robert_anderson
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by robert_anderson
-
-
"Pirelli isn't really going after a glamour image" -JK
<p>
Funny, I have two retrospective books about the history of that
project, and somehow I come away thinking that they are interested in
nothing BUT glamorous images!
<p>
New aesthetic or not, please pass the barf bag on this one, at least
in this reviewers opinion.
<p>
Back from LA-LA-land and feeling a little testy re: ugliness....
-
John, I couldn't agree more. Leibovitz's current work is atrocious
for someone of her caliber. I too have been a long-term fan of her
work, but have recently noticed a trend. That trend is sloppy work. I
was floored when I reviewed "Woman" in the book store [where it
remained, I would never waste money on that piece of crap!] not only
are there obvious continuity/technical/technique problems, but she
even includes an accidental portrait of her assistant operating a
smoke machine! I mean come-on, if you attain the level that she has,
wouldn't you have the gumption to be a better editor of your work
than that?
<p>
I understand that "things" can happen while shooting on location, and
that often the allotted time frame can be critically short, but when
you are of the Leibovitz-Ritts-Newton-Penn-Avedon genre, I'd bet my
final sheet of 679 that you get special [or at least preferential]
treatment beyond a putz like me. There is absolutely no excuse for
sloppy work, regardless of who you are. And given the budgets she
gets for these projects, I�d feel embarrassed to submit those images
to a PAYING CLIENT!
<p>
Her recent work appears to me to be careless and haphazard at best.
For a real treat, check out the lame-ass images she shot for
Pirelli's new calendar. YUK! Nothing like pasty, veiny, UGLY nudes.
It seems that she is not alone in this campaign of "I don't care,
what ever I do is great!", because she continues to get high profile
assignments.
<p>
It's good to be the Queen; you obviously don't have to try any more!
<p>
Sorry for the rant, but I'd be blown out of my market if I submitted
anything even close to that "quality". Maybe I should stop wasting my
time with site prep and film testing, and see how little I can spend
on every shot.
-
You are correct sir! It is just another way of working, but when
using ratios to set auxillary lights to, it's easier for my pea brain
to work off of one f-stop, then adjust from there.
<p>
Sorry if my numerouse posts weave in and out of context/linear logic,
but we were trying to get Shawn over-the-hump as they say.
<p>
Lets see some pics me boy.....
-
b-r-e-a-t-h---s-l-o-w-l-y�������..
<p>
Way past #�s two, three and four, feet on desk, game about to come
on, pushing back #5...... Ahhhhhhhhhh the patient will survive.....
-
Cool [or is that "word" now], we�re close. Since the 60/40 is two
heads, set the 60 as main, the 40 as fill. An umbrella should suck
enough juice out of the 40 to account for a couple of stops, so it
won�t have to be so far away. Given a third light, use it to
illuminate the background or as a hair/rim/edge light. On second
thought, keep it simple, you�re not allowed to use more than two
lights for the next 6 months!
<p>
You have the concept down, but get gummed up when different numbers
are plugged in. It's all about establishing a base reading, and then
setting up each additional item from that. You need to know what you
are after [hard light, spot look, or soft and romantic--weeeee] then
use the appropriate items to create your vision. The higher the
lighting ratio, the more dramatic the lighting effect. The farther
the light is from the subject, the smaller the penumbra, and the
larger the source the softer the look. F-stops and shutter speeds
both effect exposure, but in their own ways. You have to know what
everything does [or at least be big enough that clients are afraid to
challenge your use of the now-notorious 60/40 lighting system for a
Vogue cover shoot]
<p>
Being a photographer is about being able to decipher the vast
combination of variables to achieve the look you are after. You need
to build a real world database of experimental "when I do this, I get
this" images. A good way to do that is with Polaroid�s because the
results are immediate.
<p>
It can be said 100 different way's, and until you can come up with
three different ways of obtaining the same end result you do not know
your subject thoroughly. You're doing REALLY well for a "new guy",
and you have my best wishes for success.
<p>
The two titles I will be in are: Provocative Shots and B/W Shots.
They said it was due out in early March, but I still haven't received
my comp'd copies yet, so who knows. The series [i think it's up to 16
or so volumes] is quite informative and forth coming.
-
b-r-e-a-t-h-----s-l-o-w-l-y, we're almost there! The 60/40 is a two
head [lamp] flash? Okay, larger [60] dedicated as main with a [40]
secondary lamp used as fill....... sounds like wedding stuff to me,
but it will work, however, a little modified over my initial opinion.
<p>
Using your last numbers:
<p>
#1) yes, right, do you see the light now...... go towards the light
Shawn....
<p>
#2) yes, main light is the one casting the shadow, but we get F***'d-
up with this two headed flash [more appropriately two tubed, right?].
You can only have one [meaning ONE flash tube/tungsten/HMI or
whatever bulb/lamp] serve as the MAIN light source. Even though they
are really really close to each other, you are going to get dual
shadows, unless you put the entire head into a softbox or umbrella
and then both heads will be combined into one source [assuming they
are pointed into the device in the same direction]. If you leave the
unit as is [at least from my new understanding of what the 60/40 is]
you will get two shadows no matter what. Is it possible to turn one
of the tubes off [preferable the 40] and get a higher single tube
output? Probably not, but all is not lost, read on...
<p>
Ratios are your friends, embrace them, know them, and love them.
Knowing the different types of modifiers allows you to alter the
look, or create a look, for an image, and once you have a firm grasp
of how to do it "right", then you can set forth to break the rules.
Knowing ratios let you set mood with any kind of lighting equipment.
Hang in there!
<p>
Given the equipment at hand, use a single, bare tubed flash head as
your main. Even if it isn't your strongest output head. Think "sun"
here, one blazing single light source. How'd that F***ing umbrella
sneak back in there on the main light? I thought we were clear on
this, BARE TUBE, OPEN FLASH, NO MODIFIERS. Do you read me mister!
<p>
The main will set the next heads output level. If the main is at
f/11, you should be able to get NO ancillary shadow at probably f/5.6
[minus 2 stops] for a fill light reading. At no time are we dealing
with any other readings [like combined --- jeesh, where did that come
from ;O)]. Main=f/11, fill=f/5.6=you'll be close; fill @f/4 would be
better [assuming 100iso film].
<p>
Uh, lets see, what else, oh ya, as to your metering technique. I know
you are pointing the diffusion dome of your flash meter AT THE LIGHT
SOURCE, right!?! You need to be very careful when you measure your
lights, to make sure that you are only reading the intended
individual light, not COMBINED measurements. If your main light reads
f/11, that's all you care about, you set everything from that,
including your camera. Your fill light should be placed at such an
angle so as not to compete with the main lights side [if you will] of
the contribution to illuminating the model. Okay so far? For a model
reclining on a couch, place your main light at 6 feet off the floor,
camera right, 4 feet away from her and pointed at her [?] head, it
should be pointed downwards at a 45* angle. Your fill should be to
camera left, at about 4 feet off the floor, and say 45* pointing in
from 8 feet away. No fill light will spill over onto the main light
side of her face. The main light is a bare tubed flash head [we want
a focused, spot look] and the fill is a broad beamed, soft raking
light, so we will use an umbrella set two to three stops under the
base exposure [main light reading]. Now, set the cameras exposure to
accomplish what you want. I shoot trany�s almost exclusively, so if I
want a REALLY dramatic look, I�ll set the camera to the main lights
base reading. By opening up the aperture, I am letting in more light,
and increasing the reach and effect of my light. I will get a larger
penumbra with larger apertures. Whoa! Where did that come from?!?
Yup, it�s true, and you can use it to good effect too. If I want to
shoot a really dramatically lit shot, I�ll get out all of my grid-
spot attachments, crank all of the power pucks up to full-tilt, and
shoot at the smallest aperture I can. There is very little bleed over
between the different spots of light when you do this. The edge
effect is very sharp [small penumbra]. BUT, on the flip side of this
is you. Your equipment is too puny to allow you to shoot at f/16. At
the wider apertures that you will be shooting at [f/5.6 or f/8] you
will have to be very diligent in controlling your spill [use gobo�s],
but no matter what, the penumbra will be larger than when shooting at
f/16 with a similar head.
<p>
Sorry to keep brining up new things, but to fully grasp the entire
theory of lighting is beyond a couple of paragraphs. I think that we
are working through multiple problems here, but hopefully getting
closer to what you want to get. I would suggest checking out the Pro-
Lighting series by RotoVision. They are really fairly well done
books, and are up to date. BTW, a couple of my pics will be in two
new volumes coming out any day now, so I have a vested interest in
there use!
<p>
This sucks trying to type what would be immediately explained with
two or three pics. Arg! Let me know, and keep me posted.
<p>
As a final method of illustrating what to do. Given my equipment, I
would set up a grid spotted main light, with fill from an Octabank.
I'd probably through in another grid spot as a hair light for
separation, but would largely rely on the Polaroid�s for final
tweaking. You have to get �roid capable ASAP.
<p>
Bet you're having fun now!! I can smell the smoke from here!!
<p>
<p>
-
Well Shawn, I like your style of posting so much, I'm doing it
myself. My math is off also, f/16 to f/5.6 is only three stops, so in
our example th efill should be at f/4.
<p>
Slowly tipping back the second one.....
-
Clarification: there is no dispute as to what a lighting ratio is,
but how one is expressed. I express the total f-stop difference as
the ratio, while other express a one f-stop difference as 2:1, a two
f-stop difference as 4:1, etc.
<p>
Sorry for the confusion. I need a beer!
-
You're just about there. But how�s-about we call the lights by their
function so as to save on the confusion?
<p>
Your main light is [should be!] the light that casts the shadow on
your subject, and sets the base exposure for everything else to work
around. Your fill light adds light at a lower [hopefully!] level to
soften the shadow created by the main, to the extent so as to achieve
the desired effect that you want. With me so far?
<p>
Lets look at "light modifiers" for a moment. A light modifier is
anything that you either stick to the head [bowl/dish reflector,
beauty dish, softbox, 60/40 device, whatever] or stick in the lights
path [gobo/flag, scrim]. Still hanging in there? Now, whichever
method you use to "modify" your light quality, it will have a
signature that may or may not support the effect you are after. A
good example would be the use of a softbox to light a baby portrait
[yuck!]. A softbox placed close to the subject would bring a light
quality supportive of the subject, it would yield the baby in a nice,
soft pool of light, making the little bugger appear all warm, cute,
and cuddly. BUT, if you were to shoot that little rug rat with a 20K
movie spot, placed at the same distance to the subject as the softbox
was, besides getting a portrait that made Jr. look like David
Hamilton�s crispy offspring, it may be a little harsh too, but it
would definitely yield a totally different "feel" to the resulting
image. Kinda get the idea now? Just a little more, softboxes work
because they broaden the area of the light, and create a large,
diffused source. The closer to the subject that they are placed, the
more apparent this soft effect is [to the point that they are placed
equal to their long dimension]. Conversely, you could in theory,
given a sufficiently powerful system, move a softbox far enough away
from your subject to get it to replicate a focusing spot. Know what I
mean?
<p>
This is a very broad subject, much beyond a single post; it�s more
like a lifelong T&E exercise. One final point, the larger the light
source the softer the look [generally] and that means the softer the
shadow will be, given the same light is used [close softbox vs. far
softbox, close 8� dish vs. far 8� dish, close 60/40 vs. far 60/40].
<p>
Technically, what all this is talking about is the edge effect of the
demarcation area between the highlights and shadows, which is called
the penumbra. A good definition of penumbra can be found in
Photographing in the Studio, by Gary Kolb:
<p>
Penumbra: The transition area between light and shadow. The smaller
the penumbra, the sharper the shadow appears, and the more contrasty
is the light.
<p>
Still there?
<p>
So, not having used a 60/40, but thinking that I know how they work,
I ass-u-me that it is a small pocket bounce device that is supposed
to "soften" the flash by allowing you to bounce it into the 60/40. Is
that correct? If, so you do not want to use it on your main light
because it will diffuse the �point light effect� as compared to the
bare head/tube. Now, this is all theoretical to this point, but if
you truly want a focused spot effect, then any form of diffusion on
your main would soften the penumbra, right? Still breathing? I
usually would never advocate shooting a less than flawless model,
with less than professional make up, etc. under direct light, but you
did ask how to recreate the �spot� look. It may prove out that the
60/40 main, placed at a distance of say 8 feet would provide the
effect you�re after. But without the immediate feedback that �roids
give, it will be a very tedious wait for the film to see what
happened. You will have to keep VERY specific notes, and make
accurate measured diagrams of the lights relationship to the subject,
etc. But again, I would put a �naked� strobe main above camera level,
and may or may not use some sort of diffused fill at a 4:1 ratio
[main light =4, fill =1, or main at f16, fill four stops less at
f5.6] Oh, and BTW, there is a lot of dispute about lighting ratios,
and their exact definition. But how I use them is to express the
difference between lights as the example above. It works for me.
Finally, the only reason that I would entertain the idea of using a
fill would be because your main is probably too weak to keep the
whole scene within the films dynamic range, but for a really dramatic
look, definitely try one light only shots.
<p>
I�m sure that I left a bunch of stuff out, but post what�s still
confusing, and I�ll try to explain further. Welcome to the party,
pal!
-
Shawn,
<p>
I wouldn't use a soft source as a main if I were after a "spotlight"
[fresnel] main-light-look. Given your equipment at hand, I would use
a bare head strobe as a main, with the umbrella as fill. Put you main
close [because it has a low output], and move your fill away from the
model to get the correct ratio. Set it up with a pretty broad ratio,
such as 4:1, and you should be off to the races! I'd also look at
what you're getting with the fill at a fairly hard angle to the
model, like 90* or so.
<p>
The crossed shadow problem is corrected by increasing the ratio
between your main and fill light. FWIW, Sante D. shoots with huge
HMI fresnel, with no fill. But his beam pattern is probably in the
neighborhood of 10~15 feet, with no intensity variation throughout
the beam. He also uses a KR12 to give it that sunset look [at least
for the Victoria's Secret stuff of old]. We lil people have to
improvise to get a similar look, and I think this should do it, but
obviously on a much smaller scale.
<p>
Should �a bought a Blad with a 'roid back! Hahahaha, just kidding.
Good luck.
-
Looks a little nippy! Sorry, I just couldn't resist. He's about to
make it or break it I take.
<p>
I like it a lot, and agree, very tough subject/contrast range to
handle. If you could only dodge in a little more detail to get the
outline of the upper arm you'd be there.
<p>
Cool shot [sorry again] though!
-
Hi Christel,
<p>
I too like the second shot better than the first. Keep at it, and
keep shooting. The more you do it, the easier it becomes to "become
invisible" and capture those compelling images we all dream of making.
<p>
Good luck!
-
I love this image! Very telling of this young boys life I think.
<p>
However, if you�re ready for the ramblings of a lunatic read on.
<p>
As to your portfolio, my thought would be to either not include this
image until you have more along this vein, or organize the entire
portfolio into a giant, flowing form that is NOT divided
into "groups." I have fought this battle before, and ultimately sat
on what I considered "great" images until I had enough to complete
the statement. I feel that if you include every image that you think
is good, but they are not thematically linked in some manner [and
that can be a fairy broad/thin connection] you are watering down your
vision/statement. When I find myself in the same situation, I set out
to specifically add new personal work that is slanted towards my
needs to complete a "genre specific book."
<p>
I now have three separate "people" books [fashion, twisted, and B/W]
plus a general book that contains a few of each. But the general book
does not have enough "oomph" to close the deal. It shows my range,
and hopefully triggers other possibilities for assignments from the
prospects.
<p>
Each portfolio contains 18~20 images, with my strongest 4~5 up front,
and 2~3 "gems" at the end. The stuff in the middle is used to sell my
depth, and grasp of the subject, as well as to illustrate specific
problem solving situations. I have found that people [AD's, Art
Buyers, etc.] will have you "pegged" on the 3rd or 4th shot, so make
it compelling up front. Then seal the deal at the end with a couple
of images that SCREAM, "I'm good, and know what I'm doing. Hire me!"
<p>
I have found that my commercial clients do not want to wade through
non-specific images, and appreciate my understanding their
needs/wants. So, when I go on a book review, I show my range through
the general book, but show my ability with the �mission specific�
book. I play it by ear as to which book I show first [specific or
general]. This largely depends on what clues I can pick up along the
way [what they have on the walls, magazines, etc. in their office,
how busy they seem to be]. And if I get the impression that things
are going South, I punch out A.S.A.P., and don�t waste either of our
times by showing the second book.
<p>
I spend a lot of time setting up my books, and edit ruthlessly. If I
can not establish a thematic connection between images, then I get
rid of the problem shot, and set out to produce more work along it's
lines to beef up the statement. I set up my portfolios to flow like
a good movie, you know you�re watching a good movie when at the end
all of your questions have been answered, but you still want more.
<p>
In short, if it's worth saying, it�s worth saying whole-heartedly!
<p>
BTW, I'm now fully in the House-of-blood, thanks!!
-
Plant your feet in front of them and say, "Hi, you have a great look.
I'm a photographer and I am always on the look out for models, if
you'd be interested please give me a call", then hand them your card,
and be done with it. Do not ask them for their phone number, name or
anything else. Be professional and be polite, and remember that there
are a lot of creeps out there so don't be pushy. You could also have
a few work samples ready if THEY pursue the conversation further.
Make sure your card has your web site address on it [you do have a
site, right?] so that they can see additional work samples.
<p>
If you�re lucky, you will get about a 75% success rate.
<p>
Good Luck!
-
I just received from a friend in HK this suggestion, they said that
these people are reliable. Please let me know if they work out, as I
probably will not buy through them until April or so.
<p>
Tin Cheung Camera Company
G26 Tung Ying Bldg., 100 Nathan Road, TST, Kowloon
Tel: (852) 2368 7699 / 2722 1265
Fax: (852) 2722 1043
Attn. Jennifer
<p>
Hope this helps.
-
Shawn,
<p>
I'm one of those "crop in the camera/full frame" kinda guys, so what
you see is what's on the film. I had the lens racked all of the way
out, and used a gentle swaying of my body to adjust for the
critically shallow focus/moving model.
<p>
This was shot under HMI [rented], on Kodak EPP that was cross-
processed in C-41.
-
I vote for the 200. No tubes to worry about, and it has a good
working distance.
<p>
Check out this shot done with the 200
http://www.rapfoto.com/graphics/kvtight.jpg
<p>
Good luck.
-
Thanks for all the great answers, and I praise your ability to
unraveling my question. I have to admit I've always focused wide
open, and then shut down the aperture assuming [ass-u-me] the working
aperture would compensate for any focus discrepancy. I guess I've
been lucky with this sloppy technique!
<p>
My thought on this was that faster LF lenses [f5.6] may aid in
refining focus by presenting a more �knife�s edge� delineation of
focus, as compared to say a f9 lens, when checking focus wide open.
Now I know.
<p>
Thanks again, and best regards to all!
-
This was loosely referenced in another thread, but not expanded upon at all. Is it true that a lens with a smaller maximum aperture [f9] will contribute to focus error by providing a larger �on glass� depth of focus, as compared to a lens with a wider max. aperture [f5.6]? I know I�m probably not using the correct terminology, so another way to phrase the question would be; do lenses with a wider max. aperture provide the ability for finer critical focus?
<p>
For further clarification, I would be interested in the non-low-light aspect, that obviously favors the bigger glass, but how about side by side in good light?
<p>
Thanks.
-
I envy the fact that you still HAVE a pocket! I ust bought a complete
Arca-Swiss system, and well ...
-
My money is on a pinhole light leak. I had a similar problem
recently, and only a high intensity flashlight, and a dark room,
revealed the VERY small pinhole in the lens board. Check your camera
out as described above. Good luck.
-
Bob, thanks for the great info, as always!! Respectfully, could I be
so bold as to inquire to the cost of the 5" and 70mm backs that are
compatible with std. 4x5 cameras? I know the answer probably is "if
you have to ask, you can't afford it." But I just gotta know!
-
As an addition to the above posts, I would like to offer my recent
experiences with film holder-less 4x5 photography.
<p>
I am a week away from completing a 10 week, 42 location architectural
book project, entirely shot on Fuji Quickload and Kodak Readyload
systems. I have observed the following things over the +800 Fuji
sheets [RVP, RAP, RTP] and +360 Kodak sheets [T-Max 100] used on this
project:
<p>
- If a film envelope gets jammed, or the film itself becomes lodged
in the holder, or most likely, the metal clip on the end becomes
lodged inside the holder, your basically screwed with either system.
They both require disassembly of the holder to clear the jam. The
Fuji holder, while not overly complex, is worse than the Kodak as far
as "field stripping" it goes. The Fuji seems to have a propensity to
leave things inside the holder when it decides to puke, causing
complete system shut-down, while the Kodak packets just seem to self
destruct when things go wrong, ruining the first exposed sheet [Kodak
uses 2 sheets per packet]. So pick your poison on which is better.
Lesson learned by me was, always pull slow and straight, and ALWAYS
carry a Leatherman tool
- I prefer the way the Fuji system works, especially the single sheet
of film to an envelope. The Kodak system will fog the end of the film
sheets if you are shooting under direct sun light [i.e. the camera
has direct sunlight falling upon it]. This happened more than once,
so now an extra hassle of flagging the entire camera is called for.
+ This job was very tightly scheduled, and held no room for
downloading/re-loading multiple film backs [i estimate I would have
needed in excess of 100 backs to accomplish what I am doing with this
holder-less system, and an additional minimum of 2 hours per day for
film administration]
+ It is such a pleasure to be able to write processing directions,
shot notes, shot ID.'s etc. on each individual piece of film
[packet], and believe me, no matter how good your written notes and
system for cataloging film is, when your shooting every day sun-up to
sunset, for 10weeks, things slip through the cracks, but this system
has eliminated most of the cracks!
+ The ability to make quick changes in plans. Several times we added
shots that were not planned, being able to shoot in a different light
situation than we planned [ tungsten vs. daylight] was definitely
facilitated by this system. Unlike in the past when I would have been
loaded for, say daylight alone, it is now made very easy with holder-
less film, to make the adjustment [and adding shots = more $$$] by
just having an extra box of film along with you for such occasions.
Yes, I could have had extra film holders as well, but it always boils
down to how many are you going to tie up for contingencies, how many
do you want to carry along as extra baggage, and how many do you
really want to own?
+ Very fast shot to shot times. Shooting under changing conditions
this becomes a factor. With the sun ducking in and out from behind
clouds, it's VERY nice to be able to fire off 6 sheets in 90 seconds.
Try that with conventional film holders!
<p>
All-in-all I am very pleased with both systems [Fuji / Kodak], but
did have to rely on my 545i back as a back-up when one of the others
went down [Fuji]. I have not had time to try cross compatibility
tests between the two holders, but knew from personal experience that
the Polaroid back will work with Fuji Q/L's [Kodak / Polaroid
compatibility also an unknown at this time]
<p>
Hope this info helps, I'm looking forward to a months-long sleep!!
-
Stewart, you can shoot it that way, I would probably add a few more
sheets of film to be on the safe side though. In situations like
this, I usually place something under my tripod legs for them to rest
on, like 12"x12" pieces of Foamcore [use gaffer's tape to secure them
to each leg, one large piece would be better, but could be a problem
getting it to the location. Any hard, flat object will do [i�ve used
old books in a pinch] you want to create a broader surface for better
weight dispersion. Bogan makes snow & sand foot adapters for just
such a reason, and I�d probably get them if this will be a recurring
problem for you. Good luck!
what happens with REALLY long dev't times?
in Black & White Practice
Posted
I'm a total darkroom hacker [or is that hack...] but living in the
middle of the desert as I do, our tap water comes out of the faucet
at about 80*f in the summer. Before I started cooling off the chem.�s
I would follow the extrapolated dev. times for that temp, and I
always got VERY contrasty neg.s. I have always thought that it was
due to the high temp. Maybe you could try your chem.�s at +100*f or
so and see what happens.
<p>
Probably not the answer, just some empirical evidence to chew on.