So many photographers dream of shooting the Pirelli Calendar, but so few make it. German Photographer Peter Lindbergh shot the 2017 edition, and he’s probably someone we can all learn from. There must be a reason as to why he is working with all the big names in the cinema and modeling industry. For those like me, who love watching other photographers at work to learn, you must watch this hour-long behind the scenes video of his work for Pirelli.
The calendar was announced quite a while ago; it’s no fresh news. In fact, Khatleen already talked about it in a previous article. But what I wanted to share with you today is the long version of the behind the scenes video that was realized during the making of the calendar.
While you probably won’t learn anything new about lighting here, it’s fascinating to hear what and how Lindbergh subjects felt in front of the camera as well as the contact they had with him. The way he shoots also struck me. He seems to take so many frames, apparently to catch the perfect moment and emotion. It felt strange, probably because I’ve been told by so many photographers not to spray and pray, but rather shoot one single picture.
What do you think? Is there anything you can take away from this video and implement in your work? Did it make you reflect on the way you connect with your models? Do you find the way he shoots is odd or does it make sense to you?
Quentin, people have told you to "shoot one single picture?" I shoot a picture when I see a picture, but I only shoot a picture when I see a picture. But I don't skip any pictures on the way to "the" picture. I'll normally see many pictures in a session.
I don't mean that I shoot one single picture per session. But usually, I take one single frame per pose and move on to another pose. I was surprised to see Lindbergh shoot in continuous/burst for a single pose.
To me it would be crazy not to shoot multiple frames per pose. Each shot increases your chances of getting the best micro expression. Those tiny variances can make all the difference.
Are we talking burst shooting? Pretty hard with strobes, no? Advantage CL?
With low output (1/8 or 1/16) I can get 3 or 4 shots in a burst.
I take minimal amount of frames per pose as well, honestly, it's much more efficient. It's going to be really problematic to machine gun your way through a shoot. You'll end up wasting disk space in your backup (because obviously photographers hoard their photos and obviously serious photographers shoot in RAW) and not only that you'll waste time sifting through the same images. If you're a professional and shoot a lot, these things will definitely add up. I have shot in film and personally, I find burst shooting like that to be inefficient. (Although obviously there are situations which warrant it like sports and fashion runways)
Trying to work out the use of the music sheet stand, for foreground blur? couldn't see it in the results..
I think that he used it just as a distance control (related to the lighting)
Yes it's for an out of focus artifact around the subject. i use this technique often with flowers or palm leaves. If you look at Peter stand next to the frame of an open window, he does the same thing, using the window frame up against the lens as a way to create an ultra soft blur.
I was wondering the same. I can't imagine it being for a blurry black foreground object. I looked through what photos I could and didn't see any evidence of it in any of the shots. It does look like he has it on set a good portion of the time.
Although, I usually do not photograph people. During watching the video, I wondered:
1) how much he really communicates while taking images (the communication can be a reassurance to the model or giving a comfortable feeling esp. when the camera clicks all the time).
2) if he takes the same scenes again after showing the images on the camera screen (telling what he would like to be different). For an actress/actor it is surely normal that a scene is taken several times.
3) how his working style would be with a large format camera (i.e. taking series is not possible)
All in all, what I take away from the video is, what a great guy Peter Lindbergh is and that it is a privilege to be photographed by him (Naturally, in such kind of videos only positive things are said). But what comes to myself as a photographer, I did not feel that I could take away much for occasions of taking portraits
Spray and pray is usually for photographers that have no control over their subject matter. We would laugh at it in the commercial world because it often meant that a photographer didn't really have an idea behind his production. But, it's a totally appropriate manner of shooting for a photojournalist type of photographer that is trying to keep pace with a fast moving situation that is not a production under his control. Lindbergh is known for having a look that blurs the lines between photojournalism and glamour, so it's not surprising that he would employ a documentary type of shooting technique with a relatively controlled production. Looking for fleeting and transitory expressions is how he's able to inject a sense of spontaneity into an otherwise totally controlled situation. He does it well but when other people try to copy the look it usually falls flat.
I would give my left pinkie toe to shoot Helen Mirren.
Shoot her an email, you never know your luck.
I heard she prefers right pinkie toes...just sayin' :-)
I think he's been shooting way too much. But who knows how much time he had with a model. One of them said 45mins quick shoot? For just getting two pictures with a set up like that I think thats a lot of time giving everyone of them being photographed is used to being photographed.
I hadn't read the commentary by Quentin nor the comments before watching the video and I came to the comments section to make the following comment:
It's refreshing to see an INCREDIBLY successful photographer employing techniques which FLY IN THE FACE of what many consider to be very hard and fast rules of photography - specifically shooting in bursts and also not retouching. I really want to know if he's shooting JPG too! lol
Before commenting, I read the other comments and then the commentary by Quentin and saw that shooting in bursts was a topic of discussion. Some in favor, some not. And apparently some not making up their own mind and instead being told what was the right way to do it by others.
Personally, I used to shoot in burst mode when I used a 6D. But that was because more often than not I used the outer, less precise, AF points. Since picking up a 5D Mark III (then selling it for a 5D Mark IV and 5Ds), I no longer shoot in burst mode, but will fire off shots like Peter did - clicking the shutter a couple of times in a few seconds. And I do it for seemingly the same reason he does, to capture the perfect micro expression.
On to the next point which jumped out at me - the lack of retouching and even the model's insistence that they be portrayed exactly as they are. I LOVED THAT! While I'm typing this comment, I'm looking below the comment box at the "FEATURED PHOTOS & VIDEOS" section and out of 5 images of women framed close enough to make out details, every single one of them have been processed like crazy! We're talking flawless skin, ZERO wrinkles, etc. And IMO, this is just incredibly unfortunate for numerous reasons. For one, I have a 4 year old daughter and she sees images like these on magazine covers, on TV, etc., and as she grows older and more self-aware, she's going to think that's what women SHOULD look like. I'm thankful for editing videos on YouTube because I intend to make her sit and watch them so that she can see what these women TRULY look like before a "glamour" photographer/retoucher gets ahold of the image. For another, people the world over are viewing images like these and each time they see these images, their perception of reality is warped incrementally more - whether they're aware of it or not. And that's truly unfortunate. For women, it changes the standard (I don't think it raises it, personally - but it does alter it). For those seeking or in romantic relationships with women, it changes the standard for them too. Finally, it eschews the magic of a woman's life, who she is, what she's experienced, and even who her ancestors are. IMO, we may as well be looking at plastic dolls pressed from a mold. Completely uninteresting and devoid of life and personality.
SO in love with this BTS video and I'd definitely buy one if they were available...
While I agree with pretty much everything you've said, I also think that, knowing photos have been retouched, there's nothing wrong with it. Some photography is documentary in nature and some is art. Neither is right or wrong. Regardless, I really wish I could "unsee" the photo of Amy Schumer.
I don't think you can "pick up" the calendar.
I think for the general public that any image which changes a person's body should come with a disclaimer on the actual picture. Temporary blemishes would of course be an exception. Otherwise, for the average person I think it's out of sight out of mind when it comes to retouching unless it's just horrendously obvious.
So, do we raise the bar (by assuming people have common sense) or lower it (by assuming they don't)?
Don't misunderstand. I agree with your analysis but prefer education to apathy. Honestly, I think (but have no way to back it up) the people harmed by this kind of thing would be harmed by something else, in its absence.
The assumptions from atop our ivory tower of photography regarding the knowledge of the average person is likely an overestimation. I have a friend who's a chemist who reverse engineers molecules and he thinks he can have a discussion with anyone about what he does. I'm in the pharmaceutical industry for my full-time job and even I have a hard time keeping up with him sometimes. He sits high atop an Ivory Tower of chemistry.
While people don't think about it all the time, if you ask, most would tell you photos, especially published photos, are "photoshopped." (how cool it must be to have your products name become a verb!)
I can't imagine most people could give you the chemical formula for more than a few molecules.
I remember an organic chemistry professor (more years ago than I care to think about) drawing various hydrocarbons and asking what they would be called. He drew one (you can probably guess what it looked like) and I was the first to correctly identify it as Mercedes Benzene. :-)
So what do you do? I'm always curious about other people's jobs.
I agree, if people think about it consciously, they know the images aren't real. But I'd wager that most just see the image and file it under "another woman who's prettier than me" or "why doesn't my girlfriend have a body like that?", etc.
I'm a pharmaceutical sales rep. Been at it for about 9 years now.
And again, that same person will see "another woman" in person who they think is prettier than they are and most men have the thoughts you describe. In some cases, they're correct and in others, not so much. If an individual's self worth is defined by their perceived beauty, or lack of it, touched-up photos aren't their biggest problem.
So, did you have to be trained as a pharmacist or some related field to do that or did you pick up a lot of knowledge along the way? I worked for 84 Lumber over 30 years ago and they had me watch training videos for about a week before having me talk to contractors who, of course, saw right through me! :-)
I agree to an extent. The thing with retouching is that there are attributes given which do not exist in real life. Heck, that can be done with the right choice of gear and posing. But seeing a pretty woman in person walking down the street will give things away that a carefully executed image which has then been digitally altered never would.
In the past (numerous decades ago), you had to have some sort of advanced degree (usually reps were pharmacists) to get into the field. At that time, you had a MASSIVE territory and promoted ALL of a company's products. As companies grew and access to the physician's time shrank, the requirements changed. Now, there's no specific background required and the company trains you on what you need to know. I've only worked for 2 pharma companies and in the first, I trained for about 9 weeks before ever setting foot into an office. The first week was a crash course in Anatomy & Physiology - we were given a 3000 level college textbook as well as training modules and at the end of the week, a test. If you achieved a score less than 90, you just lost your new job. And so it went for the remaining 8 weeks which was more specific to the disease state the products treated and then the products themselves. There were 4 products I was responsible for after leaving training, one of which was dropped about 2 months later leaving me with 3. With my current company, I only promote 1 which, given the current state of access (time to talk with) the physicians, is more than enough. Training never stops in this role and it's probably 50% product/disease knowledge and 50% learning how to convey that info.
I think some of those nuances, you speak of, are good and some, not so much. In the end, people would do well to remember that an image is NOT the person and vice versa.
Thanks for the info. That was really interesting! :-)
Agree! People are not their outward appearance! Good talk man!
What is the long lens he's using? And is that a D5? It looks too small.
I was struck by Peter showing his subjects images on the back of his camera. No fancy digital tech sitting at a computer monitor. I have less of a reaction to him using the motor drive. It's quite common with fashion in natural light. With hand held and burst mode I'll be interested to see how sharp the portraits are. I like how relaxed he seems.