nello

It can definitely be done.

 

1. You CAN do it AND have plenty of fun.

2. You CAN get amazing results.

3. You CAN use ettl or manual (with canon)and both are useful -depending upon your shooting situation. (Want fast? Use ettl. Want accuracy? Put it in manual.)

4. You'll have instant portability

 

However:

 

4. You won't have as much power -which can limit you. (You can get away with small brolly/umbrella boxes. But large soft boxes...)

5. Your money might go further by investing in more traditional forms of studio lights. (3 580s will easily put you over $1000.00. That'll buy you normans, alien bees, or even used profoto)

Turn OFF the ettl metering and shoot in "manual canon wireless mode". Then you can use strobes w/ optical triggers.

 

Of course you completely lose ettl.

Using flash will never make a lens go "grainy." Sounds like what you're really having are exposure issues -a common problem with flash photography.

The US dollar is getting weaker.

Or find another 420. And set it to group "C" which is intended for background lighting.

Also, if you want to see cutting edge fashion photography, try these magazines:

 

Flaunt, W, Surface, Pop, Nylon, Numero, V, and Italian Vogue.

 

Elle is great, and I worship Gilles Bensimon but American Elle can sometimes be a little too vanilla icecream. That goes for most American fashion mags available at walmart.

Good Fashion photography is NOT about selling the clothes. Rather, its about selling the "Fantasy". This is the essential difference between Catalog work and Art. But there is a difference!

Take a look at Helmut Newton's "White Women." Yes, the clothes are a part of the process. But what Newton does is that he builds a world of fantasy. He captures an aesthetic and a mood. He was NOT doing product shots. Guy Bourdin, Melvin Sokolsky, these guys created images full of fantasy. Their work was about chic idealism, style, and posture. It was about Attitude! Sometimes you couldn't even see the clothes, but it didn't matter -just so long as you realized that St. Laurent, La croix, and Chanel made clothes for the elite and the beautiful. Heck, Abercrombie & Fitch loves to put naked young models in its ads (and yet there are plenty of people buying their clothes)... Pick up W magazine and look at the Dior, Hermes and Vuitton campaigns. Look at the Marc Jacobs campaign that Jeurgen Teller did. Look at the Gucci campaign with a topless Paris Hilton with a python. The Sicily Campaigns of a pink poodle with redeye... In all, there isn't one single answer to your question, but the heart of Fashion photography is selling an Aesthetic and an Attitude. And the greatest fashion photographers were the ones that could deliver it.

Well I wouldn't really wear Alexander Mcqueen, but he's still one of the absolute darlings of the fashion world. I wouldn't wear anything couture, or Karl Lagerfeld... I wouldn't listen to John Galiano for advice, or Betsey Johnson, or Gaultier.... Still these people are Giants of the industry. And so I disagree with you: Fashion simply isn't based upon what you would wear or not wear(or not buy). And it certainly isn't based on the opinions of the Average Joe. To the contrary, I would say it operates in a large part in spite of the opinions of 'ol Average Joe. Realize that there's high fashion, low fashion, urban fashion, couture fashion, etc. etc.... It doesn't all fit under a black plastic umbrella.

I think the Canon flash system is great, but like everything in life good results take practice! In this case, the Strength of the system is also its Weakness: TTL metering (E-TTL etc.)

 

Readings via TTL will vary from shot to shot (as per slight changes in camera position, model adjustment, outside lightsources, change in the way shadows fall, etc.) Accordingly, flash output will vary as the camera sees fit to adjust. Rather, a system based on a changing variable will give you variable results.

 

You could set the flash to manual, on the other hand. You'd loose the convenience of multi-flash TTL but you'd gain consistency in flash output. (Yet still have the portability and easy setup vs.

"heavier duty equipment").

Here, go nuts:

 

www.ModelMayhem.com

 

www.Net-Model.com

 

www.Musecube.com

 

www.OneModelPlace.com

 

 

Try a search next time. There are several threads on this. Or even google around.

There is a flashwork link around here that will explain everything...

 

The master fires a "pre-flash" first. The preflash is a means of communication between master and slaves. FYI preflash does not calculate into exposure. (Its a burst of light so quick that you can barely notice it.) Following the "preflash" is the "exposure flash" which DOES weigh in on exposure. All the flashes fire at the same time during the "exposure flash."

 

High-speed-sync works via a rapid burst firing of the flash. I liken it to a machine gun... The flash shoots off a quick burst of flashes during the time your shutter (accordingly at a high speed) is open (hence the name High-speed-sync). The trade off is that the flash power in high-speed-sync is weaker than a normal single flash burst.

 

Trivia/rumor: Canon uses a "preflash" system of communication between masters and slaves. This is in large part due to the fact that devices that emit radio signals have to go through a certain regulations process before they can be legally sold. Hence, it was cheaper/more convenient for canon to use a system based on flashes of light.

I haven't been following the prices on these things, but if the 60 costs as much as the 100, then I believe that's becuase the starting price of new lenses always starts high and then drops. The price of the 60 will drop eventually to settle in at a lower price point. This is how companies are able to "drain" the most amount of money from the market.

 

I agree that the 60 should have been EF. But a 60 EF would RUIN the market for the 50 EF. Thusly, by making a 60 EF-s Canon has maintained an opportunity to sell a photographer 3 lenses instead of 2.

Thanks! Yeah, these shots were all done with stylists and make-up artists. The photo in question, was taken at a club in New York. Strangely, the building was originally a church, but it was bought and turned into a night club. This shot was part of some promotional work for a fashion show that was held there. I had free reign to use the club as a backdrop. The girl's name is Carlotta, and she's from Brazil...

The "W" shoot with Natalie Portman was done by Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott. They work as a team on their shoots, and together were recently ranked as #13 in American Photo's "100 most important people in photography" isue. I was surprised as well as I initially thought it was a Paolo Roversi shoot.

I have to agree with Mike Dixon who I respect. I will say that I do like your pictures (the blonde and the boy are the best for sure) but I will say that they could use a bit more "umpf." That comes with practice, but I suggest you make good friends with a make-up artist and a stylist.

<a href="http://www.theacrobatssociety.com/indexApple.html">Here's a look at my fashion work... </a>

I have the March/April 2002 issue of picture magazine, with Jeurgen Teller cover of Stephanie Seymour lying prone in a forest. Lucky I saw your post...

Here's an excerpt from the interview:

 

What cameras are you using?: "All my cameras are 35mm. I like the Olympus O-product, the Contax T2, and the Leica M6."

 

What do you think about the Contax T3? "I don't even know about that. John, have you heard of the Contax T3? He hasn't heard of it either. We're not so technical. Maybe I should write that down."

 

(The "John" is his assistant, I think.)

That means that he's doing on camera flash. You can pretty much tell by the way the pictures are lit. Juergen has good stuff here and there, but his technique can be overwhelmingly awful. I bought his book "Marchenstuberl" and I can definitely say that its not my favorite photography book (doesn't look like his Marc Jacobs ads really). His ads are more polished (of course) than his personal stuff, which can be too sentimental, with poor choice of subject, and awful technique.

 

If you like Jeurgen, and Richardson, you might enjoy taking a look at the book "Lapdancer" by Juliana Beasley. She was an assistant of Annie Leibovitz, but by this book you woudn't know it. Much better than Jeurgen's stuff. And Terryworld is great too, so check that out.

 

So...

 

The good: It doesn't take much effort or cash to match Juergen/Richardson's work on a technical basis. (Juergen doesn't need a Leica/Contax to get that look. He uses them so people take him seriously).

 

The bad: Juergen/Richardson make frequent use of celebrities to "elevate" their work above their horrible camera technique.

(And BTW, their work draws tons of criticism and hatred because of it.) So unless you know Angelina Jolie...

 

The ugly: Richardson and Beasley overcome the "point&shoot" dullness by using outrageous subject matter.

 

Hope that helps and good luck.

There are tons of models (and I'm talking high fashion) who are underage. You'd be surprised. Lataetia Casta was scouted at the age of 15 (Literally while making sand castles at a beach..) She soon was doing french ELLE magazine, and Guess ad campaigns definitely before she was 18. I've also had the privelage to have known a few models (not as big as Lataetia Casta, but who've been in major magazines like Cosmopolitan) and they were all scouted at similar ages -before finishing highschool in other words. The flip side is that by their mid-twenties -these girls are considered to be too old. Of course, girls that make superstar status are an exception to this rule (Tyra banks, Naomi Cambell, Cindy Crawford, etc.) but they represent a small percentage of the girls out there.

 

That being said...

Unless you shoot for Elle magazine I'd advise most photographers to generally avoid underage models. It certainly is the Safest thing to do. If you must shoot an underage model, then get a model release form signed by the parent and the "child." It should clearly state that the parent in present is a legal guardian. It should also say that the model was never forced into poses, and that she was never forced into wearing (or not wearing) particular clothes/outfits. Have them also give you photo-copies of ID.

The statement was "misleading" in that it could easily be misconstrued to mean that the strengths of the 100m2.8 as a macro lens render it inferior as a portrait/general purpose lens. We agree that such a conclusion would be wrong. Which, of course, does not mean your statement was "wrong". But rather one that could be taken the wrong way. i.e. one that benefits from clarification...

 

BTW, I have tried the 100 f2. But I prefer the Macro as a portrait lens. Give me 30 minutes, Lataetia Casta, and my choice between EF 100s, I'd bring the 100m2.8 hands down. Admittedly, it has a lot to do with personal preference. But otherwise you can't go wrong with any of these lenses.

I'll add that the 100 macro is my favorite portrait lens. Its one amazing SOB. Certainly I love my 85, 135, and 200 but the 100macro is one I will always whip out. To say that it has ONE PRIMARY PURPOSE is misleading...

 

http://www.theacrobatssociety.com/indexApple.html

 

If you're curious, try this link to see my 85 and 100macro workflow.

How do you shoot candid portraits with a studio flash? (chortle chortle...)

 

Go for the 100 if you're shooting alot indoors, as you might find the 135 too long. Keep in mind that if you're shooting both lenses at 2.8, the 135 will need more light in order to get shutter speeds fast enough for hand holding.

Hello! I've browsed through the archives and didn't see the answer so...

 

I am considering between these two ring flashes (canon vs sigma) to use as

a wireless master in a studio set-up. As I understand it, the Canon splits the

ring into seperate groups (A and B) automatically. Thus, use of ratio control in

the Canon automatically splits the ring flash into seperate groups.

 

However, I saw on the B&H site that the Sigma has four channels.

 

Does anyone know how ratio control in the Sigma compares to the Canon?

 

Ultimately, I'm tryin to create a set up where the entire ring flash is group A,

and my 550/420ex slaves are group B. I don't want my ring flash split into

seperate groups -and yet, I want to do wireless ratios. Anyone know if this is

possible?

 

Thanks in advance

Contrary to your misinterpretation, David didn't say that he was SURPRISED

to find sexual content. Rather, he's included a "caveat" -thus warning those

who are curious about but unfamiliar with the book and/or Helmut Newton.

I've got the Sigma on a 1.6 dslr and various film bodies. My dad has the

Canon on a film body. I haven't done in depth head-to-head comparisons, but

I'd say that I prefer the Sigma for optical performance. F1.8 performance is

very respectable for a wide. The sigma's colors have more pop and the lens

seems sharper overall. Also for the price, the Sigma comes with a nice

padded case and petal lens hood. On the downside, the lens is huge -but this

is a fair trade off for the performance it delivers. Also on the downside are its

large diameter (expensive filters) and its two-step clutch mechanism for

controlling auto vs manual focus (a bit annoying). However, on the upside for

canon are its small size (more portable), smaller diameter (cheaper filters)

and worry-free compatibility. Still, overall I prefer the Sigma (FYI: I generally

only use prime lenses, all of which are Canon except for the Sigma). Its a

great lens with great optical performance and can hold its own against Canon

primes like the 20, 24, 35, and 50(1.8).

Say what you will about the merits of Eye Control Focus, DO optics, replacement of the FD mount, prolific DSLR production, etc. Their worth to you is subjective and can be debated untill you're blue in the face. But the point is that Canon takes a PROGRESSIVE stance toward camera technology. They believe in promoting new technologies, and have historically taken stands to support new technology (regardless of the merits of that technology). Nikon has historically been more conservative in its approach. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

However, I do happen to believe that the "digital world" and its "citizens" by nature align themselves towards the progressive approach -as opposed to the "film world" which could sustain both conservative and progressive approaches. In the "film world" something old could still be good. In the "digital world" however, something old is invariably regarded as something "bad". By nature, digital photogs like technology. And thus they (we) will always be lured by it and will always prefer more of it.

 

Bob is 100% right in saying that Nikon has their work cut out for them....

But Canon has always had a progressive technology stance (eye controlled

focus, liberal use of image stabilization in its lineup, DO optics, complete

change in lens mount from the FD to the EOS...and now its prolific attitude

with DSLR lines) while Nikon on the other hand has always been

conservative in its approach.

 

Just like politics some people like Progressive and some people like

Conservative. There are strong points and minus points for each approach.

Some might argue, however, that the world of digital cameras benefits from a

progressive approach more so than the world of film cameras...

 

I for one hope Nikon can put out a 20D competitor soon. The trend with

Canon so far has been to release a new prosumer camera every 1 - 1.5 years

(D30, D60, 10D, D20). This trend would predict Canon to have a 20D

replacement sometime between this Christmas and PMA feb2006.