david_vickers2

<p>Hi Frank,<br>

To be honest I have no idea of the postage to Sweden - I think that you would have to go through the steps of the shopping cart to find out.<br>

David.</p>

<p>t's available NOW! This special edition Glass Plate Photography book, created to raise money for charity. It is available from our <a href="http://stores.lulu.com/creativeimagemaker" target="_blank">storefront</a> <a href="http://stores.lulu.com/creativeimagemaker"> </a> over at Lulu; it has 42 pages of articles, images, inspiration and information from some of the most well-known individuals in this area of photography - Denise Ross and Quinn Jacobson have both kindly written extensive articles about glass plate photography (and supplied images too), along with additional work by Bernt Løve Nielsen, Michael Waite, Jay Truman, Bruce Schultz and also from the National Museum Wales and Penobscot Marine Museum. It's also printed in colour.<br /> <br /> The chosen charity, Woodlarks, helps disabled children and adults to try out new adventures, whether it's singing around a camp fire or water-skiing! They are currently trying to raise £1.5m to upgrade the very old buildings to accommodate new facilities.<br /> <br /> This book is available for free PDF download (130MB) as I recognise that not everyone will want to purchase it, or indeed may not be able to purchase it - but I really hope that you will support both the charity and Creative Image Maker and raise some cash. Whether you choose to download, or purchase, I do hope that you enjoy reading the book.<br /> <br /> Thank you,<br /> David Vickers.<br>

<p>Thank you to every one who has responded to the image above - I've been out again with the spot lights; this time to take a photo of my daughter. One light was 'fired' in to an umbrella, above camera, the other (hairlight) was camera left and fitted with barn doors. There's a completely different look to this photo and I like how it's much smoother than the one of my wife above.<br>

<a title="Meg by davidvickersphotography, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidvickersphotography/3120465719/" title="Meg by davidvickersphotography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3096/3120465719_63fd63a2d6.jpg" alt="Meg" width="360" height="500" /> </a></p>

<p>Take a look at the 'Lighting 101' on <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html">Strobist</a>.</p>

Oh, and just a quick one - be a bit careful about ND filters as these will lower the ambient exposure, but also reduce the effectiveness of your flash by the same amount - meaning you'll need more power to achieve that f8, or f5.6 (or whatever)... or move the flash closer.

Hi Megan,

 

Going back to your original post - meter for the ambient and then move the flash backwards / forwards to give you an exposure a couple of stops below the aperture reading you obtained for ambient.

 

This will make the ambient your key light and the flash acting as fill. So, if ambient is f5.6 @ 1/30th, move your flash about until you get a reading of f2.8 on the subject (make sure you use a flash meter for this though).

Continuing on Nadine's theme, if you set up for short lighting (camera on the shadow side) and then move around the subject to the brightly lit side, you'll now have broad lighting and the effect will be to make the subject appear 'fatter' than they would do with short lighting. However, your exposure may remain the same, all other things being equal.

 

Try it out, and keep notes!

Thanks for the info Nadine. Does this makeup need to match skin tone, or should it be lighter / darker than skin tone?

<p>Check out the <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com">Strobist</a> site.</p>

Megan, it's great to experiment like this and you may want to start a little notebook when you find something that works for you - as well as a quick lighting diagram (position, distance, f-stops, etc) also jot down the subjects position. You don't need to do this at the time, just as long as you put the info in later you can refer to it during another session.

 

But, as well as you moving around, get your subject to move about - a slight movement of the head can really affect the look of a portrait.

 

There is no BEST angle really - it's what suits you / the subject and whether it meets your visualisation of the image.

 

David.

You might want to use wireless flash triggers - check out Pocket Wizards, or the Elinchrom Skyports (that what I use when taking portraits and at weddings - they are very effective).

 

They also save tripping over sync cables!

 

David.

Hi Megan,

 

Harry has got it really - to create an effective shadow you need a point source of light, and there's none better than the sun! Hopefully you live somewhere were it does show up (unlike here in the UK at the moment!).

 

All you'll need to do is provide a little bit of fill-in light and Bingo!

 

The problem about having a light source near to the subject is that you will end up with soft edges to the shadows.

 

David.

Hi Christopher,

 

Yes the sharpness is a bit over-the-top - I certainly agree with you there. As I mentioned earlier this was just a test shot... I'm looking to play around with these lights with a view to doing a series of portraits using my 1937 Leica II and 1934 (uncoated) 9cm Elmar lens; so oversharpening then shouldn't be a problem!

 

David.

Photo Girl, let's go back to your original statement - room ambient at f5.6, flash at f8.

 

If you set your camera to expose for f5.6 then you'll get +1 stop (overexposed) highlights. You could use this if you direct the honeycombed / snooted flash towards the subjects hair to provide some 'rim' light.

 

But, if you exposed at f8, then the subject would be 1 stop underexposed, with the hair light (?) correctly exposed.

 

Instead of using a honeycomb, you could expose for ambient, but use the flash at f4 to fill-in the shadows (or provide a catchlight in the eyes).

 

Also, remember that as long as you remain at, or slower than your sync speed you can expose for the ambient - the flash is only concerned with the aperture you choose, not the shutter speed.

Just checked out Karsh - I recognised some of the photos (Hemingway and Churchill in particular). Lots of others that I have never seen before, so I'll look through those and pick them apart in a bid to learn something of the style.

It's nice to get feedback and thought from others - I was aware of Ron's point about the hairlight, it definitely needs to be higher and moved back to reduce that burnt out area (but the spotlight was balanced on my window ledge, with a piece of cardboard wrapped around it as a snoot - hence it wasn't entirely easy to move to the correct height!).

 

For me, and it's a personal thing, I'm not sure I'd want to use a reflector to open up the darker areas. I like the contrast and it was what I set out to do, so in that sense I'm happy with what I achieved in a few moments.

 

The spotlights I used were just household spots, fitted with 100W (yes, that's 100W) reflector bulbs. I had to break them away from their original mounts and make up new brackets.

 

Mike, thanks for the comments about the filter, I've got some blue gels laying around for my flashes, so I'll try those out next time.

 

Barry, hmmm, Karsh - I'll check those images out it's not a name I immediately recognise. Thanks for that, you've also just improved my photography knowledge and inspiration!

 

Thank you,

David.

<p>Hi there,</p>

<p>I've been using strobes to light portraits for quite a while now and was looking for a change in direction -

so I figured I'd look back rather than forward.</p>

<p>I've been looking and drawing inspiration from some of the portraits taken in the 1930's and the classic short

/ broad lighting. Anyway, to cut a long story short, I ended up modifying a couple of household spotlights and

mounted them with brackets. They are only running the original 100W spots, and the following photo was done in a

matter of minutes.</p>

<p>It's a bit rough and ready (the photo, not my wife!) and I really enjoyed doing it - actually seeing the

shadows cast by the light was great! The image really shows the short lighting style at least.</p>

<p>Anyhow - what do you think? I realise that it's no George Hurrell but...</p>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidvickersphotography/3072444784/" title="Fiona - Short Lighting by

davidvickersphotography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/3072444784_04ca124d0e.jpg"

width="500" height="448" alt="Fiona - Short Lighting" /></a>

<p>Does anyone have any ideas about makeup for this style?</p>

<p>Cheers, David</p>

I like those pictures Charles, the first image on the British Museum strikes me the most. I also like the ones around Greenwich too (as an aside, do you get to see The Guide magazine around Greenwich? I shot three front covers for it earlier on this year and one of my pictures was picked up by Greenwich Council who are using it to advertise the National Maritime Museum).

 

Anyway, great lens, can't wait to see what mine is like! As for film, I've been using Rollei Retro 400 developed in ID-11, but I've recently shot a few rolls of ADOX CHS50.

 

David.

I already had a Helios brightline viewfinder, with 35 / 85 / 135mm lines on it; I figured that the 85mm was 'close enough for government work'! Although it's not ideal, as there is no parallax correction on it, so it all a bit of guesswork.

 

How are you finding the images produced by this lens?

Just thought I'd let you know (although I'm not entirely sure why anyone else would be interested!) that my Elmar 90mm f4 lens has arrived today. Just checked the serial number out and it would appear to be a 1934 (uncoated) model - can't wait to start shooting with it.

It's probably a bit late now, but I'm in a similar position to you; i.e. it's my long-suffering wife that puts up with my obsession to photograph everything!

 

For a while I took my D1, charger, lenses, strobes, etc with me and then something changed - I didn't want to have the weight of this (or the F4 before it) hanging around my neck, it got in the way of me being able to clamber over rocks and so on. It was also annoying (and unfair) to my wife to have to stop every 5 minutes to take another shot of whatever it was that caught my eye.

 

I still take lots of pictures, but we now try to agree a 'photography day' where I will take my gear and womble off to take pictures, and my wife will go horse-riding (or some other activity). I still carry my camera around everywhere, but instead of the DSLR it's likely to be something like my 1937 Leica II and 50mm Elmar. It's small, compact, capable of capturing great images and it makes me think twice before I run off a roll of film (or tens of pictures on a digital - which I then have to go through). There's a definite cost associated with film (although I do my own processing) and using the little Leica just slows me down enough and makes me think about how I'm framing the shot - do I actually need 36 shots of that building from 12 different angles? Probably not.

 

So, whilst I still take plenty of shots, I've learnt that I can satsify my need to produce 'arty' images, but at the same time enjoy the company of my wife.

 

Although, it's also true that I don't always get the balance right ;-)

 

David.

Hi Charles,

 

I'm currently down in Winchester and the light was nice yesterday - today however, is another matter! I'm eagerly awaiting the receipt of the 90mm Elmar (and I also purchased a lens hood for it too!).

 

My Leica II just stays in my bag and goes with me just about everywhere; I love the fact that it's just over 70 years old and works faultlessly - I have to wonder whether the D40 will still be going in 70+ years time.

 

I wanted a Leica for years before finally being able to purchase a secondhand one, and the Leica name comes with a certain amount of 'baggage' (and I don't mean that in a negative way) - I didn't want to be disappointed by it when I finally had one! I needn't have worried, there's definitely a tactile response to using it, and (as you do) processing your own film brings you so much closer to photography in a way that digital just doesn't. Digital is 'cold', and although I can get great results with the digital cameras (resulting in 3 magazine front covers earlier this year), using the Leica is just a much more enjoyable experience.

Hello Charles,

 

I'm glad you've found a new lease of life for your photography due to this dimunitive Leica. About this time last year, I bought myself my first Leica (after years of wanting one) - a 1937 Leica II. Unfortunately I didn't have a Leica lens to use it with, so initially I got by with a Russian Jupiter lens, until around February '08 when I purchased a Red Scale 5cm Elmar.

 

I love my little Leica; it's lightweight, simple to use, quite rugged and requires no batteries. There's something about taking pictures with it that I just don't get from my Nikon D1 / D40. I've just (yesterday) bought the Elmar 90mm for it too, and paid to have my Weston Meter I's selenium cell replaced and recalibrated. That means that when I'm out and about, I've no worries about batteries failing!

 

I initially thought that the split viewfinder / rangefinder might be an issue, but I've settled in to using zone focussing and the viewfinder and leaving the rangefinder out of the equation. It's a great camera and I hope that you enjoy yours as much as I do mine.

 

David.