I spent too long thinking about the flow recently. The way a photoshoot with a model progresses from one image to the next. The reason why I am overthinking this is because I do not like photos that look like photoshoots. Trying to escape that aesthetic is a personal mission, with this shoot with Irida I feel I am getting better at it. Last week I thought I had the answer to why so many model images look a bit "photoshoot"; it’s the model’s fault. Obviously, I am joking, In most shoots the model makes many variations of a pose, by the act of what’s now taking place, you are no longer noticing the subtleties of light as shade, you are now capturing pose after pose, concentrating on reframing them to the best of your ability, which is where I believe one issue rests. The photography I love is noticing the subtlety of things, which takes time and a meditation of what is in front of you, a completely different approach.
However, the fix seems, like always, to be somewhere in the middle. Shooting with the Beautiful Irida, her takes on my instructions turned out more relaxed and interesting than my initial vision. The caveat is some poses didn’t work, but the best was better. This is also somewhat contrasted with previous shoots with other models where I micromanaged the poses, making images look stiff and awkward.
Having taken half a dozen workshops in more classical portraiture and watched a few overpriced “Masterclass” videos from top fashion photographers, the model generally does not freestyle poses despite that being normal for most amateur photoshoots. I considered posting this conundrum to a forum on an internet modelling website then decided it would be a waste of time. I already know their answer, it will be in full praise of the models adding as much creative input as possible followed by a random argument over poncy arty farty people who shoot film, which is great, but then we are back to square one of why, by and large, so many of our images look like they belong only on a model-portfolio website.
The reality of getting the model to only pose the way you want them, is that I have no idea where to begin. I cannot predict if they will look better with their hair up/down, facing left or right. Models generally know their best angles etc. I often try to change a pose by stopping them doing any pose, because, well, some poses look posed. But then without any pose, they look awkward and stiff. For this shoot I gave Irida a guide of what I was after and let her work within those parameters. For me this seems to work better. Irida is also a very experienced model with very natural expressions so there’s no guarantee things will go as smoothly with all models.
I watched a YouTube video last week that might offer some more clues. “I had 20 minutes to photograph P.J Harvey, I only used 5” Taki Bibelas. This was great little video where the photographer got to know PJ, let PJ get to know him and in the last few minutes he took the shot. Going forward on my mission to evolve the way I go about a photoshoot, my next tactic will be to collaborate more closely with the model over the vibe of image I want, to give constant feedback, not getting too focussed on taking the image. Once the visual scene is really starting to sing then I need to let the model know that we are now holding this pose and working very subtly with it.
I have made a blog post before of how I wanted to explore traditional portraiture compositons that where more common before mass consumer photography, when portraits where more aligned to classical painting. Photography studios where strict on acceptable clothing as the compositions depended on a bold graphic of light and dark, I can only stress the clothing choice is vital. I wanted to use the sitters’ hands or arms to form the bottom key points of the composition.
Instantly I am feeling a more classical vibe to the images, the compositions are some of the most simple and neat I have created. Hands beautifully hold this style of composition together, give the head reason to be so high in the frame, stop it being a floating head or cropped up close head, which loses any feel of traditional portraiture. Technically I’ve learnt you need to be mindful the light hitting the hands can be tricky, here I burnt them in ½ stop.
This image above caused a bit of a learning curve that led to reprinting everything. This negative was quite a bit denser than the others, having more shadow detail and possibly a smidge of lens flare causing a drop in contrast. The image printed out with a softer black, less contrast, and looked bloody good. Not like an over egged gimmicky contrast reduction, but more akin to an older paper emulsion. I might tackle similar future shots by over exposing film to boost shadows and then shorten the development to knock the highlights back into a printable range. I never thought I would be fighting to give Ilford HP5 less contrast but the more I use it the more I get to know her foibles.
After this print I then decided to print all the previous images again at ½ a grade less contrast and, new to me, I diluted my print developer. While I stupidly made both those changes at once confusing the effect, I have a feeling the dilute developer is my new godsend. It seems to add a softer look to the print, they feel more ‘analogue’ because, ya know, film and a full darkroom process isn’t enough analogue.
When Irida made this pose, I was thinking; way too sexy for the Victorian vibes. It also breaks an unspoken rule I either read a long time ago or made up; never shoot knees. But damn it, that’s a beautiful Natural Portrait, yet another image that makes me feel I really need the models input.
Pushing my newfound love of dilute developer, oh god I love this image. “Quartz” I was going to bring some stones specifically for this shoot, but I forgot. Bizarrely Irida had some in her bag? Well, It was just meant to be.
