Photo Forum / Photo Technique / People Photography / May 2004
Photographying a church
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Sam Carleton - 26 Apr 2004 14:02 GMT I have been asked to photograph the families of my church parish for a photo directory. I was asked because I do family portraits on the side. I have 99% of all the equipment, I own the lights, possible backgrounds, and I shoot medium format. My problem is that I have never shot a family in such a sterile environment before. Normally I am photographing families outside.
How do I position a Mom, Dad, and four kids? Do I simply need stools of different heights? Should I have some standing and other sitting? Any and all tips are more then welcome.
Sam -- http://www.miltonstreet.com
Randall Ainsworth - 26 Apr 2004 16:55 GMT > How do I position a Mom, Dad, and four kids? Do I simply need stools of > different heights? Should I have some standing and other sitting? Any > and all tips are more then welcome. If you're asking that question, maybe you shouldn't be doing the job. I think it was Clint Eastwood who said it best - "A man's got to know hos limitations.'
Sam Carleton - 26 Apr 2004 18:34 GMT >> How do I position a Mom, Dad, and four kids? Do I simply need stools >> of different heights? Should I have some standing and other sitting? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think it was Clint Eastwood who said it best - "A man's got to know > hos limitations.' Based on the view point you put forth, one should never try something new. Did you ever stop to think that I might have ideas as to how to do it, but was looking for insight from people that have done this type of thing before?
I just realized that I might have interpreted what you wrote incorrectly. Maybe that was your way of saying that doing a job like this is nothing more then a simplified version shooting one family's pictures. From experience, failed experience at that, I know that doing "production" work like a church shoot is VERY different from the way I, personally, do family/individual photos. Have you ever done production work like this before to backup view point?
Did you posting rub me the wrong way, yea. But then I can also see where my initial posting was not the best phrased, either. My objective is simple: gather information from creditable sources, if you are a creditable source of knowledge on this subject, you might have a point!
Sam
BlackVelvet - 26 Apr 2004 20:24 GMT Relax Sam, what's the big deal? You're making more of this then you need to. Just make sure your focus is on the money. I have put people in a fake church setting using Photo Shop and nobody knew except the client. And they loved it!
BlackVelvet - 26 Apr 2004 20:28 GMT focus on the money = in focus.
Randall Ainsworth - 26 Apr 2004 22:30 GMT > Based on the view point you put forth, one should never try something > new. Did you ever stop to think that I might have ideas as to how to do > it, but was looking for insight from people that have done this type of > thing before? If you don't understand the basic principles of portraiture, you're starting off in the minus column.
> I just realized that I might have interpreted what you wrote > incorrectly. Maybe that was your way of saying that doing a job like [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > personally, do family/individual photos. Have you ever done production > work like this before to backup view point? I haven't done church directory work (I don't want the hassle) but I had a studio for 16+ years and have done photography in many forms since 1966.
> Did you posting rub me the wrong way, yea. But then I can also see > where my initial posting was not the best phrased, either. My objective > is simple: gather information from creditable sources, if you are a > creditable source of knowledge on this subject, you might have a point! Understanding principles is important. Learning by doing when you're charging people money is not a good way to learn.
otzi - 27 Apr 2004 01:16 GMT I have to agree with the above respondents. If you have to ask then don't do it. Rather practice in ones own time and expense, the quickest way to learn.
To show I'm not totally angst, just bear in mind that most dark wooden churches suck up an awful lot of light. Posing and modelling is as per any other scenario.
Upon rereading your post, you ask how to jazz up a church local. _Don't_. If that's what they want, that's what they want. Church folk tend often to be happy with the banal. Some gums, some teeth, what else matters. They often aren't art connoisseurs. Never-the-less a sunny day in the church gardens will offer lighting, ambience, and a general bonhomie that will auger well with the spirit of the occasion. You no doubt will be doing this for next to nothing so this may offer the most expedient solution.
 Signature Otzi
> > Based on the view point you put forth, one should never try something > > new. Did you ever stop to think that I might have ideas as to how to do [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Understanding principles is important. Learning by doing when you're > charging people money is not a good way to learn. Sam Carleton - 27 Apr 2004 01:50 GMT
> Upon rereading your post, you ask how to jazz up a church local. _Don't_. Man, oh man am I bad at explaining myself, let me try again...
I have done plenty of individual and family portraits. I have shot individual portraits both on location and in my make shift studio, I own three White-Lightening strobes and a couple of back drops. I have only shot family portraits on location, never in my make shift studio because the lack of space to be creative.
For this church shoot, I plain to keep things as sterile as possible: two lights, one 45 degrees of to the left as main and the second 10 degrees off to the right at one and a half stops under as fill. All the pictures will be head and shoulder shots. I know exactly how to post one and two people, I can manage three, but how does one post a family of six?
Lets say I have a father 6'4", mother 5"6', and four kids ranging from 2"6' to 5"10', do I have them all sitting, some sitting and some standing? Keep in mind the final objective is a photo directory, so I want as little variant in each image as possible. What equipment should I have? Do I only need to have a fair number of stools for folks to sit on, or should I also have boxes for folks to stand on? Is there a formula folks have used to help insure that all the images look pretty much the same?
I guess my point is that I know all the basics; I have not done something like this before and am hoping that there is someone out there that has which could provide some insight on does and don't as to make it run smoothly.
Sam
Randall Ainsworth - 27 Apr 2004 04:35 GMT > For this church shoot, I plain to keep things as sterile as possible: > two lights, one 45 degrees of to the left as main and the second 10 > degrees off to the right at one and a half stops under as fill. All the > pictures will be head and shoulder shots. I know exactly how to post > one and two people, I can manage three, but how does one post a family > of six? You need to learn about lighting.
Sam Carleton - 27 Apr 2004 12:21 GMT >> For this church shoot, I plain to keep things as sterile as possible: >> two lights, one 45 degrees of to the left as main and the second 10 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You need to learn about lighting. Why do you post here? What good does that do me other then to piss me off? I recall my Algebra I teacher tell us that if we did not like the way he did things, that we should keep it to ourselves, UNLESS we had a solution. You might want to learn something from my Algebra I teacher, he is a smart man: Criticism with no solution is worthless.
Randall, one thing I have learned is that anyone can criticize something; it takes intelligence to actually find a solutions. I am starting to think that your 16+ years of photography have done you little good because you continue to put forth criticism and have yet to put forth one thing useful piece of information.
Ok, so you don't like the lighting setup that I have conceptualized. Might you be willing to make a suggestion on a better one? Or are you above actually sharing the knowledge 16+ years of having a studio has provided you?
Sam
Al Denelsbeck - 27 Apr 2004 13:33 GMT >>> For this church shoot, I plain to keep things as sterile as >>> possible: two lights, one 45 degrees of to the left as main and the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why do you post here? What good does that do me other then to piss me > off? Don't bother with Randall, he's already established he's a long retired photographer who used exceptionally outdated methods and, worse, feels that there is a "right way" to photography. Funny how, in my experience, those three always seem to go hand-in-hand...
As for your original question, there are a variety of approaches that I see, as someone who doesn't routinely do family portraits. Remember that these are also examples of your work being displayed before a captured audience, so to speak, so in that particular case I suspect some variety is a good thing. The fact that the setting, lighting, and manner of dress will be the same will keep enough uniformity in the shots - keeping all the same poses might actually make it look too sterile. The same pose is good for family portraits going up in separate living rooms, but displayed together as in this case, it's liable to look too cookie cutter.
You're going to have too many different conditions to avoid different poses, anyway. Two kids both tall adolescents, or five ranging from 6 months to 14 years? Forget any formulas. But I would suggest the parents sitting for the most part, and in such a way to make them more prominent - these are, after all, church photos where there's more emphasis on parental respect. After that, use layers, use a "C" pose decreasing in height, use a balanced grouping with the folks at the center, whatever. A couple of kickstools should be handy to manage heights in such a way that you're doing a descending age thing, and/or still not blocking your lights. A few phonebooks won't hurt either ;-)
Looking around the church will actually give you some ideas. Churches are laid out in a manner to provide emphasis, mostly building towards the center, or center top. I wouldn't mimic this directly, but I would take a hint from it - subtly following the church's own design is almost certainly going to win points.
If at all possible, use some church setting as a backdrop, not your own. Much stronger for the purpose. If there is something distinctive yet subtle that you can use, all the better. Don't be afraid to kick a low-key light onto it too, but keep that consistent. So it should be something that still works like most backdrops do, and offers sufficient contrast to dark jackets and bright dresses. Even better if you can test a few shots ahead of time.
Stay away from the pulpit, or anything that is the priest's/head honcho's domain. This is bad news. Same with any prayer areas. You want a neutral background, not one for a specific purpose within the church, which is too likely to be considered highly inappropriate.
If anyone with authority in the chuch can show you examples of what they like, perfect. Make the client happy - you don't need to dictate this for them. At the same time, don't be afraid to offer improvements, but they're an offer only, you know? Some photographers get the impression that they have the best approach to the photo (ar-teests), but here you may be clashing with another kind of authority, and that's unnecessary and detrimental. If they insist on making the images look bad, well, make them happy and get paid.
Hope this gives you some ideas. Good luck with it!
- Al.
 Signature To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Randall Ainsworth - 27 Apr 2004 14:02 GMT > Don't bother with Randall, he's already established he's a long > retired photographer who used exceptionally outdated methods and, worse, > feels that there is a "right way" to photography. Funny how, in my > experience, those three always seem to go hand-in-hand... Basic principles don't change over time. I can't think if a portrait situation where having the main and fill on opposite sides of the camera would be appropriate.
Sam Carleton - 27 Apr 2004 19:52 GMT >> Don't bother with Randall, he's already established he's a long >> retired photographer who used exceptionally outdated methods and, worse, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > situation where having the main and fill on opposite sides of the > camera would be appropriate. Randall,
I have concoluded that you are simply a hardheaded son of a gun. I have asked and asked for ways to do things better and you continue to only be negative. Are you able to tell me HOW WOULD YOU LIGHT it? Or are you the negative guy on this forum?
Sam
Sam Carleton - 27 Apr 2004 14:57 GMT > Don't bother with Randall, he's already established he's a long > retired photographer who used exceptionally outdated methods and, worse, > feels that there is a "right way" to photography. Funny how, in my > experience, those three always seem to go hand-in-hand... Well, Randell is no both. He has provoked me to really think about what I do know and what I don't know about this. I sort of enjoy repling to him, it makes me think:)
> As for your original question, there are a variety of approaches that > I see, as someone who doesn't routinely do family portraits. Remember that [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Hope this gives you some ideas. Good luck with it! It is VERY helpful! Lots and lots to chew on now, thanks!
Sam
Dennis Bradley - 27 Apr 2004 15:15 GMT > > Don't bother with Randall, he's already established he's a long > > retired photographer who used exceptionally outdated methods and, worse, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > As for your original question, there are a variety of approaches that
> > I see, as someone who doesn't routinely do family portraits. Remember that > > these are also examples of your work being displayed before a captured [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > You're going to have too many different conditions to avoid different
> > poses, anyway. Two kids both tall adolescents, or five ranging from 6 > > months to 14 years? Forget any formulas. But I would suggest the parents [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > Looking around the church will actually give you some ideas. Churches
> > are laid out in a manner to provide emphasis, mostly building towards the > > center, or center top. I wouldn't mimic this directly, but I would take a [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Sam As a lurker on this subject, I agree that the post has been very helpful. I have filed it away for the time when I finally decide to get myself some lighting equipment.
Thanks for the input.
Dennis
Randall Ainsworth - 27 Apr 2004 14:01 GMT > Ok, so you don't like the lighting setup that I have conceptualized. > Might you be willing to make a suggestion on a better one? Or are you > above actually sharing the knowledge 16+ years of having a studio has > provided you? I'd hope that you don't do regular studio lighting the same way. You NEVER have the main and fill on opposite sides of the camera.
Sam Carleton - 27 Apr 2004 14:54 GMT >> Ok, so you don't like the lighting setup that I have conceptualized. >> Might you be willing to make a suggestion on a better one? Or are you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'd hope that you don't do regular studio lighting the same way. You > NEVER have the main and fill on opposite sides of the camera. Randall,
Did you even bother to read my post? This is yet another criticism. Don't tell me what NOT to do, tell me EXACTLY: how would you set up your lights?
Sam
Randall Ainsworth - 28 Apr 2004 02:52 GMT > Did you even bother to read my post? This is yet another criticism. > Don't tell me what NOT to do, tell me EXACTLY: how would you set up > your lights? I'd put the fill light as close to the camera as possible, then put the main off-axis a little bit - not too much or you'll get shadow problems with a large group. The main should be a stop brighter than the fill. For posing, heads should be in triangle and each individual should be able to stand on their own individually. Of course, with time constraints it's only gonna get so good. I have a set of studio stools which easily/quickly adjust up and down...and a set of 3 collapsible wooden sort-of stools that are easily portable. The lights should be "nailed down" and the people posed in approximately the same place...same f/stop for everything. neutral/non-distracting background. Again, this will only get so good.
Michael Benveniste - 28 Apr 2004 03:23 GMT >I'd hope that you don't do regular studio lighting the same way. You >NEVER have the main and fill on opposite sides of the camera. Never, huh? I guess when one can't rely on common sense or talent, one has to fall back on rules.
I'm not a pro, but I will frequently add an opposite side reflector or fill light when using split lighting. I've even been known to add a spot of light via a snoot, and I'll position that snoot where ever I need to.
The purpose of the rule you cite is to avoid having crossing shadows in the portrait. Whenever you have more than one light source, that can happen, especially when the sources are similar in strength and from non-diffuse sources.
 Signature Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Randall Ainsworth - 28 Apr 2004 04:53 GMT > Never, huh? I guess when one can't rely on common sense or talent, > one has to fall back on rules. The light source should appear to come from only one direction. I rarely used hairlights in the studio just because they looked phony. I used short lighting religiously for individuals (broad light is a corrective light).
> I'm not a pro, but I will frequently add an opposite side reflector or > fill light when using split lighting. I've even been known to add a > spot of light via a snoot, and I'll position that snoot where ever I > need to. I used supplementary lights when needed but sparingly and always followihng the "one main light" concept.
> The purpose of the rule you cite is to avoid having crossing shadows > in the portrait. Whenever you have more than one light source, that > can happen, especially when the sources are similar in strength and > from non-diffuse sources. I can happen, but never with me.
Sam Carleton - 27 Apr 2004 12:45 GMT >> For this church shoot, I plain to keep things as sterile as possible: >> two lights, one 45 degrees of to the left as main and the second 10 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You need to learn about lighting. Randall,
Why do you post here? What good does your post do anyone other then you? As far as I can tell, the only one getting anything out of your postings is you by getting to toot your own horn about ... something, I cannot tell what because you are doing nothing but criticizing folks.
Let's look at the history of this thread for a moment: Originally I posted a really stupid question that made me look like I just picked up a camera. You make a critical post that does nothing other then to criticize. Thus I came back with a second attempt to explain my background and what knowledge I was seeking. You respond yet again with more criticisms and your history to back up why one should care about your criticism. I state my question again with more detail in an attempt to clarify what knowledge I am seeking. And with that you make a one like posting that is a simple criticism. Do you ever post solutions?
I recall my Algebra I teacher tell us that if we did not like the way he did things, that we should keep it to ourselves, UNLESS we had a solution. You might want to learn something from my Algebra I teacher, he is a smart man: Criticism with no solution is worthless.
One thing I have learned is that anyone can make a criticism; it takes intelligence to find a solution to that criticism. I am starting to think that your 16+ years of photography have done you little good because you continue to put forth criticism and have yet to put forth one possible solution.
Ok, so you don't like the lighting setup that I have conceptualized. Might you be willing to make a suggestion on a better one? Or are you above actually sharing the knowledge 16+ years of having a studio has provided you?
Sam
P.S. I am fully aware of the fact that on a scale of one to ten of using strobes, I am about a two or maybe a three. Again, this is why I have posted here, in hopes that someone might have some real life experience that they are willing to impart to me.
Patrick L. - 29 Apr 2004 08:49 GMT > > How do I position a Mom, Dad, and four kids? Do I simply need stools of > > different heights? Should I have some standing and other sitting? Any [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think it was Clint Eastwood who said it best - "A man's got to know > hos limitations.' f.ck off, a.shole.
Patrick
Randall Ainsworth - 29 Apr 2004 13:46 GMT > f.ck off, a.shole. > > Patrick Your mother must be proud.
zeitgeist - 27 Apr 2004 05:40 GMT I have been asked to photograph the families of my church parish for a
> photo directory. I was asked because I do family portraits on the side. > I have 99% of all the equipment, I own the lights, possible backgrounds, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > different heights? Should I have some standing and other sitting? Any > and all tips are more then welcome. You want a weeks worth portrait workshop training in a usenet post? The good news is that you are bound to be better than 99% of the church directory shooters out there, whenever I see some god awful example of clueless lighting and graceless posing its a church photog, so by asking at least you show some hope of stepping up.
Its not a matter of simply different heights, people are different heights and a group arrangement tends to be better when the heads are placed in compositionally appropriate positions.
The classic is the pyramid. Dad (typically the alpha) at the peak. Even if dad is some wilty milk toast and mom is a mountainous weight lifter six inches taller social convention expects him to be Mr Familyman at the top of the heap.
dad mom kid baby kid kid
Ideally you don't want any two heads on the same level. Certainly not two heads of the same level NEXT to each other.
For close ups of the parents, kids together etc, the taller one's mouth is usually at the level of the second's eyes.
Ideally you want everybody the same distance from the camera. I know several photogs that will string from the tripod to the forehead of each person in a group. string is pulled out to the first posed person's forehead and pinched, then when he poses the next he holds the string out and has the person skooch or lean closer. This prevents distortions in head size, especially when some of these goofs are using a zoom lens at less than telephoto position, then they have a kid in back between the folks, and a line of kids in front and the babies and toddlers on the laps, four deep and you can see that the ones in front have heads a quarter or more larger than the kid in back.
adjustable stools are great cause they allow you to possition the seat height for the height of the person, an inch or two difference makes a major difference in how the body fits, most of the time the seat is a bit to high, we are used to that so we don't really notice it, put someone in a seat too low and you see how they don't look right, (just came from a neighborhood meeting at the local elementary school...) bad seat height hurts far more than good seat height can help, but its the best place to start.
go find some scrap lumber, two by wide, wider, widest. you will need some chunks to place stools on, or feet on, or butts on cause you want to position two things, each person for themselves, then each person in relation to the ones next to them. If things get confusing, in a group shot the more important thing is how each person position relates to the others. phone books, planks, catalogs, and for Mr and Mrs Jack Sprat, a huge soup pot might come in handy.
Place the first folks at 45' angle to the camera, especially mom and dad. I usually 'prom' pose them or spoon them, mom in front of dad, baby on her lap, toddler on dad'd knee between him and ma, older kid perhaps standing by dad with hand on his arm. the kids I try to pose 45' the other way.
babies, you will probably have lots of them. (and churchy families tend to have lots of them and they are radioactive, like heavy metals, close proximity of a 2 and a 3 quickly hits critical mass, and never EVER agree to photographing a 3 yo's birthday...)
hold your hand out, palm up and thumb out. place the babies bottom there with the thumb between the legs. the other hand grabs the clothing between the shoulder blades, I try to get the mom to use her three lower fingers while the thumb and forefinger cradle the infants neck. She now has full control of the child, can tilt him up without fear of dropping him, and without horrid hunches in her back and shoulders. NO more Quassimodo mommies, please.
Now that we've cleared that all up, please tell me that you will NOT place your umbrellas on either side of the camera like it seems they oughta be, please, (all the regulars on this list are now reaching for their delete or next button cause they fear I'll dredge up my usual sermon from my cultish Temple of the One True Light)
This message is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups where you might find a lot of help in the archives...
otzi - 27 Apr 2004 16:45 GMT Boy...., I'm getting to love this post. I fear you are going in to buy a pie and coming out with enough groceries to feed Africa.
As an outline, as already stated, aim to avoid the heads being on the same plane. (level) Parents holding hands is kind of cute. Young children are Ok on parents laps. Teens, boy to Dad and girl to Mum. try (depending on height) having the boy with his arm crooked on Dads shoulder.(idea only) Whilst daughter may more gently embrace Mum. A third child may fit between so long as the head is higher. i.e. the triangle idea. Boring at times but it works. Have them pretend they like each other. The trick really of a professional is to engender some enthusiasm from the subjects. keep up a prattle of generic nonsense like talking about family pets et al.
The debate of main and fill on opposite side is a moot point open to debate. (rules are made to be broken, but first you need to know them.). Personally I do this with success. Consider reflectors. here one doesn't fill with light but rather reduce the shadow density. Watch the light spread across the mob. By lighting from both sides, although technically wrong, allows one to even out the lighting across five or six people. Remember the drop off rate. sq. of distance. (And who says it's wrong? It's the results that counts.)
By having a member of the circus hold the reflector for you they feel they are in some way contributing and I feel you may need all the cooperation you can get. How many folk by the way? Aim to shoot at f8 this should avoid the string thing, and keep a couple of meters from the background. Place lights once. If they are not moved and targets are on the same spot your exposure won't change, so don't fiddle with it. (Oh yes, shoot neg film.). Just a quick check of the focus on the eyes, some times a shiny neck broach offers some thing to focus on and you are on your way free to tickle the emotion to grab that moment. If you look at them and not through the camera once it's set, you are free to spruik them looking out for shut eyes, crooked smiles etc.
Look up the Collins site for some leaders. Take some phone books for height adjustments, but don't diddle about too much as these (mainly non commission folk) may get bored easily.
Have a stress free day!
 Signature Otzi
> I have been asked to photograph the families of my church parish for a > > photo directory. I was asked because I do family portraits on the side. [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > This message is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups > where you might find a lot of help in the archives... Jack Germsheid - 08 May 2004 04:02 GMT Sam, Maybe don't try to reinvent he wheel here and do your shots outside like the ones on your web site. Is that possible? Some open shade near the church would probably be much nicer anyway, weather permiting. Couldn't be worse than the average church directory lighting. Jack
>I have been asked to photograph the families of my church parish for a >photo directory. I was asked because I do family portraits on the side. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >-- >http://www.miltonstreet.com Sam Carleton - 13 May 2004 02:01 GMT You know what, I had not though of that. it isn't that bad of an idea. Thanks.
Sam
> Sam, > Maybe don't try to reinvent he wheel here and do your shots outside like [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>-- >>http://www.miltonstreet.com
|
|
|