Photos: professional vs non-professional look

[pn.md]

From Joseph Cartwright, professional fashion photographer. He's in the top magazines. I heard about him on MSNBC's Tech Summit. They interviewed him as a top New York fashion photographer whose on the leading edge of digital photography. He uses a Contax 645 with Phase One digital back. Very expensive. ;)

www.josephcartwright.com :

http://www.cartright.com/portfolio/prism/images/prism-7.jpg

http://www.cartright.com/portfolio/noir/images/noir-5.jpg


From photographer Jeff Black, non-professional, ie- not published in the magazines like Cartwright:

www.pictures4fun.com :

http://www.pictures4fun.com/realitydoingweb/images/amers9.jpg

http://www.pictures4fun.com/realitydoingweb/images/L8.jpg

I'm not criticizing either photographer. I'm just trying to figure out how Cartwright got a more professional, polished magazine look vs Black whose pictures look more amateur.

I think both photographers are great. But is it just me are the quality of the pictures different? Is Cartwright using more expensive pro lighting? Backdrop? Or is it Cartwright's $30,000 plus setup with the Contax and $15,000 Phase One Digital back?

And how do I get Cartwright's look? Will the Alien Bees' Digibees I plan on getting give me this more pro look? I know it's all about your technique! But expensive pro equipment has to play a role.

I want this look with my Digital Rebel and Alien Bees (I haven't purchased the Aliens yet. So I'm open to suggestions.) ;):D

[Vegas Poboy]

Lighting & know how is always a major plus when landing those big accounts. I've also heard that when you have a big name in the business you get donations or major discounts on top line gear. So don't think these guys pull out the credit card and pays full price. Sometimes there stuff is on lease.

I went to a seminar givin by Mr. Crockett and he did a demo on lighting & posing it was great. Later all of us students found out he had $50,000.00 in lighting setup. So that took the wind out of our sales to try repoducing what he did. Good luck but don't get to crazy with the credit card. :)

[ron chappel]

I can't get the 2nd set to show.
Pitty because it looks like an interesting comparison

[evilenglishman]

personally i think the second two photos look bad because the poses aren't good.
The first one shows a very unflattering line around the models stomach and the second one is a really arkward pose - it looks uncomfortable

[PhotosGuy]

Keep in mind that a "Pro" also has a makeup person, hair person, etc, and NEVER shows you the pics that aren't perfect!!!

[ron chappel]

Tried the link and coppying the shortcut but still can't see the 2nd set.
I have win XP pro and ie6 .am i lacking something to see them properly?

[G3]

The posing is the main difference here. In Mr. Black's photos, the posing looks stiff, especially in the second photo. In both photos, the model's right arm is locked out straight. This contributes to a stiff, "posed" look. "If it can bend, bend it." In that second photo, the model looks stiff as a board and leaning back in a rather unnatural position. Both photos are using the right arm for support. I don't like this type of pose. Women are better photographed in a relaxed "S-curve" type of pose, IMHO. The first one almost works..if he did something different with the right arm and covered the midriff, it would be OK. The lighting is good.

I don't particularly like the composition of the second photo (Mr. Black's) either. There's just too much extraneous "stuff" in that photo that doesn't work as an effective background.

[evilenglishman]

I agree 100% with what G3 wrote. Also I think the last photo would have looked more "fashion" if she wasn't looking at the camera.

is this the guy who has a book out about posing models???

[John_T]

I think the first thing that makes a top photographer is his ability to see, feel, sense and understand light and know how to work with it. Any kind of light, natural or artificial. Throwing money at lighting will not make better images.

The rest is a intuitive ability to work with people and situations, imagination, creativity and experience.

The gear is souless, heartless and brainless. It's dead asleep until somebody pushes a button. It doesn't give a eff about you or what you want to do. You've gotta do it all.

[pn.md]

is this the guy who has a book out about posing models???

Yes, it is the same guy who sells the posing techniques on Ebay.

Thanks all for the replies. Alot of the differences are obvious ie- poses, lighting. However, I wonder if Jeff Black could achieve the more professional look (IMO) if he had the same studio and lighting as Cartwright. Or if he would've shot it his way and still got his same look.

I never thought about if the model NOT looked in the camera for a more pro look. :)

[G3]

is this the guy who has a book out about posing models???

Yes, it is the same guy who sells the posing techniques on Ebay.

Thanks all for the replies. Alot of the differences are obvious ie- poses, lighting. However, I wonder if Jeff Black could achieve the more professional look (IMO) if he had the same studio and lighting as Cartwright. Or if he would've shot it his way and still got his same look.

I never thought about if the model NOT looked in the camera for a more pro look. :)

It's all in the way you use the lighting you have. I don't think you can necessarily do any better with $50,000.00 worth of lighting than you can with $500.00 worth. If you don't know how to use it, then the only difference will be that it cost you $50,000.00 to make a poorly lit photograph. Properly controlled, just about ANY lighting can produce a "professional quality" photograph. But you have to understand light and how to control it.

As far as posing, there are certain "classic" poses that will look good with nearly any subject, and there are certain "classic posing rules" that will give you "classic poses". What defines the top model photographers is their ability to use, bend or break those rules and acheive the desired look. Just because you use time-homored and proven "classic pose" does NOT mean that you photo is going to have the look you were after. Face, arm, hand, leg, foot and body positioning can be replicated to the nth degree and if the model isn't relaxed and comfortable, it will show in the picture. The idea is to give the model a starting point and let him or her work with that until they hit a pose they are confortable with. It may vary only slightly from the "classic" pose, but it will work for that subject. If you try to pose them the way you want them and make them hold that pose exactly, they are not going to be relaxed.

As far as eyes looking at the camera, away from the camera, just to the side of the camera, etc., there are many different techniques that work. What you have to keep in mind is things like the difference between a male's eyes and a female's eyes, how much "eyeball" should be showing, etc. Traditional wisdom has always been that the eyes should be looking where the nose is pointing, but people are breaking away from that now, too...and with good results. The more you break away from the traditional poses, however, the more involved lighting can become because of facial shadows, etc. One rule that seems to stick is that the face should not be turned to the side to the point that the nose breaks the line of the face.

Also important is camera angle. Moving the camera up or down a little can make a huge difference in perspective.

[John_T]

In this candid shot, one is a top model and one is a top art director. Which is which and how can you tell?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting/data//3691/20945CRW_3529_2_RJ.jpg

[evilenglishman]

i would say the girl facing the camera is the model for 2 reasons.

1. she has a body that looks like a mans. :x
2. the other is a bit too "womanly" around the hips.

:wink:

of course you didn't say what type of model - which makes a very big difference! My answer is based on the thought that you are referring to fashion.

[Johnnynf]

The first one shows a very unflattering line around the models stomach

I wish my stomach were as "unflattering". I fear that if I were to enter into a similar pose, you would see more than just one line. :lol:

In that last picture, the one of the art director and the model, could that lady's pants be any lower? I mean seriously. Not that I mind any, but that gives a whole new meaning to the term "low rise underwear"...if she is wearing any at all. :lol: The sad thing is that I see 14 year olds wearing stuff like that around my school all the time. What will young ladies be wearing (or not be wearing) 10 or 20 years from now?

[John_T]

Nope Nope. Which is which and why?

Hint: What makes a top model. What makes it worth flying her in from 11,000 km away, put her up in the best hotel, pay her expenses and her fees, not minor, on top of all that?

The answer is in three words.

[Kadath]

Attitude/charisma/appeal
Consistancy
Professionalism

Kad

[John_T]

Well I won't be silly and drag this out. Kad, those factors are assumed in the price, as well as body, looks and being photogenic.

The tip is in the pic.

SHE CAN POSE!

She is posing all the time. She is posing hanging on the van door. They were leaving after a two week shoot. She was slouching on the van bumper until I pulled out the camera for bye-bye shots. Bang! Up like a shot and posing. She was posing everywhere she went, in restaurants, at the swimming pool, in the dark on the beach watching the cyclone waves and the moon, everywhere. Absolutely naturally. And she's great, intelligent and funny. She knows exactly what the camera wants and picks up instantly what the photographer, art director and client want. She just does it. Click, click, click, it's in the can. That's worth a lot of bread. But the photographer has gotta be tops to capture her right. It's teamwork, and each does his/her part or it all falls apart.

[evilenglishman]

cool, I won. What did I win? :D


is this the guy who has a book out about posing models???

Yes, it is the same guy who sells the posing techniques on Ebay.


:shock: I think that is one of his weakest points, I certainly wouldn't buy that book.

[John_T]

My take on the main difference between Cartwright and Black is that Cartwright is in synch with his models, set and gear. He can juice it up and capture the juice with the image. Black is remote, out of synch and his models go stiff and get "posed" like store window dummies. No contact, no juice to capture. Style has nothing to do with it, unless you are shooting for Sears & Roebuck catalogs.

[vvizard]

Look at Cartright's second picture, and Black's first.. I think the look of Cartrights model is way better.. While Black's model got that "cool! Is that a digital rebel?" look on her face, Cartrights model got that sexy, horney-looking face, saying "Oh my God! Is that a $15.000+ backdrop in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?" And that my friends, really makes the difference :)

[pn.md]

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:g8AYmsChzlEJ:seminars.seyboldreport s.com/2001_boston/files/75/75_transcript_2.doc+Joseph+Cartright+photography+e quipment&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8


Link with Joseph Cartright (sorry I kept spelling his name wrong above) talking about digital photography and its future in fashion photo...And the reason I keep bringing him up is because from what I can gleam from the web, he and a few other photographers are the only ones shooting strictly digital in fashion. And that is what I'm interested in - to get into shooting digital fashion photography one day for a living, if I get good enough. Well, maybe more as a second occupation. Unfortunately, for now I'll have to stick with my day job in the ER. Lots of drama there also, just like fashion shoots. ;) :D

talking about 48mb photo files and that may not even be sufficient for some of his clients!

"We shoot for high end clients.Â* We shoot for Victoria's Secret, Ralph Lauren, Halston.Â* And, for them, budget isn't as important as the final product, and how you go about resolving the final image.Â*


Are there any questions about the H20?Â* It is the product that I shot with, by the way was a prototype.Â* It's expected to launch in June or July.Â* The print that was up there is an Iris print, as I mentioned before, and the print that's going around is a Fujix print.Â* Being a prototype there were issues with it, all of which I expect to be resolved before it was launched.Â* And, I wish Carsten were here, so he could confirm the date, which is probably why he left [laughter].Â* The unit worked.Â* It worked well.Â* It had obviously final stage issues.Â* It was the fact that it was a 48 meg file was really interesting to watch and what I mean by that to be able to go in and crop options of it which was one of the things that I desperately wanted to be able to do, which is to be able to go out, do a shoot, preconceive a shoot into several sections.Â* We can do that now with a 48 meg camera, with a 48 meg file.Â*


Audience:Â* What are the problems you have in editing a 48 megabyte file?Â*


Mr. Henshall:Â* Sally asked what problems we had in editing a 48 meg file.Â*


Mr. Cartright:Â* Obviously, the biggest problem is the obvious one is that the file is three times the original size, the original 18 meg file.Â* The real problem was moving the data.Â* As everybody up here has explained, that's the real problem.Â* Everybody, again, I'm the soldier.Â* I'm the guy that's out there doing this day in and day out. Two or three seconds; today, that's not the way it works.Â* First of all, an image comes down in seven or eight seconds.Â* By the time I actually get a chance to see it, and show it to somebody, it's eight to ten seconds.Â* I'm sure that's going to shorten, but that's been the biggest problem.Â* The second problem is that because it's a much larger file, we need different computers.Â* We have our capture computer has half a gig of memory and it's still dying.Â* And, moving it from PC to PC which we do quite option from our capture computer, to our editing computer to our printing server, moving these files around, has a certain latency to it.Â* That's part of the process.Â* That' something that we need to find a way to resolve, as soon as we're thinking now, we're going and we have 100 megabit network.Â* We're thinking about going to a gigabit network to try to resolve some of these issues.Â* These are the costs that we need to put into our day to day use, and consider that part of our overall expenditures. "

"The first thing is why 48 meg?Â* Do we really need 48 meg?Â* And, the answer is yes.Â* First and foremost to shut up the client.Â* That has been the biggest pain.Â* It's just been endless.Â* 18 meg, is that really big enough.Â* 90% of the work we do falls into a magazine.Â* 18 meg is more than adequate for that.Â* But, there's always been that hesitation.Â* I might want to put it on Kiosk.Â* I might want to put it on a bus.Â* I might want to put it on that.Â* Is it big enough?Â* Well, now I have the answer.Â* It is a no-brainer.Â* It brings us that extra 5 or 10% closer to replacing film, which is really wonderful.Â*


The other advantages of 48 megs, the other really big advantage for me is less moiré.Â* That's been a real problem for us in many, many aspects.Â* First of all, the real big advantage for us for digital photography is the fact that your creative workflow is completely different.Â* It being 48 meg adds to that creative workflow.Â* We can take an image, before we had hesitations about taking a beauty out of an editorial shoot.Â* With a 48 meg file, I have no problem doing it.Â* I have no problem being able to take a beauty shot out of that shot that's out there.Â* It lends to a lot of creative workflow.Â* It allows you to rethink how you shoot and apply that to your conceptualization of the shoot.Â* Â*



Another nice thing about the fact that where technology has raised forward, particularly 48 megs and everything else is color consistency.Â* Color consistency in the last year or so has become a real heated issue.Â* That has forwarded color management to a new level.Â* "

[pn.md]

http://www.canvas42.com/models/izabella/hs2.jpg

Found this on a website. A cool tip to tell the models to get that deep, soulful look...

http://www.canvas42.com/editorials/editorial00.html

"I think many of you who have had a great deal of modeling experience will know that great eyes, a great long neck and pink pouty lips can make your face as sexy as a star.Â*

Concentrate on stretching out that neck, tilting the head just slightly, and centering your eyes on the lens. Try not to center your face though, that will look boring and staged.

Often while doing close ups of the face I have the model look directly into my lens at just the right angle until she can see her own reflection in the glass. By maintaining that glassy stare your eyes will water slightly giving the impression of sustained emotion, deep concentration, and attitude."

... so that's how they do it ;) :)

[photowoman]

Not sure if I would call the look in Miko's photo the "glassy-eyed" look; when I am taking/posing for a picture, I follow the advice of stars such as Oprah Winfrey, Julia Roberts and Nicole Kidman. You will note that any and all of these three women look fabulous in almost every photo they are in: their advice is to have the slightly tilted, slightly forward head position, and to slightly widen the eyes just before the shutter clicks.

The idea of bending whatever can be bent is good, but be realistic and do not ask subjects to bend in two unless they are contortionists. To go even further, I would say that it's best to take pictures of almost everyone with their bodies slightly angled to the camera: head-on, straight photos add weight to even the tiniest of figures.

Wardrobe choice is also important: the woman whose picture appears above (the one with her shirt wide open and the belly lines showing) is wearing an okay outfit, but it reveals slightly too much in this case. The belly line distracts the eye from her quite pretty face. To make the picture really work, one of the following three things has to change: the camera angle (make it focus on her face), her pose (straighten up and lose the tummy rolls), or the shirt (button it up a bit).

Basically, it comes down to this: figure out what feature you want to focus on - be it eyes, smile, certain aspects of the body - and ensure that nothing (like bad makeup, hair, bad posture or ill-fitting clothes) distracts from it.

[John_T]

Very interesting Photowoman, but what sparks you to put out that which makes a photo really come across rather than just do the job?

[photowoman]

Not entirely sure if I understand the question, but let me take a stab at trying to answer...

Basically, I have found out that it's possible to do everything wrong in the technical sense, but still end up with a great photo because the focus was on the right thing all along: the person or object in the frame. I guess when trying to get the right "look", it's good to observe photos that you find appealing, and try to find out what the photographer did to achieve that "look". It seems a lot of us learn by doing, so emulating the work of others can be helpful.

I guess I still see it more from the amateur artist's perspective, in that I think technique is important, but so is the notion of finding a style all my own. To me, that little bit of "je ne sais quoi", which could be anything from unusual lighting to capturing a pose or facial expression that is unique to the person in the picture, is also a big part of what makes it possible to make it look like you know what you're doing, and maybe even land a "big" account.

I guess it begs the question - what really makes a professional photographer who works for a magazine? Is it technical ability, expensive gear, artistic vision, expert staff to take care of teeny-tiny details? Or is it a combination of a whole lot of these things and more? I wonder what everyone has to say about that...