Working around the subject

This is less a principle or theory, more a mindset or practice which makes the difference: work around the subject, and shoot lots. There are four* main reasons I do this:

Firstly, it allows me to experiment, and discover what works. Obvious, really. It's how we learn.

Secondly, the wider the variety of shots I have, the more choice afterwards. And in that selection, it is more likely that I'll have a few pictures that stand out. Even taking family photos should result in lots of 'wastage'. 

Third, there is what I consider an arc of interest when shooting. Like many photographers, I begin with a safety shot**. Interest, involvement, rapport or ideas are at their lowest level here. But then, by trying different ideas, I often find myself gradually being drawn in, more energised and focused. It is a necessary path towards the best picture - which is frequently unknown until it is found. Its realisation is the culmination of the process, the point at which things are really flowing. And later - after this image has been captured - any further pictures often seem inferior, as energy/interest levels fade away. But it may take a series of gradually improving shots, a variety of more interesting setups, before the best idea comes through. And I think that getting this image frequently depends on pushing through this process.

Lastly, when looking at the images on a computer, what is important to that particular shoot will 'reveal' itself through comparison. In a related series of images, many aspects will differ frame by frame, and the relevant ones begin to make themselves known. The internal critic speaks up, and it is a good time to listen:

"This picture is sharper, but this has a better expression. These ones are cropped a little too tightly, but the lighting is lovely. The vertical crop on this set of images works better than the horizontal crop on those. The composition of these can be improved." And so on. 

Bringing home only a handful of pictures offers less comparison. The final, selected pictures may have been successful, but compared to what? So, the greater variety you have, the more likely you are to have a few frames with a good balance of the key points.

Working around the subject means changing viewpoints, working with different lenses or focal lengths, changing composition, using different backdrops or props, playing with lighting, trying different concepts, and, of course, borrowing others' ideas.

Case study one: Opening of Charles Tyrwhitt store

A safety shot. Person + shoes. Not particularly interesting, but it tells the story (perhaps!) and is perfectly useable. 

The lighting is fine, but composition is a little off. However, if he stands more centrally, many shoes are hidden. And the shoe rack, set into the wall, doesn't allow for much scope with anything.

What else could be done? He could hold the shoes, perhaps 'examining', polishing or tying laces. However, this didn't feel right - and a little forced.

(left) Moving him centrally improves the composition as the shoes create a frame. By moving the shoes (so they aren't directly behind him) the background becomes more 'full' too.

  (right) Choosing a lower angle adds an air of authority to the subject. However, the more pleasing appearance of shoes when seen from from above is now lost, especially for those on the top shelf. There wasn't much else I could think to try here; I couldn't get either side much because of space - it is not a large shop. I felt that to try from above (hoping to capture the shapes of the shoes better) might perhaps make the picture more about the shoes than the subject, who, appearing (relatively) less dominant, would lose the authority and confidence that these images show. Well, in any case I doubted it would be a very strong shot regardless. And besides, there wasn't anything for me to stand on.

So we moved across to the ties. The company is known for its shirts, but as you can see, in situ they won't make a good picture. The colours and circle of ties makes for a good foreground, and the background, whilst showing the shirts, is simple enough not to weaken the shot. The subject, leaning onto the rack, is both photographically and figuratively linked with the ties. Photographically he is joined to the foreground, a triangle atop the ellipse leading the eye to his face. Figuratively it is now 'his shop'. And the open body language is friendlier than the folded arms in the previous pictures. Hands are always tricky, so it was a good solution. However, I didn't like the empty space in the top left and right corners, and I wanted to make more of the circle of ties, so I moved closer and tried a vertical compostion. 

The foreground is certainly stronger, the composition tighter. I don't know if I prefer it or not, but I didn't have any frames of him smiling in this format. 

So what to do from here? Other than taking pictures outside the shop (informative, but unlikely to be evocative), there really weren't any other locations worth considering, and I had no other ideas. Measuring a mannequin? Examining ties? Some days these posed-candid shots can feel forced and unnatural to me. 

Clothes shops have mirrors in the changing rooms, and although one must take care about what is being reflected, they are usually a safe bet. The simple reason is, as well as being something 'a little different', they offer an easy way to fill the frame. Look at any wedding photographer's website and you will always find a lovely shot of the bride doing her earrings/makeup/hair in a mirror. Look at the composition - perhaps half the picture is filled with the back of her head, but it is never a bad thing in that situation. I digress... 

So I tried a few different pictures of the subject adjusting his tie. Looking at the camera looked overly posed (as it so often can when going for a natural/action photograph). Him looking at the knot of the tie made for some nice variations, but I preferred this version. I like the expression, the half-caught sort-of-candid moment. As an aside, it's never easy working with mirrors - two here! Moving an inch one way would completely lose the small reflection, and inch the other had me in shot. Slight movements by the subject necessitated me shifting with him - so it took perhaps ten or twenty shots to get just a few good frames.

Case study two: Solstice String Quartet

The safety shot (left) is a perfectly reasonable portrait of the group. The blue wall behind makes for a good backdrop, so it was simply a case of getting everyone as close together as possible, with their various instruments. 

Then we tried separating them to create a little depth (below). The angle is more interesting, the arrangement less formal. The musician on the right has been placed close to the camera. Combined with this low angle, it helps to fill the frame, as he appears larger (and higher up). I didn't want to set him too close, as this would put too great an emphasis on him, detracting attention from the others. 

With groups, it's often a good idea to break the line and have people at different heights (left). Basically, not having everyone standing in a line. Sitting, crouching, leaning etc. all work to make an arrangement more effective. But to a point. These are professional classical musicians, after all. Retaining a degree of formality here would be the guiding principle, rather than wild angles, hard lighting etc. And so, sitting on chairs, yes. Half-sitting on a chair which is leaned 45 degrees to a wall, with a rockstar expression, no***.

I tend to prefer to see hands, but what to do with them? They can be problematic. When someone sits down they can at least rest them on their lap. The musician on the left does not need to use both hands to hold the violin, but it's better than one hanging down. Also, the girl on the right is resting her hand on the shoulder of the chap sitting down. It breaks the line a little, and links them together.

  We moved to one of the dance studios next. I really like this shot. It's almost identical to the first picture, but the opaque glass behind them makes for a great background. It acts like a giant softbox and gives a lovely diffused back-lighting effect.

  The musicians changed into more casual clothes, which lent itself to less formal photographs. Working in the corner of the studio, we have another shot from a low angle. This allowed a few of them to sit, and allowed for different positioning of the instruments.

It's worth noting that the limitation here is that the musicians must be shown with their instruments. It may sound obvious, but with that as a starting-point, we work backwards. The instruments have to be held and be in view. Only then can we think about moving the musicians around. So there really is only so much that can be done. But note the different positions of the instruments compared to the more formal ways they hold them in other shots. So there is always even a little room to manoeuver, a way to to work around the subject. 

  Finally, the group were keen to do a shot looking down the line. This kind of picture has two issues. You need a good depth of field to have everyone in focus. So you need a lot of light. And for a really tight picture (showing the instruments too!) everyone has to be just in the right position. The smallest movement affects the person behind. But I think the picture works.

And apart from a few other shots, that was it. Even within constraints, there is scope to try different things. And it is in the trying that new possibilities present themselves.

* Actually, there is a fifth (purely practical) reason: people blink, and their expressions change. Also, the likelihood of capturing someone with their eyes closed, looking away, or with an unflattering expression is in proportion to the number of people in the picture. The more shots you have, the safer you are.
 **This is the simplest picture that will suffice if nothing else works. It's also something 'in the bag' if anything goes wrong, if time is short, or nothing seems to work. You know you have at least something useable.

***Other photographers might go for this interpretation and produce really striking results. This is only my way of approaching the shoot - there is no 'right' way to photograph something. Perhaps I play things too safe?