Sweet Portraits

I've often used a boom arm to hold a light over a model -- more often than not, it's a little further back and used as a hair light, to provide a little tonal separation with the backdrop. On occasion, however, I use a overhead downlight as a main light.

For the most part, I had a boom arm that could be placed on top of my most sturdy lightstand. With a counterbalance, you can reach out & place the light above the model. But at full extension, the whole contraption wasn't overly secure, even when counterbalanced. With the counterbalance weight, the whole boom arm was heavy, and it was difficult moving it to full height. Once there, the whole stand was now top heavy & easy to tip over. Further, it took up a lot of critical floor space. As a result, I didn't use it as much as I would like.

I finally got tired of the whole bother. I got a boom arm that attached to a strategic spot on the wall. I got just four little screw heads sticking out of the wall, and when I want to use the boom arm, I just mount it to the screw heads with some washers & thumb screws. It's strong & solid, and it doesn't have to be counterbalanced. It doesn't take up any floor space.

So I was anxious to try the new boom arm out.

I especially wanted to try this concept out with someone with a curvy figure, like Carlotta.

But, in retrospect, I'm not a big fan of these images. Sure, some are interesting, but I figure that if you are in a studio situation, using only one single light is amateurish. Sure, this might appear to be dramatic, but I think my tastes have grown to be more sophisticated over the years.

But despite all that, we do make some interesting examples of the genre.

Here's a token color image -- there's not much advantage to providing the color, is there?

Carlotta's pose is an interesting shape, and I like to ghostly uplighting from the main light bouncing off the shiny wooden floor.

We try some floor images with the downlight.

Around this time, I lose momentum, and Carlotta comments that she's not comfortable with the lighting. I can see her point: harsh downlight will highlight any flaw in the figure, no matter how small. That, coupled with my feeling that single harsh light source images lack the kind of sophistication I want, makes me agree to abandon this lighting setup immediately.

Y'know -- a different model would have kept silent. After all, I was paying her, and I was the one expected to make all the aesthetic decisions. But I'm very glad that Carlotta spoke up. I figure that if a model isn't comfortable with a setup, it'll show, no matter how well she can hide it. Besides, I like to think that I typically have 150% more ideas than time, and if one particular idea isn't working, it's no big deal to drop it & try something else.

Since we got Carlotta one the floor already, we left her there. I scramble around to put together more conventional lights, and we start trying to find a vision.

I look at a lot of nude images, and I've had dozens of nude models over here in my house. Something that baffles me. These models don't have a stitch of clothing on, yet sometimes they appear to be more nude than at other times. I couldn't tell you why that it. Here's an example. Carlotta is bareassed naked, but all her naughty bits are covered. Yet she appears more nude to me than many of the more-revealing other images we made. Compare it to the image directly below. Go figure.

I like this image a lot. I like...

... the unusual proportions (tall & narrow),
... the unusual composition,
... the unusual pose / body shape,
... the real expression on Carlotta's face.

I get the sense that she was looking at, and reacting to, me in this picture, as opposed to looking at the camera. That's what I like most of all.

Something I should have mentioned earlier. In order to help out Carlotta and my local fellow photographers, I set it up so that other photographers could sign up for time with Carlotta working here at my house. That way, photographers who could not afford a two hour session could sign up for a single hour, and Carlotta wouldn't have to worry about the logistics & the commute time. I signed up for a ~2.5 hour session (my typical duration), but there was a beginner photographer who worked with Carlotta for an hour before my time started. He arrived early to set up, and since he was more of a beginner, we consulted on the best ways to execute his ideas. I kinda think that this setup worked well for Carlotta -- she got a full half day's work without commuting to three different locations. It worked well for the beginner photographer, who get a chance to work with a very experienced model at an affordable rate. But I've got to admit that by the time I got towards the end of my time with Carlotta, I was getting pretty tired.

When I'm tired, my ideas don't flow as freely as usual, and my self-critical filter becomes more forgiving. But being analytical & cerebral, I am prepared for these moments. I have a list of ideas of things I eventually want to try. One such idea: I don't photograph horizontal models enough. So, perhaps because I was getting tired, we try some.

I guess I don't photograph horizontal models often because such images appear uncomfortable for the model and are definitely uncomfortable for me. So, we sit up.

"Up, down, left, right, near, far"

The first time Carlotta came over, she worked with Jessica here, and I got to watch. One thing that Jessica did was that she moved in close, very close, to Carlotta, and Carlotta was quite comfortable with that. Carlotta continued to move & pose despite Jessica being just inches away.

When I'm working during a session, there's this little litany going on in my head; it goes "up, down, left, right, near, far". Its purpose is to remind me to look at my model from different angles, to move around the model, and to consider all perspective variations before moving away from a particular setup.

I'm looking to break my habits (both good & bad habits), and I suspect that I maintain a comfortable difference from the model. So, for more than a few images, I decide to risk cooties and move in close to Carlotta. We produce some sweet & lovely pictures this way.

The image above is one of those "model staring off into the distance" pictures; I don't care for pictures like that. It shows a disconnect between the model & the photographer.

This image to the left: it's not one of my best images -- in fact, it's far from it. But it's more typical of what goes on in a photo sitting with me. I don't remember what I said, but I did crack Carlotta up with some weird & quirky comment. That's an accomplishment -- I'm proud of that.

I'm a fan of one-shoulder-higher-than-the-other images, but in this one, it seems a tad forced.

Now that I look at these pictures as a group, these closer up pictures have less eye contact than when I keep my distance. It might have been better moving in "close" via a mild telephoto lens, as opposed to moving in physically close. Something to think about.

This completes the images Carlotta & I made together this time.

However, I'm not quite done. Lately, I've been enjoying applying artistic effects to my images, especially the brush stroke effect. Judging from the feedback I've received, I guess I'm the only one who enjoys these effect, but despite the feedback, I'm still doing them. As a compromise, I've decided to collect all the manipulated images onto a separate page, along with commentary about why I like it. Want to see?

This sitting concludes with Carlotta On Canvas.