said:
Really “everyones gettin tear sheets and it’s much easier then it used to be” ? Cmon now. If the client such as the editor loves the shot then I’d say it qualifies as “a good shot”.
September 05, 2012 at 7:35 am, semi234 said:
Not everyone defines what a “good shot” is the same exact way.
If a person’s intent is to be published, then yes, the editor’s opinion is all that matters. If the person has some other goal in mind or an aesthetic he’s doing or attempting to create a mood, then a “good shot” will have a vastly different definition.
September 01, 2012 at 6:48 am, Southernbouy said:
Philipe:
Great shot. I’d be very interested to know what the settings were on this shot. Thanks!
August 31, 2012 at 10:55 pm, Veronica LaVery said:
Not sure why is Philipe’s short article getting such negative responses. It’s about natural light, simplicity, and how easy can it be to take magazine worthy images without plenty of equipment and any extra help besides the photographer, model and at the right time well picked location. For those who might have expected any further explanation about lighting, look else where, working with natural light as a photographer really shows who got the skills and an eye for great shot and who doesn’t. I worked with Philipe at the same location with only natural light as well and the images turned out 100x better than if I shoot with someone who tries to impress with his/her thousands worth of equipment. (images are in my portfolio). Instead of saying how bad this picture is, some of you should maybe consider taking classes to do at least some of the work Philipe can do, such as great hair&makeup – I honestly don’t know many more photographers who are able to work for a memorable image as at least 3 people in one. Do you?
September 01, 2012 at 10:23 am, EvB said:
The interesting part of this ‘endorsement’ of Philip, like the post just below, is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the particular image that he has posted. Whether Philip is good with hair, make-up, studio shots, or other shots at this location is irrelevant to whether the posted pic is a good example of the use of natural light. It isn’t, for reasons explained numerous times in the other posts. The fact that the image was published has a lot less to do with whether the shot is good than it has to do with the fact that he was hired to take some images by a not-very-knowledgeable client, and that image is, presumably, the best of what Philip delivered. Anyone who has been there knows that not every published image was a great shot. Most just don’t need to write an article pretending that it was.
September 01, 2012 at 1:09 pm, Philipe said:
Who’s pretending? Model Mayhem contacted me and wanted to do this article.
(you can ask them your self)
Now your saying the client is not knowledgeable or anyone that hires me or likes my work is not knowledgeable (I’m sure in your eyes).. That’s fine. I except that.
Yes I am the first to say being published does not mean its a good set of pictures.. I don’t have anything negative to say about you or even in response to your reaction and comments..
Was it the best that I can produce? No, it was just what I happen to do at that time.
The magazine received pictures from me and they chose what they felt was best for the magazine..
Does this mean anything? No.
Does this make me better? No.
Does this mean I’m successful? No.
I’m just plan Philip’e, that’s it…
According to you everything I’ve done is wrong and my clients are not knowledgeable..
What ever gets you through your day, these are not just opinions they are now personal attacks on not just me, but the people I work with..
I now get the feeling who this is..
You should have told Playboy how horrible I am as a photographer before they gave me the cover (I did not even ask for it, they gave it to me, it was just going to be a simple shoot) I never expected that… But they thought it was worthy…
Good day to your sir.
September 01, 2012 at 2:01 pm, Jamil said:
Would you share with us one of your own shots that you think falls into a similar category but is a better example of good photography?
August 31, 2012 at 8:45 pm, Melodye Joy said:
Im no photographer, but I will say this….
I have had the pleasure of working with Philipe’ a few times and though at times “unconventional” (as some seem to indicate here) and minimal in his approach, he always delivers!
When I began modeling in 2007, I muddled through many various photographers, some that were “guys with cameras” and others that had real, raw talent. I also struggled to get a good team behind me (photographer, makeup/hair, stylist), due my being a petite model.
In 2009 I really dedicated my time off work to push hard on my own, moving my way up through asking if we could collaborate, adding to the mix various designers & stylists…I finally found myself strong enough to work alongside such an artist as Philipe’….
Now that we have collaborated, I have had 3-4 offers for publication (both major and minor) and I have also gained the opportunity to collaborate with THREE international clothing designers (who have dressed from the red carpets of the Oscars to the music talents of Katy Perry) and a multi talented makeup artist/beauty line designer.
Tell me now how terrible Philipe’ is….please elaborate on how misconceived his notion is to present you with a simple suggestion, a thought that one can pull off such a photo with natural light and very little reconstruction in (photoshop) process.
Perhaps you still don’t believe that one can process such a photo with very little than God’s natural filter (sunlight, clouds, water)…but I implore you to give it a try before you start casting stones at a fellow artist. We all have our own views of what art IS, what is BEAUTIFUL, what is the RIGHT WAY to approach a scene…
I am no photographer, I am simply a model…but nonetheless, I believe that everyone has the ability and gift of art, it just depends on how one uses such a gift. Philipe’ chooses to use a natural, minimal approach where as some wish to shoot and then post edit for hours. It all depends on what your personal preferences are.
August 31, 2012 at 6:56 pm, Ron Crowe said:
Thank You for opening my eyes to the free things in life. It does not take light units reflectors or post shoot work to create a beautiful image with the free natural light.
August 31, 2012 at 10:14 am, Philipe said:
If you want to explore the possibles of natural light or even strobe light. Personal message me on private lessons from beginning to the end. Even makeup tips so you will know how to communicate with the hair and makeup artist. Also, how to give directing to the model (Note this is not a post editing class), this is about getting the look you want in camera.. The purpose is to save time on post editing..
August 30, 2012 at 11:12 pm, Fashion Studio said:
Great shot and very informative article. Thanks for sharing!
August 30, 2012 at 6:39 pm, EvB said:
Interesting article which, when coupled with that pic, shows that a studio photographer can be clueless about natural light. That an agent is “happy with” a pic that has mundane composition, muddy colors, poorly defined highlights, and murky shadows, or that any magazine would publish it, just confirms two points: it isn’t the quality of the image that gets it published; and, as stated in the article “These days everyone is getting tear sheets and it’s much easier than it used to be.”
August 30, 2012 at 10:22 pm, FBY1K said:
In the commercial world it’s not about what the photographer wants. It’s about delivering something the client wants.
August 31, 2012 at 10:33 am, EvB said:
This is amusing, largely because it shows how some photographers hide behind the ignorance of their client when they turn in mediocre work. The low budget client frequently doesn’t know what it could get, and, as we see from this example, a photographer who barely understands what is possible with natural light positions his model in the wrong place, appears not to even use a polarizing filter to reduce unwanted reflection and improve saturation and contrast (instead doing it in PS, rather than the vaunted “in camera” the article blathers about), ends up with a very mediocre result and then tells the client how happy they should be. The article is garbage, just as the posted image is. The apologists for Philip (real not, not his MM handle) are a joke.
September 02, 2012 at 12:16 am, Philipe said:
I think with you its a clear case of being bitter and angry that its not you.
I am not a joke.. Your comments hilariously childish and desperate.
I am completely wrong because I don’t do things your way.. Everything I did was done deliberate, the model is not in the wrong place.. What you think is wrong I think is right.. My shots are not mediocre..
Those can,… do.
Those who can’t, complain..
You have a severe inferiority complex…
Extreme desperation in reaching for anything to put down
to make you feel better about your self..
You have serious issues….
September 04, 2012 at 8:53 am, EvB said:
It’s always interesting to see such a personal attack, based on false assumptions, when the issue is the image. By the way, I know nothing about any Playboy cover; stopped shooting that style many years ago and simply couldn’t care less what anyone does for Playboy, although I don’t mind when ads I’ve shot show up there. What I do know is that your studio work, although heavily photoshopped, is immensely better and more creative than this example of your natural light work, where the posted image is mediocre at best. Jealous? You gotta be kidding, kid.
August 30, 2012 at 4:22 pm, Red Sky said:
Great explanation of your process, seeing the shot and making it happen. Lovely results.
August 30, 2012 at 12:57 pm, jim said:
It’s hard to believe you can have any shadow detail and yet not blow your highlights in that sun, especially shooting jpg’s and not doing any post work, other than saturation.
August 30, 2012 at 4:27 pm, Roger said:
That’s because you can’t without adjusting your camera settings or working it in post. He explained neither so we’re just left to assume it’s magic.
The pompousness and arrogance from this photographer is overwhelming in this article and in the forums. He didn’t want to do anything “trendy or go for a look that everyone else is doing”? Fail. This looks like one thousand other average to good MM fashion photography shots.
August 31, 2012 at 3:29 am, smokn Joe said:
It’s hard to believe because you don’t understand natural light and camera settings. I’ve pulled off higher contrasts in camera, in jpg!. I find nothing “arrogant and pompous” about Phillip’e. He simply stated/states the obvious that so many here fail at. He knew the opportunity and took advantage of it…not just by blind luck like so many here. That’s the message so many of MM’ers just don’t get and cannot/will not learn. Pool side (or around water) at 2:00 mid-day, on the side without reflection, is supper bright and allows for a f/16 +/- and still get deep contrasts. Lens selection & Hyper-focal distance has a great deal to do with success. Try it, you just might learn something!
August 31, 2012 at 10:44 pm, Philipe said:
I don’t know where your coming from but I’m not that type of person.
When I said trends or doing what everyone else is doing.
What is meant is. I never look at any photographers work or try to copy someone style.. If I like a shot from a photographer, I respect it and won’t copy it.
You said I failed.. I accept that.. But its your opinion. On my main page I say good or bad I post in my port.. If you want to say my images look the same..
I will tell you I do all the hair and makeup my shoots and I work hard.
Also, the sole purpose of making my chrome bustiers is to present something that no other photographer has on Model Mayhem. I needed something different.
Name one photographer that has chrome bustiers. I also do it so models will have something different as well.. Good day to you sir..
[url=http://modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/27139631][img]http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120215/16/4f3c4e8b8227b_m.jpg[/img][/url]
August 30, 2012 at 11:27 am, semi234 said:
Uh, ok.
Wish there was a little more teeth to this article. Other than this being an opportunity to showcase the photographer’s work. I’m not seeing how another photographer can use what was posted in here & nor how it could be implemented to their own work.
August 30, 2012 at 12:34 pm, Philipe said:
Thats the point (simplicity and minimal). Some people refuse to listen or believe if its not complicated or if its not technical enough.. They think, “its too easy, it can’t be that easy” It was just a matter of basic makeup and hair, and just taking pictures. There was no light set up or reflectors, so what is there to explain?
No assistants, no helpers.. Zero budget.. The point is things can still be done with out complication or big team or crew..
“Uh ok” is just ignorant… You refuse to except that its simple.
You should be thinking “Is that it? Natural light? low to zero budget? I can do that!”
and the point is any one can..
But its like painting, anyone can buy paints and paint.. Its just matter what the end result will be.. Some get it and have it and some don’t.. Its just depends..
August 30, 2012 at 10:25 pm, FBY1K said:
Agreed. If pressed for time and the sun is available…natural light it is!
Last year I had a shot in golden late summer/afternoon sunlight. No Briese, Broncolor, or Profoto head can reproduce this quality of light.
Great article that defies the “It can’t be that simple” mindset these days.
August 31, 2012 at 10:52 am, semi234 said:
Not saying things can’t be “simple & minimal” but if that’s how you present it, it doesn’t really present, nor open itself up for further discussion.
August 31, 2012 at 10:53 am, semi234 said:
Sorry, that should have read…
“Not saying things can’t be “simple & minimal” but if that’s how you’re
presenting it, how you wrote it doesn’t really open itself up for further
discussion nor inquiry.”