Self Portrait - Flash/PP Play

After seeing Colin's thread I had to follow suit -- I wasn't posting this as it's basically a failed attempt that I played around with a little more. I spent a couple of hours a few days ago setting up my flash in my basement just to see what the various results would get. I wussed out quicker than I wanted as it got quite cold down there. I need to do it again and actually record what settings are etc but it was a good learning process -- flash is my weakest area right now for sure.

Anyway here's the shot:



Unfortunately I only have one flash at the moment and had it on the hot shoe so on this shot there's too harsh of shadows on the one side (like I said I was playing and need to work on it). Then I went on to play a bit more with some PP looking at a Dave Hill type look or a Joey Lawrence type look. It needs work as the photos/contrast wasn't the best for that effect but you get the idea I'm sure.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the Dave Hill type photographs. I find that they look very artificial and mimic new computer-generated images much in the same that the pictorialists tried to mimic painting in the early history of photography. In both cases, a rejection of "straight photography". However, I do admit, on occasions I've considered getting an old 1930's Leica Summar lens, preferably with scratches and haze, for its pictorialist-like, painterly effects.

It looks like you are enjoying yourself and I admire your efforts in experimenting with flash and lighting. Flash is something that I will, in all likelihood, avoid like the plague not only because the aesthetics but also the time-commitment it takes for mastering it.

This is not a criticism though I think I'd like the portrait better if it was just a straight photograph.

Thanks Nando and I do agree with you on a lot of Dave Hill's shots looking more cartoonish then photography, I was going for more of his less extreme style and that is also why I added Joey Lawrence into the mix there as well.

I'm usually one to shy away from a lot of PP'ing as myself but I'm trying to pick up some tricks here and there to see what results can be made. The original photo is actually quite poor so it's interesting to see the results you can get from trying to "save" it if you will. I'm heading out the door right now but later today I'll post the original so you can see both.

I had written a whole bit about this, somehow the post was lost and I've got to start over.

Good job experimenting with the flash Cujo. I know you're not 100% satisfied with the light, but with only one small flash unit in such a tight space, it's really challenging to control the hot/shadow spots. I haven't seen the orig, but it looks pretty good. I like the composition and location. nice availability of pattern and texture.
Not digging the pp though. Kind of messy. Good job for a first attempt at such drastic manipulation. Keep it up.

I completely understand Nando's dislike for those heavily manipulated images. I think we all have our likes and dislikes when it comes to photography. I guess that's why there's so many people shooting so many things in so many ways. Though, I don't know if I would call it "a rejection of "straight photography"". That just seems quite harsh and dismissive of such a technically challenging aspect of photography. At least to me, I see it as no more than an artistic device, a tool, or maybe a different style.

The technical knowledge of "straight photography" required to accomplish and recreate these photographs is incredible. Most times, the base image has to look pretty ugly in order to be able to manipulate correctly. Because of this, it's not a matter of framing a shot that stimulates the brain and the eye. It requires the pre-visualization of the photographer to decide what they are going to do before the image is taken. Then to be able to see the photograph in it's ugly state, knowing the limitations of the process and correcting accordingly.
This "shoot to print" mentality is actually a commonly used strategy of traditional photography. With BW film, usually the best looking straight neg, isn't the nicest or easiest to print once in the darkroom. Most of my traditional BW shots are accomplished this way. Once again, understanding the limitations and potential of the processes and photographing accordingly.

Again, I can completely understand not liking these images. I just don't see them as an absolute old vs. new commentary. Personally I enjoy photographing both, and when I decide to park it in front of photoshop for a solid 2-3 hours for one shot, I personally don't see it as rejecting my traditional background.

To get back on track... Great to see you experimenting Cujo. For a first try on the lighting and the pp, it's a great job. Sorry for the rant.

Rants are good at times

As I stated, my basement makes a great grunge shoot area, it's just working in the tight space I need to figure out before I do it again -- and it definitely needs to warm up a bit.

I'm also working on obtaining a 430EX for secondary flash and I'm going to play around with the Canon IR system (one thing I'm jealous about Nikon about is their IR system). From there I hope to invest in another flash and possibly pocket wizards or radio poppers (more so the poppers as they are getting good reviews and support high speed sync).

But until then I'll continue to learn and experiment.

I wouldn't be so jealous of nikon's system. In order to fire the slaves, you are required to us the small on camera flash in "commander mode". This also shuts off the sync adaptor, preventing mixing of flash units. As nice as those nikons are... I LOVE MY METZ. Poppers or wizards are the way to go. I haven't tried the poppers, but have had great results with a Wizard.

I don't think I was harsh or dismissive. I directly compared the type of images in the "Dave Hill style" to Pictorialism. (And that's really way too big of a compliment) I think that I am right in saying that it rejects straight photography in that end-result does not show what something looks like captured in a moment in time. Instead it is an altered and overtly artificial representation of a subject. Human subjects in Dave Hill's photographs mimic computer-generated graphics or sometimes look like plastic figures in much the same way as human subjects in Man Ray's solarized photographs looked like melting, metallic sculptures or robots. One can argue that Ansel Adam's photographs are also altered as he did extensive work in the dark room to get his landscape images to actually look better than the real thing but a mountain still looked like a mountain and a tree still looked like a tree.

Many pictorialist photographs indeed required tremendous skill and perhaps many hours of time in experimenting and research. Edward Steichen's pictorialist photograph "The Pond - Moonlight" must have been extremely difficult to make with perhaps countless hours of research with light sensitive gums to eventually create the coloured photograph. Likewise, I do not dismiss the work necessary to create a Dave Hill-style image in a digital darkroom nor the talent to "previsualize". Personally I cannot previsualize at all and I don't think I'll ever be able to. For me, its all about being receptive and being ready to capture that gift from God, so to speak.

I'm not being critical nor dismissive of this Dave Hill-style (or fad) in photography in terms of "what it takes" to make a photograph like that. I personally just don't find photographs in that style very appealing. The photographs don't affect me as a viewer - they are not communicative to me at all. (Yes, I do say pretty much the same thing about the revered Group f64-style, big-camera landscapes) I personally think that these types of photographs won't be enduring. At best, I think the style will be associated with a particularly small time period. When I look at such photographs, I ponder whether the type of manipulations used in this "style" reveals anything significant about the subject that would be lacking if it was taken "straight". In most cases, unfortunately, I actually find that this style does nothing but depletes the soul of the subject by dehumanizing it. These are just my feelings when I look at these types of photographs - nothing more.

I should point out that I think that creating this style of photograph for yourself as a learning exercise is a smart and meaningful thing to do.

First off.. what a great room. The texture on the wall, the rug and especially that chair.

I am also not a big fan of this stye of photography and I agree it tends to dehumanize the subject but it's important to experiment.

I was going through a book about creative darkroom techniques form the 70's at Value Village a few weeks back and almost every "technique" was horrible and makes me glad in a way that darkrooms went away. The digital darkroom is just as bad if not worse. That doesn't mean people shouldn't try.

I like the pose a lot.

I'm working on putting up the orginal -- give me 5 - 10 mins

But before that as I stated before I was aiming for something similar to a Dave Hill or Joey Lawrence shot, Dave Hill's more prominent work is the cartoonyish looking look which I'm not that fond of but his less exaggerated stuff work for his clients - same with Joey Lawrence, if his style didn't work and was acceptable "now" then he wouldn't be getting the calls that he's getting (his is actually an interesting story considering his age and years in photography). We all know that this style/image won't stand the test of time, no image overly processed does.

Selective colouring anyone? Does it "look cool" and "work" for some shots now. Yes. Is it overused now -- very debatable. Will it look good in 40 years compared to a black and white or a colour rendition -- probably not and will date the shot.

But if you are doing some work for a shot for "now" I can see using a technique like this or similar as a now piece, if you're doing this work it's usually for something to display now and not something you hope will be a masterpiece down the road. There's plenty of shots I take that I hope stand the test of time and I perform minimal touch up on them because if you do go to the extreme it does date that shot.

I was also doing this as an exercise to not only learn different PP techniques but also the extent of Lightroom etc. If you don't take the time to try out new things you won't learn other methods and techniques that will help you create your own style down the road. Sure it's fine to imitate anyone when starting out and try to emulate what they do but there's also that time where you need your own signature style so that when people do look at your work they know it's your work and not your work acting like someone elses.

(wow we're all just going on rants in here today )

As far as the room I can explain most of it. House built in 1940s so has the general "sault" rock basement. Our walls just happen to be crumbling a bit. The door behind the chair was the original front door when we moved into the house. It has a board nailed over where the window was as the ex-tenant kicked the door in when he was "let go" from the old owner. It was too heavy for me to move out of the way for the shoot. The carpet is our old living room carpet that got quite dirty from the hounds -- so was moved down there to cover the cement floor to run back and forth to the laundry. The chair is the ultimate piece -- I bought it at an auction for $5 (my gf and I used to go to lots of auctions, we had a thing for buying chairs). My gf hates the chair but I love it - this is why it's in the basement and not upstairs -- or on the side of the road. The door you see in the right of the frame is a door stuck open for another room in the basement.

All the pieces together just being where they were created a great scene that I plan on playing with a bit more -- I could only position my camera in the one spot as there's a treadmill to the right and a freezer and furnace beside that so it "just worked".

Here's the straight-out-of-camera shot:

That's better. You wanted to make those wild eyes less revealing?

Holy smokes, now there's a difference. There's definitely a difference in the eyes, among other things.
Still a really neat location.

As I said before, I completely respect the fact that you may not gravitate towards the heavily manipulated images Nando. Just because I don't mind the idea, doesn't mean I like all of it. I still have respect for anything that is well composed and shows mastery of craft. Personally, I'm actually not a big fan of the "grungy" style of photography where the technical aspect of the craft is almost completely discarded.

My perception and use of these techniques is an artistic expression. Definitely it's not an accurate depiction of exactly how the scene was when it was photographed, but arguably, BW photography is the same. Despite it's long historic background in photography. None of us see a landscape, person or scene in BW. Many times with BW it's a tool used to isolate the composition from time, specific context, or individualism present in a photograph; allowing a connection with a greater audience. (obviously not the only reason, but quite popular) Understanding the limitations of film(or digital), I can not agree with you about Ansel. 99% of photographers have dodged, burned or at least tweaked the contrast of an image. I don't believe that it is possible to draw a line in the sand on this subject. I agree there is much work present in these images. Though it's quite obvious that the original negs were still quite stunning. I see these final products as a testament to his mastery of every aspect of the photographic craft and something to be commended.

As painters of the era when photography first emerged probably argued similarly against "this new tool", personal expression has, and is still, the greatest motivation. Whatever tool feels more comfortable to the artist, will invariably be used.
At least in my case, when choosing to use such techniques, my motivation is never to reject my traditional background. I am simply using the most efficient way to fully express my vision.

My complaints with my SooC shot is mostly the lighting which I said I was playing with. So with that failed/not how I liked it I experimented. I have another edit that is less extreme and still adds a feel to the image away from the original as well. It's always good to play around with things.

Speaking of the awesome chair I think I'm going to turn it into a project, I just need a way to transport the chair to different locations now.

That would be a really cool idea for a series. That's a beauty of a chair.

It's also a rocker

I have no problem with manipulations or things not looking as they do in 'real' life. I have said before that I believe that photographs are never real. If not on these forums then perhaps I said it on Soonet.ca. There are two basic questions that I automatically ask when I look at a photograph.

1. What is this photograph of? (This yields an objective answer.)
2. What is this photograph about? (This yields a subjective answer.)

After reflection, this is how these two question affect my like or dislike of a photograph:

If I am unable to answer the 2nd question, it usually means that I'm indifferent about the photograph. Everyone will answer this question differently. Some will be able to answer while others may not. The photograph may be the the most technically perfect photograph possible or considered a work of art by many people but if I can't answer that question for myself, the photograph won't really affect me. I neither like nor dislike the photograph in this case.

If I am unable to answer the 1st question, then usually do not like the photograph. The answer should always be the subject, whatever it is - a person, a flower, a bird, whatever. Photographs can be manipulated to the point where the subject is no longer obvious or relevant and manipulations themselves then becomes the subject. Is the subject the person sititng in a chair or is the subject the manipulation? This type of thing can happen outside of photoshop. For example, the use of an extreme fisheye lens. When you use the this tool to enhance a subject, that's fine but it is also really easy for such a tool to overtake and become the subject. Then I won't like the photograph. If it is the rare case that I can answer the 2nd question but not the first, then I usually think that the photograph is overtly superficial.

It should be note the photographs that Dave Hill does are primarily for use in advertisements. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Advertising without photography would be in a sorry state. However, photography used in advertising is all about selling the product and the actual subject in the photograph is, not always but often, irrelevant.

BTW, I have never been ranting - just stating my opinions, observations, reflections, etc.

Well to clarify for me I just say ranting when a post runs on for more then three sentences, I think we all hit multiple paragraph posts in here.

I had to laugh a little when I read your post as when I get free time I was going to play with my fisheye in the same setting as this and I thought to shoot with the fisheye, over process an over processed image then throw it up

I haven't used the fisheye much as I'm waiting for "that" moment to use it, it's good in certain situations but can be over done fairly easily, will need to use it sparingly for it to actually make a shot worth while.

And now I'm still thinking chair theme -- what a glorious chair, what a glorious theme. Now I just need the time -- and weather to cooperate.

Trying to fix a dish that is too spicy by adding more pepper seems like an easy trap when it comes to photography.

I have an 8mm circular fisheye that gives a 180 degree fov and haven't liked any of the photos I've taken with it. The extreme fisheye distortion ultimately overwhelms almost any subject and becomes the subject itself. With one photo I took with the fisheye, I decided to manipulate it much further in photoshop, and posted it on my flickr. Although I do not like the photograph, it was one of the extremely few photographs that I have able to sell. How's that for irony?

My main use for it will be for larger group shots and effect shots as such in different situations. I wasn't a fan of the lens either until I saw people who knew what they were doing with it use it and use it to good effect. I'm hoping to learn from what they've done and add my own spice to it, sometimes having objects distorted if you know you're distorting them and doing them for a reason can work fairly well -- I also have ideas for these now it's just getting that time.

Ahhhhh....time. Now there is the ever present stumbling block.

Of course, Cujo. I'm sure fisheyes have their practical uses - I just haven't figured out how to use mine effectively to enhance a subject instead of overwhelming it. I really need to spend time with it. And VTML is right. The lack of time is really the biggest obstacle I face and I'm sure that is the case with most people. My fisheye is on the extreme side being a 8mm circular type. If I wanted a lens in the 15-16mm range, I'd personally go with a rectilinear ultra-wide, like the Voigtlander 15/f4.5 Heliar, instead of a fisheye. I've seen fisheyes used very effectively in a square format - like 6x6 medium format. I may be a 30mm Arsat fisheye for my MF camera if I ever become more comfortable with this type of lens.

This is the shot I was referring to. Many months after I took it, I realized that the real subject was the distortion effect, the manipulations and perhaps even the 'black'-space.


I'm a man of contradictions, however. A few days ago, I was drawing up basic plans to build an anamorphic pinhole camera that would yield about 160-170 fov and give a 6x17 format panoramic on 120 film - 3 to 4 second exposure in sunlight at 100 ISO, say. You want to talk about distortion? Everything goes really wacky except at the centre, where it is just a bit wacky. I a had crazy idea for making portraits with such a rig placing the subject in the centre of the frame with backgrounds consisting of something with strong geometrical lines. (It would probably work well with your chair project.) Anyway the next day, I snapped out of it and scrapped the idea.

Ahh my fisheye isn't that extreme. Because I'm on a DSLR with a crop sensor (1.6) I have a fisheye 10-17mm and it only has the effect at the 10mm range -- 1.6 x 10 = 16mm so I'm just missing the 180 degree view but it's almost there. And at that plane there's no lens vignetting which is what I wanted to stay away from.

Hopefully I can get out in my next set of days off and demonstrate some things -- hopefully. Each time I've tried going out on my off days it's snowed so far.