Ultra wide angle nudes?

Ultra wide angle nudes?

22 posts
18 Oct 2013
wonderer
Photographer
wonderer
So I have an art nude shoot tomorrow and the model asked for some standard nude shots. Im not a great fan of naked for nakeds sake so thought I would try some ultra wide angle nude shots to put a bit of a more creative spin on it. I have the Sigma 10-20mm and am going to give it a whirl tomorrow. I have seen some great examples of glamour and nudes with an ultra wide angle lens but wanted to know if anyone has done this and if so what tips you could give me?
Also if anyone has any examples please do share
Posted 18 Oct 2013
Andy_B
Photographer
Andy_B
Two initial comments would be:

- If the model is trading her time for images and she wants 'standard nude shots' then you need to shoot to her expectations since that's the deal you've made. TF* is not 'free time to shoot what I want'.

- While I think wide angle nudes could be a worthwhile and interesting exercise, if you shoot with a lens as short as 10mm you're likely to end up shooting from much closer than you usually would. Unless she's up for you shooting from a foot away, this may not end well.

Posted 18 Oct 2013
wonderer
Photographer
wonderer
Andy_B

Two initial comments would be: - If the model is trading her time for images and she wants 'standard nude shots' then you need to shoot to her expectations since that's the deal you've made. TF* is not 'free time to shoot what I want'. - While I think wide angle nudes could be a worthwhile and interesting exercise, if you shoot with a lens as short as 10mm you're likely to end up shooting from much closer than you usually would. Unless she's up for you shooting from a foot away, this may not end well.


I have spoken with the model and she likes the idea. I have thought about the closeness issue. I was hoping to tripod it from a high viewpoint shooting down or beanbag shooting up. Was trying to get he wide angle look while minimising a negative distortion on the body if at all possible.


Posted 18 Oct 2013
w4pictures
Photographer
w4pictures
All of the above and that wide angle distortion is seldom flattering. The only thing I can think is the a very low angle of a standing model makes the legs look long. Be prepared to photoshop out light fittings etc.

Posted 18 Oct 2013
JeromeRazoir
Photographer
JeromeRazoir
Look at work by Bill Brandt. THE doyen (whatever one of those is) of W/A nudes.

Posted 18 Oct 2013
frankpht
Photographer
frankpht
Well shooting down on a model with an ultra wide angle is not going to flatter at all. Plus you'll have to avoid the tripod legs unless you're using a boom arm. Still no harm in trying things out but tripods and bean bags I'd leave them out.

Posted 19 Oct 2013
dominicdgt
Photographer
dominicdgt
The nude can be an aspect to the photo, the wide composition allowing much more of the scenery to fill the frame with the model giving it interest, you don't have to get in close to fill the frame with huge ratios of flesh, The 10-20mm will allow you to do this without having to get too far back.

Avoid too many architectural verticals though and hopefully any distortion wont be overly evident, once you've got a good composition I'd bracket the capture by moving the camera up/down and trying to zoom in to 15mm-20mm as its likely to give you a better/less distorted images. It can be difficult to judge which images are giving best results on the back of the camera, so covering a few options worth the effort.

Dominic

Posted 19 Oct 2013
profilepictures
Photographer
profilepictu..
It can give you an interesting perspective I think, just spend some time checking that the distortion works foor you (and the model)
Posted 19 Oct 2013
JeromeRazoir
Photographer
JeromeRazoir
W/A does not entirely fit the bill, here.
The trouble is that there is difference between W/A and fish-eye. Focal length alone will not tell you how much distortion you will get. Bill Brandt used 28mm. lenses in the early 60's when that was a fish eye length.

Distortion from focal length and distortion from angle of shot and closeness are closely related but are diufferent.

Posted 19 Oct 2013
profilepictures
Photographer
profilepictu..
Fair point, for the the record, the above is a 15mm sigma on full frame, with a 16-35 I seldom note much distortion really unless you're crazy close, and that can be corrected out with post anyway.

Posted 19 Oct 2013
RupertRudd
Photographer
RupertRudd
Not a lot to add other than I love my Sigma 10-20 and it will perform differently on a Full Frame sensor to a Cropped one.
Would be very interested in seeing some results.

Posted 19 Oct 2013
BrazenDivas
Photographer
BrazenDivas
w4pictures
All of the above and that wide angle distortion is seldom flattering. The only thing I can think is the a very low angle of a standing model makes the legs look long. Be prepared to photoshop out light fittings etc.
Excellent advice!
Posted 19 Oct 2013
JeromeRazoir
Photographer
JeromeRazoir
May I suggest that it is an error to assume that the purpose of a photograph is to flatter? That the model does not feel flattered by a photograph does not mean it is not a good photograph and that it is not saying what it set out to say.

I have just tried Googling Bill Brandt and am very disappointed at how little visual material there is. His estate clearly have things very well tied up.

Posted 20 Oct 2013
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
JeromeRazoir
May I suggest that it is an error to assume that the purpose of a photograph is to flatter? That the model does not feel flattered by a photograph does not mean it is not a good photograph and that it is not saying what it set out to say. I have just tried Googling Bill Brandt and am very disappointed at how little visual material there is. His estate clearly have things very well tied up.
It is an error to assume that 'the brief' for a photoshoot can be ignored - the model's requirements of 'standard nude shots' is what it should set out to say. That is the point people are making about the results being likely to be unflattering.
Posted 20 Oct 2013
DorsetHammer
Photographer
DorsetHammer
JeromeRazoir

May I suggest that it is an error to assume that the purpose of a photograph is to flatter? That the model does not feel flattered by a photograph does not mean it is not a good photograph and that it is not saying what it set out to say. I have just tried Googling Bill Brandt and am very disappointed at how little visual material there is. His estate clearly have things very well tied up.


The Bill Brandt Archive has 128 nudes online, I'd say that was a pretty good representation of the man's work.


Posted 20 Oct 2013
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join