Chip Willis wrote:
In order to shoot good beauty the photographer and his assembled team must have studied and understand what that means and many simply never get that.

Agreed.

Step 1: Define your goal.

Eric S wrote:


I still don't think there are any secrets or gimmicks. I see a common theme in the posts from the photographers who shoot decent beauty stuff; Great Model, Beauty Dish, Killer Makeup Artist, Fill Card below model, Nice Camera with 85 through 200mm lens.......
I still think what separates the men from the boys here is stunning retouching skills.... imho....

Camera: Canon 1Ds
Lens: 100 mm
F Stop: 16
Shutter Speed: 125th
ISO: 100
Light: Profoto head / silver parabolic beauty dish/reflector with 2 heads into umbrellas bounced onto white seamless beackground.

And more importantly, a GREAT makeup artist.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

Paolo Roversi has used a flashlight to light his pictures.

It's not about equipment.  It's about vision and goals.

"Beauty Dish and place the fill card under the model."  Rubbish.  Photography by the numbers.
A million pictures have been shot this way and a million pictures haven't.  Stop looking for a formula.  Formulas are a great starting point but can also be a dead end.

I use beauty dishes, umbrellas, bare bulb, octabanks, profoto huge-ass umbrella like thingies, cheapo tota lights, foamcore and any kind of light that can be bounced into it,  and whatever I think will work for any particular shot.  It depends.  It always depends.

Be a photographer.  Have an idea.  Use your knowledge to conceptualize how to achieve the shot you want to take and use the equipment that will help you do it. If this is too vague and doesn't satisfy the easy-fix gene then maybe you're not a photographer yet.  The fact that the question is asked is good though.  Shows that you want to be one.  I'm probably not even a photographer yet.  The shot I loved today I'll probably hate tomorrow.

If anyone remembers the Monty Python "How to Play the Violin" sketch you'll know what I'm trying to say (badly) here.

Yeah, of course you need a good makeup artist.  And, of course, every beauty shot on the planet is retouched but that's not it.  Retouch a lousy picture and you've got a lousy retouched
picture.

Soft light, hard light, beauty dish.  Who cares.  Use 'em all.  Use none of them.

Digital is great if, for no other reason, you can set it all up and get your feedback immediately. If you look at your results and say "I love it.  If I hadn't shot it myself I'd want to be the guy who did shoot it." then you've met your goals.  If you look at it and say "Boy something about this picture just doesn't make it"  then you have to figure out why.

It's hard.  It's supposed to be hard.

Why on earth do you need to reduce it to some small set of variables.  Camera.  Lens. Lights.
Makeup artist.  It's all of those things and more.  Much more.  The "more" part is what makes
a great shot.

Cartier Bresson (although not a beauty photographer and therefore why the hell do I bring him up) shot almost everything with a Leica and a 50mm lens.  Yet photojournalists the world over revere him.  It's vision.  Vision.  Vision.  One more time.  Vision.

Frank Mattoni wrote:
Bruce,

When using the 2 small soft boxes from behind how do you minimize the fine facial hair when back lighting?

thanks,
Frank

Ahh, the image isn't specifically backlit. While the soft boxes are positioned behind her, they point at each other (about 10' apart) to create separation. The highlights are controlled spill. The model has very little facial and body hair as well. It's 'the girl' factor again saving time in post.

bt

Bruce Talbot wrote:
I'll set this one out for comments on how it may have been shot.





bt

Hi, Bruce.  First of all you are a polished pro.  I don't know if you do your
Photo shop work but its superb.  You mention something that many people aren't
willing to say but hint at.  A lot of the best beauty and fashion work is about
the model.  Although, you could shoot Lassie and make her look great (no
hate mail from dog lovers, please I own a dog and love them.) You just
have to start with the best talent you can get.  Use a good MUA and think
about what you want to impart.  I have never done beauty well.  I have a
quirky style and its not one that lends itself to beauty. 

While I think its great to use other photographers for inspiration but also have
your own vision.  If you are shooting models faces its critical that they be
attractive or unique. 

PS: I don't know exactly how you do what you do.  I don't tug on Superman's
cape.  I don't feel the wind and I don't mess around with Bruce... err I mean Jim.
Apologies to Jim Croce.

Howard Petrella wrote:
Oh man.  Do I post a criticism or do I keep my big mouth shut.  That's the dilemma.

It's not a huge, ugly criticism so I'll take my chances.  This really is quite a beautiful shot.

I'm going to go out on a limb and be nit picky critical since this thread started off about how to shoot a beauty shot as good as Michael Thompson etal.  Those are pretty high standards.

In most markets and for most purposes your example would make the client wet his pants.  It's stunning.  Great lighting, great model, great composition, great post production work etc.

If I were an anal NY art director (which, thankfully I'm not) I'd point out three things.

Highlights on the forehead, nose and lower lip are too hot.

I'd like to see the chin not go quite so dark.  She has an oval shaped face that accentuates the narrowness of her chin even more.

I don't like the double shadow on her neck (I'm guessing from a hard main light and softer fill light).

I love the lighting (overall), the blue tone, the model, the model's expression and the way her earrings just skim the straps of her dress on her shoulders.  It's a very well executed picture.

I know I'm coming across on this thread as a kill joy and most comments on MM are "wonderful", "couldn't be better", "perfect".  So I'm hesitant to be honest on this site. I'm not trying to be mean or holier than thou.  But an art director would point out some of the things I mentioned I think.

If the original poster really wants to know how to produce a "perfect" beauty shot which, I assume, means that an overly critical art director would have nothing bad to say then I think this is an honest criticism.  Not, by any means, meant to take anything away from your obvious talents (have I back pedaled enough here to cover my ass and hopefully not get flamed too much?).

I hope I haven't offended you, Bruce.  You're as talented as they come.

I wouldn't even attempt to post one of my shots as an example of how to shoot like any of the top names the op mentioned.  I had never been to Gavin O'Neill's website before and now I think I'll probably just sell my cameras and open a Pizza joint.

Actually, Howard your work is great.  You have excellent beauty and fashion work.
I suspect that the image Bruce may have posted may have been shot at a
fashion show.  The lighting seems like what I've seen produced without a flash
using available light.

Howard Petrella wrote:
Oh man.  Do I post a criticism or do I keep my big mouth shut.  That's the dilemma.

It's not a huge, ugly criticism so I'll take my chances.  This really is quite a beautiful shot.

I'm going to go out on a limb and be nit picky critical since this thread started off about how to shoot a beauty shot as good as Michael Thompson etal.  Those are pretty high standards.

In most markets and for most purposes your example would make the client wet his pants.  It's stunning.  Great lighting, great model, great composition, great post production work etc.

If I were an anal NY art director (which, thankfully I'm not) I'd point out three things.

Highlights on the forehead, nose and lower lip are too hot.

I'd like to see the chin not go quite so dark.  She has an oval shaped face that accentuates the narrowness of her chin even more.

I don't like the double shadow on her neck (I'm guessing from a hard main light and softer fill light).

I love the lighting (overall), the blue tone, the model, the model's expression and the way her earrings just skim the straps of her dress on her shoulders.  It's a very well executed picture.

I know I'm coming across on this thread as a kill joy and most comments on MM are "wonderful", "couldn't be better", "perfect".  So I'm hesitant to be honest on this site. I'm not trying to be mean or holier than thou.  But an art director would point out some of the things I mentioned I think.

If the original poster really wants to know how to produce a "perfect" beauty shot which, I assume, means that an overly critical art director would have nothing bad to say then I think this is an honest criticism.  Not, by any means, meant to take anything away from your obvious talents (have I back pedaled enough here to cover my ass and hopefully not get flamed too much?).

I hope I haven't offended you, Bruce.  You're as talented as they come.

I wouldn't even attempt to post one of my shots as an example of how to shoot like any of the top names the op mentioned.  I had never been to Gavin O'Neill's website before and now I think I'll probably just sell my cameras and open a Pizza joint.

Refreshing to see an honest voice of someones opinion on here.  Will not go over for long the minions do not like it.

And that marilyn series is to die for!  Love it!

Howard Petrella wrote:
Thank you.

I didn't mean the criticism to be gratuitious.  Hopefully it's constructive and instructive.

The original poster wanted to know how to shoot a world class beauty shot.  Knowing what not to do is as important as knowing what to do.

And it's only my opinion, after all.

Often thats more important.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Hi, Bruce.  First of all you are a polished pro.  I don't know if you do your
Photo shop work but its superb.  You mention something that many people aren't
willing to say but hint at.  A lot of the best beauty and fashion work is about
the model.  Although, you could shoot Lassie and make her look great (no
hate mail from dog lovers, please I own a dog and love them.) You just
have to start with the best talent you can get.  Use a good MUA and think
about what you want to impart.  I have never done beauty well.  I have a
quirky style and its not one that lends itself to beauty. 

While I think its great to use other photographers for inspiration but also have
your own vision.  If you are shooting models faces its critical that they be
attractive or unique. 

PS: I don't know exactly how you do what you do.  I don't tug on Superman's
cape.  I don't feel the wind and I don't mess around with Bruce... err I mean Jim.
Apologies to Jim Croce.

Woof! Thanks TL! 

bt

Howard Petrella wrote:
Formulas are a great starting point but can also be a dead end.

I think the OP was asking for the formula.

Howard Petrella wrote:
Oh man.  Do I post a criticism or do I keep my big mouth shut.  That's the dilemma.

It's not a huge, ugly criticism so I'll take my chances.  This really is quite a beautiful shot.

I'm going to go out on a limb and be nit picky critical since this thread started off about how to shoot a beauty shot as good as Michael Thompson etal.  Those are pretty high standards.

In most markets and for most purposes your example would make the client wet his pants.  It's stunning.  Great lighting, great model, great composition, great post production work etc.

If I were an anal NY art director (which, thankfully I'm not) I'd point out three things.

Highlights on the forehead, nose and lower lip are too hot.

I'd like to see the chin not go quite so dark.  She has an oval shaped face that accentuates the narrowness of her chin even more.

I don't like the double shadow on her neck (I'm guessing from a hard main light and softer fill light).

I love the lighting (overall), the blue tone, the model, the model's expression and the way her earrings just skim the straps of her dress on her shoulders.  It's a very well executed picture.

I know I'm coming across on this thread as a kill joy and most comments on MM are "wonderful", "couldn't be better", "perfect".  So I'm hesitant to be honest on this site. I'm not trying to be mean or holier than thou.  But an art director would point out some of the things I mentioned I think.

If the original poster really wants to know how to produce a "perfect" beauty shot which, I assume, means that an overly critical art director would have nothing bad to say then I think this is an honest criticism.  Not, by any means, meant to take anything away from your obvious talents (have I back pedaled enough here to cover my ass and hopefully not get flamed too much?).

I hope I haven't offended you, Bruce.  You're as talented as they come.

I wouldn't even attempt to post one of my shots as an example of how to shoot like any of the top names the op mentioned.  I had never been to Gavin O'Neill's website before and now I think I'll probably just sell my cameras and open a Pizza joint.

What the ..........?


All Right Howard!  Ten fingers on the fender, let's go. Spread 'em chump, I'll show ya anal! 

~ snicker ~

The 'anal NY art director' is spot on as a standard beauty critique. It is valid in that context. Without knowing the intent of the image we'd have to start somewhere eh? Besides, NYC gives me the willes.

It is an unconventional shot and processed specifically for the look shown. What prompted me to post it was how it was shot. Tony is close. It was six 50w halogen spots on tracks in my waiting area. :: gasp ::  Two in front, two on the sides just behind her and two pointed at the wall. Plus one big reflector slipped in under her chin for catch-lights in the eyes.

When I see posts of monumental proportions including all the resources it takes to create an image, it's enlightening to think like McGyver.

I've two shots to load for your AD. Still got fingers on the fender yes?


bt

Howard Petrella wrote:
And not that this would have anything to do with anything but an example of something approaching the quality of a nationally published beauty campaign probably wouldn't (or shouldn't) be something that was shot under those circumstances.  You'd get one or two frames at best and then better hope that Revlon (or whoever) said "Thanks, we love it.  Here's a million dollars".  But that's neither here nor there.

I await Bruce's reply with baited breath.  : )

Selected by an A.D. Maybe in one of those glass towers. 

It appeared in the cosmetics aisles from coast to coast.



One medium softbox over camera plus reflector. One small box feathered for background.

model:  Angel Tara


bt

James Mosley - M wrote:
Hi Bruce,
I always miss the good threads.
M.

:: deep voice ::

Hellllooo James.

bt

Bruce Talbot wrote:

Ahh, the image isn't specifically backlit. While the soft boxes are positioned behind her, they point at each other (about 10' apart) to create separation. The highlights are controlled spill. The model has very little facial and body hair as well. It's 'the girl' factor again saving time in post.

bt

Great information.

Thanks,

Frank

Howard Petrella wrote:
Who is this Michael Thompson hack anyway?  : )

He's sitting on my future clients, bugger.  ha!


bt

DeLandWayne Photography wrote:
if your not in to photoshop check this out ?

http://www.portraitprofessional.com/

No Mac version in the pipeline...obviously a problem for some of us to try.

Gregory Storm wrote:
I'm surprised the search didn't turn up a lot of threads on this topic.

I want to know what are the best ways of shooting beauty shots.  I'm talking about high-end magazine and advertising level in-studio beauty shots like the examples below.  The kind of work that photographers like Michael Thompson, Gavin O'Neill, Stephen Eastwood, Richard Burbridge, Ellen von Unwerth, etc. do.

thanks gregory for sticking me in such a talented bunch of photogs...

just wanna add, that most people on this thread are emphasising model and make-up, which are INDEED 2 very important things.....but as a photographer u need to be able to utilise those 2 things properly to get any advantage from them......(supermodels with amazing make-up can still have hideous pictures taken of them), and in some cases u still need to get a phenominal picture when those 2 things are  not what u expected.

what i want to add, is that from a photographic veiwpoint, i think COMPOSITION is the the biggest factor in beauty......
just because when u get that close, literally every degree of angle that the model moves her head or arm, or every degree of movement from you on any angle, has a HUGE impact on the picture, and mm's of movement from either person can make or break the power of the image. Cropping, composition, and shape are all individual elements that add power to a picture, and being able to get all 3 of them right while people and hair and limbs are all moving, is not easy.....plus every imperfection in someones face is magnified massively when its so close, which also adds to the job. obviously there are some beauty shots that are super-easy to take, but others are not, at all......which i find is reflected by the beauty editors i work with too, coz they  appreciate that u need to be patient, and very much into detail, so they generally leave u alone to do your thing...

for me personally, in all forms of photography, light has very little to do with it.....i use whatever light i feel like using, soft, hard, filtered, backlight, whatever......coz photography has got nothing to do with using any particular technique like "soft light" etc etc, its just 'does the light u used look great on the picture u shot', yes or no?

and yes retouching is a huge factor too, but on some pictures the things that make the image great cannot be retouched into it, they are there already.

JT Sumner Photography wrote:
softlight softlight softlight... oh, and maybe a touch of natural light coming in from a window... and, LOTS of photoshop!! 

absolutely ZERO "touch of natural light".

  Great model, great makeup artist, great hair, usually too much retouching (on the more commercial side),

Frank Mattoni wrote:

I think MF does have that look and feel you're talking about..

I also think a skilled photographer/editor can do amazing things with a high end DSLR.

By the time a photographer is willing and or able to drop 10-30 grand on a camera, they are a usually working pro who has a wealth of information and the ability to use the digital back to its true potential.

The reason some Americas Next Top Model shoots aren't always all that is because some of those photographers are using the Hasselblad for the first time and are out of their element.

Even Tyra walked out with the Hassy and then switched to a Canon for the actual shoot in the last episode.

Yes I watch it.

Frank

Thought I was the only one that noticed that!