nathan_stiles

<p>You shouldn't ever be paid, and have to pay at the same time. That's not logical.</p>

<p>As other said: enough time to recycle and synch time. Although in my experience, I've found a lot of cameras that can't synch past 125 reliable for off camera strobes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To get back to the OP's question, I would say it is utterly impossible to say who invented the softbox,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what I said David. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You just proved it is you who is the troll</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>How? I may be a dolt, b/c I have no idea how I proved I'm the troll. Before the thread get's locked, please tell me. I've not told you that "people in the know" would know I've been on here for years, or called you a dolt or any other name. Neither have I failed to give my opinion of the answer to your question.</p>

<p>While you are responding, I'm also a little confused as how the definition above relates to my "Snarky has nothing to do with being deserved or not..." comment.</p>

<p>Summer, quit trolling. Snarky has nothing to do with being deserved or not, and I addressed your question above. I believe that the softbox was created, in some form or another, by several people in several places, around the same time. I think you'll be hard to find a definitive answer from a credible source.</p>

<p>John's response addressed your question, but was hardly a concrete answer. We have David Bobbington's link to a softbox from 1913! Jeffery remarked on a patent in 1939. I believe my previous comment is on topic and a reasonable conclusion based on the information provided.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nathan: No I don't have a "school" paper to write!<br /><br />Most people here in the know, know I have been around photo.net for years.<br /> I won't even bother getting into my studio photography resume.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Easy Summer, no need for passive snarkiness. Your name doesn't ring a bell and you demanded citation and asked a question that is unusual for this forum. So, it sounded like someone had an essay and deadline, whether you did or not. Regardless, carry on as you like: I'd guess that the answer is much like the noodle-- several people claim its invention. With bullseye laterns, chinese paper lamps, and candle boxes that predate the camera, it seems like a sticky wicket.</p>

<p>Feels like someone has an essay in school to do *lol*. Didn't google invent the method to find this info?</p>

<p>I've always thought this was more hear-say than science. I'm in the northern hemisphere about one hour from Brooks here in Florida-- I find that this close to the equator I can't tell much of a difference between my north and south windows. They are influenced more by trees than anything else. If you move closer to the north pole, b/c of the tilted axis, it seems your time of season would have a greater influence.</p>

<p>Bad photographers keep secrets. If it's a "secret" that's keeping your business, you are about two years away from losing it then.</p>

<p>David, first-- Rembrandt was a painter and could adjust lighting differences and just needed shadows and tones. Second, a fill card IS a second light source. It's bounced light, not a strobe, but a light source just the same.</p>

<p>I just emailed the photographer a couple of hours ago and she responded:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>hi nathan, </p>

 

i wonder why they wouldn't have just asked me? haha

 

it is a simple set up.. diffused natural light to camera left, large reflectors camera right. very minimal post.

 

hope that helps...

<p> </p>

~S

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, you can duplicate the layer, and after that you have the option to leave it as it, desaturated it, or run a highpass filter on it as common manipulation techniques. The high pass will sharpen an image. Then set the blend mode to overlay and adjust the opacity.</p>

<p>This reminds me of something that was discussed in the Portrait forum a while back-- within the last year, but I can't find it. I think someone there said the photoshop styled had a name, and it was named after the photographer that made it's famous. There is definitely a curves layers used, as the blacks are crushed, and the highlights enhanced. There maybe an Overlay layer set at low opacity, but I'm not sure.</p>

<p>As far as lighting, there seems to be a a fill light just to the left axis of the camera and high angling down. From the shadows and round catch light on her shoe, I think it's a Beauty Dish with a diffussion sock being used more like an umbrella. It's possible it's a shoot through white umbrella, I'm feeling rusty :-( It just seems like the fall off on the zoomed out shots are a little too fast for a shoot through, but I've not used a shoot through in so long...</p>

<p>I think the key light is a 48" or larger flushed face softbox to left of camera and slightly angled in. It seems to be a static position on the girl shots, as the shadow's angle changes depending on how close to the wall she is. I guess that could be a window-- since I don't shoot that way, I wouldn't have thought of it. I think there's a white panel in front on the ground acting as fill.</p>

<p>More than likely there is a back ground light, but I'm unsure as to what it maybe. As a guess, I'd say it's suspended above the background and is roughly a 10" reflector pointed down unto the background. That could account for the fall off seeming to rapid for me if it is a shoot through.</p>

<p>I'm not a fan of the Buff BD at all. There's a lot of sceince that goes into the BD, and I personally feel that Buff didn't understand any of it and just created something that looks like the DIY versions I see.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00ShA4</p>

<p>The BD will have a mix of hard and soft light and at close range is pretty unique. It's great for head shots. I own a white BD, and for the type of shoot you are talking about, I'd not bother with a grid. The grid creates a masculine light, and I'd not want to change it around between students coming and going. A naked white BD will suit you well. Since this is something you are investing in to make a living off of, I'd get a Speedotron BD and adapter for your light if it's at all possible.</p>

<p>Hmmm... the nose problem you posted doesn't seem to be effected by the fill or ratio though. Your lighting ratios tend to go with your mood and energy in the picture. It's good info, but it would have been easier to link you to the Lighting forums archives of moderator posts. They have some great tutorials and examples of all kind of things.</p>

<p>There's some things you can do to avoid the wash out of the nose/check. You can move the light source closer, and the fade will be quicker, that will highlight the nose more. I wouldn't do this though-- it'd high light the nose, not just seperate it from the face.</p>

<p>You could broad light it, instead of short lighting the picture-- but that would change a lot of your set up.</p>

<p>Your light isn't too high, but you are over exposing the skin there. I'd dial it back a stop on that light. I think that will suit you best.</p>

<p>Lastly, and for this one I've not really experimented here as much as I should myself, you can try subtractive lighting. Add a black bounce out of frame to the right so that it's opposite of the side of the nose. This will keep spill light from bouncing back and on the short side of the nose.</p>

<p>Inexpensive is a subjective term. I recommend a Speedotron 805 2 strobe starter set. But I have no idea what your budget is.<br /><br />Also, if you are going to have such a limited set up, missing many options that I need-- why not just go strobist?</p>

<p>Amir, sorry I didn't track this or check it. I'm using a Speedotron 805 pack system, and an 18x48" strip softbox, 36x48" box, and normally I have a use for a gridded 8" reflector. Sometime I use the Speedotron Beauty Dish for people. My bounce is a plastic/pvc (I should have bought aluminum) Lastolite large frame and white material.</p>

<p> This is a little tough, b/c there's no budget or room size. The 60" umbrella is a decent size, but a poor light shaper b/c of the excessive spill. The 28" softbox box is a possible hair light, but not much else for a full length photo. If you want any kind of fashion, then you are thinking of full length portraits. I normally use 3 lights and a bounce for this kind of thing.</p>

<p>Since you are using Buff products, I'd recommend the 30x60 softbox for your light.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Assume the worst of the dog: socialized and excited by new people. If this is the case you may need to sit on the ground (I generally take pictures of animals at their level) for a while ignoring the dog until he's bored with you.</p>

<p>Find out if the owner wants a candid type shot of play, or a posed portrait. Both can be taken from a seated position with good results. Pack a zoom lens in case it's an action shot.</p>

<p>The OP is new to shooting models and doing TFP. I'm wondering how successful Dennis's style would be prior to him having credentials and a portfolio. At no time during a shoot do I not instruct them on what I want.</p>

<p>In addition I started to see a problem in my work when I did control every aspect of a models pose-- all my shots started to look a like. I found it much more successful, for me, to allow them to pose and correct the parts I didn't like. I also found that after striking a pose, telling them "no" then led me back into having to tell them everything to do again.</p>

<p> Both of the above are good. I whole heartedly agree with David's "never be negative". If you are getting one expression, then it's possible the model thinks they are doing the only "model" look out there. I sometimes tell a nervous model to not worry about it, and give me whatever they think of-- if it looks bad, I remind them I can delete it; but I can't add what they never give.</p>

<p> I'd also work on my vocab for what you want. I had a situation where I was shooting lingerie for a catalog bid, and all I got was "sexy", when I needed "light and happy". I had to remind almost every model of this several times-- the key is to be gentle about it and positive. Oh, and always confident, or they will be nervous.</p>

<p>I have a few I like. I got one for portrait and wedding from Amherst that covered a lot of "why" something works, and was great for some fundamentals. However, I don't shoot a lot of that, so I bought another: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Posing-Techniques-Photographing-Model-Portfolios/dp/1584282207/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326510714&sr=1-2">Posing Techniques for Photographing Model Portfolios</a> by <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Billy-Pegram/e/B001K8AHRC/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2?qid=1326510714&sr=1-2">Billy Pegram</a>. I'm pretty happy with this book (also from Amherst).<br /></p>

<p>I've actually used this combination-- my Vagabond II overheated in a few shots. Yes, my modeling lights were off. The unit may have been defective though, as I had to get it replaced in about 4 months after purchase.</p>

<p>I'm wondering what trigger you are using-- that's key info. The PocketWizard MultiMax and maybe the P. Buff Commander are the only triggers that can synch rear curtain with a remote strobe. Your error is probably a synch issue with the AlienBee, or trying to rear curtain synch with a trigger not fore mentioned.</p>