brendan_turner1

Thanks so much.... that white tileboard looks cool. But I think the thing that clicked for me was the distance between

subject and background he keeps. I think I just need to go bigger instead of trying to fit it on a table. I'll try this out next

week and post some results.

Thanks again!

BT

Oh, and one small caveat: The images need to be shot in 15 minutes each, so black carding the edges for definition or

doing anything else for each bag is out of budget (stylists are expensive).

<p>I've been photographing and assisting on a lot of product shoots over the past three years, and there's one thing that I'm finding to be

completely elusive: The completely white shadowless background.

<p>I've tried tables, tents to varying degrees of success, but I still can't figure it out in camera and go right for my old friend Photoshop to

finish the job. There are certainly some objects that are easy to do, and depending on the angle of the shot, it is possible to raise the

subject off the background and get what I need in camera. But there are still some things that I can't ever get right: Shoes, shot on level,

as though along the ground, and handbags, shot on level.

<p>My question is this, looking at this <a href ="http://www.chromaphoto.com/bags.html" target="_blank"> lovely picture of a bag </a>,

can I

get the image on the right, without losing the nice shading and without the mechanical reflection (the client wanted that...) in camera.

<p>Check out www.prada.com and then shop for handbags online, they're only $1000.00 but they're shadowless on white, magic

handbags.

<p>I know I can just bump that background light up a touch to go white back there, no problem ( I don't because I close cut the image in

PS

anyway, so why be finicky) but if I underlight it, I lose the texture of that woven bit.

<p>Should I just shut up and deal with it? Send my pics to Brazil for retouching? Or am I just missing some basic principle that will make

my

life simple and meaningful for eternity?

<p>Thanks in advance for you time :)

<p>p.s. I have read <a href="http://www.photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00FykC">this post</a> and it's a great

explanation, but there's still a

shadow and it's not ground level.

Personally, I use music to inspire the shot (for fashion). I'll be listening to something and it'll

make me think of an image, or I'll think of an image, then think of the soundtrack for it.

Then I play that song (or group) at the set to get the model along the same track as I'm on

about the shot.

For portraits, ask the sitter to "bring some CD's or an iPod by if you like" If they don't... just

something instrumental and innocuous.

To clarify: Portraits shots, just retouching zits = 5 minutes.

Adding in multiple layered elements, heavy retouching and other effects intended to create

an artistic image = 6-7 hours.

MIke, my original post stands. but if you're using C1Pro, you might try to sharpen a bit

less.... maybe even use the "soft look" setting. And get your lights up higher, maybe use a

bounce and give your model a couple of drinks before hand ;)

Cheers Gerry,

I wasn't really screaming, just using Caps to emphasise where I feel one should put emphasis

in portrait work. Heaven knows I use a TON of photoshop. Sometimes up to 6 or 7 hours on a

single image. And I'm not saying it isn't fun. But I try to get everything in order before I get to

the computer, and really only use it on portraits to retouch zits.

But when all is said and done. You really need to forget about the gear and the effects and

focus all of your attention on getting the most out of the model... not your lights.

UM yeah. So... that guy is my new idol!

I have to get back to cropping product photos, but when I'm done, I'm spending the next

week studying him!!!

http://loisgreenfield.com/

enough said.

Buy a Digital SLR camera. Canon or Nikon... no practical difference. Don't buy a Sony-

pana-mino-hp-koda-crappy. You can't change lenses on most of them, and well they just

aren't really respectable cameras. (I can feel the burns comin my way, but you know I'm

right) Even a Nikon D50 (or 40?) or Canon Rebel whatever will be well worth the extra bit

of cash in the long run. Point and shoot's are NOT the way to go. You'll just be wasting

your money. Please trust me. IT's not worth it.

YES you NEED a hotshoe at the very least. That way you can get a thingy that allows you to

connect a PC cord via the shoe, or if you're really being snazzy, you can get radio remote

triggers for your strobes.

You don't really need to buy lights. Just find a decent inexpensive rental studio and use

theirs. Or if there isn't one near you, rent some different lights and modifiers(umbrellas,

soft boxes, etc... ) and learn well what you like before you spend the bucks. OR be like

Avedon and shoot outside on a seamless...

I LOVE the fact that most people are coming up with PS tricks to fix bad light.... makes me

laugh! Come one people, it might be digital, but it doesn't make up for a bad shot. Really.

First off, A nice big, close softbox will help... try at 45, or overhead.. either way, keep it a

fair bit higher than the way you shot it. It's way too low!

Use some shadow and stop trying to create even light.

Next, make her comfy. She's an older woman, she isn't 12. Think warm, cosy, wise.. .etc or

whatever words fit her, and build the setting around that. A more interesting, shaded

background would work as some have suggested.

Finally. If you want to shoot Portraits shoot PEOPLE.... NOT plastic photoshoped idealistic

visions of beauty that you saw in magazine.

In portraiture, you should work with PEOPLE NOT PHOTOSHOP!

I'm sure the nasty e-mails and hooplah were effective in getting the site down. But

this guy ROBBED you! He's still even got one of your photos up on his site.

I'd never want to see someone in financial ruin, but at the same time this guy could

have done serious harm to YOUR business and reputation. I'd sue him for your day

rate at the very least.

Anyway, not meaning to sound blood hungry, but what greater violation could be

enacted upon a photographer than to have their years and years of hard work copied

by some no talent hack who claims it as his own? I mean, that really is just about the

lowest.

So it's really a "way" of shooting, not just software that the phase one stuff brings into

the picture. I hear you about the batching for large jobs...it is "possible" to do that all

in photoshop, but it would be a fairly convoluted way of working (I know, I've done

very simillar things before).

So I guess I'd say that as workflow, I see the light(phase) :-)

Go to a BIG camera or theatre supply store and ask for a swatchbook of lighting gels.

these 1x2.5" samples or hundreds of lighting filters will contain a sample that

matches daylight to flourescent, or if it's mercury vapour lighting, you can come

close. The flourescent filter will be greenish in colour...TEAR IT OUT, then tape it over

your flash where the daylight coloured light comes out. The filter will make it match

flourescent lighting.

You may have to try a few swatches to get the right one.

IF the lights a mercury vapour...your SOL in a way. Mercury vapour lights shift colour

and brightness very rapidly...just take a sequence of an empty gym and you'll see it

when you replay the files in camera.

Photoshop:

Filter/liquify

or shift+controll+x

that's a good start for shrinking or growing things. As per a long face...shoot a

different angle maybe. Or select all then, edit/transform

The cameras are translating the RAW image sensor data in different ways. The canon

seems to be pumping the contrast and exposure values a bit more than the nikon.

You could make the nikon look like the canon in photoshop but not the other way

around...something to think about.

It might be interesting to do a test like this shooting RAW files and dealing with them

in a program like phase one's capture one pro (you can get a free trial on thir site)

The side of most Nikon speedlights have an x-sync terminal. You don't even have to

turn the speedlight on to use it. But it makes the thing a lot heavier...

Canon would work too, but no TTL. I have G3 and use it with the sc17 and an sb24

sometimes and it works fine. It's digital, so it's easy to test and adjust manual flash

very quickly.

I recently went down to a local commercial studio to look into assisting there. The

studio manager seemed very interested that I know capture one software for phase

one digital backs. I said I knew a bit (figuring I could check it out later and that it

must be a big deal thing). But when I downloaded the 30 day trial version I found

nothing more than a nicely done raw conversion tool with a few batch processing

bells and a nice image browser.

I understand it would be nice for a commercial photographer to shoot RAWs right into

a powermac G5, but when you use it for that, it's really just a fancy and extremely

expensive camera. So what's the big whoop? Is there something in this software that

makes it soooo cool? Anyone have any indispensable tools they use in the software?

Or is it really just a super expensive way to shoot super high res images?

Unless I'm really missing some hidden and secret contacts that only the Nikon

marketing department, it's accountants and super gear-geeks can see....the SC-17

I'm holding right here is just a hotshoe extension with a couple extra terminals on the

side and a telephone slinky cord that always tries to pull my portable light-stands

over.

That is to say..it's an extension cord that carries the signal of 4 contacts along a wire

and dumps them all at the other end....or at least it should be for the price I paid for

it. Unless it has more contacts that the D2h and SB-28 BOTH have, I can't see how the

SC-5000XT could be any better.

The L 358 also has a feature that displays the percentage of flash in proportion to

ambient light. Very useful. I loved mine untill I bought a D-100, then I stuck it

somewhere or another...

"Why aren't there more women of color, or other ages, or even bigger girls?"

Because the white male owned media has conspired against those people in an

attempt to repress them. It's a conspiracy and we are all victims.

Oh, and Alain, these are very nice for the second nude shoot you've done. Nice

posing, interesting light and composition in a number of them. The only critique

would be to loosen up a bit. She seems a bit "stiff" in the face in some shots, but

then, some people do just kind of have a stiff looking face.

John,

First of all, you're changing the image by writing this:

"These two pictures were moments captured at the recent Olympics held in Athens.

They are both dissimilar in the emotional moment they portray."

The text is subversive and adds too many more variables to what I'm seeing is a

simple query...if you want to test this, I'd think you'd have to present images and film

of the same moment without explanation to two seperate test audiences and have

them write explanations of the events depicted in which ever medium they are

looking at...then compare those for acuracy against the "truth".

If you're trying to get at the "qaulities" that film and photos have in the subjective

opinion of a bunch of photographers, I'm sure you'll get a slanted opinion here: we

are for the most part photographers.

Photos are easier to remember in detail than film.

Photos allow us to see a single moment...something we can not do in our "real"

experience of the world.

I'm sure there are more...

If it's a speaker at a podium in front of an audience, there should be enough light

already there to not use flash. But if there isn't light there, use flash, but don't go

crazy.

No one likes flashes bursting every two seconds. So don't do it. It's fairly gauche.