how does audrey woulard do it?

jeniveeev said:
Yes - I was there.
Click to expand...

was it worth the money? Have you seen improvements in your photography?

She mentions that her book is basically her seminar without the business bit so I wonder if it wouldn't be worth it now that I have bought her book
 
yes - i think it was worth it. I was following her for a long time and she was the one photographer I wanted to learn from. I learned more from the business side of things which for me, at the time, helped turned my business round. Although the business stuff can be taught (and is) at other workshops.
 
ok

This explains what we all understand: http://focalplain.com/jasmine-star-natural-reflectors ... the subject is in the shade, but the light is bounced off the foor because the light source is behind the photographer

I don't get this: http://www.shutterbug.com/content/natural-light-reflectors. In each case, the before shot looks dark and dingy, and I cant account for HOW MUCH light happened to be reflected onto the model

What I can see when looking at AW's shots, is essentially, the background is blured, and often over exposed. That makes sense, if you just crank up the exposure on the subject in the shade, and shot at f1.6.
 
Last edited:
Well I bought her book.

I figured I can sell it on when I am done with it.

It was a good read. She puts soooo much emphasis on how important the ambient light is - she'll only shoot in a location if there is lots of ambient light focussed back on natural reflectors. Pavement seems to be the biggest one and she will ensure there is nothing behind her for a long way - not even people

whilst the book is expensive -you are basically paying for her seminar without attending as she says she essentially covers the same parts
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
Well I bought her book.

I figured I can sell it on when I am done with it.

It was a good read. She puts soooo much emphasis on how important the ambient light is - she'll only shoot in a location if there is lots of ambient light focussed back on natural reflectors. Pavement seems to be the biggest one and she will ensure there is nothing behind her for a long way - not even people
Click to expand...
in other words
On a nice sunny day. put the subject is in the shade, but standing on something that makes sure that the ambient light falling on the subject is pretty even. Make sure there is nothing behind the subject. Shoot at 1.6, and blows the background (which doesn't matter because it is uncluttered)
 
Richard King said:
in other words
On a nice sunny day. put the subject is in the shade, but standing on something that makes sure that the ambient light falling on the subject is pretty even. Make sure there is nothing behind the subject. Shoot at 1.6, and blows the background (which doesn't matter because it is uncluttered)
Click to expand...

she doesn't say you need to make sure there is nothing behind the subject. Her techniques insists there is nothing behind the photographer.

and she actually states that she doesn't care if the background is cluttered - it doesn't need to be uncluttered BECAUSE it's out of focus.
 
I think I'm beginning to realise the distinction in the phrasing..
  • I only use natural light - flash scares me/flash is expensive
  • I only use natural reflectors - I understand how ambient light works and how it interacts with the features of environment

Her book sounds interesting, but not $150-worth of interesting to me, but I don't doubt that it will sell well.
 
Alastair said:
I think I'm beginning to realise the distinction in the phrasing..
  • I only use natural light - flash scares me/flash is expensive
  • I only use natural reflectors - I understand how ambient light works and how it interacts with the features of environment

Her book sounds interesting, but not $150-worth of interesting to me, but I don't doubt that it will sell well.
Click to expand...

Its like buying a place on her workshop though
 
Last edited:
Im not convinced. there seems to be a lack of science to it

I do understand:

- Light hits a flat mirror at 20 degrees, it leaves at 20 degrees
- light hits a rough fairly reflective surface at 20 degrees - most of it will leave at 20 degrees, a small percentage of it will be scattered in all directions

What I don't get is how that "small percentage of scattered light" magically manages to light a backlit subject in the shade, so well it was as if there was a very reflective surface banging in a lot of light

I do get that that the small percentage of light that was scattered in all directions can effectively provide a large soft lighting source for the subject, but that lighting source wont be challenging the power of the sun

I do get that the sky behind the photographer can act as a light source, but again, the size and energy form that light source falling on the subjects face will not produce the "magic effect of having a non existent reflector"

I could get the weird scenario we get when we have storm clouds in the background and the sun peeking through from the side, but we are supposedly talking about mid day sun here

What I am seeing is
- Put the subject in the shade
- Make sure they are fairly evenly lit - no harsh shadows etc.
- Expose for the subject
- Shallow DOF means we don't care about the background
- Pop the image in PP a bit
 
As there is only one person on here that has read the book then it is up to them to carry out the experiments :D
 
Richard King said:
What I don't get is how that "small percentage of scattered light" magically manages to light a backlit subject in the shade, so well it was as if there was a very reflective surface banging in a lot of light
Click to expand...


but the magic behind all of this is that she exposes only for the subject.

Look at her shots, in most the sky is blown beyond obliteration. If you are exposing for the subject then it works. She also always uses open shade so there is plenty of ambient light and she asks the subject to wear dark clothing mostly to help with the exposure against such bright backgrounds

There is one shot she has in the book where it's between two buildings in front of an alley and the background is pretty much pitch black, but the subject is perfectly exposed
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
but the magic behind all of this is that she exposes only for the subject.

Look at her shots, in most the sky is blown beyond obliteration. If you are exposing for the subject then it works. She also always uses open shade so there is plenty of ambient light and she asks the subject to wear dark clothing mostly to help with the exposure against such bright backgrounds

There is one shot she has in the book where it's between two buildings in front of an alley and the background is pretty much pitch black, but the subject is perfectly exposed
Click to expand...
That's what I had pretty much figured, its in the main a formula. I also wondered if she was using some form of magnifying primer on the skin
 
Richard King said:
That's what I had pretty much figured, its in the main a formula. I also wondered if she was using some form of magnifying primer on the skin
Click to expand...

thats one part she doesn't mention in the book - makeup, she doesn't say whether thats used or not.

I don't think thats needed though.

It's funny because she takes a shot like this:

http://www.audreywoulardblog.com/images/content/ACF3A8.jpg

and if anyone posted that here for crit everyone would point out the blown hair on the woman. But thats a pretty standard feature of her shots because of the technique she uses.

She even mentions that in the book and that she is fine with blowing this kind of detail as it doesn't detract from the image in her opinion (and most importantly her customers). I've always thought the same but you can't post something like that on here without the majority of people disagreeing and commenting that is bad practice.
 
The hair on the woman isn't the problem. The kid's head is the issue. Depends on whether you can get the same effect with a modest amount of exposure comp to reduce blown areas but still keep the same snap.
 
srichards said:
The hair on the woman isn't the problem. The kid's head is the issue. Depends on whether you can get the same effect with a modest amount of exposure comp to reduce blown areas but still keep the same snap.
Click to expand...

again, doesn't bother me at all. I don't think it is an issue. 100's would.

So many of us are so focussed on what's technically right.

I'm beginning to care less and less about under and over exposed parts of the image the more i look through my shots these days
 
srichards said:
The hair on the woman isn't the problem. The kid's head is the issue. Depends on whether you can get the same effect with a modest amount of exposure comp to reduce blown areas but still keep the same snap.
Click to expand...

I agree. That kid is blown to kingdom come.
 
Take a look at this shot for example


IMG_7792 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr

the hair is blown to hades. Technically it's all wrong.

But it was the best shot I took of this girl all day, and I have tons of others that are perfectly exposed but no where near as good. Her parents say this is their favourite pic because it really shows her personality in the moment.

I've exposed purely for the face and nothing else, but if I could take the shot again - I wouldn't change my exposure and get the hair properly exposed. I'd take it the same way.
 
Maybe you need a pentax as it has a better dynamic range ;)

It's the eternal dilemma. Capturing the perfect moment imperfectly or capturing the imperfect moment perfectly. Sod's law at work.

In an ideal world you want the perfect moment perfectly captured. But failing that the perfect moment slightly imperfect is better than the alternatives.
 
srichards said:
Maybe you need a pentax as it has a better dynamic range ;)

It's the eternal dilemma. Capturing the perfect moment imperfectly or capturing the imperfect moment perfectly. Sod's law at work.

In an ideal world you want the perfect moment perfectly captured. But failing that the perfect moment slightly imperfect is better than the alternatives.
Click to expand...

I used to think that was a dilemma too, but the more I take photo's the less of a dilemma I find it. I now tend to just go with the perfect moment in whatever the conditions present themselves.
 
Well your shot is a cracker, I suppose you could have placed the child in the shade. I figure you didn't pose it

The thing about blown hi-lights, is that we would probably see the child like that with our eyes, so it doesn't look unnatural
 
joescrivens said:
She even mentions that in the book and that she is fine with blowing this kind of detail as it doesn't detract from the image in her opinion (and most importantly her customers). I've always thought the same...
Click to expand...

I haven't been taking photographs or reading talkphotography for very long, so I can't comment from experience or knowlege (only knowing what I like) but I agree with this as well.

I think the only people that are bothered by the kind of blown highlights as discussed in this thread are photographers.
 
I've no problem with hair blowing if the exposure if the face is okay, but blowing the skin is a no-no.
 
The23rdman said:
I've no problem with hair blowing if the exposure if the face is okay, but blowing the skin is a no-no.
Click to expand...

i probably generally agree with that comment, but i would imagine there are times i would be ok with it. case by case basis.
 
Richard King said:
Well your shot is a cracker, I suppose you could have placed the child in the shade. I figure you didn't pose it

The thing about blown hi-lights, is that we would probably see the child like that with our eyes, so it doesn't look unnatural
Click to expand...

no it wasn't posed, if i had more control i probably would position her differently and try and get her in the best position possible within the restrictions i had - i.e. how cooperative she was :)

i wouldn't deliberately choose to shoot her there where the full sun was hitting her head, but she was there and the result still worked.
 
i'll be honest and say that there are a few blown highlights in either pic.

i used to be really funny about things like that tbh, but then i heard a comment by another photographer (tamara lackey or bambi cantrell i think it was) and they said 'expression over perfection'. that made me stop being overly critical over things like blown highlights and concentrating more on the overall image. sure, if it's blown to hell and obviously unrecoverable in pp then it's never going to cut the mustard. but if it has a few imperfections that i can live with and 'm happy with the image as a whole then i'll keep it.

people get hung up on details, especially on forums where some people like talking about photography more than actually taking photos(this isn't a dig at anyone incase anyone gets on their high-horse). the fact is that audrey woulard takes a style of photograph that is obviously very popular with a lot of people.
 
Richard King said:
That's what I had pretty much figured, its in the main a formula. I also wondered if she was using some form of magnifying primer on the skin
Click to expand...

Audrey has said on her Facebook page she defo doesn't use any make up. So that's that theory out. :)
 
To be honest, that shot of Audrey's isn't (IMO) that spectacular, it's just well-processed and has decent lighting; shallow DoF helps isolate the subject and shooting in what i assume is open shade gives a more even feel that can be easily worked in software. Make-up - no so sure, just no major highlights to show off grease/sweat.

I can see the appeal.... nice viewpoint, even lighting and the catchlight in the eyes. Plus a bit of additional contrast makes them an outdoor version of a venture shoot. But it'sasy stuff to replicate.....
 
specialman said:
To be honest, that shot of Audrey's isn't (IMO) that spectacular, it's just well-processed and has decent lighting; shallow DoF helps isolate the subject and shooting in what i assume is open shade gives a more even feel that can be easily worked in software. Make-up - no so sure, just no major highlights to show off grease/sweat.

I can see the appeal.... nice viewpoint, even lighting and the catchlight in the eyes. Plus a bit of additional contrast makes them an outdoor version of a venture shoot. But it'sasy stuff to replicate.....
Click to expand...

It's certainly not easy to replicate or we'd all be earning hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.
 
specialman said:
More often than not, the photography is the easy part. The business side of things is where mere mortals fail.....
Click to expand...

A fair point, although pressing the shutter under certain conditions is one thing. Getting great poses and expressions etc at the right moment is a skill in itself
 
joescrivens said:
A fair point, although pressing the shutter under certain conditions is one thing. Getting great poses and expressions etc at the right moment is a skill in itself
Click to expand...

Without doubt, there is massive skill in that. But as we see so often in photography, the business-minded, no matter how good (or bad) they are behind the lens, they are generally the ones who succeed.

I had a quick flick through her blog and her images are well-executed (and very, very crisp) but I'm sure when compared against the wider market, they aren't any better or worse. It's solid photography that obviously appeals to a wide audience because it's not confrontational, avantgarde, or too polarising. I've never heard of her before and I'm sure she actually appears to be a bigger name than she actually is, simply because she runs seminars that cost a hell of a wedge.

Personally, I don't think you're too far off with your efforts. This is as good as anything I saw in the brief glance I had on her site, albeit a B&W image. Looking at what she does it's mainly about the light, something that's not constant across your shots. get that sorted and I don't think it'd be too hard to actually get the same shots in a sense.
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Personally, I don't think you're too far off with your efforts. This is as good as anything I saw in the brief glance I had on her site, albeit a B&W image. Looking at what she does it's mainly about the light, something that's not constant across your shots. get that sorted and I don't think it'd be too hard to actually get the same shots in a sense.
Click to expand...

I'm still finding my style, and I'm not looking to copy hers. I can understand that it's not for everyone, and sure I'm not saying she's the best photographer that ever lived or anything. I suppose when I see children and family portraits, I personally like her style more than anyone else I have seen and it's that very very crisp look that you mention that is what I want to get in my own shots.

I have some which have it, but like you said, getting it consistent across all my shots is what I need to work on. Mine can be all over the place. I need to work on developing a consistent style of my own.
 
Jo - once you bed into your own style people will book you for that alone. The business/marketing side of things is hugely important though and this is where people struggle the most. I like your style and I love the photo above (little girl with face painted), it captures her beautifully and that is what parents will buy into.
 
jeniveeev said:
Jo - once you bed into your own style people will book you for that alone. The business/marketing side of things is hugely important though and this is where people struggle the most. I like your style and I love the photo above (little girl with face painted), it captures her beautifully and that is what parents will buy into.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top