Stunning fashion photos on a shoestring budget

<p>Just thought I'd share this article Adorama just sent me, "Stunning fashion photos on a shoestring budget," featuring the Q...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.adorama.com/ALC/Article.aspx?alias=Stunning-fashion-photos-on-a-shoestring-budget">http://www.adorama.com/ALC/Article.aspx?alias=Stunning-fashion-photos-on-a-shoestring-budget</a></p>

<p>a la Hin, I'll say WARNING: Adorama is trying to sell stuff - but since I'm more about good results cheap and less about, "Look at all of this cool, expensive equipment I have," (and that seems to be a popular trait on this forum) I thought some here would find this interesting, regardless of the author's motives.</p>

<p>It will be more interesting if the model is prettier or Qutter (best spelling bee). And darn it, they shoot it with a camera that I curse with Pentax. That Q ain't cheap, you can have done it with a $100~$200 used *istD, DS, or similar and a $50 50mm with A aperture. Alright, you've got my attention! I especially like the small softbox from Flashpoint. I need to look into the use of beauty-dish as I saw someone DIY type of beauty dish. I don't know how to make one and for a moment, I think it will be hilariously funny with plumbing pipe and a 12" frying wok next to my kids' faces. I am clueless in terms of studio shooting -- please laugh and I won't hear you. <br /> <br />While the flash is inexpensive, I will prefer to pick my manual flash with both bounce and swivel of my choice as there are just too many good ones to choose from. I got two copies of Nikon SB25 and they have manual power setting down to 1/64 and I have purchased Cactus v5 and the combination work quite well for me for learning. But I should shame myself in not putting my inexpensive gear to good use. I have a messy home and no expensive gear will help me clean up my place for some fun studio setup. I am yet to get an umbrella set and reflector. <br /> <br />Thank you so much for the link and a kick for the next what-to-do at home studio fun. However pretty and Qutter that model and the results look from that Adorama page, I won't change my thinking about Q, not until Pentax/Ricoh drop down its Q price to a more reasonable and competitive price point.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree, everything here is budget but the Q, but it's interesting to see some quite nice looking shots from that dinky overpriced thing.<br /><br />Yeah, the model isn't all that cute either (although I think the skintones are quite facinating), but when you blow your budget on a Q, the Craigslist Model Agency is the best you can do... :o)</p>

<p>Somebody needs to increase the model's <em>food</em> budget. That's all I can say!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Somebody needs to increase the model's <em>food</em> budget. That's all I can say!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Definitely. give her a pie!</p>

<p>Is that model a real person, or a mannequin? Leaving out the size issues for a moment, that skin doesn't look real either. Is that the camera, or some sort of post processing?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Somebody needs to increase the model's <em>food</em> budget.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How much food do you think she can afford working for the CMA?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is that model a real person, or a mannequin?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly my point about the skin tones; I was asking myself the same questions...</p>

<p>stunning indeed :D)</p>

<p>Is this them trying to sell that Pentax Q thing as a portrait/fashion camera? Right, okay...</p>

<p>LOL at the pie comment :)</p>

<p>It's absurd. Absolute overkill with a $500 budget AND a new Q. Anyone starting with a film SLR, a 50mm lens, and a roll of Portra can do better. AND still come in under $500 gathering other cheap lighting stuff. </p>

<p>Mannequin, and pie, would blow the budget completely.</p>

<p>We should be talking about the technique used and not the subject (yes, she should eat something....), but I disagree that anyone with an camera could have done this. I know plenty of "photographers" that would completely fail at this technique. But any camera with adjustable settings could have taken this shot with nearly any flash. We could probably talk all day about different ways to achieve a similar look for less money: Bed sheets as a light modifier, anyone? My light setup is pretty inexpensive, but vastly better than the DIY types that I experimented with before (fyi, duct taping your bed sheets to the ceiling in front of a client looks unprofessional...). A few cheap flashes, a softbox, and a mini-dish could be a great place to start for someone that can drop the coin on it. I stick with my $7 Sunpaks and my $30 60" umbrella for my low-end needs. :-) The AlienBee and the stripbank can handle the big stuff, and even together they don't approach the $500 mark with the Heavy Duty stands and an arm.</p>

<p>I digress...</p>

<p><em>The point is this</em>: <strong>We know that this Q can do this one thing. Awesome.</strong> I didn't know that it was capable of it, and now I do. I like that 1/250th is still within flash sync. I wish it could do 1/500th (I'm not sure... can it do 1/500?) but that's just me and part of my technique that I find important. My K10 can only do 1/180th and I find that frustrating from time to time. CaNikons can often hit 1/250th and it's still not enough. I think the 645N and a LS lens are on the horizon for me. In any case, if I was in the market for a Mirrorless camera I'd probably still by the Fuji x100 at that price mark, but I'm not in that market...</p>

<p>As always, YMMV. :-)</p>

 

<p>Interesting article and some good info in there. I'd like to be able to do this kind of shot better. Or at all. I just don't have this kind of experience so it's good info for me! The breakdown of the lighting techniques is nice and I'll try some of those setups when I can.<br>

I still need an umbrella, beauty dish, and a backdrop in addition to some practice.<br>

The model seems grotesquely skinny to me as well, but I guess that isn't the point here. Poor girl...</p>

<p>I use Adorama Flashpoint BF-160s, which should have been mentioned in the article as they're another great bang-for-your-buck option.</p>