robert_anderson

June 9, 2000

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.

Probably not the answer, just some empirical evidence to chew on.

April 7, 2000

"Pirelli isn't really going after a glamour image" -JK

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!

New aesthetic or not, please pass the barf bag on this one, at least

in this reviewers opinion.

Back from LA-LA-land and feeling a little testy re: ugliness....

March 23, 2000

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?

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!

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.

It's good to be the Queen; you obviously don't have to try any more!

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.

March 20, 2000

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.

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.

Lets see some pics me boy.....

March 18, 2000

b-r-e-a-t-h---s-l-o-w-l-y��..

Way past #�s two, three and four, feet on desk, game about to come

on, pushing back #5...... Ahhhhhhhhhh the patient will survive.....

March 18, 2000

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!

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]

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.

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.

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.

March 18, 2000

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.

Using your last numbers:

#1) yes, right, do you see the light now...... go towards the light

Shawn....

#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...

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!

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!

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].

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.

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!

This sucks trying to type what would be immediately explained with

two or three pics. Arg! Let me know, and keep me posted.

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.

Bet you're having fun now!! I can smell the smoke from here!!

March 18, 2000

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.

Slowly tipping back the second one.....

March 18, 2000

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.

Sorry for the confusion. I need a beer!

March 18, 2000

You're just about there. But how�s-about we call the lights by their

function so as to save on the confusion?

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?

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?

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].

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:

Penumbra: The transition area between light and shadow. The smaller

the penumbra, the sharper the shadow appears, and the more contrasty

is the light.

Still there?

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.

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!

March 18, 2000

Shawn,

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.

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.

Should �a bought a Blad with a 'roid back! Hahahaha, just kidding.

Good luck.

March 13, 2000

Looks a little nippy! Sorry, I just couldn't resist. He's about to

make it or break it I take.

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.

Cool shot [sorry again] though!

March 10, 2000

Hi Christel,

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.

Good luck!

March 8, 2000

I love this image! Very telling of this young boys life I think.

However, if you�re ready for the ramblings of a lunatic read on.

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."

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.

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!"

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.

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.

In short, if it's worth saying, it�s worth saying whole-heartedly!

BTW, I'm now fully in the House-of-blood, thanks!!

March 3, 2000

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.

If you�re lucky, you will get about a 75% success rate.

Good Luck!

February 22, 2000

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.

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

Hope this helps.

February 4, 2000

Shawn,

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.

This was shot under HMI [rented], on Kodak EPP that was cross-

processed in C-41.

February 2, 2000

I vote for the 200. No tubes to worry about, and it has a good

working distance.

Check out this shot done with the 200

http://www.rapfoto.com/graphics/kvtight.jpg

Good luck.

June 17, 1999

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!

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.

Thanks again, and best regards to all!

June 16, 1999

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?

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?

Thanks.

June 1, 1999

I envy the fact that you still HAVE a pocket! I ust bought a complete

Arca-Swiss system, and well ...

May 29, 1999

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.

May 25, 1999

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!

May 20, 1999

As an addition to the above posts, I would like to offer my recent

experiences with film holder-less 4x5 photography.

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:

- 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!

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]

Hope this info helps, I'm looking forward to a months-long sleep!!

May 11, 1999

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!

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by robert_anderson