ArtisticGlamour wrote:
At each sub-location I adjust the camera and lighting settings, then when those are set, I just shoot with the models flow...I let her set the pace starting with a very general idea of the concept. Very little direction, except some hand signals.

I will give a general idea, (and correct hair and wardrobe, hands and feet), but when the model is "flowing" ("throwing poses") I shoot, and when she hit's a pose I REALLY like, I say "Hold That!" (and shoot about 3 shots very quickly) and "good" to direct her to move on. Not a lot of words are spoken, it's a "natural" flow.

I much prefer the model to "throw" poses that are natural that are comfortable to her, than to direct her into the "grin-and-bear-it" mode (as someone called it!). So, unless there are wardrobe, hand/feet, hair, etc...issues to "correct"...the only words are "hold that" and "good". I'll throw an occasional hand signal to adjust the tilt of her head or twist of her body.

This is my favorite way to work. Let me know if something is totally wrong, but other than that, let me work! I don't like to be micro-posed unless we are doing something specific. It is especially soul crushing when I'm being micro-posed into the 'cliche' poses when I know much better ones and when I attempt them the photographer is like, "Hey can you turn your back to the camera, look over your shoulder, and raise your right foot in the air?"

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
1) I often feel like I'm spraying and praying and that feels like "cheating" to me. I don't really have control over the scene and hoping to catch lightning in a bottle. I also feel like I'm the cliche fashion photographer when I shoot like that and I have a tough time getting past my own cynicism.



But you've definitely given me a new way to look at it...and some skills to work on for sure.

I don't really think of shooting fast spray and pray. When I set the light, there is a strong chance that it is already correct. I usually do a few tethered test shots to verify. I then start with a pose that will work. The more static shots are done early on, with those there are already good ( normal) shots equivalent to the slower more reliable process of controlled shooting.

When people say that their cousin bought a Canon 5DMKIII and note you have the same camera, where is the difference in the results? I'll say it's in the timing of when to press the button. When that happens fast it's no different, just have to think and react and respond  much faster. When shooting fast of course the in sync shutter pressing and model timing is going to come and go in and out of sync faster, so there are waves of synchronistic.

The other day at the meeting with Salgado, he said when asked that timing is built upon the all of the elements starting off with an idea more or less, then rapidly entering a trance like state, finding this synchronistic. The person interviewing, went on to say many other photographers said exactly the same thing about their "state" when shooting and capturing.

MelissaAnn  wrote:
I usually move/pose as fast as I possibly can, and then yell at the photographer when they can't keep up.  When they ask me what the hell I'm doing, I just tell them I'm on drugs, and that they should try some so they can match my amazing speed. 

On seeing Coco Rocha on back stage video, I'm sure there are some photographers who will not be able to keep up.

For her it seems you work at her speed or she makes you feel like you will not get the best.

Also sure that some photographers wouldn't like that at all. Sure that photographers would love to shoot with you though Melissa.

MelissaAnn  wrote:
I usually move/pose as fast as I possibly can, and then yell at the photographer when they can't keep up.  When they ask me what the hell I'm doing, I just tell them I'm on drugs, and that they should try some so they can match my amazing speed. 

Actually, I've gotten used to working at most different speeds.  I find it easiest to work with photographers who take the voyeuristic approach, and just tell me to ignore the camera and do whatever I want while they stand back and capture whatever they feel is worth capturing.  They usually get a *lot* of images (almost continuous clicking), but also tend to capture the most natural looking moments- the ones that don't look posed.   

I find it most difficult to work with photographers who use medium to large format film cameras, because I have to hold poses a lot longer, and I sometimes have a difficult time looking natural after I've been holding it for a while (especially if it's a difficult pose).....that being said, I also find these shoots to be very rewarding.

Hmmm, very innnnteresting

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
I find that most experienced models tend to pose, wait... pose wait... until the photographer takes a shot.

+1, I always think this is a great way to start, and tweek it from there.

Neil Snape wrote:
I'll say it's in the timing of when to press the button. When that happens fast it's no different, just have to think and react and respond  much faster.

The other day at the meeting with Salgado, he said when asked that timing is built upon the all of the elements starting off with an idea more or less, then rapidly entering a trance like state, finding this synchronistic. The person interviewing, went on to say many other photographers said exactly the same thing about their "state" when shooting and capturing.

+1

I saw an interesting thing on a science programme a while ago:-

A man who was to all intents and purposes completely blind due to a brain injury (but whose eyes still worked fine) was asked to sit in front of a TV and shown brief flashes of an object moving up or down, to which he had to say "up" or "down".

Of course he couldn't actually see anything, but he always said "up" or "down" instantly when shown the object moving and got the direction right about 95% of the time.

The reason for this is that about 10% of the nerves in the optic nerve, bypass the visual cortex of the brain completely and go straight to the amygdala, the primitive part of the brain that controls the fight or flight response. So he could sense the movement even though he couldn't see it. And the response time via the amygdala is much faster than via normal "seeing" vision.

This is, I feel, one of the primary reasons why many photographers (including me) who shoot fast often say they "sense" when to press the shutter, or how to frame the shot, rather than actually waiting to see it emerge fully in the viewfinder. We're basically operating at an instinctive (or as Salgado put it, a trance-like) level.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

+1

I saw an interesting thing on a science programme a while ago:-

A man who was to all intents and purposes completely blind due to a brain injury (but whose eyes still worked fine) was asked to sit in front of a TV and shown a brief flash of an object moving up or down, to which he had to say "up" or "down".

Of course he couldn't actually see anything, but he always said "up" or "down" instantly when shown the object moving and got the direction right about 95% of the time.

The reason for this is that about 10% of the nerves in the optic nerve, bypass the visual cortex of the brain completely and go straight to the amygdala, the primitive part of the brain that controls the fight or flight response. So he could sense the movement even though he couldn't see it. And the response time via the amygdala is much faster than via normal "seeing" vision.

This is, I feel, one of the primary reasons why many photographers (including me) who shoot fast often say they "sense" when to press the shutter, or how to frame the shot, rather than actually waiting to see it emerge fully in the viewfinder. We're basically operating at an instinctive (or as Salgado put it, a trance-like) level.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

This is the way that I shoot a model.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

Try it and see!

I find that most experienced models tend to pose, wait... pose wait... until the photographer takes a shot. Trying to "direct" them into a "better" pose is only about 50% successful - sometimes they will get it and do something better; other times it will fall apart completely. The only thing to do then is to say "OK" and move on to the next pose. Either way, I always take a shot as not doing so tends to break the flow and can cause the model (especially if she's inexperienced) to lose confidence.

Sometimes, if a model is tending to hit poses which I find too static and predictable, I will ask her to "move freely and continuously" and I'll just hit the shutter when I feel something worthwhile is happening/about to happen. Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't, but almost always it leads to the model posing less rigidly which, for fashion anyway, is generally a good thing.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Yes!

Dan OMell wrote:
they follow your shutter clicks to change a pose.

I don't even realize how much I listen to shutters like a metronome until they're gone. Every now and then, especially when I'm shooting with more than one person, I'll get thrown because a shutter is too quiet, and I didn't realize that person took a shot, then I retune my ears. I've also posed through windows, up on rocks, next to roaring waterfalls, etc. where you cannot hear it. Those are always fun situations where you toss it up to fate, keep moving at a steady rhythm, and wait for the photographer to yell if something comes up. One time, when we were on opposite sides of a window, the photographer actually mimed the directions he wanted. I was thoroughly impressed with his communication skills!

Jordan L Duncan wrote:
This is my favorite way to work. Let me know if something is totally wrong, but other than that, let me work! I don't like to be micro-posed unless we are doing something specific. It is especially soul crushing when I'm being micro-posed into the 'cliche' poses when I know much better ones and when I attempt them the photographer is like, "Hey can you turn your back to the camera, look over your shoulder, and raise your right foot in the air?"

Exactly! I want to just show the model a few ideas, and then let HER throw what feels natural to her. I may slightly adjust with some few "hand signals" about twist or tilt...but for the most part the model is "throwing" naturally from HER inner-feeling of the concept. I'm just trying to catch those moments of best "connection" of her eyes and facial expressions.

intense_puppy wrote:

This was an interesting quote from the other thread on directing (I created a new thread as it wasn't exactly on topic).

I've noticed that very experienced models seem to want to move through poses very quickly. As I shoot relatively few frames per shoot (20-70 photos usually although sometimes as few as 5 clicks of the shutter for the whole shoot) I like to make sure every photo is just so before clicking.

So I'm wondering if models find this kind of pace excruciating?

I've seen a few photographers who have the model basically dancing in front of the camera while they "machine-gun" shoot.
I don't think I could work that way, but would I have a better shoot if I burned frames letting the model get into a "rhythm"?

Just curious really. Models - what do you think?

I've been on both sides and I personally feel the only frustrating thing for models is when you have a photographer that is on either extreme end of the spectrum - shooting only a few images for the whole shoot or basically creating a video with the amount of images taken.

Different models work differently, and I've found it's easiest for me as a photographer to adapt to their level of comfort or 'pace'. I may try to guide them to have more constant fluid movements if they are a little stiff, or I may pose them a bit more to make them more aware and conscious of their angles if they're dancing as you put it..

My friend is a photographer and he used to be very picky about each image, wanting it to be perfect and well crafted and such.. I understand that completely, but I feel it's a bit of a self-centered perspective. If a model is posing and moving and trying and you aren't even attempting a connection by shooting and moving and communicating, you're not only making them uncomfortable and possibly self conscious, but you're relying on them to read your mind and create the image for you while you wait to capture it. In my experience, it's more of a collaborative project, and taking photos while you are connecting with a model is part of you both coming together to try to get on the same wavelength.

Just my two cents...

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
The reason for this is that about 10% of the nerves in the optic nerve, bypass the visual cortex of the brain completely and go straight to the amygdala, the primitive part of the brain that controls the fight or flight response. So he could sense the movement even though he couldn't see it. And the response time via the amygdala is much faster than via normal "seeing" vision.

Now, how do I capture that signal to a RAW format, and write it to an SD card?

John Allan wrote:

Not sure how you define quickly, but that's not been my experience.
More experienced models know when to hold and when to change-up. Basically if the photographer is 'fiddling' with the camera; hold. If he's just static, change-up.
Then change-up after 1-2 shutter releases. Very minor change after 1. More so after 2, etc.
So, it's a lot about the photographer's body communication that a good model can effortlessly read.

Yes, and the sound of the shutter.

intense_puppy wrote:

This was an interesting quote from the other thread on directing (I created a new thread as it wasn't exactly on topic).

I've noticed that very experienced models seem to want to move through poses very quickly. As I shoot relatively few frames per shoot (20-70 photos usually although sometimes as few as 5 clicks of the shutter for the whole shoot) I like to make sure every photo is just so before clicking.

So I'm wondering if models find this kind of pace excruciating?

I've seen a few photographers who have the model basically dancing in front of the camera while they "machine-gun" shoot.
I don't think I could work that way, but would I have a better shoot if I burned frames letting the model get into a "rhythm"?

Just curious really. Models - what do you think?

Definitely.

For some shoots I'll shoot as fast as possible to ensure the model has run through all of her stock poses and has no choice but to start doing something new.

Neil Snape wrote:

I don't really think of shooting fast spray and pray. When I set the light, there is a strong chance that it is already correct. I usually do a few tethered test shots to verify. I then start with a pose that will work. The more static shots are done early on, with those there are already good ( normal) shots equivalent to the slower more reliable process of controlled shooting.

When people say that their cousin bought a Canon 5DMKIII and note you have the same camera, where is the difference in the results? I'll say it's in the timing of when to press the button. When that happens fast it's no different, just have to think and react and respond  much faster. When shooting fast of course the in sync shutter pressing and model timing is going to come and go in and out of sync faster, so there are waves of synchronistic.

The other day at the meeting with Salgado, he said when asked that timing is built upon the all of the elements starting off with an idea more or less, then rapidly entering a trance like state, finding this synchronistic. The person interviewing, went on to say many other photographers said exactly the same thing about their "state" when shooting and capturing.

I have certain lighting where it's almost impossible to take a bad photo. I spent a year and a half shooting part of everyday shooting without looking through the viewfinder in the 28-35mm range. There are lots of situations where I can shoot purely instinctually and if I see something that feels right, I press the button. The idea of judging while shooting is foolish in my opinion. Pay attention to what you see and feel, not what you think. The closer I pay attention the more things I see worth shooting.

That said, it usually doesn't start out that way. I rarely can start shooting without talking to the model for an hour to get an idea of who she is and what to watch for. Sometimes they look so different in person it will take me a while to see what parts of their face look good.

Then I usually start fairly slow,  but when I've found it, I'm sure I shoot at the speed people consider spray and pray, and those will always be the best shots - back to back to back keepers.

I've also got photos that I shot while swinging the camera at arms length and shooting at 10fps. For something like that the first swing is a test shot, but after that I pretty much know what I'm getting even though it may look like I'm screwing around and shooting a bunch to get one good one.

Sometimes I'll screw around specifically for how to affects the subject.

Shooting with intent and shooting to find/discover are equal in my eyes. I'd rank true spray and pray above the micromanage and shoot 5 frame approach. It's never natural for the subject and I've never seen a genuinely good/real photo shot that way. Photos of someone being genuine will always be better no matter how poorly lit or composed they are. The honest humanity will always come through and bend the IQ to fit the moment that was captured.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

+1

I saw an interesting thing on a science programme a while ago:-

A man who was to all intents and purposes completely blind due to a brain injury (but whose eyes still worked fine) was asked to sit in front of a TV and shown brief flashes of an object moving up or down, to which he had to say "up" or "down".

Of course he couldn't actually see anything, but he always said "up" or "down" instantly when shown the object moving and got the direction right about 95% of the time.

The reason for this is that about 10% of the nerves in the optic nerve, bypass the visual cortex of the brain completely and go straight to the amygdala, the primitive part of the brain that controls the fight or flight response. So he could sense the movement even though he couldn't see it. And the response time via the amygdala is much faster than via normal "seeing" vision.

This is, I feel, one of the primary reasons why many photographers (including me) who shoot fast often say they "sense" when to press the shutter, or how to frame the shot, rather than actually waiting to see it emerge fully in the viewfinder. We're basically operating at an instinctive (or as Salgado put it, a trance-like) level.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

That's interesting. While you may be right, I would describe it totally differently.

We have two sides to our brain, conscious rational thought and emotions.

A subject that we are photographing has an exterior and an interior (emotions).


We can choose which go pay attention to in ourselves or our subjects. When you've moved fully to the emotional level internally and paying attention to their emotional level, it will feel different - the trance like state. I don't think it's a visual thing, it's a state where you put emotions and feelings first.

Maybe it's the same thing, just semantics.

MelissaAnn  wrote:
I usually move/pose as fast as I possibly can, and then yell at the photographer when they can't keep up.  When they ask me what the hell I'm doing, I just tell them I'm on drugs, and that they should try some so they can match my amazing speed. 

Actually, I've gotten used to working at most different speeds.  I find it easiest to work with photographers who take the voyeuristic approach, and just tell me to ignore the camera and do whatever I want while they stand back and capture whatever they feel is worth capturing.  They usually get a *lot* of images (almost continuous clicking), but also tend to capture the most natural looking moments- the ones that don't look posed.   

I find it most difficult to work with photographers who use medium to large format film cameras, because I have to hold poses a lot longer, and I sometimes have a difficult time looking natural after I've been holding it for a while (especially if it's a difficult pose).....that being said, I also find these shoots to be very rewarding.

I think you've touched on something important.

I did a shoot last year that was on the naughty side and the photos were amazing. I didn't realize it while shooting, it wasn't until the editing stage. I tried to figure out why was so great about them and it was clear that it was because they showed how she was feeling, and more importantly that it was real, and that similar shoots weren't as good because the feelings had been faked.

So for about 45 minutes I started thinking there was something about the way that I shoot that captured reality honestly no matter what. That when I shoot someone faking their feelings I end up with a photo of someone faking the way they feel and that even the best faking (great acting) will not lead to a great photo from me because even if it convinces the viewer's conscious mind, deep down they can feel the truth that it's fake.

Then I realized I was blowing smoke up my own ass. I think this is the nature of photography and has nothing to do with how I shoot. It's how everyone shoots whether they want to or not.

So what I think you're identifying is the process that allows or leads you to being the most real, and not "emoting" but feeling and allowing that to be seen. It's your realness that's making the photos better than others and the photographer's contribution is their process that allows you to be more real - as well as them paying attention to what's happening and courting the  ost interesting moments.

Dan OMell wrote:
they follow your shutter clicks to change a pose.

my models are much more superior -- they are even capable to read my mind. that's why some of them know when to flake. 3 just kidding.

There are lots of jokes with a lot of truth in them. You might be right without realizing it.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

Now, how do I capture that signal to a RAW format, and write it to an SD card?

+1!

Cameras are the worst thing to happen to photography since the invention of the camera.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Patrick Demachelier who shoots at an unhurried pace, very relaxed almost deliberate.
Avedon very similar spend a lot of time in France where his style flourished.
French connection.

Nick Knight and Bailey, Duffy British shoot at a faster pace and are more talkative.

So this could be a cultural thing working at different paces.

It's a communication thing. Some people can say a lot with a few words, some people need more.  Demachelier  is communicating non-verbally, but consciously and specifically.

Gary Melton wrote:
PAY ATTENTION...HERE IS THE TRUTH:

The pace of a photoshoot IS what the pace of the photoshoot is...if you can't adjust to what it is - then you're hardly a professional...

...just sayin'...

I'm pretty sure that doesn't actually mean anything.

Gary Melton wrote:
PAY ATTENTION...HERE IS THE TRUTH:

The pace of a photoshoot IS what the pace of the photoshoot is...if you can't adjust to what it is - then you're hardly a professional...

...just sayin'...

intense_puppy wrote:
I'm pretty sure that doesn't actually mean anything.

It's the actual truth...'sorry you can't handle it...

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Agreed has no meaning apart from it's the photographer who sets the pace.

...and that's exactly what I was saying...if the model can't adjust to the photographer's pace, then I question how professional she might be...

Gary Melton wrote:

Gary Melton wrote:
PAY ATTENTION...HERE IS THE TRUTH:

The pace of a photoshoot IS what the pace of the photoshoot is...if you can't adjust to what it is - then you're hardly a professional...

...just sayin'...

It's the actual truth...'sorry you can't handle it...

Wow, the actual objective truth?

MC Photo wrote:
I did a shoot last year that was on the naughty side and the photos were amazing. I didn't realize it while shooting, it wasn't until the editing stage. I tried to figure out why was so great about them and it was clear that it was because they showed how she was feeling, and more importantly that it was real, and that similar shoots weren't as good because the feelings had been faked.

Yup. This.

Rays Fine Art wrote:
Without getting overly lyrical, I think of a model shoot as a form of dancing...

NOW we're talking - and for Dancing, you need MUSIC

right ?

Suicide and Redemption wrote:
In studio or on location I've tough myself to pace myself with 3 or 4 shots per pose. I'm always letting the model what angle, Zoom & framing to keep us on the same pace & concept flow. I have found over thinking a shoot can interfere with the pace of the shoot itself. Being detail oriented deff produce's amazing shots. I had some exp models run through poses like ever 2 sec's & some that take their time. I never mind either way I've also saw a few over express & stiff posing when rushing though.

I like it when the photographer tells me what he's doing like this. It can be really helpful and help me stay focused. Now that I am so familiar with it though I rarely have to be told, and I can tell when he's zooming in or whatever from the position of his hands and from what buttons and knobs he's fiddling with. Especially if we're shooting with a Nikon.

John Allan wrote:

Not sure how you define quickly, but that's not been my experience.
More experienced models know when to hold and when to change-up. Basically if the photographer is 'fiddling' with the camera; hold. If he's just static, change-up.
Then change-up after 1-2 shutter releases. Very minor change after 1. More so after 2, etc.
So, it's a lot about the photographer's body communication that a good model can effortlessly read.

I constantly talk to my model letting her know how great that look is, or to move this or that, to hold or stay as I shoot n walk around looking for the perfect light n angles. I've developed a rapor with her, we are in constant communication with eachother and it becomes a dance where we can zone out everytihng but eashother.

.