Danica Patrick needs a Photographer

[Fish]

I understand the problem, having actually worked under those conditions for clients on deadline and budget. Here is the deal, Danica is only available on a specific day for maybe (maybe) 4 hours. At least half of that is spent in makeup, so you have two hours and you live with the sun God gives you. It was severely overcast, may have been raining for part of the session, and they hauled out some lights and did the best they could with what is easily the whitest of the white girls (in a white swimsuit??)

It's pretty uninspiring stuff (I have no idea what the stylist was thinking leaving that God awful wrist watch on Danica's arm), Danica was obvious "thrilled" to be there (in her defense, she has been more than willing to "take one for the team", doing these stupid promo's for CART), so you get what you get. It would probably have been better to shoot her around her car(s) and at the track, but she probably would not sit still for that (at some point there is just too much cheese on this baloney!). It was obviously rushed (and you can see the weather), so you get boring sand, water, and a pissed Danica checking her watch ("Is this over yet? I gotta go!") This is real life for professional photographers, life goes on.

This happened several years ago when SI did their first body paint issue, where they painted suits on the girls. The opening shot was stunning, but after that almost every picture was grainy, boring and lit like a bad catalog. Same problem, the girls spent hours (many hours) getting painted and then they had to be shot immediately ("People, people, it's overcast and raining... just don't touch yourself and come back tomorrow" ....Uhhh, no.) When the sun and weather don't cooperate, you get what you get. (Worst was one girl featured in the "How we did it" part of the story in that issue, she didn't even get one picture in the main spread!)

So before you think you could do better, just imagine what it's like to be on a rainy beach with a woman who is used to swapping paint going into a corner at 230 miles an hour with guys who would have made Earnhardt flinch (and is not a happy camper), and with an art director and talent agent who are screaming "we have to get this shot, NOW!" That's when you pull on your boots and live with the mantra of every real professional..."Great moments in photography, cashing the check".

Been there, done that.

Fish

[Eric E]

Did you flip through all of the photos? There are over 40 shots there with some under gray cloud cover, some in bright sun, and some during sunset. She wasn't just "there for 2 hours of shooting" judging by what I can guesstimate from the change in lighting and cloud cover.

I don't think that any of us have said that we could do better, but I know I've said that I don't care for Ben Watts' shooting style. His photos don't hold my interest, and SI's apparent lack of post-processing doesn't help matters. Maybe all of the elements were working against him, again, we don't know the full story, but, to me, it looks indicative of the other work I've now seen by him.

Just my 2¢.

[Fish]

Everything in all the pictures is consistant with my statements. Two hours is being generous. Weather was tough, and even though there may have been a temporary break in the clouds, there is nothing to indicate things were other than what I said. Of 44 photos, maybe six had any sun, and in one series with one suit (39-41) she goes from direct sun to absolutely no sun wearing the same suit. The question is not "could I have done better?" But rather, why did someone at that level produce work that is so obviously pedestrian? I stand by my observations. The other indication they had problems is the issue of sand around her when she is laying down. Clearly in several (as in several way too many) the sand had not been manicured with a broom or rake (absolutely done on a shoot at this level). All of this indicates to me they just ran out and shot quickly.

FYI, this is what a sunset looks like in Florida. Your mileage may differ in Texas.



Fish

[Eric E]

Thanks for the feedback. That's interesting info.

[jestersncourt]

So, do we as photographers have the ability to say "oh well, you get what you get"? Should we put out mediocre images because we are in a hurry? Is that acceptable when working for a client? If you accept an assignment, should you come prepared for the worst and hope for the best, meaning having all your lighting equipment available to shoot properly on the beach when weather not cooperating?

Jeff

[jimmyd]

Originally Posted by lsc1

I'm guessing he's related to the art director in some way.

Nepotism in the higher-ranks of the photo biz? Say it ain't so!

[lsc1]

Originally Posted by Fish

Everything in all the pictures is consistant with my statements. Two hours is being generous. Weather was tough, and even though there may have been a temporary break in the clouds, there is nothing to indicate things were other than what I said. Of 44 photos, maybe six had any sun, and in one series with one suit (39-41) she goes from direct sun to absolutely no sun wearing the same suit. The question is not "could I have done better?" But rather, why did someone at that level produce work that is so obviously pedestrian? I stand by my observations. The other indication they had problems is the issue of sand around her when she is laying down. Clearly in several (as in several way too many) the sand had not been manicured with a broom or rake (absolutely done on a shoot at this level). All of this indicates to me they just ran out and shot quickly.

FYI, this is what a sunset looks like in Florida. Your mileage may differ in Texas.

Fish

Originally Posted by jestersncourt

So, do we as photographers have the ability to say "oh well, you get what you get"? Should we put out mediocre images because we are in a hurry? Is that acceptable when working for a client? If you accept an assignment, should you come prepared for the worst and hope for the best, meaning having all your lighting equipment available to shoot properly on the beach when weather not cooperating?

Jeff

Fish, I definitely respect your point of view as a real working professional photographer. You obviously lived the experience and have the scars to prove it. I will say that while I picked on the Danica spread, there were many other models and sets where the lighting wasn't up to what I've come to view as professional and well done.

And Jeff, I don't think Fish is promoting mediocrity but I do think he's trying to give those of us who have never done a professional shoot with a celebrity a little insight from experience and I welcome the POV.

One of the things I'm amazed at is that they would take a fair skinned "model" like Danica and put her in WHITE suits. I guess that shows that the Art Director and stylist were the beginning of the problem. Add to those bad choices a photographer whose style is... well what it is... and uncooperative weather and you have a lot of underwhelming magazine space.

Anybody else notice many of the posted images in various model sets had soft eyes (not sharp). I mean they don't always have to be sharp but I think this bears out the comments that very little PP was done or these could have been better.

I guess I'm up to $.04 now, I better stop.

Cheers,

[jimmyd]

Originally Posted by jestersncourt

So, do we as photographers have the ability to say "oh well, you get what you get"? Should we put out mediocre images because we are in a hurry? Is that acceptable when working for a client? If you accept an assignment, should you come prepared for the worst and hope for the best, meaning having all your lighting equipment available to shoot properly on the beach when weather not cooperating?

Jeff

Some of you seem to like some of the images I sometimes post. (Hmm... a lotta some[s] in that sentence.) Often, after spending one or two hours in makeup and hair, I get 20 to 30 minutes to shoot with a model. From my 20 or 30 minutes, they expect a DVD cover that will "sell" the DVD, marketing-worthy stuff for posters and ads, and a pictorial they can sell to someone from a large "B" and "C" list of girlie mags whose publishers occasionally DO give a sh_t about quality.

Fish is right. Time is your enemy on many shoots. The environment is your enemy. Other people are your enemies. Given a plethora of circumstances that are so often working against you, the shooter, it's a wonder that a few good images occasionally and magically result.

None of this is meant to excuse mediocrity--or maybe it is--but it's the reality of how things do down: Things that sometimes get in the way of making exceptional and engaging pics.

[Fish]

It should also be noted that the majority of the pictures on the site were not taken by Ben Watts, but by an assistant working from a bad angle and who obviously did not have access to the lighting equipment. Only the first 19 shots are credited to Ben Watts, and I guess he did the best he could under the circumstances. Again, why are they shooting Danica Patrick in the first place, who cares? She's a race car driver and a damn good one (and moderately attractive), but a model she's not.

Time is one issue, and bad luck with the weather, but a bigger issue is SI falling into the black hole of our celebrity driven culture. We see this all the time now with the US fashion magazines putting aging actresses, putzy music "stars", and questionable "celebrities" on the covers.

The increasingly irrelevant Fish

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

As sort of an overview perspective of what everyone has been saying, I think we can all empathise with the environment not cooperating with a shoot. Many of us have been there. But, in looking over the photos shot, it appears to me that many of them could have been improved quite a bit by some fairly elementary post processing. I almost get the feeling that very little post processing was done. Certainly poor contrast or blah skin tones can be fixed up in PS with any of several good filter systems (such as CEP). Slightly soft eyes can be tweaked (or tricks such as the soft sharp techniques that I've talked about in the past can be used). So the question is why did the SI artistic team not go the extra mile and do some creative post processing?
Cheers,
rfs