how does audrey woulard do it?

J

joescrivens

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,052
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
So I've always been a fan of the majority of audrey woulard's work, sometimes she makes the eyes too big for me but in general i think her work is superb. But I'm left clueless as to how she gets that special sparkle from her shots.

Take this shot I took for example in natural light


IMG_8957 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr

Now look at this one of hers (I won't embed as I don't own it). See how much more clarity and sparkle there is. What PP is she doing? Anyone care to guess and replicate on my pic?

http://www.audreywoulardblog.com/images/content/ACF5A3C.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hair, makeup, and a a fair amount lot of processing

I will clarify that.. they all are generally "lifestyle" shot outside, natural light shots, which is the last place you would expect to make the effort to actually "manufacture the shot"

If you look at her work, you will see makeup, matifiing primers, lipstick, and efforts to "make sure dad's shirt is ironed, and his hair is done too etc..


Specifically the difference between your shot and hers

1. yours is a cracking capture, and deserves a gold star
2. your child is el-natural
3 her child has her fingers tucked in so the narrow DOF is pin sharp only on the face and eyes (pops), yours doesn't
4. hers - the girl has had the hair straightened and set, and has primer, foundation and lipstick on by the looks of it
5. yours - slightly in focus in front of the eyes, hers - bang on the eyes,

However, IMO, yours is the better shot by a long way, you are showing a child to be a child, having fun... she is showing a baby version of a adult, with a toy to reference the shot to the fact that she is only a child
 
Last edited:
much prefer your shot to the other one.

something really unnatural about it and lets not get on to the horrific bokeh in the background lol


relfectors, scrims, warmer light and PP is the major difference in the look of the images.
 
Richard King said:
Hair, makeup, and a a fair amount lot of processing

I will clarify that.. they all are generally "lifestyle" shot outside, natural light shots, which is the last place you would expect to make the effort to actually "manufacture the shot"

If you look at her work, you will see makeup, matifiing primers, lipstick, and efforts to "make sure dad's shirt is ironed, and his hair is done too etc..


Specifically the difference between your shot and hers

1. yours is a cracking capture, and deserves a gold star
2. your child is el-natural
3 her child has her fingers tucked in so the narrow DOF is pin sharp only on the face and eyes (pops), yours doesn't
4. hers - the girl has had the hair straightened and set, and has primer, foundation and lipstick on by the looks of it
5. yours - slightly in focus in front of the eyes, hers - bang on the eyes,

However, IMO, yours is the better shot by a long way, you are showing a child to be a child, having fun... she is showing a baby version of a adult, with a toy to reference the shot to the fact that she is only a child
Click to expand...

thanks for the reply, i can see why people might not like what goes on and I certainly wouldn't be putting makeup on etc, but there's a certain clarity in the shot if you see what i mean - what is she doing in the PP to make it so punchy?

Big curve boost in an S shape?
Over sharpening
Big boost in saturation?
 
PsiFox said:
Have you seen the tutorial from hacker about how to pop the eyes

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=43265

Unfortunately on the shot you posted she doesn't have them fully open, which restricts the ability to improve them.
Click to expand...

thanks, i have seen that, have spent a little time making eyes pop but not much recently. I can see in her shots that big difference but it's to rest of the punch I'm looking to replicate, the colors and the clarity
 
Natural light doesn't preclude the use of reflectors, you can see the shape of it in the catchlight. It's probably more obvious in this shot. She's frequently putting the sun behind her subject and then using a reflector for fill light.

On the example linked in the first post the reflected fill (subject in shade, fill from sunlight falling on an area in front of the subject) is giving an exposure that drops the ambient exposure - hence the deep green ambient background that's a couple of stops darker than it would have been without the fill. There could be an overhead scrim, but my bet is that she's positioned the girl just inside the shadow of a tree and left room in front for the reflector to be positioned in full sun.

There's probably less make-up and PP than you think (I doubt there's much make-up at all in the first example), going at it that way would be the difficult way.
 
I'm with the masses here in preferring your shot, although I won't say why as I don't agree in scrutinising another photographer's work when they aren't here to defend themselves.

Suffice to say, I wouldn't hire her.
 
Alastair said:
Natural light doesn't preclude the use of reflectors, you can see the shape of it in the catchlight. It's probably more obvious in this shot. She's frequently putting the sun behind her subject and then using a reflector for fill light.

On the example linked in the first post the reflected fill (subject in shade, fill from sunlight falling on an area in front of the subject) is giving an exposure that drops the ambient exposure - hence the deep green ambient background that's a couple of stops darker than it would have been without the fill. There could be an overhead scrim, but my bet is that she's positioned the girl just inside the shadow of a tree and left room in front for the reflector to be positioned in full sun.

There's probably less make-up and PP than you think (I doubt there's much make-up at all in the first example), going at it that way would be the difficult way.
Click to expand...

according to the description of her book, she "claims" not to be using reflectors either. I'm wondering if the pp involves good use of the fill slider, she's shooting with a d700 afterall and we all know noise is pretty much non existent on that camera

although in the interview here she does say:

MCP Actions: How do you get the skin of your subjects so perfectly bright and well lit, without blowing it out?

Audrey Woulard: I use a lot of natural reflectors, and I prefer to expose for my subject and not the scene. You will notice more often than not that the background blows out, and not my subjects.


MCP Actions: What if you are in a location where you can’t find good natural reflectors (like a sidewalk or wall in the right spot to reflect light). Do you ever use reflectors or fill flash?

Audrey Woulard: Although I am not personally against fill flash or reflectors, I do not use them for my work at all. I have always been successful finding light. Even if the light doesn’t match the core body of my work.
Click to expand...

so it seems she says she looks for natural reflectors
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
according to the description of her book, she "claims" not to be using reflectors either. I'm wondering if the pp involves good use of the fill slider, she's shooting with a d700 afterall and we all know noise is pretty much non existent on that camera

although in the interview here she does say:

I use a lot of natural reflectors, and I prefer to expose for my subject and not the scene. You will notice more often than not that the background blows out, and not my subjects.
Click to expand...

You could spend $150 and find out.
 
mattyg said:
If she's not using reflectors how has she managed to get a shadow directly underneath whilst the sun is behind.

She's magic
Click to expand...

the sun isn't behind, it's above.

I used to think she must be lying about reflector use but I have read it so many times and I have heard from people who attended sessions that it's true. And you have to ask yourself - why would she be lying?

She clearly has a very good skill of being able to work out what behind her will reflect good light onto the subject, then she spot meters for the face.

Magic? nope, but very skilled
 
The answers to the interview are internally inconsistent, what's the difference between "natural reflectors" and "reflectors"? She's no judge of distance ("about a foot"?) and conflicts with the statement she leaves a lot of dictance in front of the subject.

Her basic recipe appears to be (according to her answers)..
  • F/1.6 (always, according to her answers)
  • ISO400 (starting point)
  • Nikon JPG set to vivid
  • 85/50/28mm (she lists these lenses - some shots look longer than this to me)
  • Sun overhead or behind subject (10.30am-2pm)

Plus my best guess..
  • Expose to the right and bring back with levels
  • Fill reflector in some shots, but in mid-day sun there could be some natural north-light fill (she makes a point of saying that there must be nothing and noone behind her, implying that they could cast northlight shadows)

Some of the daylight studio shots are interesting, with strong sidelight (west window?) plus a fill light behind the camera (north window?). You can make out the silhouette of the camera and photographer in some of the catchlights on these shots.

The more I look at these shots, the more I think northlight is a key part of the recipe. Plus, when you add in full mid-day sun, the jumping shot starts to make more sense as you'd get a lot of reflected fill from a lush lawn.
 
Alastair said:
The answers to the interview are internally inconsistent, what's the difference between "natural reflectors" and "reflectors"? She's no judge of distance ("about a foot"?) and conflicts with the statement she leaves a lot of dictance in front of the subject.

Her basic recipe appears to be (according to her answers)..
  • F/1.6 (always, according to her answers)
  • ISO400 (starting point)
  • Nikon JPG set to vivid
  • 85/50/28mm (she lists these lenses - some shots look longer than this to me)
  • Sun overhead or behind subject (10.30am-2pm)

Plus my best guess..
  • Expose to the right and bring back with levels
  • Fill reflector in some shots, but in mid-day sun there could be some natural north-light fill (she makes a point of saying that there must be nothing and noone behind her, implying that they could cast northlight shadows)

Some of the daylight studio shots are interesting, with strong sidelight (west window?) plus a fill light behind the camera (north window?). You can make out the silhouette of the camera and photographer in some of the catchlights on these shots.

The more I look at these shots, the more I think northlight is a key part of the recipe. Plus, when you add in full mid-day sun, the jumping shot starts to make more sense as you'd get a lot of reflected fill from a lush lawn.
Click to expand...

I know that she has 2 enormous natural light studio's with windows everywhere even in the ceilings
 
joescrivens said:
the sun isn't behind, it's above.

I used to think she must be lying about reflector use but I have read it so many times and I have heard from people who attended sessions that it's true. And you have to ask yourself - why would she be lying?

She clearly has a very good skill of being able to work out what behind her will reflect good light onto the subject, then she spot meters for the face.

Magic? nope, but very skilled
Click to expand...

Whats causing the shadows in the background. They look like there coming from the trees but they wouldnt create those shadows would they? unless they've got overhanging branches.

I am a noob though and dont really have an understanding of light
 
mattyg said:
Whats causing the shadows in the background. They look like there coming from the trees but they wouldnt create those shadows would they? unless they've got overhanging branches.

I am a noob though and dont really have an understanding of light
Click to expand...

very much depends on the angle of the trees behind and the angle that the photographer is at. The trees very likely have a canopy, the sun is above and looks like slightly back but the shadow he is causing is actually ahead of him if you look at the parts of the grass that are on the same plane as his eyes, it's also lighting the very top of his head.
 
joescrivens said:
very much depends on the angle of the trees behind and the angle that the photographer is at. The trees very likely have a canopy, the sun is above and looks like slightly back but the shadow he is causing is actually ahead of him if you look at the parts of the grass that are on the same plane as his eyes, it's also lighting the very top of his head.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Its those little bits that noobs miss.
 
I like your shot a lot. Does this woman also stuff newborns into baskets in awkward looking positions wearing daft hats?
 
I actually quite like her work. It is very "pop" and , for want of a better phrase "American". But I like it. I think alot of the popping is down PP , and i suspect that she has found a techneque ei - DOF wide appeture , and now just concentrates on that aspect rather then anything else. Jack of one trade and master of it ? Anyway she obvisouily done well out of it and i bet familes pay a small fortune for her portraits.
 
menthel said:
I like your shot a lot. Does this woman also stuff newborns into baskets in awkward looking positions wearing daft hats?
Click to expand...

lol, she does do newborns but i havent seen her stuff them anywhere, they are usually just laying on a chair or sofa
 
I like your edit above better than the original, for a true Audrey Woulard look you might even push the saturation up another notch or two.

It may be worth trying to add a negative exposure brush to the background as well, if you take the backgound down by 1 or even 2 stops the subjetc might pop even more???

I wouldn't do anything to the eyes though, they look good as they are.

Just out of interest, where was your focal point, the eyes and everything in front look sharp, but everything behind the eyes is soft. Assuming you are focusing on the eyes the lens might be front focusing?
 
gingerjon said:
You've done too much to the eyes. Moppet looks like something out of the Exorcist now.
Click to expand...

i didn't do anything to the eyes that weren't done to the whole of the picture if that what you mean. There's no selective sharpening or colour boost etc. I just made global changes to the whole picture.

I had a go with the tutorial posted above from hacker on making the eyes pop before I did anything but that just made it too much.
 
joescrivens said:
i didn't do anything to the eyes that weren't done to the whole of the picture if that what you mean. There's no selective sharpening or colour boost etc. I just made global changes to the whole picture.

I had a go with the tutorial posted above from hacker on making the eyes pop before I did anything but that just made it too much.
Click to expand...

Ah okay. Well, to rephrase then, whatever you've done to the picture has made the eyes too pronounced and they look both overlarge and unnaturally coloured as a result.
 
irelanst said:
Just out of interest, where was your focal point, the eyes and everything in front look sharp, but everything behind the eyes is soft. Assuming you are focusing on the eyes the lens might be front focusing?
Click to expand...

focus point was on the eyes, but at 135mm f/2 and 2.54 m away the dof is 2 cm in front of and behind the focus point. 2cm behind the eyes is only skin so you won't see anything in focus from there whereas you have a few features in front.

I guess what i mean is, the nostrils and mouth are a lot closer to the eyes than the next thing at the back, i.e. the ears
 
gingerjon said:
Ah okay. Well, to rephrase then, whatever you've done to the picture has made the eyes too pronounced and they look both overlarge and unnaturally coloured as a result.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

ok! agree on them being too pronounced, the edges have too much contrast in them i think that's the issue

as for the colour, if you saw Finn's eyes in real life, you might not think this is much different from the truth. This is him in all natural light straight out of the camera


IMG_8722 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr
 
joescrivens said:
:thumbs:

ok! agree on them being too pronounced, the edges have too much contrast in them i think that's the issue

as for the colour, if you saw Finn's eyes in real life, you might not think this is much different from the truth. This is him in all natural light straight out of the camera


IMG_8722 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Blimey! Very striking.
 
Alastair said:
(she makes a point of saying that there must be nothing and noone behind her, implying that they could cast northlight shadows)
The more I look at these shots, the more I think northlight is a key part of the recipe.
Click to expand...

I think your right. The girls in shadow, with her eyes wide open but it sounds like Woulard's using a large open space behind her to light the girl, its all one big reflector. then through some shadows into a bright glade behind which will blow out pretty. It will always be a nice soft and diffused light at that brink I'd imagine.
 
Last edited:
I have started doing a lot of natural light work for an assignment and I was blown away at firstly how difficult it can be compared to studio work, and also how much you can do to bounce light back with reflectors and how using different materials to diffuse and flag the light can really change the image. The image you linked in the first post just seems to be a wee bit less exposed than yours with the natural light being reflected back at the girls face with either a white or silver reflector. It also looks like really soft light, it could just be the time of day/cloud cover but the same effect could be reached with a large sheet, or tracing paper held up to diffuse the light reaching the subject. Your images look superb too through, just different lighting mostly.
 
Reading through how she's started as a portrait photographer, I think her style has developed as a result of her circumstances and decisions.

By choosing ay to work around the school hours of her children she's found herself shooting in the bright midday sun that many traditional photographers would choose to avoid. After that it's a matter of simple choices to get the style.. using similar sun positions (above and behind the subject), picking one aperture and sticking to it, keeping the processing as simple as possible by defaulting to an in-camera jpg style.

It's effective, her clients seem to appreciate it, she's very good at managing her brand and marketing, and tbh, I quite like the style for the subjects she chooses to shoot. It's generally fun and relaxed looking, and they're modern portraits that families are going to put on the wall and feel good about.

There's a lot to be said for keeping things simple, it generally makes it easier to be good.
 
yes, it does seem that the end result is a product of many little things working together in a very specific way.

and to take $2000+ for each photo shoot and do 4-5 a week I think her recipe works! At half a million a year gross she's certainly enjoying the fruits of her labour
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top