michaelmowery

<p>High key and low key is all about light ratio between main and fill. You can't have a low key without a certain level of ratio. High key can be done with one light or two with a very minimum ratio is any at all. <br> In the early days TV and film had difficulty with ratio lighting (low key) and they moved towards high key lighting which made lighting a set much faster and easier. today most all tv shows are shot high key. The movies have a mix of high and low key scenes. </p>

<p>All good Ethan! Please direct me to information that states what you are saying about the old terms High key to fill ratio meaning what is in today's terms to mean "low key" </p>

<p>Ok, so after reading what you wrote 4x I think I get what your saying. High key lighting to YOU means "High key to fill light ratio" Meaning more contrast. But if that is so then you are wrong. High key lighting has always meant and always will mean Low contrast between Key light and fill light producing more even soft light ratio. Low key will always mean higher contrast between the key and fill light producing a harder look and moodier feel</p>

<p>I did it was to wordy and confusing.</p>

<p>Hi key is however less ratio and a brighter happier picture and Low key is more contrast with a moodier look. I can't tell with your wording if you are the one who has it backwards.</p>

<p>Nothing has changed Ethan, High key and low key are still about key to fill ratios. The only thing that has changed is lack of knowledge with new photographers these days.</p>

<p>You can always tell the color of the back ground where the main light hits at the same plane of the subject. In this case you can see by the feet it is white. Also the light source has a soft and hard quality so it is both large and has a silver material.</p>

<p>Curves can adjust color </p>

<p>Now if you had to then make a slideshow or show pictures at the end of each day then that would be a different story. That is done with corporate executive vacation trips who hire photographers to do just that. That scenario is more demanding and a much higher pay rate. I personally would not do any processing on my personal time on the ship. Enjoy yourself with any free time you get.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I personally would do it for $10k plus my wife gets to come along. So if they wanted two photographers it would be $20k. But two photographers is not needed. I have done this before and it is not such a burden as some of you think. When you work you work but when you play you play. The client understands this.</p>

<p>You are free to take pictures on a ship but you just can start charging the passengers. You will not however be able to bring on studio lighting and umbrellas. Everything will have to be portable keeping safety a priority. This type of photography is not to be compared to wedding photography. There is no comparison. You can't charge by the hour in this type of scenario you have to come up with an average per day quote because your not going to be on a standard working schedule. This is a vacation for the client mind you. It is going to be a casual working relationship. The average person is not going to pay $3,800 per day on a 7 day cruise. Please let us now what the client chooses to do. </p>

<p>My advice would be to experiment. You have the luxury of not paying a professional for there time.</p>

<p>Ok so you are the client</p>

<p>I agree with Matt more info is required in order to direct you properly. You may be clueless as to what to do but your client I am sure has a clue to how they want there product to look. Unless you are the cient</p>

<p>$18,900 for the total rate charged to the client sounds great if you can get it. A client who requests two photographers on such a scenario should pay the given price. If not then I would consider a single photographer rate. I personally find it to be an excessive expense to hire two photographers in this senario unless the client is well off and can afford such expense. I am sure you have a gut feeling if this is such a client. You are basically saying you both want a $1,000 per day which is reasonable. So let your client know that and let them make the decision of one or two photographers on the boat.</p>

<p>I would also add that you and your partner would rotate in covering the events of the day giving each of you personal time to your self. Again I can't imagine the client being strict on your working performance given the scenario.</p>

<p>Expenses are always additional. That said I would say in this scenario you can't compare a regular wedding rate to this as we are talking 7 days of work which would qualify for a reduced rate, not to mention you are on a cruise ship. No one would expect 24 hour call of duty. a reasonable rate of 7 to 8 hours per day is in order. I have done a three day job on location with boarding and expenses included and found that it can be difficult to determine consecutive hours to be billable. You may have a few hours that are downtime but then an hour later you are called to work. You have to consider the whole scope of this senario and be prepared to take pictures at any hour if appropriate. Generally I would expect the client to be reasonable and accepting of you to enjoy your stay as well but ready to take a picture when necessary. Billing a flat rate per day that your happy with regardless of how many hours you may or may not work taking pictures is you best solution for everyone. Remember this is a guaranteed weeks work of pay which is not guaranteed in the wedding business. I personally found myself going above and beyond the call of duty in this type of senario which is to say the least a cool gig. I personally would not include a number of hours per day in your contract as this is hard to calculate in this type of senario. I would just say you will cover each day of events.</p>

<p>I would first give them a quote before I would invest energy and lawyer fees in writing up a contract. They are paying $3,800 already for the wedding back home do you really feel they will pay an additional minimum $7k to 10k for your fees for the 7day cruise? This is not a barter.</p>

<p>The westcott has a hard line on the open end compared to the above picture of a Mathews which is the Movie industry standard. Anyways the white silk is not applicable in this senario where you want to cut the intensity of light. White silk diffuses the light.</p>

<p>It's called an open end scrim which is exactly what I used.</p>

<p>as such</p><div></div>

<p>For one you don't use a hair light. From there you simply light it just like any other shot. Now if for some reason you want to draw attention away from a bald head then you control your lighting so less light hits the bald head or you can tone it down in photoshop.</p>

<p>Same idea with one light. Raise it up until you don't see it. The best solution is to set the lights however you want and take one shot without glasses. use Photoshop in post</p>

<p>I have to agree, if you are considering going down the road of Wedding photography business you must first have a second camera body before anything else. You have enough lenses to do the job. They may not be the best suited for a given situation but they will get you by until you have money to replace or add. This is not a cheap business venture to invest in. All the more why we need to charge for our work. Good or bad.</p>

<p>You don't have a good working zoom lens for your candids thats why I suggest 24-70. You should have that lens on a camera with flash ready to go at a moments notice. Your second body can be used to be creative with all your primes. Your wide angle zoom is too wide to be used for your candids</p>