bob_bill

<p>I'm with Kent on the basic 2, one on each body. In a hip pack, I keep a 50, 85 G 1.4 and flash. I will often have the 135 dc with me, Andrew in truck or pelican. The 85 is close on bokeh to the 135 and more useful at close distances and has another stop. </p>

<p>How are they going to prove a substantial number of the criteria were utilized? But I believe it is aimed at competing sales sites, ie. their competition, possibly one of their photographers who defected, not photographers in general. I agree with Steve, it already gave me a chuckle. </p>

<p>I regularly use a 6.5' square scrim as a huge diffuser for my hot lights. I don't have soft boxes fthat handle the heat. Or I bounce them off a wall or white board. Out doors, I made a 2x3' plexi mirror I bang through a 3x6 scrim for soft light out doors. I use the diffuser panel for the 6x6 c47 ed to the bottom of blinds then raise them to give me an instant window/softbox. Understand light, see light then adapt, improvise, overcome. Rodeo, I second the Fong Dong comment. I usually see it on flashes of people who don't understand lighting. One told me it makes the light softer. Black cinefoil and gaffer tape make adapting so easy. Light weight, bendable flags. Again c47's. One that I have not had enough need for is mounting a hot light on an arm on one side of a rolling stand and a 4x4 white card opposite on another arm. Roll it in, place the soft light. </p>

<p> I photograph people, not their likeness, but their personality, so it is a never ending source of inspiration. In a shoot yesterday, had a mom and her 6 and 7 yr old sons. I find photoing children and observing their curiosity and lack of inhibition helps remind me to cultivate it in my photography. Took them for ice cream after the shoot and they were fascinated for 10 minutes with the underside of the table umbrella. Also, was shown my some of father's work from the late 30's, a self portrait. It gave me some inspiration in my use of fresnels which I will use with the mom in a boudoir shoot this week. My current major photo project is ending photography in Northern California and moving to a new location, Florida. Looking forward to incorporating beautiful clouds into my outdoor shots instead of 7 months of bald, cloudless skies. Of course, will have to relearn that it rains in the summer so that has to be considered. Also, warm beaches instead of our cold windy and foggy ones. Also, for my aching muscles, shorter carries making larger and heavier modifiers easier. One here was a half mile down a cliff face, but worse, coming back up near dark after sunset. </p>

<p>Recent films have nearly zero influence. I rarely go to the theatre as most of the new movies don't interest me. Cinematographers have access to lighting gear that makes even the best equipped still photo studio appear puny. Huge modifiers, huge watt seconds, grip gear that is astounding. But the lighting results can be stunning, beautiful and usually appropriate for the mood. I often view some movies with the sound off and pause for closer examination. Girl with a Pearl Earring, Citizen Kane not only for lighting but use of depth are a couple of my favs. Take a look at Bruce Blocks The Visual Story for some great examples. </p>

<p>Miguel, if you aren't familiar with the use of shutter and aperture when using flash, the flash is a near instantaneous burst of light that is far faster than your maximum camera sync speed with flash. So shutter speed has little influence on exposure of the area lit by the flash. The background, however, if not flashed, can be controlled by shutter speed. So, unless you want to cast a puddle of light on it, a shadow pattern through a cucaloris, or make the bg brighter than the subject, first adjust the darkness of the background with the shutter speed by taking some test shots. Then add light to the subject, probably with the umbrella as a main. If you need to fill, use the small soft box. If you wish to highlight a portion of the graffiti, you could use the soft box for that as a 2' softbox is a bit small for lighting full length and its sharper fall off could be useful on highlighting a particular part of the wall. That would be my approach anyway. The old photo joke of how many photographers does it take to screw in a light bulb? 100, 1 to screw it in and 99 to tell him how they would do it. </p>

<p>Steve, I hope this is a sign you are feeling better. </p>

<p> Joe, the signature of a ring light is the shadow around the perimeter of the subject and against the background if subject is close to it. With a light colored bg, it makes the subject pop off the background even though the light on the subject is flat. A similar look can be achieved pulling a large octa, say a 7 footer partially above and behind and against the photographers back shooting straight on to the fairly close subject. Although I tend to use on-nose-axis fill- thank you Tim-, especially in short locations to keep light off the bg and for a nice 3D fall off, for the on-nose-fill advocates, fill doesn't get more on axis than a ring light surrounding the lens. It can be either mounted on a stand or attached to the camera. Another signature of the ring is a donut catchlight. Note how the eyes are not visible in most of the shots. I tend to take the time in post to reshape the ring catch light as it bothers me almost as much as the rectangular ring of the florescent rectangle in the Peter Hurley lit type shots. In the first photo I see one catch light high and a larger low. Kinda true to the flat lighting so perhaps more acceptable than when I edit them at say 11 o'clock. Most folks wouldn't catch that. Pun intended. The distorted specular highlight on the bg has a dark hole in the center. Is that the lens? Just a guess here. But can't say it's my style. I'll leave it to the fashion/glamour folks. </p>

<p>Rok, I agree with Michael. 50" or 4' square is a fine size for newborns. Advantage of the Wescott is it opens like an umbrella on location. The down side is the speedlight or strobe is inside the box usually shooting at the back of the box so if you don't have radio triggers, say for your speedlights, you have to open the front diffuser panel to change power. Also, one of the complaints on their smaller boxes was they didnt tip down enough along the slit in the bottom of the box where the stand comes through. Your elinchom boxes are probably more expensive and probably more sturdy. I think an addendum to your question of what box is best for infants should be what box is good for infants and will be a versatile first box for other things you shoot. I think in prior posts here, the 3x4 is popular. In the octa, I like the 5' because I can make it smaller pulling it back. I cant locate it but I have a shot from the posing stool of a 3', 5' and 7' octa one behind the other distanced so all appear to be the same size to the subject. An advantage of a larger box in addition to being softer just out of frame, is when pulled back, gives a slower fall off due to the inverse square rule. When that newborn gets older and becomes a squirmy, moving about, that helps get more consistent lighting and getting it away form them as well. I would suggest you weigh whether the box will be use primarily on location, for head shots, torso, 3/4 or full length, and make my choice based on that rather than one limited use. Unless of course that is all you will do. If you want to spend the bucks, the Elinchrom boxes are excellent. I would love to own their 7' octa that opens like an umbrella. I just can't justify the grand price tag. I have the poor mans version, the Alien bee parabolic with diffuser, less than $100, that gives the portability the photoflex 7' octa doesn't have and with the silver, has as hard edged fall off allowing for a 6' spotlight effect. For me the octa is a wrestling match taking down and setting up and takes a half hour in studio to tear down, hour to set up and tear down on location and half hour to set up again in studio- 2 hours minimum. It is studio gear only for that reason. The 5' is manageable. On the 3x4 photoflex, I keep a folding speed ring that folds in half, so for transport it is fully assembled and I just snap the speed ring flat. As quick as the Wescott, a sturdy box and can be oriented horizontally or vertically for a rectangular catchlight. Although I generally prefer a round catch light, a rectangular works is preferred next and a square after those. In small spaces the egg crate and its lip really help. If you need an additional strip box, mine came with a reduction mask. </p>

<p>Camera in close, subject close to bg, shadow around edge of subject - says ring light to me. </p>

<p>I will echo the folks saying it depends on his vision and what he shoots. I can shoot all day with a 35, 85 and 135. I use a 50 when I am in tight quarters for the 85. Both have killer bokeh. Rent a 28-70 and shoot the way you like then check the metadata. I like the 35 for environmental portraits. Like someone said above, the 50 is ok but the 85, so useful and the 135 my headshot and personal favorite. </p>

<p>I like his use of juxtaposed saturated warm and cool colors. Some good compositions as well. I like the one using the auto rear window as a frame. Would I take them, probably not. Would I buy them, definitely not. Would some of them earn a decent score in a photo club contest. I think yes. Why does an artist create his art? It is his vision. Sometimes an artist, photographer or painters work just rocks me. Watched Girl with a Pearl Earring movie again this weekend and my poor date had to put up with me stopping it often to examine the brilliant cinematography by Serra that won him an Oscar. Now that's my taste and I don't expect or even care if anyone agrees with me. It just is my opinion. </p>

<p>Charles is right on. Speculars reveal surface texture. A rapid specular edge transfer tells the brain the surface is "shiny." eg hard edged specular on a black car. Soft specular edge transfer indicates more diffused surface, eg, suede. After illuminating the dash panel with a large light source, then play with the positioning of some hard edged speculars from small source(s). </p>

<p>Tim, I use a Matthews 24x36 2x red bordered black net, about a 1 stop reduction,for head and shoulders to torso shots with white shirts or blouses to knock down the shirt at capture. It is open at one side with piano wire through it so no hard frame line. For some reason didnt think of it as a subtractive lighting but will look at it differently now. Tim's subtractive lighting techniques sent me down paths of thinking outside the box years ago and it something I use regularly with existing subtractive items like tree trunks, walls, trucks to quickly fine tune lighting . It has even influenced my clothing My wind breaker has a fairly shiny white interior(if I don't have a reflector at hand) and a matt black exterior. Used it a few weeks ago for subtractive on a profile head shot silhouette to knock down light bouncing off snow. Used a tree trunk and overhanging branches to start then took down the face with the jacket just out of frame. It was from Tim's influence in thinking in terms of reducing light rather than adding either with flash, reflectors or mirror I had with me. It was the only silhouette taken by 20 photographers an afternoon event shot outdoors on snow so thinking outside the box can distinguish you from the pack with little or no cost in gear. </p>

<p>When working with shallow dof, less than an inch, sometimes less than half an inch, focusing and recomposing with center spot can cause the distance to change from a leg of the triangle to the hypotenus, a longer distance. I can't tell for sure on this image but the focus may be forward on the arms. It could be enough to soften the eyes. As above, move the focus point so you dont have to lower the camera. That should help. Nice thing about tethering to the nikon tethering program, it shows where the focus point was. 1/100 could be increased to help eliminate camera or subject movement. Kicking iso to 200 or 400 should be fine and since you aren't using flash, you aren't limited to your max synch speed. Here, it looks like a pretty stable pose, but he could still rock back and forth and combine that with a bit from you and you could have lost focus as well as have movement problems. I checked your camera and it is full frame so unless you cropped quite a bit, you appear to have been about 6 feet or so away and have about 2 inches dof. </p>

<p>I'll add my 2 cents. I like Bill's approach. A strip restricted to the dress and a gridded light on the face, say a beauty dish. I think I would like some fill on the face as well. Or, using the octa but knocked down a bit with a strobe with a grid in front of the octa restricted to the face. No "rule" you have to light the entire person with the one light. Also, remember darker surfaces absorb more light and don't reflect back as much as white. So separate lights make sense. You can use light fall of when you have a dark skinned person and a light skinned person. Place the darker skin or clothing closer to the light and the lighter person further away. </p>