Foreground bokeh

Model: Alex Fia; Photographer: Jake Hicks Photography

Foreground bokeh is achieved by shining light through glassware very close to the lens, thereby creating strong specular highlights which when viewed through a long lens at a low f-number create these blurred circles.

For these particular shots the model was captured with flash and the bokeh was captured with the tungsten light from the modeling bulb from a flash head, hence the longer shutter speeds. This was a personal choice to try and ‘warm up’ the foreground but you could just as easily use flash for both, personally I found the stark white of the flashed foreground bokeh to be too distracting but in theory using colored gels would also resolve this.

Model: Alex Fia; Photographer: Jake Hicks Photography

Take care not to get ‘unwanted’ flare in the lens by using barn-doors or flags, removing lens filters (screw on UV lens protectors etc) will also greatly reduce the chance of unwanted flare.

It is important to note that different lenses create very different results, lens coatings, aperture blade shape, and amount of glass used all play a part in how the final bokeh appear. Varying the lens length and f-stop though are the two key contributors as to how the final bokeh will appear. Experimentation is key.

Shooting info:

• Camera: Cannon EOS 5D Mark II
• Lens: 130mm
• F-Stop: f/5.6
• Shutter Speed: 1.4 sec
• Film Speed: 100
• Light Source: Mixed Tungsten/Flash

Model: Jayey; Photographer: Jake Hicks Photography

Model: Jayey; Photographer: Jake Hicks Photography

On May 26th, 2011 I had an opening of my new exhibition called Teatro Caribe. I presented 21 large format photographs, shot especially for this exhibition on the beautiful beaches of The Riviera Maya and other exotic locations in the area.

From the very beginning of the project I was certain about the style of the photos. My concept was to shoot provocative glamour photos in a decadent way, using original baroque styling. It gave all the photos the intended theatrical effect. The concept was clear, but the initial idea was challenging. There were several important things we had to put together, like hiring a very good make-up artist specializing in such theatrical looks, and a stylist who could rent part of the costumes and make the rest to fit the measurements of the models. In the end the most important thing was finding the right models. After three castings, we finally hired five models. One of them was my favorite glamor and fashion model, Libuska Rehakova. Now I’m getting to the point of my contribution…

Let me introduce one of the most successful photos of this project, which was called, “La diosa de las olas” (which means “The Goddess of the Waves”). I’m going to show Model Mayhem members how such a photograph came to exist.

La diosa de las olas (The Goddess of the Waves)

A lot of people asked me the same question—is the water real? Were the waves additionally photomontaged? No, they were not. Everything you see in the photo is real. Nothing is added. I think it is difficult to achieve such an effect within post-production work. The real wave mixed with sand gives a sort of “coffee” effect, which was something I had hoped for. To take such a strong picture there is a question of luck, but on the other hand having a good initial idea and know-how is how I achieved this stunning effect. Using the proper light, particularly a perfect combination of natural light with artificial is the first necessary step.

Lighting

This photo was taken March 3rd, 2011 at 7:24 am. The sun is just rising at that time in the Caribbean. It doesn’t give sunrise light, when the sun just emerges on the horizon, but a very dramatic warm contra light. Of course, this works only under the condition that a strong artificial light is used in front of the model.

For this photo I decided to use my Ring flash Hensel 1200 P-XS. This special strobe head, powered by Hensel porty 12 lithium power pack, gives a fantastic light effect. Usually it is used fitted properly on a camera lens. However this is not the case with this photo-session. When shooting outdoors, in the Caribbean, I work in a completely different way. My two Mayan assistants, which I use as a part of the production team when shooting in Mexico, were asked to fit the ring on one end of a two meter long stick. When staying in the area, I like to be as close to nature as possible, so I like the rustic look of such a fitted ring. With such a “patent light” I could instruct the assistants to set the light to the precise height and distance from the model I needed,  and they could do it easily. In this case, the light was about 1.5m (5 feet) from Libuska, just above my head. That means I was at the same distance away from her. To take a picture like this, a photographer should stay very close to the model, using a wide angle lens (cca 50mm) to achieve a high depth of sharpness, to make the water as plastic as possible. Thanks to this, the viewer is dragged into the picture. The closer the flash is placed to the model, the harder light we get. Another important thing is the angle from which the light strikes  a model. I always prefer that the light comes from above, more or less. The technique in this case “irons” the model’s face,  makes visible plastic shadows under her nose and chin, and strong shadows in the water. The water makes such a great effect on this photo. (Thanks to using this type of lighting.) Of course this effect is also a question of the exposure, which in this case was 250/22f.

Our studio during the styling preparation.

Okay, I mentioned the type of lighting, where the light was placed, exposure, but there’s still something very important missing, a very important technical parameter. It is an amazingly short flash duration. The ring flash 1200 P-XS flash duration is 1/1300 of a second. That is the “magic” of this picture—the water is frozen thanks to using this fantastic artificial light. The strobe can easily fight down the strong natural contra light, so much so that a photographer becomes a master of the situation and can use the balance of natural and artificial light at his/her pleasure.

A few seconds after taking the photo, Libuska´s makeup and hair was destroyed.

Since this article is called “Anatomy,” I have to mention another important aspect of why this picture looks the way it does. First of all, the model must be special, sort of mystical and beautiful. Libuska Rehakova was obviously a perfect choice. Second, styling, hair, and make-up were pretty important. I made a very good decision again, when engaging Vilem Persy—artistic make-up artist and hair stylist. His work is fantastic. I didn’t have to explain to him for too long what I wanted to get from the situation. We’ve been working together for more than 10 years, so we know each other’s style very well. Last but not least, I’d like to mention the help of the whole production team, who worked to make this photograph come together.

Checking the result.

Post-Production

The action of the photo is real, so my post-production editor only retouched the make-up a bit (splashing water destroyed it a little). We emphasized the colors, mainly the redness of her hair. The shadows were emphasized, especially in the water. The sky was really dark on the original photo. Despite this, we helped with slight fixing of the brightness and contrast to achieve an even more dramatic atmosphere. As to the post-production I want to mention one thing—today’s possibilities with Photoshop are fantastic, and they can really help, but only if the basic photo is a very good one. (At least concerning the category of art, classy glamor, and fashion or fine art nudity.) A photographer’s eye and conception is the most important part of the picture. The post-production, if the photo has the power, makes a very nice bonus.

Libuska at the scene of the photoshoot later that day.

In the end, when I pulled the trigger of my camera, I had a very good feeling I got what I wanted. Just a fraction of a second later I realized the wave was too strong. Stronger than I expected. First it struck around Libuska and her styling. Then I knew it was my turn. Fortunately I was able to hold my hands up, so my camera survived. Libuska’s hair, makeup, and styling didn’t. The photo-session was over pretty fast. The first two attempts caught only small waves, the third one was the good one—a bit unexpected and it was our last chance. We were lucky, the picture was done.

An excellent Mexican lunch for the team after the successful photoshoot.

A short summary of the photo-session:

Photographer: Roman Sluka
Model: Libuska Rehakova
Make-up, hair: Vilem Persy
Production: Yvonne Mueller
Assistants: Ekileo, Pivi¨
Postproduction: Vladena Fleissig, Thalia Picta

Camera: Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III
Lens: Canon 28 – 300 L
Lighting: Ring flash 1200 P-XS, power by Porty 12 Lithium
Exposure: 250/22f
Time, date: 07.24 am, March 3rd 2011

Mix it up and make it your own

The following scenarios are techniques that you can borrow to inspire your own work. Think of them like recipes and trust your inner artist to add, subtract, or tweak them to your taste.

Within each of these looks are many alternatives. With just this single light source, it’s possible to create a wide variety of looks, even with just slight adjustments. You can vary the height of the light, the angle of light, the distance of light to subject, the distance of camera to subject, the position of camera in relation to the subject, and your choice of accessories— not to mention changing your exposure settings, background color, her wardrobe color, and so on. Experiment with each lighting scenario, have a good time with it, and make it your own. Take it a step further and add your own creativity. You can also use these setups as a base and then start adding on additional lights if you like, such as a hair light, a second fill light, or a light pointed at the backdrop. But for me, simple is usually the way to go.

A couple of small but important technical details: All setups with strobes were at the lowest power, 2.3—about 30W. In most cases, a higher- or lower-wattage strobe could produce a very similar look, as would continuous lights. (Continuous lights are different from strobes in that they stay on all the time. For simplicity’s sake, I don’t cover those in this book, but you could easily do any of these lighting setups with continuous lights instead of a strobe.) Because describing it is nothing like seeing it, I’ve included demos at christameola.com/artofboudoir.

What’s the story you want to tell?

When creating a lighting setup for a shot, I ask the following questions to help guide my decisions. The first is one I’ve emphasized previously: What is the story I want to convey and what is my focus? Is it her facial expression, the curves of her body, her clothes, the setting? Which lighting setup will help me communicate that and pinpoint the focus there? And most important: Is it flattering to the subject? Do we want to enhance or de-emphasize certain body parts?

Keep these questions in mind as you read through the following lighting scenarios and consider how you would use each one with the women you would like to photograph.

1. Gorgeous backlighting

Shooting a subject backlit is one of my favorite techniques and is an extremely easy setup. Whether using the sun as the main source or an artificial light, this scenario is great for flattering women of all body types and for creating a striking image with a feeling of luminosity and joyfulness. When shooting indoors and only with natural light, I place my subject in front of a window (the main light source), and then make a few different choices depending on the following:

If my model is modest, I like to try a few shots placing her behind sheer fabric or sheer curtains, so she feels and appears less exposed, as we discussed in the “Styling” chapter of the book.

Then I decide whether or not to add one or two large white reflectors just to the side and in front of her to act as fill light, depending on my focus and the amount of light in the room. For Figure 1, I did not use a reflector since the available light in the room was enough and what I’m focusing on here is her form, not necessarily her face or catch lights in her eyes.

Figure 1. By overexposing this image, we blow out the outer edge of this young woman’s belly, back, bum, arms, and upper thighs, giving her an even slimmer appearance.
50mm lens, ISO 100, f/2.2, 50 sec.

You can also experiment with the model in front of the sheers (Figure 2). Here, since we see her face and the room was fairly dark, I did use a reflector just to the side and front of her to bounce light back onto her body and face (Figure 2).

Figure 2. This behind-the-scenes shot shows the placement of my two reflectors used together and how close they are to the model.

Finally, I consider my model’s modesty level as well as what she loves about her body and adjust my exposure accordingly. By varying exposure, we can control how much of the model’s body we see or don’t see. If your subject is modest or unsure about how much nudity is too much for her, you can give her a few options by capturing this shot at different exposure levels. You can see nothing but a silhouette by underexposing, her entire body by overexposing, and every level in between.

There are two additional benefits to overexposing. First, you can blow out unattractive or distracting backgrounds. Second, you can give her a slimmer appearance if she so desires by blowing out the edges of her body, as in Figure 1, so its outer edge cannot be detected.

Equipment:

• 42 x 72-inch and 42 x 42-inch white reflectors (Figure 1)
• Multiboom light stand (Figure 1)

2. Sultry, low-contrast lighting

For this setup, I wanted a subtle look and sensual mood, so I went for a low-contrast, low-light effect, something seductive that will flatter the woman who wishes to de-emphasize certain body parts, such as her stomach, arms, waist, chin, or even legs, depending on how you position her (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Whether your subject is standing or sitting makes a significant difference in how much light hits her legs. Here. I have her slightly seated to push her legs forward toward the light, since she loves her legs.
50mm lens, ISO 200, f/2. 160 sec.

For this look, I placed a single strobe fitted with a medium softbox overhead and a large white reflector about a foot away from the model and slightly to the side (Figure 4). The reflector is just enough to cast a soft, even light across her whole body. Set your camera to underexpose by a couple stops, and you’ve got a beautiful shot with sensual mystique.

Figure 4. You can see just how close the reflector and light are to the subject.

You can experiment with this setup by adjusting her proximity to the light (Figure 5). Inching your subject forward or back a few inches dramatically affects the result, and the reflector adds just a bit more information to evenly light her body so you don’t get a disconnect. Her tummy and back of arms are hidden, disappearing into the shadow. You can further experiment if you’d like to see more of your model’s body outline by choosing a lighter backdrop, lighting the backdrop, selecting lighter colored clothing, or increasing your exposure.

Figure 5. It’s important to make sure your model doesn’t end up directly under the light, in which case the light would be strong and entirely on her head, blocking the light from reaching her body.

Equipment:

• Elinchrom BXRi 500W Strobe
• Elinchrom 27 x 27-inch Rotalux Softbox
• Elinchrom Skyport Speed Transmitter
• 42 x 72-inch white reflector
• Two multiboom light stands
• Black muslin backdrop

3. Simple, slimming short lighting

Short lighting and its opposite technique, broad lighting, are excellent techniques to flatter faces and bodies by creating the appearance that they are either narrower or wider, respectively, than they truly are. Short lighting occurs when the main light illuminates the side of the face or body furthest from the camera, which means that the majority of the subject’s face or body is in shadow (the side closest to camera), thus giving the appearance of a slimmer face or body (Figure 6). Broad lighting is the exact opposite, where the majority of the subject’s body is in brighter light, creating the appearance of a wider body. So just by choosing which side to photograph your subject from and which side of the light to place her on, you can affect how wide or narrow she appears.

Figure 6. This curvy gal’s face and body appear slimmer with a classic short-lighting setup.
85mm lens, ISO 400, f/2, 80 sec.

When shooting indoors and shooting with natural light, my subject is positioned to the side of a window (the main light source) with black muslin behind her, either taped to the wall or on a background stand (Figure 7).

Equipment:

• Black muslin backdrop
• Household fan

Figure 7. Vary your subject-to-light distance according to how strong the light is and whether or not you have diffusing material. I like to start about six feet from the window and then tweak it from there.

4. Full-length flattering lighting

For more fashion-style boudoir and full-length portraits, I love the ease of a big Octabox. Placing your main light slightly above eye level, angled down, and just off to the side in front of your model is my preferred position (Figure 8) to add a touch of shadow and dimension to her body and create a pleasing shadow under her chin (Figure 9). Placing the fan directly under the light will create wonderful movement in her hair and clothes (if she’s wearing any).

Figure 8. The fan and the Octabox are as close as possible to being directly in front of the model without getting in me shot.

Since we were shooting a full-body shot in Figure 9, we chose the 53-inch Octabox, which creates some of the softest and most beautiful light. This is plenty to light a full-length subject as well as the background if you bring your model close enough to the backdrop. Here, the model is about four feet from the background (Figure 10).

Figure 9. This is a flattering look that works well with almost everyone.
50mm lens, ISO 200, f/2, 160 sec.

Equipment:

• Elinchrom BXRi 500W Strobe
• Elinchrom 53-inch Rotalux Octabox
• Elinchrom Skyport Speed Transmitter
• Multiboom light stands
• Gray seamless backdrop

Figure 10. This behind-the-scenes show shows how high the light is and its slight downward angle, as well as the low angle I shoot from to flatter full-length bodies.

5. Side lighting to dramatically enhance or reduce curves

This dramatic look is extremely flattering to body conscious women, whether they are looking to create curves or de-emphasize them. By placing the light source directly to the side of the subject (and either slightly in front of or behind her) and moving yourself on an arc in front of or opposite to the light (Figure 11), you can create a number of looks. (See chapter 6 of my book for examples).

Figure 11. This diagram shows the arc that you can position yourself along to have either more or less of your subject’s body fall into shadow.

The 3 biggest lighting mistakes and how to avoid them

The biggest mistake my students make in terms of lighting is neglecting to pay attention to how the light is falling on the model’s face. Make sure you know where your main light source is and that, in particular, it does not fall below her face, which casts very unattractive shadows I call “horror lighting.” Light her intentionally. Any shadows should be “drawn” for a reason, and make sure that if your assistant is holding the reflector, she doesn’t inadvertently lower the reflector as her arms tire, causing the fill light to come from below your subject’s eye level.

Another misstep I often see is that the subject is lit so flatly that there are no pleasing shadows creating interest, depth, or flattering curves. Make sure you angle yourself or your light to create some depth with shadows, and experiment with not using a fill light, unless a flat look is what you are intentionally going for.

Lastly, some students become so preoccupied and distracted by their lighting equipment that they forget to engage with their subject, resulting in a moment that lacks interest. Keep in mind that connection with your subject takes priority; it shouldn’t be sacrificed to fiddle with gear. Find your best light, tweak it, and then practice bringing your focus and attention to creating a rapport with your subject. Gently remind yourself of this throughout the shoot.

6. Sexy noir lighting

The deep shadows and strong highlights of film noir are a natural fit for boudoir photography. This look is a fun one for women looking to evoke a certain era or who love the extreme chiaroscuro look and drama of the darkest blacks and lightest whites (Figure 12).

Figure 12. I kept the model bright and the background dark without blowing everything out by exposing for her fair skin.
50mm lens (with .9 neutral density filter), ISO 200, f/2, 160 sec.

While there are a multitude of ways to create this look with other equipment, I thought it would be great to show this setup using the same gear we’ve being using for the rest of this chapter. Using the medium softbox off to a 45-degree angle, we aimed it at our model. To narrow the light and keep it from spilling onto the backdrop, except where we desired, we put two flags in front of the light (Figure 13).

Figure 13. This behind-the-scenes photo shows how close together the flags are (only a couple of inches apart).

Equipment:

• Elinchrom BXRi 500W Strobe
• Elinchrom 27 x 27-inch Rotalux Softbox
• Elinchrom Skyport Speed Transmitter
• Multiboom light stand
• Two flats used as flags Gray seamless backdrop

7. Universally flattering clamshell lighting

Clamshell lighting is very popular for beauty closeups; it’s super easy and simple, and it flatters everyone. The main light is raised above the model and angled 45 degrees downward, and the silver reflector acting as fill light is at her waist level, angled 45 degrees upward (Figure 14), which looks like a clamshell from the side.

Figure 14. You can see how the reflector is positioned on her lap.

This is a quick, no-fuss setup. The light is soft and wrapping, great for women of all ages. You can do this with an umbrella, a beauty dish, or even natural light. It’s a good trick to reduce the appearance of blemishes, under-eye shadows, or bags, as you can see in (Figure 15). You still see light shadows, which I love, but they are so subtle, and this woman seems to glow from within.

Figure 15. The silver reflector eliminates deep shadows, creating a luminous glow.
50mm lens, ISO 200, f/2, 160 sec.

Just make sure your subject doesn’t lean too far into the shot, or she will be more lit by the silver reflector, which will create that upward unflattering horror effect—not good on anyone! You want to make sure the top light is brighter than the lower fill.

Equipment:

• Elinchrom BXRi 500W Strobe
• Elinchrom 27 x 27-inch Rotalux Softbox
• Elinchrom Skyport Speed Transmitter
• Multiboom light stand
• Gray seamless backdrop 42 x 72-inch silver reflector

8. Seductive and flattering feathering

I love the look and mystery of a form disappearing into the background. This is another technique to flatter women of any size, since you can’t see where the body ends (Figure 16). It just disappears into luscious shadow. Place the light with softbox on a 45-degree angle from the model and turn the softbox away from the subject so she is lit only by the edges, where the softest light is. This technique is called feathering the light and provides a supersoft, even light. You will likely have to place a flag between the light and the background (Figure 17) so the light doesn’t spill onto the backdrop, especially if you are using a larger softbox.

Figure 16. The light is soft and gradually falls off into shadow.
50mm lens, ISO 200, f/2, 160 sec.

Equipment:

• Elinchrom BXRi 500W Strobe
• Elinchrom 27 x 27-inch Rotalux Softbox
• Elinchrom Skyport Speed Transmitter
• Multiboom light stand
• Black muslin backdrop
• 42 x 72-inch black reflector used as a flag

Figure 17. The softbox is aimed almost entirely at the background and away from the subject.

Copyright © 2013. Used with permission of Pearson Education, Inc. and New Riders.

#1

The image above (1) in this article was shot using four lights: one Profoto Softbox RFi 3×3’, one Profoto Softbox RFi 5’ Octa and two Softbox RFi 1×6’. Again, some might be intimidated by the amount of lights but the fact is that as long as you build your set one light at a time, it is almost as easy as using just a single light source!

#2

Let us take a closer look at the second image (2). This was shot using just the RFi 3×3’. The image is dark, moody and admittedly not very inspiring. But that is not the point. The point is that we begin with our main light, and when we are happy with the result, we move on…

#3

…to the third image (3). Here, we add the RFi 5’ Octa as our fill light. Now, the important thing to remember is that the fill light should not add to the character, and instead just blend harmoniously with the main light. That is the reason that we chose to work with the RFi 5’ Octa – a large light source that creates a soft and even light.

#4

The fourth image (4) shows just the fill light, but what is really interesting is, of course, to see how the main light and the fill light work together in the third image (3). Notice how the shadows lighten up, how the eyes are revealed and how the dress starts to pop out when we add our fill light. This is actually a pretty good portrait set-up. But there is more!

#5

In the fifth image (5), we add the RFi 1×6’ strip softboxes as our rim lights. The main purpose of the rim light is to give increased dimensions and separate our model from the background.

For instance, take a closer look at the model’s arms and notice how they pop out of the image. Also, notice the rim light around her waist and how effectively it separates her from the background.

#6

The sixth image (6) is just to illustrate what the rim light looks like on its own. Note that both strip softboxes were equipped with Softgrids, which keeps the light off the background and out of the camera, and reduces flare.

Finally, let us return to our main image (1). Look at it once more, notice how main, fill and rim light work together to give life and color to the image, and remember how easy this seemingly complex set-up was when we built it step by step, softbox by softbox.

Here’s a behind the scenes look at the set-up:

Model: Marie Blanchard; Photographer: GW Burns

GW Burns is a glamour and fitness photographer based in Sarasota, Florida. His work has been published in many national and international magazines, and his Lightmaster photography workshops are popular all over the world.

Marie Blanchard is an agency represented model, originally from Haiti, based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She specializes in fashion, swimwear and lingerie modeling. Marie has been published in countless magazines and been featured in a number of movies.

Check out how it looks on our Facebook and Google+ pages.

Do you want to be our Facebook cover photo?

We’re accepting submissions from Model Mayhem members! So, if you’d like to be featured in an upcoming month, send a message to Model Mayhem Edu with a link to the image in your MM portfolio that you’d like to enter.

A while back, I started noticing that photographers I liked were able to demonstrate physically what they wanted from their models. In other words, these photographers were great at posing their models. Watching behind-the-scenes footage of their shoots inevitably revealed that they had some pretty incredible moves of their own.

I shouldn’t have to explain why. In much the same way retouching and photography go together in a feedback loop, so do posing and photography. Knowing how to pose means you can have a mental image of the pose that you are trying to capture. It inevitably means that you’ll figure out which poses work and which poses don’t.

I used to just shoot from the hip and let the model do whatever she wanted. Shooting lots of frames meant that I’d get “usable frames” by sheer volume and probability. Problem was that my yield rate was inconsistent. Sometimes I got lots of good frames (usually indicative of a good model), and sometimes I’d get nothing. Learning how to pose smoothes out the inconsistencies and increases my yield rate for usable frames. Now this isn’t to say that I never have bad shoots anymore. Everyone has good and bad days. Overall, however, having a handful of “go-to” poses makes bad shoots rarer because I can show the models what I’m looking for. Moreover, it can enhance the shoot by providing a good model a new direction to take her own posing.

So what’s a good pose? I personally like movement, creating symmetry, shapes, framing the face, elongating the body, and more. For me, it depends on the wardrobe, the set, and the feeling that we’re trying to convey. Basically, the answer is “It depends.” But the definition of a “good pose” will vary inevitably from photographer to photographer, just as it does from model to model. Each photographer has to develop his or her own posing preferences. The only way to develop your own posing preference is to practice.

And that’s where the mirror comes in.

While I’m a huge proponent of mental exercises, the only way to really improve your posing skills is with a mirror. Something you think looks good in your head might not actually look good in front of the lens. Validating this reality is important. The mirror provides instant feedback, allowing you to adjust the pose to suit your taste and preferences.

This is the part where I publicly admit that I actually practice posing in front of the mirror. It wouldn’t be so bad except that I have to specify that I’m practicing women’s poses. Unless you’re Benny Ninja, if you’re a man, I don’t think you’ll ever find practicing women’s poses completely natural. In many ways, it’s awkward simply because men aren’t physically built the same way. We’re muscular, top-heavy, typically lack range of motion, and worst of all, we look stupid in heels… most of the time, at least. But, yes, I spend a couple minutes here and there trying to figure out what looks good and what doesn’t in front of the mirror. The physical mirror develops the mental mirror (over time) so that you can envision what the pose looks like without an actual mirror.

Posing has benefits aside from getting good frames. It’s freaking hilarious to watch a photographer pose. I often do it just for the comedic effect. When the model sees that you can make a total fool out of yourself, she’ll be more inclined to loosen up and try new moves or give you more. The funniest poses are the ones with the sexy facial expressions. A male photographer demonstrating a sexy facial expression is funny as hell and usually just “wrong” every which way from Sunday. So, get a mirror and take a few mental frames of your best poses!

You can learn more about posing and other key photo techniques at one of my group workshops.

The larger the light source is in relation to your subject, the softer the light will be. This simple fact is one of the most important lessons to learn about light, and for this reason, choosing what size of softbox to use will be one of the most important decisions that you will make prior to a shoot.

For instance, if you choose a larger softbox, you will get a much more open, softer light that more closely resembles daylight. If, on the other hand, you go for a smaller softbox, you will get a harder light with richer contrasts, reminiscent of interior light.

Take a closer look at the next two images in this article. The first image (1) was shot with the larger Profoto RFi 4×6’ while the second image (2) was shot with the smaller Profoto RFi 1.3×2. While the first image looks almost as if a window was in the room, the second image looks more as if a lamp is turned on. The lighting also affects the overall mood of the image. The second image is undoubtedly moodier and more dramatic.

#1

#2

Note that we used only one rectangular softbox for both images. Also note that the light was standing in the same spot with exactly the same distance between our model and the softbox diffuser (when using a softbox, this is the distance that actually matters – not the distance between the model and the flash head).

He’s covered combat operations for many years and his reporting and photography has been featured in many newspapers and magazines, including Time, Weekly World News, and the International Journal.

Stephen recently won the Gold Medal, as voted for by members, in the Model Mayhem Photographer of the Year contest.

Photographer: Stephen Thorne

MM Edu: Tell us about your photographic style.

Stephen Thorne: I try to stick to simple concepts, well within the limits of my resources and those of the models I work with. The connection with the model is everything to me. When model and photographer make that connection and things start to flow seamlessly and effortlessly, it’s amazing. You feed off one another’s creativity and imagination. When the model understands what you are looking for, and you understand what the model has to give, communication can be almost intuitive and it can be very rewarding.

MM Edu: Where do those concepts come from?

Stephen: For me, I find the best concepts come from within — the light, an expression, a look, a mood. If these elements of a photograph move people, then I feel I’ve succeeded in doing what I set out to do.

MM Edu: What does it mean to you being named Model Mayhem Photographer of the Year?

Stephen: The Model Mayhem Photographer of the Year award was a great honor. Especially considering the cross-section of support I received from models, stylists and other photographers. I am very fond of the MM community and I’ve made some good friends here, especially among photographers whom I really respect.

View Stephen Thorne’s Model Mayhem portfolio. See more on his personal website and follow Stephen on Facebook.

- MM Edu

Photographer: Stephen Eastwood

MM Edu: How and when did you get started as a photographer?

Stephen Eastwood: I got into photography back in 1999. When I was younger, I was a fitness model, which helped me get into photography. Up until ’99, photography was sort of a hobby that would later turn into a profession.

At first, I gradually started shooting and working with magazines, and then I approached small clients and model agencies in the city and began doing work for them—my career just progressed and grew from there.

MM Edu: How did modeling help you as a photographer?

Stephen: Well, yes and no, I mean being a model helped in terms of introducing me to photographers that I could learn from—I mostly learned from just watching and paying attention to what they did. I also met a lot of models, so when I started I had a lot of people to practice with.

So, yes, being a model helps, but fitness modeling is very different from what I was shooting. My modeling experience didn’t help with my shooting style, but it certainly helped me understand how to deal with models and understand what they’re thinking. From the photographer’s point of view, you are seeing something very specific from behind the lens and the model doesn’t always know what you want. Because of that, the model might not know how you want them to move, or how to capture the best light (I’m not big on flat light, by the way), so it does help a little.

Photographer: Stephen Eastwood

MM Edu: You’re self-taught as a photographer, what’s your opinion on learning through trial and error versus photography school?

Stephen: When I began, digital was just starting to hit and the learning curve was a lot harder than it is today. Trial and error was the easiest way to learn, because you can immediately see it on a digital camera and start changing whatever you’re doing; sadly, I see plenty of people that don’t actually learn from that, but that’s not the way my brain works. I mean, you take a picture and can immediately see what it looks like, so you can see if you like the lighting, or the angle and if you need to change something, you can. So, I think trial and error is probably the best way to learn, as long as you take advantage of the process, though.

I think workshops are helpful, and that’s why I’m choosing to spend more of my time teaching them. However, many of the students I see coming from the photography schools aren’t learning how to be creative on their own. I’m not exactly sure what these schools teach them, because they come out and they’re not necessarily good photographers: some have learned the technical stuff, but not the creative concepts; others are creative, but lack an understanding of the technical aspects. It’s certainly not what I would expect coming from two years of school.

Most of the people that I think are talented photographers learned from mentoring programs, where they assisted photographers, experimented with trial and error and, most importantly, shot a lot of pictures—I always tell people you should be shooting a lot.

Photographer: Stephen Eastwood

MM Edu: You mentioned trial and error as being essential to the learning process. Are there any examples from when you were getting started that stand out, any particular assignments (good or bad) or lessons learned that you still find valuable today?

Stephen: Before I shot digital, my girlfriend and I would take a piece of paper, and we’d write a number on it. I’d shoot a picture of her holding it with a lighting set up, we’d write down what we did, and then we would go develop the film at a 1-hour photo place. We’d look at all of the film and stare in total disbelief when we’d do something wrong—it wouldn’t make any sense! So, you would do it badly a couple times before you’d figure it out. Then, with digital, I think my learning curve went through the roof; you immediately could see what you were doing and what you needed to change.

MM Edu: Yeah, the feedback loop is faster, more convenient and affordable.

Stephen: Definitely, yeah, you get people complaining now that the price of cameras is so expensive. Theoretically, if you buy a higher-end DSLR camera, the price is somewhere in the 4,000 rolls of film before you hit break even. The difference is once you hit that you’ll be able to experiment more because you’re not paying for each shot. Time is another big factor. People forget the time involved in going back and forth to develop the film and everything else.

If you get a cheaper camera, it’s even faster. Entry-level DSLRs sell for around $700. In that case, you’re talking about less than 100 rolls of film before you hit your mark, and everything after that goes towards a profit margin. It does work out to be more cost efficient if you shoot a lot, but either way, the learning curve is faster now.

Photographer: Stephen Eastwood; Model: Stefaniya

MM Edu: Why did you choose fashion and beauty photography?

Stephen: I like interacting with people and I like directing people, so I definitely wanted to shoot people as opposed to still life or something. I like the idea and concepts of lighting for still life (it’s a very specific type of lighting), and beauty uses a similar kind of lighting.

I originally started with glamour and shot a lot of glamour in the Playboy or Maxim style. Pictures like that tend to get a lot of “oohs and aahs,” because you’re shooting a hot girl who’s usually half-naked. So, you get used to a lot of people looking through your work saying positive things about every page. When I switched over to fashion, where it is more story oriented, it’s not full of “wow” shots on every page and that rather annoyed me a bit. So, I went back to beauty, and beauty put me right back into the “wow” category, with people saying great things about every page—often for no logical reason. For instance, shooting a full size picture of lips that takes up two pages isn’t difficult, but when people see it big they’re like wow, just so impressed. The same thing is true with eyes and things like that. Anytime you see a face up close that’s flawless, people instantly put it in the “wow” category. So, I’ve stuck mainly with beauty, but you can’t really do beauty without doing fashion on occasion. I also do a lot of commercial fashion, which isn’t very exciting (things like sweater campaigns, etc.).

Photographer: Stephen Eastwood

MM Edu: You’ve touched on the business element there, and obviously, you’re very successful at the business and marketing side of being a photographer. How did you develop those skills, and what do you recommend for someone just getting started?

Stephen: Well, ideally from the business side you should have an agent, because photographers are notoriously bad at the actual business of photography, i.e., pricing, finding clients and so on. However, when you start out, you have to do it all. Agents don’t often come looking for you before you have clients, so you have to start out doing everything. I started little by little, mostly by word of mouth. I shot nearly every girl in almost all the agencies when I was starting. I met a lot of agents, and those same agents had clients that were not just looking for models, but also looking for new photographers, and little by little they would start recommending me. Those clients would end up going to work elsewhere, and they would end up recommending me there.

I had one client that booked me for a sweater shoot, and then she went to another company, and when she went there she booked me for that company (they had 26 sweater lines). I still had the first client, but that original recommendation led to the second. Then one of the people in one of those sweater lines left that company and started his own, and now he has seven sweater lines and I ended up shooting for him, too. Little by little, it all gradually expands. It’s about building public relations and networking. I would say that’s most of the business.

Photographer: Stephen Eastwood

I would say the best way for new photographers to learn is to get assisting jobs with photographers and to pay close attention to how they deal with clients. How do they market? What are their marketing materials like?

Direct mail does still work. Nowadays, everyone’s all about emails, but my clients get so many on a daily basis that most of them are never opened. Direct mail is something they never have to click on; it comes in the mail as a flyer or postcard and it’s delivered straight to them. If it interests them, they hang on to it. Some of my clients still have my postcards from back in 2002, and it’s an embarrassment to me. I walk in and I’m like, “Oh my God, can you throw that out? I’ll give you a new one!”

MM Edu: I’d like to expand upon why your business skills are so valuable by talking about rates. I’ve read that you can charge upwards of $10,000 for a shoot and have banked $300,000 as a percentage from an ad campaign. What are your current rates?

Stephen: It varies dramatically depending on the job and the client. You can have starting artists that are producing their first independent album and I’ll do that for $1,500 or so for an album cover shoot. However, if I were doing the same type of shoot for a big record label, I’d charge them $10,000.

I have commercial clients that do bulk work (for sweater campaigns and such), and they want volume shots, so it’s not like a one-day advertising shoot. It might be 8-10 days of shooting a month, plus all the retouching afterwards, so I have to price it a little bit lower. I can’t hit them with a $15,000 per day fee, because they’re just doing too much volume to want to pay that. So, in that case I drop it down and give them a lower package rate depending on how many outfits, how many looks, etc. Retouching usually comes in as a separate line item.

So, I think my rates currently range from anywhere from $1,500 to $12,000, but it can go up depending on usage and things like that. I’m not doing as much advertising usage as I used to, because I’m busy with sweaters! I’ve also been taking off more time because I recently got married, and I’ve been teaching more workshops, too.

Photographer: Stephen Eastwood

MM Edu: I was just about to ask, what do you like about workshops?

Stephen: I love teaching. I don’t think I would love teaching every day, but I do love teaching workshops. I like it because it also helps me learn new ways of thinking. You get questions that you would never have thought of from students, and most of my students aren’t kids. They’re older, retired or business people who took up photography as a hobby. What’s interesting is the way different people think of things, and sometimes they ask a question that just clicks something in your heard where you wouldn’t have ever thought of doing something like that. They may not be doing it well, but they give you a new idea that you can work on. I like that aspect of teaching. I also like seeing people improve; I get to see their advancements, which is thoroughly enjoyable. Before I was a photographer, I was teaching clinical and medical hypnosis, as well as Neuro-linguistic programming, and I even enjoyed teaching then.

MM Edu: How often do you teach workshops?

Stephen: Canon sends me around for a lot lecturing, which is nice because it hits a higher volume compared to the small workshops I do.

I’m probably averaging about 15, but there are a few different workshops: There are ones where I actually teach a full workshop, and then lectures that I do where Canon sends me to trade shows. Lectures are usually only an hour at a time and only for a couple days. I’m going to Massachusetts in two weeks, I think maybe for three weeks of lectures, and I have a workshop at the end of July. For the actual teaching workshops, I do five or six a year, and for seminars and lectures, I do about six a year, three days at a time. Every once and in a while, I’ll squeeze in something else or Canon will ask me to do something else. I’ll also do shootouts, I have a partner that I do shootouts with, they’re a little different but most of the workshop people will come to that because it’s less instruction and a good place to practice.

Photographer: Stephen Eastwood; Model: Stefaniya

MM Edu: In addition to workshops, are there any other learning resources you recommend?

Stephen: When I started, I learned a lot from reading photo magazines, but magazines were more in-depth back then. Now everyone is teaching you how to use Photoshop, even in photography magazines, and don’t get me wrong, I live to retouch in Photoshop, but in a photography magazine I want to learn photography and in a retouching magazine I want to learn retouching. This wasn’t pre-Photoshop, but Photoshop wasn’t mainstream back then, so they were actually teaching you all the lighting rules, all the angles, and portrait stuff. Today, I would say YouTube is probably better, which is one of the best sources for new ideas and learning. There are also websites, like Creative Live, which broadcasts full photography workshops live. I would recommend watching those, and then go and practice shooting as much as possible.

Most importantly, pay attention to the back of the camera! That’s the biggest flaw I see in newer photographers: They’ll set something up, take a picture, look at the back of the camera and they won’t be happy, but they’ll still go ahead and shoot more pictures. Then the next day they won’t be happy with their pictures and you’ll ask them, “Did you like the first one?”, and they’ll say, “No, not really.” Did you think it would have gotten better on its own? Why didn’t you change something right away? It’s surprising how many people never change a thing—they set up, they shoot and they go onto the next thing. Why? If you didn’t like it right away, you should have changed it immediately. You can always put it back if you made it worse.

By the way, that’s not just amateurs, I’ve had one or two professionals where one of the complaints they had after going digital was that they kept blaming digital cameras. They’d say to me, “I’ve been lighting the same for 25 years and now it looks different.” Apparently, the photographer flat lights everything, hands his film to an art department and they would do all the retouching for him. All of sudden, he has a digital camera and he’s shooting tethered and he doesn’t understand why everything looks like crap. He doesn’t know why there aren’t any shadows, highlights or contour. He’s one of those people that won’t change a thing. You just have to ask him, did that make any sense to you? So yeah, I would say workshops and shooting a lot.

Photographer: Stephen Eastwood

MM Edu: Any recommended reading?

Stephen: There are some pretty good books. I like “Creative Lighting” and “Shoot.” Joe McNally has two that are excellent (“The Hot Shoe Diaries” is one). “Mastering Flash Photography” and the “Lighting Cookbook” are also pretty good.

MM Edu: You mentioned how some people struggled to transition from film to digital, was it difficult for you and do you have a preference?

Stephen: The day I took my first digital picture, I had my preference for digital, and it’s partially how I ended up working with Canon. My local camera store actually recommended Canon to contact me about their new digital cameras, they let me borrow one of their first digital SLRs and that was back in 1999. I was going to a shoot to use it as a digital Polaroid, just to take some test shots alongside film, and while I was doing that, I took a whole lot of digital Polaroids. I went home and retouched some of them with a little Photoshop and had already sent a couple of basic proofs over to a client who approved one of them, which in my mind I was like, “Uh, oh, now what?” They weren’t even supposed to be usable pictures! It was only a 3.3 megapixel image, and we ended up doing a billboard with it and you kind of hope and pray it’s going to look okay. In the end, there was no way you could tell the difference, not that a billboard is very difficult to print in the first place, but the first time you do it  from what you think is substandard digital file you’re a little bit nervous, and right after that I basically switched over to digital. I’d say about 80 percent of my clients wanted digital at that time, but there are still a couple clients who preferred film. And then about two cameras after that I think it’s when the 1DS came out I switched over completely to digital and I’ve been digital ever since.

Photographer: Stephen Eastwood

MM Edu: Do you have a favorite camera? Are you a gadget person?

Stephen: I’m a complete gadget person, I’m still a huge Canon 1DS Mark III fan and I love the Canon 5D Mark III.

MM Edu: You do most of your own post-production work, is this correct? Can you describe your set up and workflow?

Stephen: Yes, I do a majority of my own. For high volume catalog stuff, I sometimes farm out because it’s almost nothing to do there and sometimes it’s 2,000 pictures at a time, but anything beauty or ad related I do.

But, let’s start with the most unusual thing: I am a PC guy. Although I have a Mac, I am a PC guy almost exclusively. I have a MacBook because it’s nice and light, but even on that I run Windows. I use Breezebrowser  Pro to sort, I find it to be the fastest and most convenient software, and from there I go right into Photoshop, and right now I’m using CS6. I don’t use any plugins but I have a lot of preset actions, and presets and curves for adjustment layers.

It’s hard to say how much post-production work goes into a shoot, because it really depends on the specific shoot. Some shoots have very little involved, while other shoots require a tremendous amount of retouching. I do a lot of liquefy. If it’s a beauty shot, I generally try to start with a model with good skin; however, that’s not always possible, so I could go from 10-15 minutes per picture to two hours. Depending how involved I get, I may do large (40×60) prints in between, because first when you print a big poster you can see all of your flaws that you missed on screen.

Photographer: Stephen Eastwood

MM Edu: Who inspires you?

Stephen: Many people have inspired me over the years: Marino Parisotto, Robert Randall (he was on Model Mayhem for years and always inspired me), Alix Malka, Warren Du Preez, Nick Thornton Jones, Ishi, Benjamin Kanarek, Steven Meisel, Patrick Demarchelier, Raphael Mazzucco, Greg Lotus, Michel Tcherevkoff, Greg Gorman, Armold Newman and Albert Watson.

MM Edu: What do you consider your major career achievements to date?

Stephen:  Becoming an Explorer of Light, because that was probably one of the goals that I had from early on when I started with Canon. I definitely set that as a goal and I think that’s pretty impressive, since there are only 62 of us.

MM Edu: Do you have a favorite location?

Stephen: Italy and Greece are two places that are nice. They have a little bit more culture. Places like the Grand Canyon, Utah’s Red Rock Country and Death Valley all interest me. New York is probably my least interesting location; it’s just so boring. I also like some parts of California, some architecture Miami and Louisiana.

MM Edu: What do you most enjoy about being a photographer and what do you least enjoy?

Stephen:  I like the constant interaction with people; generally speaking, I’m on good terms with everyone, and everybody is usually happy. Models are always happy that they’re working, and it’s usually a fun atmosphere to work in. My shoots tend be very laid back and easy going, kind of like a bunch of people hanging out and having fun, so work is very enjoyable that way. What do I like least? Probably the contractual side of the business, paper work and stuff like that. Oh, and you know one of the things I’m not too much of a fan of: writing bios.

Photographer: Stephen Eastwood

MM Edu: If you weren’t a photographer, what would you be doing instead?

Stephen: I’d probably still doing Neuro-linguistic programming and hypnosis.

MM Edu: What was it that you liked about that?

Stephen: The God complex that you’d get when you’d fix somebody. I’m just kidding! It’s about the challenge of fixing things and fixing people, and I like that.

MM Edu: What makes a good photograph? What do you look for in your work and from others?

Stephen: I think the answer is different for each part of that question. For my own work, I’m a little bit more crisp and exact; I like things to be exact.

In other people’s work, I look for something that causes me to think. I want their work to put me in a scene I can imagine. In my work it’s a little too hard for me to do that, because my imagination wouldn’t work because I was there creating it. But in someone else’s work, I don’t want it to be crisp, sharp or saturated, it just has to make me think and imagine what was going on.

MM Edu: You seem to be a big fan of cigars, where did that come from and what is your favorite?

Stephen: It actually came from having nothing else to do at country clubs with lots of people that were twice my age. Do I have a favorite? Sure, yeah probably still something called Drew Estate Tabak. They kind of taste like Kahlua, and they have a very mild mocha flavor.

MM Edu: And finally, what does Model Mayhem mean to you?

Stephen: I’ve been there for a very long time. I originally joined because a friend of mine talked me into it back in 2005. I started with my NYPHOTOGRAPHICS account, it’s a non-moderator account and so I’ve been on there for a while.

I like the forums, the forum interaction, being able to reach many people and answer a lot of questions. I gained a lot of information in the forum, too. You were asking me earlier about photographers that inspired me and Model Mayhem plays a big part. You can learn from anything, including the range of work on MM. I’ve learned some ideas from some great work and I’ve learned ideas from horrible work, ideas that were executed badly but the idea itself was sound and I know I can actually shoot it better. I’ve also learned some things not to do. And, the volume of pictures, you can literally go through hours and hours looking at stuff and find ideas and inspiration.

MM Edu: Thanks for taking the time to share your story with us.

Stephen: You’re welcome!