John G.

<p>Congrats Regan, on a nice, interesting job.</p> <p>I haven't done this kind of work in a while, but off the top of my head:</p> <p>How many total hours do you think you'll spend on this, 36?</p> <p>If you're comfortable with $4700., I would try to get it up into the high fives, and perhaps you should be looking at $8000.</p> <p>You might bill an extra day for the assistant, to cull and retouch the images; of course, if you have the time you can do it yourself but bill for the assist anyway.</p> <p>Re: the shoot: You might consider having two assistants, when I'm doing portrait / lifestyle shoots on several locations I need to keep my head clear and I don't want to be involved in moving equipment and arranging furniture. </p> <p>Towards that end, I would have a notebook full of thumbnail sketches and verbal scenarios to fire at the subjects, you'll need to keep moving and you'll be shooting a lot of images.</p> <p>For lifestyle it helps to have one assist for holding lights, reflectors, and arranging the set with another assist to wrangle and engage the subjects.</p> <p>If you keep the lifestyle stuff consistent you can make it look like it was all shot in one cooperative meeting, face left and right, interacting, and it can be laid out nicely on a page. Those were my biggest successes, anyway.</p> <p>good luck!</p> <p> </p>

<p>James, what you posted is interesting, but I'm thinking it's a little over the top.</p> <p>He's talking about less than a $1000 job.....</p> <p>You're putting in a half day just to do the estimate.</p> <p>I can't pick apart what you say, line by line, because I agree with most of it.</p> <p>But I might add that first, Julian has to know whether his bid is Competitive or Locked. If the client is definitely going to use him and just wants to know what it'll cost, that's very different from Julian having to bid against someone else.</p> <p>There's a lot of ways to squeeze a budget, I wouldn't use any of the ones you listed as bullet points.</p> <p>I think that the best way to secure a project like this is to show competency and experience at that type of photography. Let the client know that he's in 'good hands'. Julian is struggling with that as he doesn't have a decent place to shoot.</p> <p>There are a lot of things he could have done right from the get-go, he probably missed some of those, and certainly your suggestions are helpful, especially for the future where he'll have the paper work in hand for future jobs.</p> <p>I wish him luck, sounds like fun!</p>

<p>Whatever you charge I might suggest that you add expenses onto your bid, i.e., bill additionally for an assistant with an additional day of processing the images.<br> If the purses have straps, get your styling approved.<br> If the job seems overwhelming, or if you want to present a lower price, break the job down into two sessions. It's easier to sell.<br> Good luck!</p>

<p>Very interesting and thorough. Thank you.</p>

<p>I'm living in the past!!!</p> <p>From the last century again. When I was apprenticing weddings I was told something and it seemed to make sense at the time but I've never quite managed to wrap my head around it.</p> <p>I was told that when approaching doubles and group candids at the reception or even the Father/Daughter first dance, that if I thought that the background was too busy and distracting that I could switch to a wider angle lens and that would help diminish (I think that the word was "hide") the background better.</p> <p>I know that the guy who told me this wasn't pulling my leg but I don't remember ever putting it into practice. At this time, we're talking medium format, so I think that the switch would be from an 80mm to a 50mm.</p> <p>Can anyone here speculate on why and how this would work? I'm sure that it has some validity, I'd like to know how.</p> <p>Thanks.</p> <p>J.</p>

<p>Thanks David,</p> <p>Hi Everybody, John here again, doing some more contemplatin'....haha.</p> <p>I think that the links in this thread have shown that the terms Hi and Low Key were in use well before photography, but I'm thinking about how one would associate High Contrast lighting with High Key images and Low Contrast lighting with Low Key.</p> <p>I already told my story of hard lighting on high key subjects and I have another story and some more thoughts.</p> <p>First, as always, I think we have to differentiate terms as they apply to the Subject, Lighting, and Image. All terms will refer to something different when used to describe to any one of the three aspects. Think of Soft, Low Key, or High Contrast. I can easily use a Soft Light* on a High Contrast subject to produce a Low Key Image. It's done all the time.</p> <p>But I also see how a lighting master might associate High Key images with High Contrast Lighting. That's what my first story was about. It's an approach that Ethan apparently encountered in his pre-computer days. His feeling that the terms have been switched was a little awkward and I think we have set him straight, but let me go back to the pre-digital days and relate another story that will support the use of hard lighting in high key images and visa versa.</p> <p>In the late 80's (Jeeze..) I went to visit a fellow photographer in his studio. He was (is) a well known Still Life photographer, but self taught which made his approaches kind of weird. What he did mostly was to take one or two lights, move them around the set and with multiple pops (with the studio lights off obviously) he would build the lighting up around the subject. Add heavy diffusion filters on some of the pops and you end up with a Light Painting effect before any of those light wands became popular (what was that inventor's name, who started all that with the Harley Davidson calendars?). The images were of something that I had never been seen before.</p> <p>But aside from all that, he told me something about his approach to lighting that I never forgot. He said that first he evaluates his subjects on the set and decides how high or low contrast they are. If they are high contrast, like a bowl of blue berries on a oak background, he'll compensate with soft lights. Likewise, if the subject/set contrast is low, like white dinner ware on a white table cloth he'll go with hard lights. His purpose was to oppose the lighting to the subject in order to create a full range of tones in the finished image, which at that time meant 4x5 or 8x10 transparency film.</p> <p>I believe in full range prints. In the digital age today, we forget about how much work we used to do to match the contrast of the image to the printing medium. Remember the Zone System? I cringe when I see images that don't make use of the full potential of the medium (Steichen, I'm talking to you!). I always believed that there was a sweet spot to contrast, a place of optimum depth and dimensionality and I've always strived for that. Computers have made that goal so much more easily attainable. With Photoshop we can extend not only the end ranges of the image but even smaller sections if we want to.</p> <p>It's a whole new age and sometimes we forget what it was like. When I was learning photography I remember thinking that there was no book that could teach me all this. Now you can watch videos of the whole process. We were isolated within our specific trains of thought. The terms we use can vary a lot, especially amongst us older guys. I thank the Internet for getting us all on the same page, more or less, but the proof is still in the image. If your terminology and approach work for you, over and over again, then it's all good. Again, the proof is in the image, because implicit in the Original Post was that he still believes that High Ratio Lighting is good for High Key Images and visa versa, and if I haven't made it clear, I'm not inclined to disagree.</p> <p>Thanks for your time and interest.</p> <p>J.</p> <p>* I know that the OP Ethan was specifically talking about Lighting Ratios while I'm using the terms Hard and Soft Light (singular) because I think that for the sake of this discussion the principles carry through from a single main light to the ratios as well. Hard Lights usually produce High Contrast lighting, with their implicit strength, fall off, and directionality; while Soft Lights generally produce Lower Contrast lighting with their larger coverage, longer falloff, and softer edge shadowing.</p>

<p>Hi Ethan,<br /> I feel your pain, I have two of my own pet peeves about lighting terms here on the World Wide Web. At the risk of being off topic and verbose, here’s my spiel:</p> <p>Back in the days before the Internet, photographers were divided into schools defined by where you graduated, what you shot, or who you trained under. The terms you used were specific to a rather small group of photographers. The Internet has changed all that and I can't think of any other art form that's been so impacted.</p> <p>Overall, we have to acknowledge that terminology follows function, so if "key to fill" is how you look at lighting, so be it. You can find those who will agree with you, just not perhaps within four clicks of this web site.</p> <p>My own first peeve has to do with what I used to call a "kick" or "kicker" light. To me, that always meant an additional fill light placed near the lens that would 'kick' some fill light into the subject. (Primary fill lights near the lens were considered too simplistic and 'de classe".) It's very useful in shooting long series of catalog clothing where you might have very varied tones but want to maintain a consistent contrast. I was shocked to find out that the more commonly used term for it was that of a simple Rim Light.</p> <p>Personally, I haven't used the term high / low key since my black and white darkroom days. I'm much more interested in Overall and Local Contrast. Overall being the range of highlight to shadow over the entire image: subject and setting; and Local being the range of the subject alone. I approach any lighting this way and couldn't care less about high or low key. If my subject is light on white, then it's one thing, and if it's dark on dark, it's another. In more words, it's the last thing I consider. I do notice however that many people miss the boat on these white on white shots by missing deep shadow outlines. Perhaps here is where your terms have the most usefulness.</p> <p>My second pet peeve is the notion that placing a light closer to the subject decreases contrast. I believe that the opposite is true. At least for me, working with multiple lights on medium size sets of fairly reflective products, pushing a light forward always increases Overall and Local contrast. I live by it every day. If I want to flatten the lighting on a set I pull my lights back to light more overall. If I want more dramatics I push my lights in so they light more locally and specularly.</p> <p>Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. haha But I hear what you're saying. Good luck!</p> <p>J.<br /> ------------------<br /> Ok, it’s been a day since I wrote the post above, I had to find a computer that wouldn’t block me. Since then I’ve had some further thoughts on the subject and a story.</p> <p>Back in the last century I worked as a freelance commercial photographer at various studios. At this one place I and a few other photographers were shooting catalog for an international company, OK, I can say, Corning Ware. The shots were of their trademark white casseroles propped with various foods on oak toned table tops. White on light.</p> <p>Most of the photographers were opting for soft lighting; scrims and softboxes, but I was using a hard pan lights. The studio manager was walking around looking at everybody’s monitors and after looking all around he walked over, turned the music off and announced, “STOP! Everybody look at how John is lighting his set. I want everyone to light that way.”</p> <p>I was so proud of myself but of course I made no friends with that.</p> <p>More recently, when I was asked by a fellow photographer about how to approach a light on white image (or high key, we can say), I recall that I told him that there are two different approaches that will work. First is a soft light wherein you restrain all the range of tones within the middle and stretch the contrast in post processing. The second is to light hard and craft your lighting ratios and positions to reach a range from Specular Highlights to Max Black on your set while maintaining the shape and content of your subject.</p> <p>The goal of course being as full a range image as possible, keeping in mind that not all images contain max white or black.</p> <p>So, whatever that’s worth, I just wanted to revel in the memory. Haha I guess it’s six of one, half dozen of another. Whatever works for you.</p> <p>Thanks for hearing me out and good luck!</p> <p>J.</p>

<p>I think it's silly to discuss successful portraiture in terms of 'sharpness'. </p> <p>I'd sooner look for a Photographer to Subject connection.</p> <p>Assuming we're talking about Fine Art Portraits, I might evaluate quality on what a viewer says about the image. I am presenting the image for an audience after all.</p> <p>If someone looks at a portrait I did and says, "Who's that? Someone you know?"</p> <p>Then I can assume I failed because I haven't created something greater than my relationship to the viewer. They aren't seeing past me.</p> <p>Another test I might give it is to ask myself, "Will this photo have any value in fifty years?" If the answer is yes, then I have created something of lasting value. If not, not.</p> <p>Finally, if I really want an in-depth opinion of a portrait, I would ask a painter. Their frame of reference is limited only by imagination and they should be tougher critics.</p> <p>My 2cents anyway,</p> <p>Good Luck!</p> <p>J.</p>

<p>I'm a big advocate of planning out shots with layouts and thumbnail sketches. </p> <p>My background comes from doing Lifestyle photography where I'd have several models on a location with several hours of shooting. </p> <p>"Never run out of ideas" is my motto. </p> <p>While shooting models I have certain specific routines that I recite. One, for instance, for shooting executives is a long golf saga about a guy (never existed) who drags me out as a golfing partner, first in the snow and then another time when we got sprayed with herbicide from an airplane on the ninth green (none of it true). </p> <p>But that's only if I see some golf paraphernalia in the offices I'm shooting. Likewise, I watch the models getting ready to spot any gestures that I may be able to use in the shoot.</p> <p>For instance, if I am shooting a violinist, the first thing I'll have them do is play something so that I can see the dimensions and gestures that go along with that. Then I'll pick a composition and lighting.</p> <p>On the backend, I find that my best critics are painters because they can place their subject wherever they want on their background. They don't take excuses, like, "well, there was nothing there to fill that space". Either you have succeeded or you haven't.</p> <p>I think that all photographers should be able to sketch, even if it's cartoonish. You should have a clear vision of what you're going to get. </p> <p>When I've done exteriors in quantity I've planned to run through twice. Morning and afternoon, and then back again to pick up the ones that should have been shot with the sun on the other side.</p> <p>My two cents anyway, </p> <p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Here's my two cents, very briefly; an exercise:</p> <p>You must know someone with a good bike and appropriate clothes.</p> <p>Brainstorm and make sketches of what you can achieve and how you would approach the lighting. </p> <p>The sky is the limit, have at least 25 ideas.</p> <p>Order them into a shoot list and get ready.</p> <p>Have the lighting ready, bring in the subject, and start shooting.</p> <p>Don't stop, only briefly mess with the lights if you have to or have a helper. No chimping, no putting the<br> camera down.</p> <p>Only speak positive things.</p> <p>Demand that the subject put some effort into it as well. </p> <p>When you run out of steam, have the subject break and take five.</p> <p>Go over your shots on the computer and see what went on.</p> <p>Adjust your lights if you like, evaluate where the strongest shots are.</p> <p>Start all over again repeating the exact same shoot, or emphasize the strongest shots.</p> <p>Don't stop, trust yourself. People will do whatever you want for about five minutes, if you keep moving.</p> <p>Repeat as neccessary.</p> <p>Good luck!<br> J.</p> <p> </p>

<p>In the NE US, the blue fish start running.</p><div></div>

<p>The OP has not yet posted to the critique forum but on the off chance that he around I'll comment on his photos.</p> <p>His lighting equipment and placement is thoughtful and professional but the portfolio lacks in a couple of ways.</p> <p>As a matter of technical expertise, he doesn't show a mastery of skintones. Of all the varied subjects the skintones are all remarkably identical. </p> <p>As a matter of creative expertise, I'm surprised that a designer would not differentiate between "capturing a scene" and creating a innovative and fresh image. The compositions ares painfully boring. </p> <p>I would recommend that he improve his compositions by pre-visualizing and sketching out thumbnail compositions before he shoots, and he should reconsider how he approaches post processing in terms of the skintones.</p> <p>That said, I'd say, he is getting there. I wish him luck!</p> <p>J.</p>

<p>I use the dodge tool > midtones > 4% to lighten the roots and then the Clone stamp in Color Mode > unaligned to duplicate the blonde color.</p> <p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Here's a book that takes famous photographs from the negative, test prints with notes by the photographers and printers, to the final prints. Fascinating, and a favorite of mine.<br> http://www.amazon.com/Darkroom-Eleanor-Lewis/dp/091281019X/ref=sr_1_42?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400074084&sr=1-42&keywords=the+darkroom</p>

<p>Wynn Bullock</p>