mona_chrome

one of the best places to check on these things is KEH.com. If they don't have one listed, they will over time. You can also check the used prices and Calumet Photo and BH, but I find their prices are high retail and not always realistic.

It could be a fresnel light, but it isn't on if it is--There are some made that use flash tubes tho I have never seen one that looks like that.

 

It actually has a feeling of being a wind machine, but that seems odd for a portrait of the first lady.

they should fit, just be sure that the locking collar is in the open position.

I have seen some very fragile bellows, so just be careful of that. I will generally just take mine off the camera and open it and blow air thru it--canned air--and into the seams. I have also found that using a vacuum with a small brush can be effective--of course, go slow and be sure to handle it with care, but it should not cause you any problem.

Sorry to get back so late, but, yes, my experience is that the laptops are not as saturated. As I said, however, I use a monaco/pulse calibrator and the problem persists--still haven't gone back to try the 2.2 gamma tho.

 

With regards to your posted photo, I think I understood what you were going for, and posting to the web does seem to hurt many things--some more than others.

 

If you have a good printer, and profiles for your paper and know how to color manage your output, then I would compare your prints to your monitor to see where they are coming out. I am certainly not suggesting that the printer is the best thing to calibrate to, however, it will give you indications as to how your monitor is seeing things versus what they actually are. You just have to be sure that you really know what you are doing with the color management of the output.

Guido, I also went and looked at the two images you posted on my CRT across the room--on a G5Mac and calibrated to 1.8 gamma and still find the same result, the PC version is more natural looking while the Mac version is more orange.

 

And just to explain the 2.2 calibration on my new LCD versus the 1.8. Being rather stubborn about the 1.8 and not liking, as noted by you and others above, the 2.2, I calibrated at 1.8 and compared it to my CRT and prints I had made. The results were not very good and I really considered returning the monitor. Remembering my tech guys comment about 2.2, I recalibrated and compared--other than having to get used to how bright the LCD is, it was very good and even with the extra brightness, there was more detail in the highlights than with the CRT(a very good CRT)and more like what I get in prints. Since I haven't used the laptop for imaging since I calibrated the LCD, I just haven't gotten back to trying 2.2 on my Macbook Pro.

On the discussion of the gamma, there are a couple of things to be aware of. The setting of your monitor calibration is NOT the gamma of your image!! AdobeRGB and sRGB are both 2.2 gamma profiles (colorspaces). So, programs like photoshop do compensate for the difference between the monitor calibration and the profile of the image-these have no relation to each other.

 

As to the macs, the powerbooks-not sure which you have (age etc), will never calibrate as well as a good freestanding monitor. I have had 3 different Mac laptops(writing this from the current top of the line Macbook pro) and would never consider using this color for anything other than ballparking it. My older ibook was even less accurate(saturated).

 

As to the calibration gamma, I have always used the 1.8 Mac standard, but recently bought a Mac LCD for my tower and found that the 2.2 gamma gave better overall results--just seemed to calibrate more accurately.(I use an Optix on all of my computers, but actually found that the built in monitor calibration software works pretty well on the Macs!) On my CRT, I was always happier with the 1.8 gamma. I only tried the 2.2 on the LCD because my tech guy said that the LCD's should be done that way--he was right. (I haven't yet, but I may try the 2.2 on the laptop to see if it improves it)

 

Now, looking at your two images, on my Mac tower system, the PC version does seem to be more natural, while the Mac version had an unreal, oversaturated red where the face transitions from light to dark. Overall, the Mac version is just more orange, again, probably caused by saturation(remember that saturation can be affected by levels, curves and overall brightness, not just the saturation adjustments). This is what I would expect if I were doing "fine" color on the Mac Laptop. (On my Macbook Pro, I still prefer the more natural look of your PC version, altho the Mac version is toned down a bit) I shoot on the road for a client that does not accompany me on the shoots. I send back digital images that I finalize on my laptop and, when I get home and view these on my tower system, I am always appalled at how over saturated the images are(done on the ibook). I think that is the main difference between the laptop screen and a good calibrated monitor. You might want to add an external monitor to your laptop or find a way to modify your images that are done on the laptop--or seeing if a 2.2 gamma calibration works better for you.

Not sure how much snow is up there now, but it might be difficult to get around.

 

I found lots of stuff between there and Glenwood Springs. It is just great country and I recommend exploring and then you can report back to us on what you found!! I was doing a job, photography, for a client and wasn't looking for the tourist type places, but just shooting the landscape. (oh, and I didn't travel between the two on the highway. I traveled the route thru Granby, Kremming and State Line--essentially a dirt road a lot of the way and only on HWY 70 where I had to be.

I have been shooting with White Lightning, professionally, since 1990 and have absolutely no complaints about the lights or the service. I am still using some of the original lights with the original flash tubes--and they are very economical to replace, in any case.

 

I also have a Hensel Porty system and recently tried to replace my batteries and Hensel was totally unresponsive to my supplier. After 3 months of this and apparently other problems, the supplier said they terminated their distributorship with Hensel. I only know what they said and will be trying to replace the batteries thru BH or Samy's in LA. If you can, call Samy's and see if they are getting good service from Hensel--that would be my only concern with that system.

The only problem I had was getting Newton Rings due to the glass surfaces being in contact.(Assumes you are scanning on a flatbed)

 

I recommend two things. First, lay your plate, emulsion down, on the flatbed and then use something to slightly raise the lightsource so it is not in contact with the glass plate. If you still get newton rings, then I suggest that you shim up the emulsion side of the plate off the lower glass of the scanner--even a piece of office injet paper will be enough along all of the edges, just eliminate the contact of the glass surfaces--both sides.

 

My flatbed seemed to be fine with the emulsion side in contact with the lower glass. Yours might need shimming up for both the newton rings and focus, as most flatbeds require the image surface to be slightly raised--you just have to test this.

I have done interiors for years with a zone vi wood field camera. I use lenses down to 75mm with a bag bellows. The main thing you need is a wide lens and a bag bellows. If you have to use recessed lensboards, you will complicate your life. Also, beware of view camera backs that will actually cut off the image long before you run out of movement. Some just set the ground glass so deep and don't bevel the back interior--you lose a lot of practical movement.

 

A monorail camera is sometimes better than a field camera, but like I said, I have used the field camera while I have had the monorail collecting dust. I just find it more fun to work with--I do this for a living. I do remember standing in the middle of a major airport, on a ladder and using a 9 foot tripod and having a photographer come by and say " I never thought I would ever see anyone shooting architecture with a wood field camera", but then, I am used to not being conventional!

Black will probably insure that you will rarely go into your new studio--it is way too depressing! My studio is fairly large, but I had a dark green and dark brown on a wall close to my shooting area and never had any color spill, in fact, after one shoot, I had a bright yellow wall that I didn't paint over for several months with no problem. My ceiling and other walls were all white, which I used frequently for creating "ambient light" on some sets, but only by actually shooting lights into the ceiling(13ft) or walls.

 

Your light control might also be a factor. If you are shooting thru white umbrellas, then the walls and ceiling(taller the better) will become a factor, whereas using grids on your lights or a softbox will diminish the extraneous bounce--a low ceiling-8 or 9 foot- might be your biggest issue here!

 

I don't know what you shoot-tabletop, people or ?, but that might also be a factor. If your door is in the middle of the length of the room, you might consider having the ends different--one dark and neutral and one white. Paint is fairly cheap and you might go with a pleasing, but muted color first and then adjust if you are having issues--do tests.

 

So, really, every studio and use is different and requires a different approach to make it useful for your way of shooting. Just make it a pleasant and comfortable place to be or you will find it never gets used!

One thing to consider in your insurance requests, especially when not getting it thru a photo organization like ASMP, APA or PPA etc, is whether the coverage includes off premises insurance(it's called Marine insurance, I believe-don't let the name confuse you). So many commercial insurers think you, like the metal fabricator, keep your equipment on-site and never go on location. Be sure to specifically ask about this and whether it is replacement cost insurance or not!

 

As to getting insurance, the various photo organizations usually have specially negotiated rates that save you more than their membership fee if you have any significant amounts of equipment. I converted to an APA policy several years ago and later, went back to my old carrier to get a competitive quote. I found that the quote was over $1000 more for the equipment and 1/2 the liability coverage. Also, a few other coverages in the APA policy were omitted.

 

Just do some homework and also consider using your insured status as a marketing strategy. Since many shooters don't have liability insurance, raising it as a selling point for you brings it into the awareness of your potential clients, who will be left holding the bag(liability) if something happens on their job! I say this because even tho I work with very large clients and ad agencies, I am rarely asked if I have insurance nor is there a clause in the contract regarding having it. This leads me to believe that this is an issue that is outside of their awareness and bringing it to light could give you a competitive advantage.

These inks just suck! Sorry, even if you get a good print, they will "gas" out over time and

shift within a month or so. I wasted hundreds of dollars of inks and paper on portfolios with

this ink. The problems are substantial with B/W prints and less seen in color prints.

 

I changed over to Lyson inks for this printer and problem went away and no gassing over

time. But, you need to have a way to profile for your papers as the inks are substantially

different. And, the inks are about 1/10th the cost if you buy in bulk.

Marc's comment is a serious problem for those of us who make a living doing this. I have

posted my own reasons why one should, and needs to remain anonymous on these public

sites-now gone, but this one is a major one. If you were to search my name, real name,

on google, you get about 10 pages of stuff where I have been published or whatever, all

good stuff for my clients and prospective clients. If you added all the comments I have

posted here, totally irrelevant to a new client, it would be laborious and not productive for

me in my business. There is no credibility in a forum comment like there is in a reference

to a feature you shot for a national magazine. You can't expect a reputable photographer

to want the trail to her/his website to be obscured by irrelevant references--thanks Marc

for bringing up yet another reason for using an alias on this site or any other of a similar

nature.

The fault with the premise above is that many photos do not warrant a critique. In art school,

you have your students critique each others work, or if you go outside, the work of exhibiting

artists. There would be few people on PN that would/could garner any attention from an art/

photography school. That is not to denegrate the work here, but as a teacher, you don't want

a hit and miss experience, you want something you know will have substance and value.

Go to KEH.com for pricing, it is all getting so cheap! I have both systems 503's and H2

instead of H1 and I don't know if there are any issues with the H1 to be aware of, but it

would be much more like using a 35mm--and I love the camera and the lenses are

sharper than the 500 lenses, IMO.

 

the 500 back numbers are designating the number of exposures per roll. Stay away from

the 32 backs. that is for 220 film and, as with the 16 back are 645 format not square 6x6,

the natural format of that camera--The H1 is a 645 camera. Anyway, I think 220 film will

go before the 120 film for the 12 back, and even pro labs can have problems with its

development--those I know that use it and process it themselves have learned to swear

very eloquently! The film is much thinner than 120 film and does not lay as flat in the

scanner or enlarger.

 

to calculate your lens choices, simply, just divide the focal lengths above by 2 for a rough

35mm equivalent.

 

Good Luck.

We all know the problem, film is not as, or even, profitable anymore. With certain specialty

films, such as this, I am sure Kodak is really thinking that you can shoot regular Portra if you

want to shoot film, scan it--which many do now--and it really doesn't matter if it was shot in

tungsten or not, it is easily balanced electronically--I do it all the time for clients. And it can

even be fixed in the darkroom if you are "nostalgic" as Phil puts it!

 

Now chrome film is a different story and set of problems!

Eyes are truly expressive, but some great portraits never actually showed the eyes. You can't

ever expect to do great work and have any preconceptions, you then miss the moments of

true insight and beauty. Learn to "see" what is there.

Interesting that you have an MFA and are writing this--now I don't feel so bad that by BFA

son, whose college was a fortune, doesn't always get what art is either.

 

The biggest problem with "art" is that people think it should be defined within their own

taste. What makes art is not just beauty, but thought, committment and vision, otherwise,

just like this weeks POW, it becomes just decorative. Maybe you want decorative, most

corporations actually do. But I was just in a hospital that had its walls lined with the most

insipid landscape photographs I have had to look at in awhile.

 

Your grass stuff may not be of quality, I don't know, it is hard to say without seeing it. I

once had an art consultant bring in a graphic to hang in our corporate offices--a

healthcare organizaion--on looking at it, I started to laugh and ask if he was serious. He

looked at me and said "what do you mean" The title was EV 100 and, although he didn't,

most saw the Excited Vagina! Of course, one of the guys immediately snapped it up for

his office.

 

Anyway, my point is that you will always lose in picking art, I am no longer in the

corporate world as an indirect result of doing the art placement for 75000 square feet of

office space--long story. Try to get it pushed off onto someone else or at least the

decision--maybe your art director--and distance yourself if you value your career!!!!!

That doesn't look awful, except the girls aren't all looking out like they should.

 

Try getting really low, even laying down and shooting upside down, so you can get more

separation.

Photoshop uses a lot of scratch disk it seems. I run a G5 and CS2 with 2 gigs of ram,

total, and it is generally fine--how big are your files? I work on some that go over a gb

and those will be slow on some things, but generally, no problem.

 

Anyway, I use my primary drive as the scratch disk and keep the image files on an

external. The internal drive does not go to sleep as much, it seems, so less of a liklihood

of that bogging me down. I then set various drives, largest open space drives, as the

second, third and fourth options.

 

I assume you know the mechanics of setting the target drives for scratch?

Ok, I am not Jeff, but maybe this will be of some help.

 

You need to go sit down with them and get some feedback as to where they are coming

from--you might give them a cd or contact sheets and, in their heads, they think they can

do whatever they want--get it straight up front and get some prices established. It

doesn't have to be a lot of money, or maybe even any, just get your agreement up front as

to what they can do with the photos, and what they cannot and what the compensation for

those rights will be--be professional about it and they should respect that. Also, you

wont get yourself in the quagmire I have seen so many times with these loosy goosy

arrangements, where everyone feels used and bitter.

 

Also, don't second guess what they will like, if you have doubts, take a few samples of the

old work to the meeting--maybe they will surprise you!

There are several ways to get the effect, each slightly different. In this case, there has

been an incredible amount of ambient light created from the background lights. The

white seamless has been lit, overall, probably 1-2 stops or so over it's white point, causing

some of the flare you are seeing at the body edges--not the left of the frame, but

elsewhere. On the left of frame there is a low light source which could either be a softbox

or just a very hot light into more seamless or a large silk that is left of the set--a

particularly wide seamless--10 foot or so, will give off a lot of extra ambient light by the

way--more than the normal rolls. I would almost guess it is a light bounced off the

background by the nature of it--I have lit a whole scene in this way--bounced off the floor

seemless only. He could also be shooting on a syc that turns a corner--a lot easier to get

this effect in an eggshell! The front light is all reflected light--this is, again easier in a

studio with a wrap-around syc, but can be done with large silks surrounding the models.

This reflected light is why you don't see any shadows or direction, other than from the low

left light, as the front light is so broad and soft. I would also assume the floor is white

here--out in front of them quite a ways.

DOF preview is nice and if you are really experienced you might miss having it. The fact is

that you can use the lens markings, i assume they still have them, to check hyperfocal length

to see if things will be in focus and it is more accurate than DOF in most cases--sometimes it

gets so dark that it is hard to really see anyway. I don't know the $$ difference, but if it is

not much and you are worried about it, upgrade--the worst thing is to not feel confident in

your equipment.