jpbarilguerard

So I recently bought some studio equipment, and I thought I'd try my

hand at fashion photography. I don't know many models yet, so I used

my sister for the purpose. Heh. I didn't have a make-up artist nor a

stylist on hand, so bear with me here.

 

I feel like I could have done better, still: the shots look more like

bad taste than fashion to me, but I'll let you guys judge. I guess

I'll learn with time.

And I want to say thank you guys for all the great advice I got when I

asked about equipment. I suppose I'll be pestering you for lighting

advice now.

 

Here's the very first shot, from a 5-minute session improvised when my

sister's friend had a moment to spare.

While I have never tried it myself (I went with Photoshop - it's truly worth the price, if you have the money for it), I have heard several positive comments about the Gimp. It's free and open-source, and seems to feature the Curves tool, among many others.

 

<a href="http://www.gimp.org">Click here.</a>

If the results are the same when focusing at infinity, then I guess we're getting screwed! Heh.

 

This isn't a completely new discovery, but it's interesting to see nonetheless. I think a recent review on the front page on photo.net compares similar zooms at the same focal lengths and notices the same effect: a slight difference in field of view. The difference isn't as noticeable, though.

My settings vary a lot according to what I do, but generally, when I shoot JPG (which doesn't happen that often), I leave Saturation at +1, use the White Wedding Curve (or whatever the new name is, I know they changed it), Sharpening at +1 and leave the rest untouched.

 

I suggest "bracketing" a scene at different settings to find what suits your taste.

Not that I mean to sound cynical, but I think the era of classics is over. I doubt we'll see any piece of photo equipment released around today still in use fifteen years from now.

 

I'm sorry, I have nothing relevant to say about the Vivitar 283, though. Heh!

That's right, I'm browsing 'round Adorama and eBay right now. I'll let you guys know how it goes. In another thread, maybe. ;)

I decided to drop a light in order to get more important accessories; I'll order it if I really need it later on. I ended up ordering:

 

- Two B-800s

- 5-in-1 Reflector Kit

- Boom Arm Attachment

- 2 Alien Bees Carrying Bags

- Set of 20 color gels

- Large softbox

- Backlight stand

- 2 Heavy Duty Stands

- Light stand carrying case

- Reflector kit mounting arm

- Bulldog clips

- Sync hardwire kit

- Four honeycomb grids

 

I'm also getting a Polaris flash meter off rizcamera.com. I actually wanted to order the Sekonic model suggested at first, but Adorama didn't have it in stock. The SafeSync I'm ordering off Adorama.

 

Robert, tell your wife I'm really sorry. It's my fault.

Thanks a lot, everyone! Everything's ordered and should be here soon. I'll let you guys know how it goes.

I finally broke down and decided to build my home studio, mostly to

have some fun, but I'm justifying the expense by telling myself

there's a demand for studio photographers in my area. After doing my

homework, I chose to go with Alien Bees, as everyone seems to have

those things and they seem to work pretty well. My main camera is a

Nikon D70 with the kit lens and a 85/1.8D; since the latter is a bit

long, I'll probably buy a 50mm, and maybe a 35 later if I need to go

wider. The main purpose of the studio will be individual portraiture,

with maybe a couple small group shots from time to time.

 

I gave myself a 2000 CAD$ budget for the lighting equipment, which I

feel is already more than enough. Here's a list of what I'm thinking

about buying:

 

AlienBees B400-Deep Space Black $224.95

 

AlienBees B800-Deep Space Black x2 $559.90

 

5-in-1 Reflector Kit $69.95

 

Set of 20 Color Gels $48.95

 

Set of 6 Gel Holders $17.95

 

Hot Shoe Adapter $14.95

 

Backlight Stand $24.95

 

10-foot General Purpose Stand $39.95

 

13-foot Heavy Duty Stand $69.95

 

Set 0f 6 Neutral Density Filters $21.95

 

Reflector Kit Mounting Arm $29.95

 

Giant Softbox (with LGSR) $139.95

 

48? Shoot-Thru Umbrella x2 $59.90

 

Unit Mainframe $54.95

 

Total with shipping: $1378.25 (that's about 1656.42

CAD$ as of 12/31/04)

 

Everything looks fine to me, except I'm not too sure about the light

stands: should I drop the backlight stand and get a regular one

instead? Should I get three heavy duty stands instead of the regular

ones? Is there anything else important I've omitted?

 

I'm somewhat confused with the backdrops too. How large a backdrop do

I really need? What are the best backdrop support systems? I've looked

at several, but a particular Savage model interested me. It's about 90

USD$ and allows free vertical and horizontal adjustments.

(http://www.adorama.com/BMSSPV.html) Does anyone have any experience

with that particular model or opinions on background stands in

general? I was thinking about buying three plain muslins: one white,

one black and one amber. I may get a velours background later on, as I

really like the texture.

 

If you have any other relevant comments about the project, feel free

to ramble. I'm trying my best to get the most information to avoid

screwing up. Thanks!

Edwin, the first image is a 100% crop from a RAW file, so it's shot at full resolution. (3008x2000)

 

The second was downsized from a RAW file, also.

Here's a full-frame shot, because I can't let myself post a 100% crop alone. ;)<div></div>

I don't own that much Nikon, as I've made the switch from Minolta to get the D70. I currently own the kit lens in question and a 85/1.8 which is wonderful for tight headshots. When I want something a little shorter, I use the zoom.

 

I shoot mostly portraits, and so far, I'm satisfied with the performance of the lens. It's a bit soft wide open, but it's sharp enough for 13x19 prints if shot between f5.6 and f11. It fits my needs; it may not fit yours.

 

Before buying another lens because this one is called a poor performer, I'd suggest trying it out in situations where you plan to use it and drawing your own conclusions. You said you were going to make a few prints yourself; you can use the results as a starting point for your evaluation. Chances are you'll find the lens is more than adequate for most uses, especially considering its price.<div></div>

Diffusing the flash can help, but the best way to avoid pimples is usually make-up. ;)

 

You may also want to try and move the flash around, if your system lets you do that. A diffused, higher-positioned flash may help attenuating acne.

Another vote for Picasa, at least for organizing snapshots and the like. It can batch resize for the web without too much hassle, the interface is easy to use and importing is really intuitive.

 

"Serious" shots I organize by myself, in a folder structure, and archive every month. I guess some softwares could accelerate the process, but I'm content with my workflow right now.

After looking at at more closely, it's obviously more above than behind. Heh. Still, I can't make out exactly what is where. I'm thinking above and on the left and right... but I'm not quite sure.

<a href="http://www.deviantart.com/view/10972521/">In Utero</a>

 

The light source seems perfectly positioned behind the subject, yet

perfectly invisible. A well-placed, wall-mounted flash, maybe?

 

But the most confusing aspect is the subject. Assuming this was taken

from a normal point of view, with the photgrapher facing the subject,

the guy would have to jump. Do you think this is humanly possible?

 

I'm amazed. And curious.

 

Don't forget to check the rest of the guy's gallery, he is an

incredible photographer.

P.-S.: You'll find that the Soft, Regular and sometimes Enlarged versions of the Grain filter generally look best. The others can produce interesting results in some situations, but for general use, I recommend those three the most.

Some people have suggested using Channel Mixer; that is the most common practice and I used it until recently. Another interesting technique I've found for balancing the tones in a black and white image is during the RAW conversion. I slide the Saturation to -100 and use the options in the Calibrate tab (Individual Hue and Saturation options for each channel) to get the desired tone. It's a bit more intuitive and, I feel, more precise than using Channel Mixer.

 

Additionally, you may want to take a look at the Grain filter. While it certainly will never replace my good old TMZ 3200 (which, by the way, I still shoot very regularly), with a bit of practice you'll be able to get something close the traditional feel of a black and white print. I also found that the D70's grain at 1600 looks superb in black and white.

 

Happy shooting and/or post-processing!

So today, I was outside with my model, shooting incessantly. All was

well... until I realized I'd left the exposure compensation at +2.5!

 

The images I'd shot looked actually rather fine in the LCD, and even

better on the screen, so I decided to keep them.

 

I guess this is the kind of foolish luck that leads to great shots.

(Plus, I guess I might repeat this technique in the future.)

 

Do you guys have any stylish overexposed portraits to show off? I'd

love to see how people have used it.

I don't know if it's just me, but PS seems to conserve the data of the last RAW conversion settings for each file. That way, you can re-output the same JPG or TIFF from a given RAW file over and over again with the same results.

 

What I do is shoot RAW only, then output to a a JPG with very minimal compression. If I feel I really need the TIFF, I just go back to the RAW file, get it processed again and save it as a TIFF.

I'll go with the crowd and say Photoshop CS as well.

 

I sort my pictures by folders and subfolders. The general idea is this: year/month/day - subject. In the individual "day - subject" folders, I make one Completed folder, where I save the processed RAW files as full-resolution, low-compression JPGs, and one Originals folder, where I move the corresponding RAW files.

 

So my workflow is this: I copy the RAW files to the generic "day - subject" folder, then view the files individually in File Browser, process them (sometimes in batch), save them, move the RAW files one by one until I'm done and/or I'm out of coffee.

If you want to try a few black and white shots, I'd sugget trying out a 3200 film. The grit of Kodak TMZ 3200 developped in Rodinal is incredibly stylish and may add a lot to the general feel of the picture, if you're into very grainy pictures. Ilford's Delta 3200 is somewhat less grainy, if you prefer that.

 

Couple that with a fairly fast (something like 2.8 or faster) and long enough (50mm is a bit wide if you're shooting individual dancers; 85-105mm would be ideal) lens and you're in business. My choice lens in this situation would be the Nikkor 85/1.8. (I've never tried the 1.4, but everyone says it's real sweet too.)

I'm big on portraits, and I have only positive comments about the lens. I use it with my D70 most of the time, and it seems to be a perfect match. The hexagonal bokeh can look rather ugly indeed, but it is incredibly stylish in certain situations. It's a flaw that you can turn into an asset, once you learn to master the lens.<div></div>

My general-use film is Kodak TMZ P3200 developped in Rodinal. I mostly use B&W for street, environmental portraits and the random creative shot that pops up in my head, so I love grainy, somewhat gritty appearance. I know a lot of people can't stand the grain, but I guess it all comes down to what you prefer.

 

If I want something less grainy, I tend to lean towards HP5+.