I’m finally home
from my dog-sitting assignment in Queenstown and I have a lot to go through. I
have interviews with the five key artists at Q-West Gallery, photos of some of
these artists at work and 80% of the portraits
of those key artists. And that’s what I thought I would talk about today – the “80%”
and the “portraits”.
As I have mentioned
in the past, I am more about nature photography than anything else. Wildlife,
landscapes and macro photography of the natural world are the kinds of things
that pique my interest. So you can probably guess how much experience I have
with portraiture. That’s right, none! That meant I had to approach the portrait
phase of my photo story project with a certain level of preparation.
The first thing I
did was search for everything I could find online about lighting, posing, selecting
the moment, choosing the background, etc, etc, etc... And that was also the
last thing I did. The more I read, the more I found myself thinking how
artificial the final image would be. I’m not saying there is anything wrong
with portraiture or portrait photography, but I am saying that the practice of
portrait photography doesn’t fit with my natural aesthetic (pompous but true!).
When I thought about the portraits I
wanted of my subjects I realised that I wanted my subjects to be themselves,
more than anything. So I changed my approach.
I decided that I
wouldn’t sit my subjects, pose them, light them and photograph them. Admittedly,
part of my decision came about because I couldn’t do any of that. I have no
flashes and no experience with them, so custom lighting was out; I have no
studio and no access to a studio so I had no control over the background I would
be using; and I have no idea how the hell you are supposed to get your subjects
to pose! I mean, how does that work?!
But mostly my decision
came about because I wanted photos of my subjects as they really are. I wanted
their expressions, their gestures, their ‘poses’ to be 100% natural because, to
my mind, you see far more of the subject of a photo when he or
she is allowed to be themselves. To get that clearer view of who my subjects really were, I decided to try and
capture the perfect image of each artist during the interviews.
Initially I had
intended just sitting down with my subjects and interviewing them where I found
them. I would cause minimal disruption for the subject and they would be able
to meet me in a place of their choosing, thus making them more comfortable with
the interview process. The decision to capture the portraits during the interviews required a bit of a rethink.
Fortunately, my super-secret
contact had rooms right beside the gallery that had nice big windows which
would let in a decent amount of natural light. By setting up an interview space (two
comfy seats) right beside the large windows and draping a white sheet in such a
way that it curved around behind the subject, I could use the natural light to
illuminate my subjects. The sheet worked nicely as a soft reflector, bouncing
light in to the unlit side of the subject. As you can see from the examples
here, it seems to have worked quite well.
 | |
| James Dunn |
 |
| Dave Fitzpatrick |
My first two
interview-cum-photo shoots, Dave Fitzpatrick and James Dunn, worked out rather
well. Both subjects are well lit, clear, and in focus. To contextualise to
subjects a bit more I had them select pieces of their art to display around
them, thus giving you not only a feel for the artist, but also for their art.
With James this was easy – I could hang his quilt behind him and have him
simply hold his marionette. That way I could use my best piece of glass (Nikkor
50mm f/1.8G – 75mm equivalent on my D3200 DX body). In order to fit both Dave
and his art into the one image in the relatively confined space I had to work
with, I had to go to my widest piece of glass (Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G – 27-82.5mm
equivalent). Not great glass, but it got me my shot, so...
 |
| Denise Mitchell |
For subject number
three, Denise Mitchell, it was easier to meet her in her home. The lighting
situation was more challenging but, by the simple expedient completely rearranging
her lounge room and surrounding her with boards of white corflute, I was able
to use her skylight to get enough light into her face to get a good shot. As
every part of her home spoke to Denise’s personality, and I could decimate her
lounge to my satisfaction, I could get the space I needed to use my nifty fifty again and still bring in some of the environment.
 |
| Mal Gotjes |
Mal Gotjes, my
fourth subject, is a very private individual, not really given to placing
himself in the forefront, as it were. Put another way, he’s kinda shy. In order
to help him feel as comfortable as possible I decided we could do the
interview-cum-photo shoot in the workshop part of the gallery. That was Mal’s
base, the place he was most comfortable, and just happened to be filled with
his works and the tools of his art. The only issue I had was that, once again,
I was forced to set up in a tight space and use my kit lens again. I think it
came out alright, though.
My final subject,
Bob Cartledge (AKA my super-secret contact, AKA Daddy dearest) proved to be the
simplest. We got into the interview space, I set up my camera with the nifty
fifty and started the interview. And my father danced around in his seat more
than a break dancer with a cramp. Movement was a problem for all my subjects,
really, but I brought this one up because I was unable to get a good, in-focus
shot. Well, that’s not technically true. I did manage to get sharp focus... on
Dad’s ear! Fortunately I have repeat access to this subject (I better have if
he wants his Christmas present!) so I can redo the shoot.
 |
| Bob Cartledge - I made this a bit bigger so you could see the crisp, sharp earlobe! |
And this brings me
to my point for this post; you never know what is going to happen on a shoot,
so you need to make sure you have a back-up plan. In my case, I knew I could
get repeat access to my subjects, so I knew I could go back if something went
wrong. If I hadn’t had that option, I would have made other plans for the
shoot. Most likely I would have dragooned a family member to help me out and
spent a bit of cash getting myself set up so I could shoot tethered to a
laptop. That way I could check my shots then and there and decide whether I had
got what I needed or if I needed to keep going.
So, my Dad is the
20% of the portraits I didn’t get,
and I’m italicising ‘portrait’
because they’re not your traditional portraits. As far as I know, anyway. What do I know about portraits?!
Right! So what’s
next? Well, I’ll be heading back down to Queenstown for Christmas but I won’t
be working on the project then cos’, you know, Christmas! Which means it will
probably be into the New Year before I can get back down there for my project. On that visit I’ll get the rest of the
shots I need, I’ll do another walk-through on the gallery floor to see if there
is anything that grabs me and then I get to start on the hard part – laying out
the story. Hopefully I’ll be done by March... 3001!
What are you thinking, folks? How did my images come out? Do you have any tips or tricks for me for
my next portrait shoot? What experiences have you had on shoots recently?
Let me know!
I hope you enjoyed
the read!
Please check out my
portfolio at:
You can also
find me at:
And I am
@BobCartPhoto on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment