[...]
What's the back story? Well frankly, there isn't any. This is not an editorial style shoot and I never had that in mind going into this. I chose this location because it is interesting and different. The abandoned and weathered nature of the house provided a nice juxtaposition against the young and beautiful nature of the model. There was so much texture and atmosphere at this location, and I think at least some of that came through in these portraits. And ultimately that's all this is, a fashion/portrait shoot in an interesting location. If I had done this in a typical garden or some other lovely spot, the subject of story would never have come up.
Funny, I was about to post up my thinking of what you were going for but I see you had already replied and it's exactly what I was going to say.
It was interesting to me to note that caimi would look for a story here because his images and critique always seem to contain (or look for) an element of some kind of storyline, like a one-act play contained in a single image. Just goes to show the many ways there are to approach photography. I look at this series and just see juxtaposition of pretty, young, and vibrant subject + forgotten and dilapidated surroundings and appreciate it for the inherent aesthetic. But someone else can see this and just as validly ask "ok, but why is she there?" :smile:
Yesterday Peter Hurley was on The Grid (online KelbyTV show), doing portrait critiques:
The Grid: Episode 104 – Portrait Critiques with Peter Hurley | The Grid
I like Peter Hurley's work a lot, I think he's absolutely amazing at getting the best out of people in front of the camera. BUT, what he does is 100% about expressions. As a headshot photographer, everything is shot on a plain background, the same/similar lighting setups, and it's utterly about the person's expression, attitude, and marketability. What was interesting and relevant to this discussion was to watch this episode of critiques on other people's work (most of which I'd have been really proud of if they were mine!). Peter would look at an image that was really well put together and just say "the model looks miserable". Likewise, he looked at a couple of candid shots and just said he wouldn't have taken that shot in the first place, because that's not what he does. To him, if the expressions aren't there and they're not engaging with the camera, it's simply a no-go. It was a really interesting look at how much one's approach to photography is individual, and how much that can affect the way you critique too.
Nice set. Just find that #10 would work better with the girl's face in focus (instead of the window frame) but that may just be a matter of taste. Looove that last shot!
