# Millie - a saxy blast from the past.



## tonymp (Mar 12, 2009)

Hi guys,
last week a lovely model called Millie ( aged 31 ) popped over to help me with some new boudoir poses which I was working on - in return she wanted a couple of regular portraits of her and her sax so, a good deal on both sides.
Now I first started out in photography with a Rollieflex 6 x 6 2.8f shooting promo shots for pro entertainers back in the mid-late 70's when I was a pro singer myself and, as it was a while since I did that sort of work, I thought I'd try my hand at it once more and relive my past LOL.

Rather than shoot static portrait style poses of Millie holding her sax, I wanted to give the shots the feeling of a live performance and emulate stage lighting with a three light setup with her moving around inside the lighting triangle actually playing her sax in the ever changing light. I shot 5 primers mainly just to see how the lighting worked. After we viewed them on screen, she was delighted with the results as they were, without any re-takes. That was it!!! Less than about 5 minutes work! It's got to be the easiest shoot I've done in months!

The boudoir test pose shots came out well too and she's coming back in just over a week to shoot again with me - now that's something to look forward to!
Just to say, I couldn't decide whether or not to take out the hot spots on the shots - genuine stage lighting often produces these and it often gives authenticity to the shots - opinions welcomed!
Regards...
Tony


----------



## rufus5150 (Mar 12, 2009)

I wonder if she realizes she's got the mouthpiece on upside down. Seriously, the reed goes on the bottom. And her right hand isn't on the correct keys. 

Nice lighting though.


----------



## tonymp (Mar 12, 2009)

rufus5150 said:


> I wonder if she realizes she's got the mouthpiece on upside down. Seriously, the reed goes on the bottom. And her right hand isn't on the correct keys.
> 
> Nice lighting though.


 
I DIDN'T say how well she knew how to play it LOL!!!!!
I just took the shots - I'm not a sax expert and come to think of it, she definitely looked better than she played! LOL


----------



## rufus5150 (Mar 12, 2009)

It undermines the authenticity of the shot the lights give, though. I mean, one can forgive the hands in the wrong position, but the mouthpiece upside down? "Hey I'm on stage and making sounds like a wounded duck!"


----------



## tonymp (Mar 12, 2009)

rufus5150 said:


> It undermines the authenticity of the shot the lights give, though. I mean, one can forgive the hands in the wrong position, but the mouthpiece upside down? "Hey I'm on stage and making sounds like a wounded duck!"


 
So does the lighting pass? It's been a while since I've done that style of shot! As long as the lighting looks reasonably authentic and the pose is acceptable, then I did what I set out to do! I can always re-shoot when she comes back.


----------



## bjorkfiend (Mar 12, 2009)

...


----------



## tonymp (Mar 12, 2009)

bjorkfiend said:


> I think the hot spot in #1 is spot on. It creates that stage lighting mood quite well. I don't think #2 is quite so successful, as I'd like her face to be darker in contrast to the lighting, but I like seeing half of people so that's probably just me. All in all I get a great feel for what you're trying to accomplish so a well done is in order.


 
Thanks for that - I too prefer the first shot and I actually originally edited the shot to a darker level and less warm than this which I think would be more in keeping with what you are saying. However, I've only recently got a new monitor and I've not quite got it spot on so am a bit conservative with my edits LOL.
I used an old technique for emulating the stage lighting from back in those days when the only media was film in it's various guises. It's good to see that some things don't change so much!
Thanks again for your comments...
Tony


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 12, 2009)

rufus5150 said:


> It undermines the authenticity ...one can forgive the hands in the wrong position, but the mouthpiece upside down?



Yeah...  that's a biggie.  I doubt she could make ANY sound with the reed up.  You say she was "actually playing her sax in the ever changing light."  Really?

-Pete


----------



## tonymp (Mar 12, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> Yeah... that's a biggie. I doubt she could make ANY sound with the reed up. You say she was "actually playing her sax in the ever changing light." Really?
> 
> -Pete


 
Well she wasn't exactly auditioning for American Idol - was she? 
My job was to get the shots - not judge her on her musical ability or merit! After all, I'm not Simon Cowell - All I asked her to do was blow the thing while I tried out a few shots! 
Hmmmmm....come to think of it, maybe next time I should just shoot her holding her sax on her knee in the ubiquiteous static pose with regular lighting, just so that EVERYTHING 'looks' authentic.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 12, 2009)

tonymp said:


> Hmmmmm....come to think of it, maybe next time I should just shoot her holding her sax on her knee in the ubiquiteous static pose with regular lighting, just so that EVERYTHING 'looks' authentic.



No need for sarcasm.  I get your point.

You seem to be missing mine.  I'm simply saying this girl is not making a sound with that thing.



tonymp said:


> After all, I'm not Simon Cowell



No, you're not.  After all....  what's his catch phrase?....

-Pete


----------



## timethief (Mar 12, 2009)

so if she had the shirt upside down it would also be ok ?
or if she was blowing on the wide opposite end of the sax?
arent those elements considered part of the composition ?

i think lighting is "overshadowed" by the minor mistakes in this image. IMHO.


----------



## tonymp (Mar 12, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> I'm simply saying this girl is not making a sound with that thing.
> 
> ?....
> 
> -Pete


 
Gosh I hadn't realised that you could hear the photograph too!!! Nothing gets past you, does it?


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 12, 2009)

tonymp said:


> Gosh I hadn't realised that you could hear the photograph too!!! Nothing gets past you, does it?




Oh...  quite a LOT gets past me.  It's just that this is silly.  Thought you'd want to know.

By the way...  I took a look at your galleries.  I like your boudoir stuff very much.  Your approach is much nicer than the usual studio setting.

-Pete


----------



## tonymp (Mar 12, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> Oh... quite a LOT gets past me. It's just that this is silly. Thought you'd want to know.
> 
> By the way... I took a look at your galleries. I like your boudoir stuff very much. Your approach is much nicer than the usual studio setting.
> 
> -Pete


 
Hi Pete,
sorry if I came across sarcastic - I like a bit a wind up sometimes and enjoy a bit of an interaction but, I really don't mean anything by it.

Thanks for the kind comments about my boudoir stuff by the way. I am basically a boudoir photographer - unfortunately, I can't post most of the shots I take because of confidentiality so, I have to resort to using models like Millie to try out new poses and get the shots somewhere like before I put them into practice.
I have a studio across town in a converted stable block which I use when the weather is something like but I mostly shoot in my home or other places just to get a natural feel.
Although the shots are obviously contrived when i am shooting seriously, but most originate from observations I make when the model is making up, dressing or doing similar things - I just grab shots when I see what looks like would make a decent pose and eventually incorporate the pose into my work once I have refined them, which seems to meet with approval.
I love working with available light rather than flash etc - my best friend is a silver reflector.
I have two sets of 4 strobes and modifers but only use them when I really need to or daylight is low.
Sometimes I occasionally use one very small ringflash ( guide no of ' 5 ') just to add a little fill where a reflector would be impractical. I don't think natural light can be beaten and it works great when I shoot on film with my Bronicas. I notice you use MF & LF gear do you still shoot mostly film? I thought I was one of the last!!!
Regards..
Tony.

By the way, you were right, she was absolutely %^&* at playing the instrument - now I know the reason why LOL But she looked good, especially the boudoir shots!


----------



## LuckySo-n-So (Mar 12, 2009)

As one who plays sax, I must say that is pretty bad.  Her fingers are close enough to fool, but JEEZ...the MOUTHPIECE!!!!  OY Ve!!!

Now, I think the photos are very good.  I also looked at your gallery and you have some amazing photographs.  Your landscape composition is top notch (not to mention the pretty ladies...).


----------



## tonymp (Mar 12, 2009)

LuckySo-n-So said:


> As one who plays sax, I must say that is pretty bad. Her fingers are close enough to fool, but JEEZ...the MOUTHPIECE!!!! OY Ve!!!
> 
> Now, I think the photos are very good. I also looked at your gallery and you have some amazing photographs. Your landscape composition is top notch (not to mention the pretty ladies...).


 
Thanks very much for the kind comments - now you may be right about the sax BUT, are you sure your eyes ok? LOL

I've never been any good at landscapes, in fact I'm worse at landscapes than knowing which end of a sax is which and which way round it should be LOL! Now if it was a Fender Strat, I've had one since the beginning of the 70's ( it's still in my loft but has only been out a handful of times in 20 or more years).

To be honest, I only shoot landscapes when I want something to go on one of my walls - I seem to be ok at it then but I just wish I could 'see' the shot like so many good landscape shooters do. I suppose that comes from shooting only people since I started - I can take a very ordinary girl and turn her into something resembling a model yet, get me away from people and I'm pretty much lost LOL.

The old saying of  'it's horses for courses' always springs to mind for me!
Thanks again...
Tony


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 12, 2009)

tonymp said:


> I notice you use MF & LF gear do you still shoot mostly film? I thought I was one of the last!!!



You may well be.  My last film job was well over three years ago...  4x5 trans.  I carried the film camera and twenty rolls of film with me as backup until the film experation date.

I do mostly product/advertising work and am too far from a lab to have continued much longer with film.  It was an overnight to the lab, another back to me.  Then after editing, another overnight to the lab for high res scans and yet another back to me.  All in all about 5 working days and $60 in shipping on top of film and processing.  I had to go digital. 

I do the ocassional wedding.  It was costing me about a dollar every time I tripped the shutter.

I do miss film sometimes.  I don't miss the darkroom even a little bit.   I did my own black and white.

I do have a portrait background, and often do the same as you...  just chat a bit, watching my subject relax and move.  When I see something good, I make the refinements and shoot.

 Pete


----------



## tonymp (Mar 13, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> You may well be. My last film job was well over three years ago... 4x5 trans. I carried the film camera and twenty rolls of film with me as backup until the film experation date.
> 
> I do mostly product/advertising work and am too far from a lab to have continued much longer with film. It was an overnight to the lab, another back to me. Then after editing, another overnight to the lab for high res scans and yet another back to me. All in all about 5 working days and $60 in shipping on top of film and processing. I had to go digital.
> 
> ...


 
So I am one of the last ones! - 
As for cost, I know just what you mean, which is why I even try to shoot 6 x 4.5 rather than 6 x 7 - it all adds up!
I reckon I must shoot about 85% mono overall so, that keeps everything down and I've started using a D200 for some of the smaller colour work which helps too.
I have actually been using digital for over 5 years now, but only as polaroids - now that has saved me a packet! I started with an old KM 7i alongside my Bronicas and later moved on to an A2 and then more recently a D200 - I shoot WYSIWYG and it works fine. Most of the shots on my little site were shot with the 7i or A2 and they have been ideal for polaroids & internet use.
I don't mind shooting film, in fact I love it as I am much more adept in a darkroom than on a computer but, I will be going fully digital FX within the next maybe 12 months. Maybe D700's/D3's or the equivalent by then.

The biggest problem I have with digital is that I still shoot everything in 'film mode'! I treat every shot as though it was being shot on film - everything done in the camera - waste not/want not and all in manual!!! Aperture or shutter priority is like a modern invention for me - I still use my Gossens for everything but the odd grab pr test shots.
1Gig of RAW files is about the same as 4 rolls @ 6x4.5 for me and that's alot of shots for a single portrait sitting LOL.
The one thing that I still feel digital can't beat is on mono prints ( apart from spotting the odd dust traces of course) - I can produce up to a 30 x 20 far cheaper and to my mind, better quality done in a darkroom than on a desktop - but even that difference is diminishing these days. The commonest mono enlargements after 10 x 8's I do are 16 x 12 and 20 x 16.
For what I shoot, generally, film still works best for me and doesn't restrict me - with the additional benefits of digital, I cover the awkward stuff so, I suppose I have the best of both.
Tony


----------



## NateS (Mar 13, 2009)

I am also a Jazz Sax player for many, many years and I must say, when I first looked at these I literally laughed out loud because of the upside down mouthpiece (obviously not your fault really if you don't play or know about the sax).....that said, I see that you're more interested in the lighting so I went back and looked at them "for real".

Funny stuff aside, the colored lights are nice but I personally don't care for the red lighting on her hair and the hot spots bother me a little too...specifically the forehead on the second shot.  Other than that they are great and I definitely prefer the "action" shots over a static pose (assuming she would set up the saxophone right and hold it right of course).


----------

