See How This Ex-Playboy Photographer Gives Her Glamour Work Visual Impact With Compact Lights

Less can definitely be more when you're trying to create mood in glamour photography. I think you'd be surprised what sort of results can be achieved with compact lights and a little know-how.

Westcott is back once again with another insightful video with Commercial Beauty Photographer Lou Freeman. The guest feature begins with Freeman explaining how she likes to paint her scenario with little pools of light when trying to achieve a moody look in her work. A minimalistic approach in this case really works well as Ice Lights and barn doors are used to great effect. Personally, I like to light this way myself as the alternative is trying to flag off big lights to achieve something similar. This can be especially tricky when working in the tight space of a house for example.

Once Freeman has everything in place we see how careful positioning of these zones of light really does help draw the eye to the areas she wants the viewer to see most. As an added bonus the video goes into great detail on how to best pose a subject and how to put the model at ease. Little tips about making sure the neck area and hands are relaxed really is an important lesson to learn as all too often they are areas a photographer can miss in all the excitement of a shoot.

If you have five minutes to spare and have an interest in shooting glamour photography, then who better to hear from than a veteran of the Playboy magazine. Freeman helped transform the genre and launched the evolution of boudoir elegance that we see today.

[via Westcott]

Log in or register to post comments

12 Comments

I loved the posing advice. Great video :)

Paul Adshead's picture

Thanks Joel! I actually think it's the best part of the video. Definitely took some pointers away from it...

William Howell's picture

ISO1000 with an aperture f4 at 1/60 of a second, I don't know about those Ice Lights. They don't seem that powerful and cost 500 bones?

Paul Adshead's picture

I hear you William! I think they would be handy if you're doing both video and stills at the same time maybe...

Lane Shurtleff's picture

ISO 1000 f8 @ 1/60. What camera are you using that isn't capable of ISO 1000 good RAW file quality? Depending on how big you plan to print them, say 16x20, it will never show. I've been instructing photographers for 25+ years, many people are still under the notion from lack of knowledge that you must shoot at a DSLR's native ISO.

William Howell's picture

I don’t know about that. Making the sensor more sensitive to light adds noise and degrades the file to none professional usage, in my view. Now would I be able to tell if you used high ISO, like you said, depends on size.
Native ISO is where optimum image is achieved, this is from The Angry Photographer.

I’m using a Nikon D300 year 2007 or 2008. Even if I had a D810 or Fugifilm GFX I would still shoot native.

I do print 2’x2’ or 3’x2,’ I use Bumblejax service, they’re out of Washington state I believe.

Lane Shurtleff's picture

I had a D300 for many years ( shutter died at 180k), but as you well know, anything above ISO 800 is not usable for quality large prints. Since nearly all my printed work is studio based, high ISO has never been an issue for me. Also the D810, which I currently use also is not a high ISO camera. I'm comparing the current D500, Canon 5D series and many others are well capable of very high ISO performance. Expecting every blogger to cater to every photograghers needs or wants is not seeing what current equipment is capable of. Remember, most of these so called tutorials are nothing more than hidden advertising to make people think they need to spend lots of money unnecessarily. In this instance, Westcott hiring a popular glamour photographer to shill it's overpriced ICE lights.

William Howell's picture

Let me ask you a question, how is the dynamic range of the D810? I shoot mostly in my garage and like you I don't shoot high ISO in that environment. But I believe that I have outgrown my D300's resolution, so I'm saving my money for a good used D810. I've read reviews that say dynamic range is great, would you agree with that assessment? Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Lane Shurtleff's picture

Dynamic range is good for what I do, glamour, headshots, etc in the studio. Since I can control ratios I'm never concerned about dynamic range. i have shot with the D810 with the older 24-70 2.8 and 2nd gen 70-200 2.8, and the 85 1.4, I always shoot 1-2 stops under so I don''t blow out highlights when using it outdoors. If I know I'm going to be shooting lots of sky, I either use graduated ND filters or I do a 6 stop HDR bracket and use the best image that gives me the sky/cloud detail I'm after. I don't do the 5-7 frame auto-HDR style. I still have my old tried and true D700 as my travel camera.I have found it to be "good enough" to make 20"x60" prints. When I shoot sports I use my D4S. But have been giving serious consideration to the D500 or D7500 as a lighter replacement

>> ISO1000 with an aperture f4 at 1/60 of a second, I don't know about those Ice Lights. They don't seem that powerful and cost 500 bones?

And their CRI isn't that great. It wouldn't surprise me if we're not seeing some guerrilla marketing here...

William Howell's picture

Yeah the Ice Lights don't stack up at that price.

Well, apparently the new version has better CRI. So some progress!