sofie_dittmann

<p>@Thom<br>

Thanks for the pointers and great feedback. Here's a question tho: I got the Cubelite specifically BECAUSE I had such a hard time w/ all the stuff reflecting off of the glaze, and I don't think I could control the reflections the same way if I did away w/ the tent.</p>

<p>@Peter:<br>

You've been extremely helpful. Your pointers are great, exactly what I was hoping for. I'll certainly keep your suggestions in mind for the next one. I have an 85mm prime I was thinking about using, and I'll have to adjust my setup accordingly - but it should work.<br>

BTW, I said "shiny as glass" b/c the other pottery I have photographed before is NOTHING like these pieces. No matter what you do, it shows up - VERY UNFORGIVING, even in the Cubelite. Yet, as you said, the pieces are gorgeous, so I was thrilled to work with them. He's actually using metal compounds of sorts in his glazes, or so he told me, and he sprays them on, which creates that amazing gradient in the glaze.<br>

I am happy to report my client was pleased with these photos (reasonable price and nobody else doing it locally at this quality), so if I can do even better next time, he should be thrilled, right?</p>

<p>Thanks to all for your answers so far. Here are some details on this shot.<br>

1. These images were shot in a Cubelite light tent w/ a 50 mm prime f/1.8 lens, ISO 100, f/13, 5s. The client requested a picture of both of the pots together, some separate ones and some details.<br>

2. They will be used for an art catalogue.<br>

3. They are lit by a side light on the left and the right each, no top lighting; background is a graduated flotone background, "thunder gray".<br>

4. The client's glazes are as shiny as glass.</p>

<p>Please check out these pottery photographs and give constructive pointers: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=917749">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=917749</a></p>

<p>Natural lighting if possible, have a plan in place (and a helper), and take a tripod. Unless you have more than the flash you mentioned, results won't look as good as what others have posted here. Reflectors might also help.</p>

<p>I typically do at least 4 different versions in RAW and then blend them together in Photoshop. I've had issues w/ skin tone, too, but this workflow seems to help with it.</p>

<p>Street photography on steroids. Kool.</p>

<p>I agree with the others: MP do not matter as much as other functionality. Partially, that depends on what you are planning to do with your pictures later, though, too. My Canon xTI has 10 MP, which is alright for most of the stuff that I do, and I can print them out up to 16x20.</p>

<p>I concur w/ David W. Do you really want to haul all of that around whereever you're going?</p>

<p>Of course beautiful people are nice to look at, no question. However, I concur w/ some posts here that to me this is always secondary.</p>

<p>The main question needs to be: what do I have in mind with this picture, with this model? Will it fit what I'm trying to capture? Just like beautiful is not necessarily not interesting, "ugly" doesn't necessarily mean interesting. The whole premise is wrong.</p>

<p>Try "Lighting for Portrait Photography" by Steve Bavister. I've also found it helpful to study the early pioneers, as they were much more experimental in their approach than a lot of stuff you see nowadays.</p>

<p>I myself prefer natural light - among others b/c to-date I've not been able to afford a professional lighting set. And other than that, just start taking pictures and learn from screw-ups.</p>

<p>I admit I didn't read the whole thread, so some of this may be repetition. Your camera will always have issues focussing properly in low-light conditions. Once it does focus, it'll try to readjust once you hit the shutter. It's just the nature of the beast. Nothing wrong with the camera.</p>

<p>Last time I took pictures in conditions like that, I used the highest ISO I could live with with the smallest aperture it would take. I agree with one of the posts above that grainy photographs like that have their own charm. Nothing wrong with that. And once I focused, I switched AF off in order to prevent the camera from readjusting itself. B/c it will do that.</p>

<p>So, bottom line: keep your camera... or give it to me! :op</p>

<p>My guess is, you'd want to get a list of all participants first, if possible. If you're using a program like Lightroom or Bridge, you should be able to preview your pictures and therefore know what picture shows what - then rename accordingly. Makes sense?</p>

<p>I am using a fixed 50mm lens for portraits.</p>

<p>I agree w/ Ralph. I shot somebody's senior pictures recently, and wouldn't you know it, the ones that I would have picked they didn't. They picked some of them, but the assortment that I would have selected was different.<br>

In other words: present them w/ the cream of what you have taken, and then it's in their hands. My main objective would be that THEY ARE HAPPY. If they are, truthfully it doesn't matter what they picked and how they picked it - given that you've provided them w/ the best you shot.<br>

GOOD LUCK</p>

<p>Truthfully, I wouldn't be nervous, unless one of the kids is really out of whack. I think this can be a tremendous opportunity, if done right. Make sure you scout the location beforehand, if you can, and think of a few ways you can pose them in there. I'M JEALOUS!</p>