I need more space - part 2 of 2
Added 2021-12-21 08:30:01 +0000 UTCI like to use longer focal length because they provide something like an abstract elevation image of a building. But to take in all of my subject, especially a full figure, I need plenty of space between me and the model.
And, if I want a proper separation of my subject from the blurred background, I also need plenty of space between the model and whatever is behind her.
The basement of the location in Merate represents an ideal situation.
Yesterday I showed you a photo where Linda was about half way between me and the distant wall, I was using the Nikon 105mm f2.5 AI-s at the widest aperture.
The elements in the background were still recognisable, but everything was nicely out of focus.
The warm light coming from a spotlight on the right was helping even more to separate Linda from the rest of the scene.
In today's picture I moved Linda further back, to have her illuminated by the natural light coming from the door on the left of the corridor.
Possibly it is a less successful composition (I actually made less photos in this scenario), but it is important to understand what happens when you don't leave any space behind your subject: she becomes part of it like in a reportage picture.
There is no right or wrong in photography, so which of the two interpretations do you prefer?
The entire shooting of Linda has been uploaded on my Archives, complete with the backstage videos, so you can have a better idea about how I work.
If you have any question about Bramley Apple Archives, ask me on bramleyapple@yahoo.com
Comments
Yes, I agree. The reason why I prefer not to rent a studio is because the photos would feel all the same. Whilst in an apartment, even the worst looking and smallest available in Milano, you can find at least 5 different corners where to place the model for 5 completely different feelings and lightning conditions.
Bramley Apple
2021-12-24 00:24:39 +0000 UTCYour explanation clarifies the frequent use (by Craig Morey among others) of an amorphous backdrop, in years past. Possibly tie-dyed and textural, but largely featureless, drawing neither focus nor attention to itself, yet providing the kind of flexibility you mention; to use long-focus lenses without distracting the eye with linearity, edges and sharp contrasts -- in limited studio space -- like REALLY-boring low-contrast camouflage fabric: great depth-of-field with nothing of interest behind the model, who therefore dominates the frame's monotony. Possibly a means to attain the kind of abstract elevation you reference, comparatively inexpensively. The downside, I think, was the perception of formulaic rigidity that came along with the same-old, same-old background with dozens of models, thousands of photographs and sternum-high camera angles.
Scott Keith Ellington
2021-12-23 20:25:20 +0000 UTCI like this shot better than yesterday's. Full frontal shots are nice but they're not everything.
NMilbury
2021-12-21 17:01:10 +0000 UTC
