This is why you need a good Art Director. I spent some time with Bethany here way back in the beginning on June 2009, got some shots, and even wrote about it on this site. If you go back to that post, you'll notice that this shot didn't make it to my 'top picks'. Now that I look at it, I can't help but wonder why it didn't. I guess that's why we have Art Directors...

Here's a shot that actually made it to my 'top picks' and made it to print. Both of them actually (the little one of the rifle squad). The thing that makes this photo work is the fact that the marching band is way back in the distance - nothing wrong with the marching band, except for the fact that they weren't marching, they were walking. They're way out of focus (intentionally) so you wouldn't know that, unless I hadn't just told you. Doh!

OK - so our rotating portrait session is scheduled for 3 PM in a nice location. I picked the location because it had a nice ambient feel to it, it was rarely crowded, and I could move around without interrupting the flow of traffic. Well, lots of traffic and no parking spots got me on-location at exactly 3 PM. Doh! I had about 6 minutes to set up my lighting from gear-bag to light stands, test my lighting, oh, and pick my location because the one I originally picked (you know, the nice one) was filled with tables and chairs. Doh! On the fly, I picked a spot in the corner, as if I had been told to do so by the teacher, and set up shop. As you can see, it turned out fine.

There are a million tricks in the book to get your subjects to smile naturally. I like to try and make them laugh - half of the time, admitting you can't make them laugh makes them laugh. The laugh isn't actually what you want to capture, it's the lead-up to the laugh. The smile a laugh creates is incredibly natural and flowing. The last thing you want is a smile that says, 'I'm smiling, see, see, look here, I'm smiling.'

I guess what I'm trying to say is that natural-looking smiles are good, canned smiles are bad. Duh. The underlying message is that your subject reflects your energy and attitude. If you are having a good time, they're having a good time. If you aren't saying anything, they have no idea how the shoot is going, and they are more likely to think it's not going well. Share your results as things move along, talk about what you like in the photos, ask them what they like or don't like, make adjustments - have fun. The more your laugh, the more they laugh.

Oh, and I know the composition of 2 out of 3 photos isn't 'correct.' That's because the ultimate use of these things is for a website placeholder - a placeholder that's super-wide and super-short. The photos will eventually be cropped and moved around - hence the extra room on the right.

I'm posting this shot for no other reason than they fact that it was fun to shoot. Quick setup, quick shoot, quick teardown. In fact, driving to and from the location took longer than shooting.

Two lights were used for this - one stuck in the left corner, the other off to the right side (not quite the corner). Both were snooted to project the light on the subject and nothing else, as well as to make the light a little harder. Now, shooting in a glass room has it's challenges, some of which can only be overcome by using a little photoshop. Yes, I said it. The positioning of my light to the right was key in lighting the back left side of my subject, which means that I can see the reflection of the light source in the glass on the left - that was until I 'shopped it out. I normally don't do that, but it was really bugging me so I went ahead and did the deed.

No lecture on CLS, nor histograms, not this time at least. I really don't have much of a reason to post this other than the fact that it's a fun photo from a fun shoot. Isn't that enough?

So here's a shot that goes against the post I wrote just before this. I confess, I used more than one light for this photo. But hear me out...

One light is 45º to the left of her, the other is 45º to the right - the shadows give it away. Both flashes are gelled to CTO (Color Temperature Orange). Camera is in Manual, 1/80 or 1/100 sec (I don't remember), f/5.6, 20mm - I think that's the recipe. It's the recipe for a single lit subject against a controllable background. By that I mean that I could easily dial down to 1/250 sec to make it darker, or dial up to around 1/40 sec to make it lighter - either one wouldn't impact my subject.

So does it really go against my last post - not really. You could have done something similar with one light, but because I couldn't diffuse the light (this was a public event, not a private shoot), I would have been casting very harsh shadows on the opposite side of the face.

Lastly - this stuff isn't complicated. Setting the lights up is simple, and fiddling with your settings isn't either - as long as you know what you're changing and how it impacts the image.

Update: A friend just asked me if I did anything to this photo in post. Yes - a small levels adjustment to increase contrast - but besides that - no. I didn't change the exposure of the foreground or the background, I didn't change the saturation or the color of the clouds in the sky or the turf, I didn't add any fill light, I didn't add brightness on the subject with the adjustment brush, I didn't crop or straighten it, heck, I didn't even add sharpening (which I should have, since it was shot in RAW). It's not that I'm gung-ho about being loyal to the almighty original image, it's just that I liked what I shot and went with it. OK, I'll say it - I'm lazy.

I've posted images in the past where I've mentioned use of a single-light setup. Well, I'm going doing it again and saying in plain english: one light is enough! For many cases, at least. Folks think that they need to lug studio lights around with them, giant reflectors, backdrops, large softboxes, etc. when the truth is, a light with a diffusion source, a nice environment, and a great subject go a long way. 

So here's the setup for both of these shots:
-SB-800 on a light stand
-Shoot-through umbrella

The end. 

Don't forget the camera.

Do a test shot of just your background to see where and how it exposes. If it's nice at 1/250 sec, go with that. You may even want to increase that to 1/500 sec, depending on how much drama you're looking for. So the shutter speed determines your background, not your foreground - that's your light's job. I advise playing around with your flash's power level on manual settings. With either Nikon or Canon's TTL adjustment levels, you don't really know what you're doing and you have far less control.

Oh, the whole point of my post in the first place was to point out that multiple lights aren't necessary to get great shots. Sure, multiple lights are necessary to do certain styles of lighting, or to illuminate your background while shooting your subject - but don't try and convince your significant other that you need another flash to get better shots.

I have to admit, I get excited seeing my work in print and on the web (on sites other than my own). I was having a conversation with a few students from the university the other night when they said something along the lines of, 'oh, the website changed, or something...' - so I decided to navigate to the site to check it out. Hey, two of my photos are on the homepage, cool!

OK, so it's not that cool. But hey, that guy there is the a super-smart man, and I mean smart.

There's more photos coming for the JMU Homepage. I'm not sure when they'll be arriving, but they're in the works.

Since my last post was about some work for the magazine, I figured I would do top it off with another.

Not much to say about the photo - I like it, it's a panorama stitched together in Photoshop, etc. - but I do have to give mad props to the designer of the page layout. I think it looks great like that. So...props.

The archeology department at James Madison was working on a project and the Magazine wanted to cover it - I didn't have a clue where it would end up...

Here's how it worked on the inside:

The shot wasn't really a single shot at all - it was two stitched together using our favorite program - Photoshop. You can do it in almost any version (automate, photomerge). There's a strobe off to the left of the group, but not fired to light their faces up, it's fired to light the group and the side of the dig site.

Oh, and don't forget the details, you'll never know where they'll end up too...

These sets of images (including the post titled 'Piano Man') are for an upcoming Madison Magazine article on undergraduate research. I'm posting a few of the shots here and there because I'm not certain of what they'll be using. Either way, here are some more.

Shooting William was tricky because of, you guessed it, lighting. When isn't that the case? These were all shot at ISO 1600, 50mm, f/1.8. and I still only reached around 1/40 sec for each shot, which required some real steady shooting on my part. I couldn't use flash because we were in a restaurant, and that really would have messed with the environment, so I did what I could. I contemplated bumping the ISO up to 3200 to reach above the coveted 1/60 sec, but it would have made the images colorless, contrastless (not a word, I know), and noisy.

Good thing William didn't care much about his personal space. I'm literally at his feet, shooting up.

And one for the road.

William here is a phenomenal pianist. He's also a fun subject to shoot who's incredibly aware of the camera.

Case in point.

Lighting in this sort of situation can be very tricky. There's a strobe off to my left triggered wirelessly, I'm shooting at f/1.8, ISO 1600, and I'm still squeaking out 1/60 second. We've all shot in less-than-ideal lighting conditions, and this is a great example of shooting with an off-camera strobe and still getting that balance in the background.

I like this shot, but I'm the first to admit it's flaws: no set focal point, slight camera shake, and some blown highlights. But that's OK - I still like it despite those mishaps. This was one of those shots I took and didn't think about actually using - but after I browsed through the shoot - I couldn't throw it away.

This post isn't a jab at either her height or mine (we're both short) - it's about the difference between shooting straight-on and shooting from about 3 feet above. Look below to see what I mean.

Don't get me wrong - they are both good. I like each of them in their own way - but the funny part is that they each tell their own story - and their stories are different.

Here's another from the shoot:

OK - in reality, the shoot was not as serious as it seems. Almost all of them were full of bright smiles and laughter - but that's not exactly what we wanted for the magazine. 

Don't forget the details:

Hey all - this post marks Miriello Photography's successful transition to SquareSpace. w00t. We'll celebrate with a photo. 

How fitting!