Photographying a church

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 at 03:35 GMT, Randall Ainsworth wrote:
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.

Why do you post here? What good does that do me other then to **** 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

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 at 03:35 GMT, Randall Ainsworth wrote:
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.

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.

Sam Carleton wrote in
:

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 at 03:35 GMT, Randall Ainsworth wrote:
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.

Why do you post here? What good does that do me other then to **** 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.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

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.

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.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 at 13:01 GMT, Randall Ainsworth wrote:
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.

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

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 at 12:33 GMT, Al Denelsbeck wrote:

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
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!

It is VERY helpful! Lots and lots to chew on now, thanks!

Sam

"Sam Carleton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 at 12:33 GMT, Al Denelsbeck wrote:

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
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!

It is VERY helpful! Lots and lots to chew on now, thanks!

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

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!
--
Otzi


"zeitgeist" wrote in message
om...
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.


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...

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 at 13:02 GMT, Randall Ainsworth wrote:
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.

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