Jump to content

marcinwuu

Members
  • Posts

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Software: Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.3.9600.17415;
  2. <p>So, after a bit of research I got through to the photog who took that photo. His name's Rasmus Linaa, and he's a Danish fashion photographer. You can see his work here, it's well worth a look if I do say so myself: http://www.rasmuslinaa.com/<br> The model's name is Fie Fenneberg.<br> No relation to Avedon.<br> I asked the photographer, and he said the photo was shot with 85mm.<br> So much for the secret photo voodoo techniques, eh? </p>
  3. <p>There's no way the first one was shot with 35mm.</p>
  4. <p>I think it started somewhere around forties, or maybe a tad bit before that - with the early hollywood style, heavily retouched skin. The main difference being, back then you'd use pencil over the negative, while today a tablet over the photoshop does the trick faster and better.</p>
  5. <p>"Don't move now or I'll kill you." Works like a charm.</p>
  6. <p>Thanks a lot.<br> Should've figured this out by myself by the way, must be the age chipping away at the gray cells...</p>
  7. <p>Hit them with lots of rimlights. Preferably barebulb. Rimlights work great on baldies, give them powerful look, great for executive type.</p> <p><img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img538/6844/hYB53W.jpg" alt="" width="569" height="850" /></p> <p> </p>
  8. <p>Does anyone know what's the actual focal distance the disposable QuickSnap is set to?</p>
  9. <p>Dial the exposure down it's horribly overexposed.<br> This shot:<br> <img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img37/5811/dsc05123y.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Was made using single softbox (of exactly the same size as yours - 60x60cm), no reflector, white backdrop, white walls, in a room about 2x3m in size, with a softbox almost to the face of model. If the shadows are too deep, use reflector for fill. Use the othe light for rimlight instead of reflecting it from the wall. In such a small room you'll have plenty of fill from light reflected off the walls anyway. Like here:<br> <img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img266/6217/dsc05675editediteditedi.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Same room, same softbox, but with reflector just under the girl and extra hairlight from the left (barebulb).<br> Also, you DO want to postprocess, and very much so. There's a limit of what you can do in the camera, and the cheaper the set the more limiting the limit.</p>
  10. <blockquote> <p>For one you don't use a hair light.</p> </blockquote> <p>This one piqued me interest. I mean, obviously in the absence of said hair you wouldn't call it hair light, but some rimlights would certainly be ok, especially if the gentelman in question has a shapely skull?</p>
  11. <p>the 1/30 sync time is definitely going to be a problem, especially if you want to get some of that lovely shallow dof.</p>
  12. <p>To get a good eyes on the photo, you need to:<br /> - have a model with big bright eyes, possibly with an interesting texture of iris<br /> - have a lot of constant light directly into model's eyes (to make their irises to contract)<br /> - make a shot that puts emphasis on eyes, i.e. makes them prominent part of the image. And no, it doesn't matter a single bit whether it's shot from above, or below, or from the side of the model, so long as the eyes are the key point of your image<br /> - do some simple postprocess - enhancing contrast and clarity, pumping up the vibrance. Don't overdo it - as a side note I have to say the level of plastic-android-skin on the examples above make my skin crawl in a not good sort of way.<br /> Here's a simple headshot to illustrate:<br /> <img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img911/6904/0KoXk3.jpg" alt="" /></p>
  13. <p>Hey, thanks for the input everyone, sorry I've been absent - had a crazy month.<br> I did some testing with the Bowens Fresnel 200, which is pretty much the same as the mentioned above Profoto one. I used to shoot with a homemade fresnel before, but it was very hard to use, due to it's McGyver type construction. Anyways, this thing is very interesting - certainly nothing like snoot, and nothing like PAR/barndoors combo that I use almost everyday for my portraits. More control over the beam, and yes, it's softer than snoot and spills much less. A bit on the big side, as far as light modifiers go. I'll certainly give it a proper go at the nearest gig.</p><div></div>
  14. <p>A quick question to studio photographers. Do you use fresnels on your strobes? I mean proper fresnels, not the silly things that come built in into hotshoe mounted flashes?<br> And if so, then could you show me examples of your fresnel-lit work?</p>
×
×
  • Create New...