# Katie



## DanOstergren (May 11, 2018)

Shot in natural light.

Canon 5D MKI, Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens set to f/8, 1/2500 sec, ISO 320.






And a version with the structure and wires removed.


----------



## Derrel (May 11, 2018)

Good  positioning of her body and face in relation to the light.


----------



## Jeff15 (May 12, 2018)

Nice enough shot but the poles and the wire spoil it for me..


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 12, 2018)

NATURAL LIGHT??????

HOW?

Dude, this is seriously nice. Is this during golden hour? It still looks like mid day in the background! Lighting control here is very impressive. And your model is lovely!

As for the composition, I like it. I like the unconventional lower angle, and I'm not sure how I feel about the poles/wire. I know I _don't_ like the wire, but I don't think this image would have the same effect without the poles, for some reason.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 12, 2018)

Derrel said:


> Good  positioning of her body and face in relation to the light.


Thank you.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 12, 2018)

Jeff15 said:


> Nice enough shot but the poles and the wire spoil it for me..


Thank you. I appreciate the feedback. I also did a version without the structure and wires in it, but I really like it with them in the shot. 

If you want to see the other version:
https://orig00.deviantart.net/4c3d/f/2018/132/9/3/_mg_0784b_by_danostergren-dcbb4au.jpg


----------



## DanOstergren (May 12, 2018)

DGMPhotography said:


> NATURAL LIGHT??????
> 
> HOW?
> 
> ...


Thank you.
Lol, yes, all natural light. Usually I add a reflector in there somewhere but for this shot I just used mostly direct sunlight with a thin layer of cloud cover; I couldn't have asked for better light in a more beautiful scene. It wasn't golden hour but I had the camera white balance set to shade (I ALWAYS have it set to shade no matter the lighting conditions), and I increased the color temperature in ACR just a little bit more as well. 

When I took the picture, I really loved the lines from the structure and wires. When I got it on my computer and finished editing it I also questioned if it would be better without them in the shot, so I made a version without them in it. Personally I really like what the lines do for the composition, and I think they add a unique touch to an image that could otherwise be cliche without them. In the end I like the version that includes the structure, but I also kept the other version.


----------



## smoke665 (May 12, 2018)

Great shot. The low angle and light are fantastic. As to the poles and wire I want to like it because of the interest it adds, but compared to the one without, I prefer without. Maybe it's because they are visually strong leading lines that pull the eye away from rather then toward the model, and are to far away to work as a frame.


----------



## jcdeboever (May 12, 2018)

Cool shot, interesting composition. I prefer the 1st shot. I like the way she is framed inside it, really adds an artistic vision. Without them, the clouds sort of take away from the model, the frame keeps her in there.


----------



## BrentC (May 12, 2018)

Seeing both photos together I like the one without the wires.  The woman and the clouds are the main attraction and the wires take away your focus too much.   Great shot.


----------



## Fujidave (May 12, 2018)

#1 for me as I just like it more, a very well taken photo.


----------



## enezdez (May 12, 2018)

I really like the shot without the wires, love the low angle!


----------



## DanOstergren (May 12, 2018)

enezdez said:


> I really like the shot without the wires, love the low angle!


Thank you.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 12, 2018)

Fujidave said:


> #1 for me as I just like it more, a very well taken photo.


Thanks man.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 12, 2018)

BrentC said:


> Seeing both photos together I like the one without the wires.  The woman and the clouds are the main attraction and the wires take away your focus too much.   Great shot.


Thank you. I appreciate the feedback.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 12, 2018)

jcdeboever said:


> Cool shot, interesting composition. I prefer the 1st shot. I like the way she is framed inside it, really adds an artistic vision. Without them, the clouds sort of take away from the model, the frame keeps her in there.


Thank you. I feel the same. When I compare the two I feel like the one without the structure lacks dimension.


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 12, 2018)

I don't feel too strongly about either version, but I think if it was my image, I'd go with the version with the poles/wire removed. I'm all about "clean" images.

But I'm still wondering about the light. How did you manage to get both the model and background/foreground so well-exposed? And I'm surprised there aren't any nasty shadows, or that your model's eyes aren't squinting. I would think that you at least had a scrim or something filtering the light. 

And I'm guessing this was about 3 hours or so before sunset? Definitely not high noon.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 12, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> Great shot. The low angle and light are fantastic. As to the poles and wire I want to like it because of the interest it adds, but compared to the one without, I prefer without. Maybe it's because they are visually strong leading lines that pull the eye away from rather then toward the model, and are to far away to work as a frame.


Thanks. I appreciate the feedback.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 12, 2018)

DGMPhotography said:


> I don't feel too strongly about either version, but I think if it was my image, I'd go with the version with the poles/wire removed. I'm all about "clean" images.
> 
> But I'm still wondering about the light. How did you manage to get both the model and background/foreground so well-exposed? And I'm surprised there aren't any nasty shadows, or that your model's eyes aren't squinting. I would think that you at least had a scrim or something filtering the light.
> 
> And I'm guessing this was about 3 hours or so before sunset? Definitely not high noon.


Having such a bright light source on the model allows me to set the aperture around f/8, which lets me get the sky in focus compared to a wide aperture which would blow out the background. Having a bright light source on the subject also allows me to expose for the subject, which in most cases will require a fast shutter speed that will render the sky behind the subject clearly. It's different if I were to be pointing the camera towards the sun, which would require me to shoot at a slower shutter speed in order to properly expose my model, which would also blow the sky in the background out.

There were no nasty shadows because with the right use of lighting, it's something you don't need to worry about. Direct sunlight can be beautiful high contrast light, and you don't always need a scrim to work with it. As for not squinting, the sun was at a high enough angle that it wasn't shining directly into her eyes, and for most of the shots I had her keep her eyes pointed away from the sun until we were ready to shoot. I forget what time it was, but it was at least a couple of hours before sundown.


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 13, 2018)

DanOstergren said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I don't feel too strongly about either version, but I think if it was my image, I'd go with the version with the poles/wire removed. I'm all about "clean" images.
> ...



Hmm... I will have to try this out!


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 13, 2018)

Oh, and did yall have a makeup/hair artist? Her whole look is on fleek!


----------



## DanOstergren (May 13, 2018)

DGMPhotography said:


> Oh, and did yall have a makeup/hair artist? Her whole look is on fleek!


She did her own makeup and hair, and brought a large wardrobe that we put together looks from. It wasn't really anything serious, just a thing we had been talking about doing for a long time.


----------



## Donde (May 13, 2018)

I think the poles provide an energy from their dynamic radial placement and the wire helps frame her in a nice isosceles triangle.


----------



## terri (May 13, 2018)

Love this shot, and for me the framing from the pole & wire makes it special.   I love the additional photographic element, especially these wires and pole.  Being rougher, more texture-y elements, for me they actually complement her tatts and the jeans.    Without the poles/wires, it's technically still an excellent shot, but then the yawning expanse of overhead sky seems pointless, and I'd be of a mind to create a square crop to draw in around the model.  

But that's too cliche.       What you did rocks!


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 14, 2018)

DanOstergren said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and did yall have a makeup/hair artist? Her whole look is on fleek!
> ...



I'm impressed. Always nice when a model can handle her own hair/makeup.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 15, 2018)

DGMPhotography said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > DGMPhotography said:
> ...


It doesn't take much to be honest. Going overboard and overthinking the styling and makeup can often ruin a shoot.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 15, 2018)

terri said:


> Love this shot, and for me the framing from the pole & wire makes it special.   I love the additional photographic element, especially these wires and pole.  Being rougher, more texture-y elements, for me they actually complement her tatts and the jeans.    Without the poles/wires, it's technically still an excellent shot, but then the yawning expanse of overhead sky seems pointless, and I'd be of a mind to create a square crop to draw in around the model.
> 
> But that's too cliche.       What you did rocks!


Thank you. Yes I agree, once the structure is removed, the image becomes a bit basic to me, like I've seen it a million times.


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 17, 2018)

DanOstergren said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...



True. But you'd be surprised how many girls actually don't even know the basics of makeup. So much so, in my experience, that I've begun learning makeup, myself, to compensate.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 17, 2018)

DGMPhotography said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > DGMPhotography said:
> ...


You could always go without as well.


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 17, 2018)

DanOstergren said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...



Depends on the model.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 17, 2018)

DGMPhotography said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > DGMPhotography said:
> ...


Very true. I honestly prefer to photograph girls with no makeup, but the drawback is having to do a bit more retouching. I just don't photograph women as often as I should.


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 18, 2018)

DanOstergren said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...



I don’t photograph men nearly as much as I should haha. We all have our preferences.


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (May 24, 2018)

I agree with Terri that you'd have to do a major crop of the sky without the structural elements. I prefer the framing they add. Great lighting. #1 version for me.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 24, 2018)

Dean_Gretsch said:


> I agree with Terri that you'd have to do a major crop of the sky without the structural elements. I prefer the framing they add. Great lighting. #1 version for me.


Thank you Dean.


----------

