A Swing Shot

[Benji]

An old rope swing can make an interesting, inexpensive and easy prop, although it is a "girl" prop only.* All natural lighting. 1-3-2 technique. The portrait rules followed here were: If it bends, bend it.* No flat back of the hands. Show arm flows nicely. Body at 45 degrees. No flat lighting. Rule of thirds. Receiving area.

I also made sure her hair on the main light side was pulled back so there would be no dark shadows on the highlight side of the face and that the clothing flowed nicely with no big wrinkles, gaps or bulges.

Benji

[captlen]

benji,

nice shot. You have me a bit confused what is the difference betwee 1-2-3 and 1-3-2? Being a learner on portraits these type of "rule/techniques" are very helpful and I am eager to learn.

[macmaam]

I also like the commentary. Some of us who are inexperienced don't even know what to look for to see how the portrait was put together, and this really helps.

But, i don't understand "receiving area."

[Song4themoon]

The lighting is great and so are the colors... the pose... looks very uncomfortable... something about her neck/head positioning...

[shortyred]

Yep I enjoy all these that you leave here helps me learn I don't see a problem with them!!

[CyberPet]

I recently read a book from a studio photographer, who photographs seniors as a profession, saying that "forget all about the posing rules, they are outdated - pose your subject so they look good, that's the only rule to follow".

The photo above is good in evey aspect, great subject, background, setting, exposure, light, etc.... but it lacks "life" as she doesn't look comfortable. Maybe it's because you don't feel a connection between her eyes and mouth, or her neck being in an uncomfortable pose, but it's something that's not right, even if so many things are right with the photo.

So the girl looks great, but she doesn't connect with me.

[Song4themoon]

I have to agree with past two posters.. even though the techiniques make for good portraits most of the time, I wouldnt say its always the case.. same in return that a portrait NOT at the rules standart isnt always a bad portrait.

I think it is important to know the rules to go from there.. but also important to be able to go away from the rules to make a image look even better.

As for me.. I dont have a degree in photography, I learned everything I know from books and know I need to learn more.. but I havent had one unhappy client yet.. so I must do something right.. hehe


Nevertheless before this comes over wrong, I think Benji does great work and knows what he is doing!

[CyberPet]

I agree totally, I didn't mean my post to sound too hard, as it's important to know the rules before you can break them. I totally suck at posing and need to learn heaps more (have no clue what 1-3-2 means!), so I'm not the one to give advice, I just try to communicate what I feel.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Neuromancer said it.

Originally Posted by Benji

An old rope swing [...] is a "girl" prop only.* [...]

Rubbish!
Boy, are you old-fashioned, Benji!
A good male model – well photographed – oozes testosteron. A rope swing, properly used in the shot, can even reinforce that: the young-daddy-look for instance.
Or it can be used to accentuate a male's softer, more vulnerable side: e.g. 'the poet', or 'the philosopher', or 'the lovelorn'. So on, so forth.

[mavb]

poor Benji.
The guy posts a shot that can help( with guidelines) a lot of new photogs and he get slammed. I personally like the image. I don't think she looks anymore unatural in this picture than a lot of post here. I LOVE the commentary as to how he shot the pic. I realize that these are guidelines and will use them as such. As a sculptor, I was taught certain "rules". Once I mastered thes "rules", I then allowed my creativity to flow. By mastering the "rules" first, the learning curve of my skills was shortened. It is in the skills that our creativity is realised. Benji is teaching. If you are "uninspired" by that so be it. I for one appreciate his willingness to teach.

Benji, TEACH ON, MY FRIEND!!

[Benji]

Wow, I'm going to do this more often! Lots of different ideas that stimulate postings!!! Lets answer some questions asked by several posters and make several observations.

The 1-2-3 technique is the name of the technique (I guess because it sounds catchy) but in this image it is actually 1-3-2, and 1-3-2 usually looks best for young females as it gives some action to the image.

The receiving area. If she were to pick up her feet, the swing would move into the receiving area. Like when you photograph a car, you leave "room"for it to move in to.

Males and females. I am an old school artist. At my studio high school seniors girls will look like young ladies, not hookers in training and the guys will look like young men, not drug addicts who are overdue for their fix. If you are offended, sorry but I am also not politically correct.

"Unnatural" looking poses. Natural poses are for driver's licenses, passport images and snapshots. Professional images should be well lit, well composed and properly exposed.

Breaking the rules. One must know them before breaking them. My guess is very few portrait photographers actually know the rules.

As to my "teachings" five of the above responses liked or wanted some form of teaching. I see nothing wrong with including why I did what I did.

Let me quote the legendary Phillip Stewart Charis, Master Photographer, Photographic Craftsman and Fellow-American Society of Photographers. The question posed to him was: "Do you see a continuing trend in the spontananeous, moment capturing images that have characterized much of professional photography in recent years? (His response) "I don't think that type of mentality is affecting traditional portrait photographers. If anything it is elevating our work to a higher level. I see a continuation of the ideals of formal portraiture and the ideals of formal portrait painters." www.phillipstewartcharis.com

Benji

[macmaam]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[captlen]

Benji, TEACH ON, MY FRIEND!!

I agree 100% and appreciate you taking the time you do. I still do not understand the difference between 1-2-3 and 1-3-2 any suggestions or texts that you reccomend?

[Benji]

Cap,

The technique is named the 1-2-3 technique. I use the 1-3-2 on females only. For more information click here. http://www.photocamel.com/index.php?topic=15099.0

Benji

[CyberPet]

Does this technique have any other name, as I tried a search on "1-2-3 posing technique" and didn't get any hits?

[Benji]

I obtained the name and the technique from the book "The Master Book of Portraiture and Studio Management" written by the late great Master Photographer Don Peterson. He mentioned the 1-2-3 posing technique in the text of that book. There are two possibilities as to why it does not show up on any search engine. One, there is a distinct possibility that it is called by another name, OR two, there is a conspiracy to keep this unique posing technique from the masses! Oh no, I've unleashed a secret only know to a select few individuals and now I will be hunted down and eliminated. (I've been watching too many spy thriller type movies lately!!!!!)

Benji

[Athena]

Perhaps we need to distinguish between classical posed portraiture and candid portraiture.* There is a remarkable difference.* Benji's work is obviously posed portraiture.* Some people love it, some prefer candid portraiture for it's relaxed, "comfortable" look.

I'm quite happy to see these posts in the main area because I enjoy learning the "rules".* While my work with people is clearly candid portraiture, knowing the classic "rules" is still helpfull.* Mind you, it doesn't mean I am going to strive to follow them all at all times. I see them more as friendly suggestions than rules per se.

Maybe a good idea is to move these type posts into the tutorial section after they have become inactive so that they are easier for people to find later.