navarro

<p>I have often submitted either TIFF or JPG files, always at the maximum resolution the image was shot in. Usually, when they ask for a CMYK file, I'm able to convince them to let me send an RGB (really, it's their production department's responsibility to convert images to CMYK based on their press specifications) but one magazine I worked for frequently gave me their conversion specs and as a courtesy, I always sent them CMYK.<br>

If I'm delivering the images on a disk, or uploading them to an FTP site, file size in those cases is not an issue...so I use TIFF. If they've requested images to be e-mailed, I'll usually use JPEG to save file size.<br>

Compression: A JPEG file is <em>always</em> compressed, so to say "don't compress your JPEG" is an oxymoron. Just don't use <em>too much</em> compression...even at the maximum quality setting (maximum quality=minimum compression=largest file), you'll save plenty of file size. Stock photography is routinely delivered as JPEG, and it works fine for publication.<br>

Resizing: The maximum resolution of your camera is plenty big enough to fill a magazine page. Unless they're doing some heavy cropping, they won't be making your image larger, they'll be making it smaller. You don't really need to worry about quality reduction for any reason, when the images are being shrunk.<br>

Never give them your PSD file, and never give them your raw file...there is no reason at all for them to need either.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>OK, but all photos have the same post process</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's <em>no way</em> you can know that... it's conceivable that he "twiddles the knobs" for each picture independently, and stops twiddling when his eye tells him to. It's his eye that is the judge, and that's why his portfolio has a consistent look...<em>not</em> because he applies particular settings to each image.</p>

<p>Well, John's shots are very well lit, too....nice examples of dynamic, hard lighting that complements the subject quite nicely.</p>

<p>However, I would in no way spend so much as a split second wondering if they were shot in sunlight. If we placed a cloudy sky behind John's models, it would be a very unbelievable effect. The fall-off is simply too apparent.</p>

<p>By contrast, the H&M shoot is a very convincing illusion. The studio they're using is huge...and they're <em>using</em> all that space. The difference in intensity from her head to toe could not be more than a 1/10 of a stop.</p>

<p>John...that's a nice shot you used as an example. However, respectfully, I disagree with your analysis regarding distance....<br>

Remember, key rule of light: <strong>Power diminishes with the square of the distance</strong>, i.e., if you double the distance, the light is 1/4 power (2 stops).<br>

The tracksuit guy's hunched-over pose doesn't show fall-off very well (his torso is shadowed, etc.) and the punchy contrast also makes it hard to read the lighting purely by looking at the photo. So, let's just go by physics: The light is 11 feet up, and let's assume the light is 8 feet above his head (that means his pose is 3 feet high, right?).<br>

So....the light on his head is 8 feet away, and the light at his feet is 11 feet away....therefore, his feet are about 1.4x farther away from the light than his head. 1.4 x 1.4 = 2.....so <strong>his feet are getting half the light his head is (one full stop less)</strong>.<br>

(Yes, I'm rounding heavily, but I don't feel like getting out a calculator)<br>

Let's use a hypothetical example.....let's say Natasha Poly is 6' tall. If the light stand is 12' tall, the light on her feet is twice as far away as her head...meaning her feet are getting 2 stops less light than her head.<br>

Sure, that's assuming the light is directly above her head....in our real Natasha Poly shoot, it's not. Check out the bts video again...if you try to get all the knowledge from the vid, you'll be lost...it just simply doesn't tell you everything, although there are some good tidbits. Look at :09, 1:40 and 2:10. However, one thing is certain: they have the luxury of a huuuuuge studio...just check it out, they have some big-ass stands everywhere. The other certain thing is they're working with the same light everyone on planet Earth is...physics is not different for them.<br>

Okay, so you have fall-off due to light-to-subject distance....BUT you can also have fall-off due to the light not being a perfect circle of even edge-to-edge illumination...of course it depends totally on what kind of light modifier you have, but in general, you get a pool of light that is brightest in the center, and fades in intensity to the edges. When you pull the light further away from the subject, the "sweet spot" gets bigger, and therefore it looks more even on the subject.<br>

Also, the two kinds of fall-off are related, but I don't wanna complicate things. Bottom line is, your strobe is not the sun, which is 93 million miles from Earth; with pure sun, everything within a given scene will be evenly lit. So if you want to make your strobe look like sunlight, you have to deal with fall-off...and the best way to do that is to get some distance.<br>

When I get a new light (or modifier) sometimes I like to take it in a dark studio and shoot it against a plain white wall at a pre-determined distance, to see what kind of "spread" it has.<br>

So, how far away does the light need to be? LOL jeez, I dunno...this is a great shoot to learn from, but if you want a takeaway formula from me, forget it. If you want to replicate this lighting, take a look at your resources...do you have a smallish studio? If so, can you get away with faking it? For example, graduated filter in post to even out your exposure...nothing wrong with doing that. Another way you can control fall-off is to point the light slightly downward...e.g., point your sweet spot at her legs.</p>

<p>Igor and John FTW<br>

(watch Igor's bts video link, it will tell you a lot)<br>

Even before watching the video, I *don't* see two lights...and I see little or no fill. The "filled" areas that I see look like illumination is simply reflecting from other areas of her body, or shining thru the slightly sheer fabric.<br>

I see one small hard light quite a distance from the subject. I mention the distance because a closer light would not give as even (and therefore "sun-like") illumination from head to toe.<br>

And there is no question the background is shopped in...you can't get that span of sky and that perspective of model at the same time...it's two different focal length lenses...the perspectives don't match. On top of that, one of the model's poses is duplicated in the 3-in-1 shot.<br>

After watching the video...yeah...there she is, standing against a *blue* background. Makes sense.... (It's not because it's special chromakey blue) Remember, you can be sure that these shots are all carefully preconceived. Using a background color close to the shade of the sky that they plan to drop in later gives them a much easier job of compositing, and a cleaner result with zero noticeable fringing. Also, blowing out the background would have eradicated the fine blowing hairs.</p>

<blockquote>The important thing to remember, here, Thomas, is that 50mm is always 50mm. On a cropped-frame camera, you're just seeing less OF what a 50mm lens captures and projects into the camera.</blockquote>

<p>Correct.</p>

<blockquote>You could use a 30mm lens to produce more or less the same field of view, but only a 50mm lens will produce the <em>perspective</em> of a 50mm lens.</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and no. First part of your sentence, correct. Second part, incorrect. The focal length of a lens does not "produce" perspective, where you are standing relative to your subject produces perspective.</p>

<blockquote>And in the example you've provided, a wider lens would have produced a perspective that made the model's closer-to-the-camera shoe (and laces!) look much larger, relative to his body. A longer focal length, used from farther away, keeps that under control.</blockquote>

<p>No, and yes. A wider lens would not have produced that kind of perspective...having to stand close to the subject with a wide lens in order to fill the frame WOULD produce that kind of perspective...which is why standing back with a longer lens "keeps that under control".</p>

<p>It's not fisheye...yes, the DOF field is very shallow. But more obviously, do you see fish-eye distortion?? No, none at all...<br /> <br /> He shot through a round hole in something.<br /> <br /> The hole is quite near the lens, and because of the very shallow depth of field, the very edges of the hole act as an "aperture" and focus the light tighter at the edges of the hole.<br /> <br /> It's the same principle by which an aperture mask in the shape of say, a star, will make out-of-focus highlights be star-shaped...but in that case, the mask is so close to the lens, you don't see it in the picture.<br /> <br /> In Glen's shot, the mask is not close enough to the lens to keep from being seen in the picture, and that's why the "aperture mask" effect is only seen at the edges of the hole.<br>

<br /> To match his exact effect, you'd need to do some experimenting...but I'd expect it would be difficult to take advantage of the optical phenomenon using smaller than medium format.</p>