All language subtitles for 34-AirstripEnvironmentalPortraits.mp4

I believe at this particular point, we
are going to take some questions on the shooting.

All right.

So, Victor asked, would you worry about
no catch light in the eyes?

Do you ever go for that, or knock over
that?

So, I mean,

I tend to try to make sure the
catchlights in the eyes if I can help it,

especially if I'm doing close up
portrait work.

This is a really big light source,

and chances are

it's there,

you know, so

it's there,

you also have it there.

So I like it.

I think it adds a sparkle to the eye.

And I generally would try to put it in
both eyes.

So a quick little trick, if you happen
to have it in one eye and not the

other, you grab your healing tool and
you can heal over.

And that's a really good way to salvage
a missing catchlight, especially if

you're lighting a lot to the side.

So, I'm a big fan of them.

I don't think like

it has to be any one specific kind of
catchlight, or you absolutely always

have to have it.

But I do think it does add quite a bit
of life to the eyes.

Eyes can get very, very dark, and they
almost look like, you know,

in the possession movies where the eyes
black over that's usually what I'm

trying to avoid.

So I like the spark.

I think it brings some life, a little
bit of liveliness to the eyes.

And so I always like to have something
in there if I can.

Obviously, in these really far away
shots, or when the eyes

he's pretty squinting, I don't think
you're going to see it very much.

But

especially in the really far away shots,

something like this, like you don't see
the catchlight there.

So I don't think it matters too much.

Cosmo.

Asked.

I understand what lenses do with
compression.

Would you explain a little bit more

about how compression fits the vision
that you have for these shots?

So it's kind of a very similar thing
that I was talking about with the

theater chute.

And that's just a great question, how
does lens choice

fit the vision of the shot?

All the technical decisions are meant to

help move the idea a little bit more
smoothly down the river.

And

I didn't want something that felt

very, very distortedly

wide.

And the reason for that, like a little
bit wide, is ok.

But I didn't want to go super crazy
wide.

Because if you really think about it,
when you look at historical photos

of that period?

Do you really associate photos of that
time to super crazy wide angle lenses?

You don't?

You generally associate it to something
that's a little bit more of a standard

focal length.

And so I wanted to treat it as
something that was a little bit closer

to what you might see with those kinds
of images.

And so

they're shooting

35,

probably maybe most commonly, at the
widest, 35 to fifty different formats.

You're looking at everything from like,
a 35 mill to a medium format,

sometimes larger, but not really.

But that medium format, very, very
shallow depth, a field, is super

commonly used in those kinds of images.

And so I wanted to create something
that felt like that.

One of my big points of inspiration for
this particular series, although it's

not 100 percent totally tied into it,
is the old Alfred eisenset images from

life.

Magazine's

one of my favorite life photographers,

and

there's a series that he did.

It ran on valentine's day in the 40s,
and it's this tiny little one off

series

on one or two pages, but it's so
beautiful.

And it was

couples saying goodbye at Penn Station
in New York old pen station.

And so what he would do is he would
kind of sit there with this camera

really quietly, and he'd photograph
them from the waste, without making

movements.

And it was just photographing soldiers
saying goodbye to their wives or

girlfriends.

And they know, it's a very emotional
thing, and it's this really beautiful

collection of images

and this beautiful all story.

And that was,

like, I love the romanticism

of what those images were trying to
portray, and decide of the story that

they were trying to portray.

And so that was like

the look and feel to the images that I
want in an early version of where we

were potentially going

with one of these shoots.

We were looking at, like, I've
mentioned this a couple of times, but a

vintage train museum.

And it was going to be that same idea.

It was going to be the couple saying
goodbye at the train.

So I love

that romanticism

of what some of those images

would show.

We associate a very specific

kind of look and feel to these kinds of
images that

we already have.

So either they are

very

stylistically,

almost like celebrating it, and so
they're very stylized almost to a point

of celebration,

or they are oftentimes the total
opposite of that.

And if you call back to kapa's version
of the dday landing and those kinds of

images, and you look at how life was
covering World War ii back of the day,

it was oftentimes

very honest

and sad and

full of, full of all

these things that

comes with war.

And so I felt like this kind of stuff
could at least allow us to look at the

perspective that was a little bit more
personal, and outside of that,

more sombre realm, and kind of speak to
a little bit of the romanticism of the period,

not specifically to what was actually
happening, but more of the romanticism

of the time.

When taking period photos like this,
this is sort of on the same topic.

Do you consider the lighting
considerations of the time that you're

trying to replicate?

So

I do love studying the way
photographers used to work back in the

day.

I think

when you understand what they were
using and what their process was, it

goes a long way when you want to try to
call back to it.

So

if I am trying to create an image that

looks and feels like a 1950s avad on

make sense if I understand how he would
light, or what tools he was using

when he was lighting, or

it makes sense if we're doing an Irving
pen style, what would he do?

Well, he would put someone really close
to a window and angle the background to

change how that looked

avidon would get a relatively hard
light source, and bring it really

close, a giant, big floodlight.

And so I actually have a collection of
really old mole richardsons with the

floods and the fernelles, and at home,
because there's a quality of light to

them that a lot of modern lights just
don't share, they don't have.

And it's because they are really large
bulbs

in big modifiers, and they're
cumbersome, and they drain a lot of

power, and they're hot, and they're
uncomfortable,

but they do look different.

And so I like breaking a mountain,
playing with them every once in a

while, because you get to create
something that feels a lot more authentic

to

that period, because you're shooting
the same way.

We find that.

I find that

as photography evolved and modernizes,
there are certain techniques that are

sometimes lost with how things used to
be done.

And I think it's

really valuable, if you get to explore
it.

One of my

most favorite possessions

is

this series of workbooks

from.

It was a maleaway photography program
in the 60s.

It was called the famous photographer's
school.

And it was this whole

male order curriculum that was put
together by,

it was Irving pen, and Richard avadon,
and a slew of other super crazy, famous

photographers of the period.

And it would be like, all right, Irving
pen, how did you like this?

Well, I put them next to here, and I
did this, and I turned this, and here's

the camera I use, and the lens I use,
and here's how I process the film.

And I shot it over exposed, and it was
high contrast paper, and it breaks it down.

And so once you understand

how they would approach things, it's so
fundamentally different than how we do

now.

We have so many lights and so many
tools nowadays.

But it was like, well, what did you do?

Well, we had a spotlight in a
floodlight.

I want it software great.

Pointed to the floor, pointed this
piece of foam core like it was.

I didn't have soft boxes as much.

So I really think it's valuable if you
get to spend a lot of time exploring

what they would do, because they were
able to create these iconic,

breathtaking images with a whole simpler

range of gear.

And I just think it's really valuable
and fun, if you get to play with it.

Do you think that using higher iso, or
added grain and posted help

with the ambients, and trying to
recreate that from older cameras?

Would you do that?

Yeah.

So I'm not a huge fan of

what the higher is.

So we'll do, like the digital noise.

It doesn't tend to

look as close to grain, but I regularly
will add grain to an image.

I do it anyway, especially if I'm doing
a lot of composite work, I find that it

can help seal stuff together.

So what you'll see when we zoom in
really close.

So, I mean, this has got,

this, has got noise on it, grain.

I just think when you're adding it,

as opposed to relying on it for high
iso,

it tends to look a little bit better.

Could you tell me why you went with
medium format versus the full

format camera?

So this, I mean, it's the camera that I
shoot on all the time.

I'm a big fan of the latitude of the
files.

I shoot a lot of really dark Scenes and
a lot of dark images.

this particular sensor

gives me a whole lot of flexibility in
the shadows.

And I can regularly push and pull the
shadow.

If I'm shooting at 100 iso, I can push
it and pull it four to five stops usably.

And so

it affords me a lot of extra

pliability in the file after the fact.

It also is really nice when you are
shooting in really dark Scenes.

It handles low light much better
because the noise is relatively smaller

to the sensor size.

So you get a lot of extra leniency when
you're shooting in low light.

Now that's not to say that you can't
achieve this exact same shot with a

full frame camera.

If I

pulled out a full frame camera and a
comparable focal length lens and took

the picture,

it would look the same.

We really wouldn't, you know, notice a
huge difference

in terms of how the shot looked.

I just like the extra flexibility of
the file

after the fact.

Yeah.

Victor asked.

Would you consider 3 point lighting for
this shoe?

You could, stylistically, it would look

more like the old movies.

And that was why I steered away from
it.

I was going for something that felt a
bit more like the illustrations and the

painting of the time.

If I wanted something to look a bit more

kind of stylistic, you definitely could
go for that approach.

in addition to that, my goal was to say,

this is the total polar opposite of the
other chute.

I wanted wanted to kind of illustrate
the fact that you can achieve cinematic

lighting with one light instead of
needing eleven to show you the total

polar extremes

of of what this can produce.

And so, again, just it's just a matter
of approach.

So, you know, cinematic lighting is a
component, but there's also a cinematic

nature to what you were putting in
front of the frame that also helps sell

this particular set of images to that
cinematic look as well.

Could you just speak a little bit

like you're missing out.

It's like, not receiving when you're in
such a cocation.

The fear of not overshooting,

I mean, yes, it's like, see you playing
your teeth out?

Yes.

And then you have that extra time, or
going into it.

Not having a plan is kind of different
than just being like, let's just see whatever.

So let me listen.

I definitely find that I do both

with this kind of stuff, because there
are so many moving parts, and there are

so many things that can go wrong,

I tend to really overprepar for this
level of production.

And I also find that when you are
preparing a lot, it makes you

a lot more receptive to the happy
accidents,

because you're not trying to just get
the baseline constantly,

I have the baseline now.

It just, I can be a little bit more
creative with what it looks like.

And I can tweak things once I know I
have the safety net.

And so that's my

approach when I'm doing this kind of
stuff.

I mean that this whole series

was the let's screw around and just
make some shots.

That's what this was,

the third settlement of

the theater.

Chute was meant to feel somewhat
similar.

I didn't quite have it locked down as
much.

I got to rush through it a little bit
and approach it from something that was

a bit more of a running gun situation.

This was the same thing.

I mean, I think we shot this whole,
this whole section with both these

guys, and probably

almost like ten minutes,

it wasn't that long

the actual shooting.

And so there's a few minutes with each
and it was just like, all right, you

stand here, and I'm going to move
around you.

And I wasn't linked sitting on a tripod
during these shots.

I was moved around, going up, down,
left, right.

And that's why there's a whole lot more
of a variety in what these shots look like.

But I know that for my hero images, my
anchor shots, I have got exactly what I

was planning to do.

And so that was, you always want to
leave yourself time if you definitely

have that option.

But if you're out of time,

you need to make sure that you have
that too.

What I also like about like this kind
of stuff,

this was shot

at

three o'clock in the afternoon,

I think, something like that.

And it's about overpowering it and
making it feel like end of day,

which I thought was kind of cool.

Like, yeah, this is, it's, like, three
o'clock in the afternoon.

Yeah,

we've talked about it a little bit.

But could you talk more about

how you could separate a subject from
the background, especially in a low key portrait,

maybe without a hairlight?

Yes.

So

there are a couple of ways, if you
don't want to use a hairlight, that you

can achieve separation.

One,

you can

very simply

have different level levels of
brightness for your background and

subject.

So

dark shirt, light background, light
shirt, dark background.

That gives you separation.

If you're in an environment,

focus and depth, the field is a way to
achieve separation.

If you don't have a

extra light,

a reflector around back

can help

carve out a little bit of definition so
it doesn't reflect a mirror,

tall assistant in a white t shirt.

Any of these things can help you

help you get that.

You can also compose it in a way that
gives you separation.

So light, subject, dark background,
dark subject, light background also

extends to parts of the background.

So let's say someone stands in a
doorway where there is light coming

through.

They have that frame.

Or maybe they are framed to be in front
of a window, or framed it to be in

front of an empty part of the wall

there.

Compositionally, you can also create
that contrast to help you out with

separation.

And so here in these, I used
predominantly focus in a lot of them.

But also this has a light, these don't,
so it's really executed by focus, but

you can also see he, and this is a bit
lighter than the dark part of the plane

that is behind them.

And so it helps create that separation
through contrast.

We've got a question about lenses.

Why did you not switch lenses

for the portraits?

So

I really like that lens for
environmental portraits, I think it's

just wide enough

that it shows me a good amount of the
background.

And that was kind of the entire idea of
this.

I wanted to utilize the background.

So if I switch to, like, a ninety mill,
and I shot the entire thing like this,

I don't think you really get where he
is,

but with the fifty, I'm able to get a
bit more of what's happening.

I actually don't think the lens is a
particularly

flattering lens when I am super close
like this.

And I like this one, but there's
distortion in it, it's not incredibly flattering,

but I think it's fine for half, full
body and even bus shots, if you're

showing more of the environment.

So

I like, it's a medium like lens, I
think like a 35 to a fifty, I really

like for environmental portraiture.

And it's just something that I have
found

allows me to show context to where the
subject is without

being super crazy wide distortion.

Bernardo asked Chris to use a specific
white balance setting to help in post

production, or make that easier, if you
fix it all later.

It absolutely depends on what the image
is.

In the

first shoot, I went for something that
was a little bit cooler and a little

bit bluish.

In these it's a bit more end of day.

So I was going for something that had a
slight warmer tint to the image.

And that's why these look a little bit
different than the earlier ones.

I went for something a little bit
darker, a little bit warmer, and it has

a slightly different vibe to it.

So it absolutely depends image to
image.

I don't usually have to make sure
colors are

absolutely correct like that.

I'm not shooting product, I'm not
shooting catalog.

I don't need to make sure a dress is
the exact right color.

I can be creative, and I regularly
change the colors of things all the

time.

There are certain considerations I make
when it comes to color, and that is

when dealing with things called memory
colors.

And a memory color is a color that you
automatically have an association to in

your mind, even if it's subconscious.

And so your preconceived idea about
what that color is affects how you see it,

and so when you see something that you
are already familiar with and it's wrong,

it creates a jarring thing in your head.

And so,

like skin color, even though there is a
wide range of skin color

across the world, like we know if we're
looking at skin and it's got too much

yellow or too much magenta, too much
red in it, like we know when it doesn't

look right, even though there's a wide
range, if it's, like, something's

wrong, that we can tell in our brain.

And so, like, skin color is always
something that I want to make sure

I get as close to

real or natural as possible,

it's brightness and darkness of skin
tone, as well as human saturation.

Like, I really spend a lot of time
making sure skin looks like skin.

And so you can kind of see that even
though the color looks kind of

sionish or warm or whatever, the skin
still looks and feels like normal skin.

And we find that when we are shooting
skin a lot of times, it oversaturates

anyway, like, that's a pretty common
thing.

And so I'm usually dialing back that
color a little bit to make it feel a

little bit more natural.

Things like

logos,

the sky, like when the sky doesn't
register as blue like, when it turns

into, like that turquoise color that
you see in fashion editorials and

stuff, sometimes you automatically know
you're looking at something that's a

visual fantasy.

And so it automatically registers, is,
this is not real.

So,

skin color, the sky color logos,

things like stop signs, maybe like a
New York City taxicab, like these are

all things that we associate specific
colors too.

Any food, like any food, needs to look
like food, because then it looks weird.

So like, these are the colors that I'm
keeping track of in my head when I'm

processing the images.

That I want to make sure that they look
as

close to what I need them to look like
as possible.

And so this is, yeah, that's what I'm
thinking about when I'm working with

color in

these kinds of tones,