james_mccormick

<p>Hi All,<br>

It's been a while since my last post but I've been quite busy doing loads of location based fashion portraitx and having a great time whilst learning a lot about, not only lighting, but establishing rapport with models to get the best out of them.<br>

Here in the UK, the summer weather has causde me tons of cancelled and rescheduled shoots ultimately making me spend more time liasing with MUAs and models to establish new shoot dates rather than actually shooting. I've come to the conclusion now that I would like to get a background support so that I can start doing portraits under the cover of a roof!<br>

With that said this leads me on to my question. Would you guys be able to kindly recommend portable background supports that you may have had good experiences with?<br>

I do quite like the idea of using the seamless paper rolls as I am a little unsure of how the pop-up backgrounds from e.g. lastolite fair. I am not a fan of going for the cheapest as I have had experience of 'getting what you pay for' in the past but at the same time, I don't want to shell out a truck load of quids when I don't need too!<br>

Thanks in advance,<br>

James</p>

<p>Hi All,<br>

I've decided that I would like to take my photography one step further and venture into the business of selling my services for financial gain. I've for quite a few years now been reluctant as I am very critical of my own work and sometimes feel a little out of my depth especially when I look at sites such as PN and 500px. However, I have been solicited on many occasions recently for my work and so I realise now that many people like my style of photography and are willing to pay for it. My goal is not only to make money but to make people happy. To make people feel good about themselves and immortilise moments which they will look at in years to come. I love photography and I've invested alot of money in it. Because of these (90% the former!) I've been slowly edging myself into the industry, first with a little toe-dipping but now the toe-dipping period is over and I want to jump in.</p>

<p>Now, if youve got this far through my musings the I'm already greatful! ;-) My question is this:<br>

I've been looking at website design and have been using Dreamweaver CS3 to design my page. However, I am not proficient in HTML or CSS code and thus I am struggling to get this site constructed! I would like to ask you all if you could tell me how you got your sites up and running and what did you use to construct it? I have looked at word press but I cant figure out how to construct a page!</p>

<p>Any help would be very greatfully appreciated.<br>

Best Wishes<br>

James</p>

<p>Today I got an email from Calumet informing me of three new additions to the Canon lens line. Being a 24-70/2.8mkI owner I was interested to see what the mkII had to offer and what the price tag was going to be. Was I ready for what I was about to read? Absolutely not!<br>

Now I have never posted a message/musing of this sort but I couldn't resist this one.<br>

I do not tend to use IS, I used to shoot Sony with its sensor based IS and did not miss it when I rebranded my gear to Canon. However, I was very surprised to see this lens not having IS. From my evenings of browsing through this forum, it appeared that IS was what most people wanted from an update to this lens. However, from what I could see, it appeared that the upgrade was a couple of fluorite coated elements, the entire lens being lighter by 100g and the filter thread being a few millimetres bigger. Also, a feature that I really like on my mkI copy is the lens hood becoming shallower as the lens goes wider. This seems to have been scraped on the mkII.</p>

<p>Now I can understand that this lens needed some mass taken away as it is a heavy beast, but really, am I missing something here? This lens is up for £2300! Have Canon gone completely bonkers?<br>

I would love to hear other peoples thoughts on this?</p>

<p>James</p>

<p>Dear All,<br>

I am currently turning my attentions to muliple flash units to light my models. I have been using a single 430exII via a shoot through umbrella, but am finding that I want to start controlling spill using softboxes and grids etc. I am in the process of purchasing a 580exII which I will fire as my main via an extra long TTL cable (ala Syl Arena) and use this also to pop the slave 430exII as my fill. Furthermore, I want to use three-point lighting, i.e. I want to use a hair light. Now, my budget won't allow to stretch to a third Canon flash so I will be purchasing second hand thrid party flash unit. I also don't really have the space (currently) for continuous studio lamps (indoors) or the budget to afford portable studio hot-lights for location. So, speedlites are my trade-off.<br>

Now for the question and problem! I assume (I have not tested this yet) that a third party flash set in wireless manual (as I don't expect them to be able to decode the Canon ttl) will pop when it "see's" the pre-flash and so will not sync with the other flash units and therefore the curtain. Can anybody offer up some advice on how I might work around this? <br>

Sorry if these are very basic questions, but I am new to multiple lights.<br>

Thanks in advance for your advice.<br>

James</p>

<p>Thanks for your comments John and Richard. They are ver helpful. I have another shoot lined up for the beginning of Feb where I am going to try out some short lighting.</p>

<p>Richard, yes I think the I may have added a little too much contrast to the iris and I did clone out a couple of speculars on the scleras which maybe why they look a little dry. I will certainly reduce some contrast in the iris. It's interesting that you mention the potentially over smoothed skin. I am not necessarily in agreement (but then this is personal choice I think) but I can see why you would think that. I did keep inspecting the skin at 100% as I changed the opacity of the red channel smoothing to ensure that I retained skin texture.</p>

<p>Les and Fred, I knew I was being a little naughty by posting the image here and to be honest, it would normally have been me that would have been groaning a little had someone else done it. I appreciate and respect what you both wrote (and you are right) but you may have been a tiny bit sharp in your initial response Les. Please don't take this as me snapping back as that is not what is intended. You are both very accomplished photographers and I am certainly not here to fall out with anybody :-) <br>

Thank you all kindly for your advice whether it be positive or negative.<br>

James</p>

Dear Yu,

Just a couple if points to think about. I

have never used the flash unit that you

are using but I hope maybe something

here will get your flash popping! Are you setting the OCF to slave and the pop

up to act as a master? Secondly, are you

certain that the third party flash is able

to decode the Canon ttl pre-flash?

Maybe, the Canon wireless system is not

compatible with this flash and so it can't

sync with the shutter when used in this

manner.

Have you tried mounting the flash to the

hotshoe and checked to see if it lights

your subject at different power settings?

If you find that it can be used when on

the hotshoe, you could try using a long

ttl cable. I have the 3m lastolite one

which I find reasonably useful when

working closely. Also, you can get longer

ones from a couple of other sites

including Syl Arenas site OCFgear.com.

Hope something here may help and you

get your toys playing nicely together

soon.

James

That was my point Les! I find that I never manage to get any

comments. People tend to rate but not comment which is not

terribly helpful when one is trying to learn. I assume you did

not read my post as I did mention there that I found it

difficult to get replies.

<p>Dear All,<br>

I'm once again being a little naughty here but I am finding that whenever I post in the critique forums I get very few (if any replys). This for me is having two effects. The first, it is kind of putting me off getting a subscription as the whole reason I use these sites is to learn from those who are considerably better and more experienced than me! I am aware that my photography is by no means brilliant, but I hope to some day make it good. So really the second effect is a feeling of lack of progress. I hasten to add, I am certainly NOT looking for ego stroking here. </p>

<p>So, please forgive me as I have posted an image here but I would love to get some constructive comments. </p>

<p>This was my second shoot to date. The model was a friend of a friend and I was going for a kind of 'typical' (if that exists), editorial/front cover look. My idea was to shoot from above downwards (used an 430EXII) fired through a 36" shoot through umbrella. I used a silver reflector (mainly used white, but in this image silver was used) from below to fill. I think this is nearly butterfly lighting, but my nose shadow is a little too long. The body used was a Canon 60D with a 24-70/2.8L on the end. The 430EXII was fired wirelessly using the 60D pop up flash as a disabled master. Image was made in ttl mode with some FEC dialed in. I used max sync speed (1/250) at f/2.8, ISO 200, FL was 45mm.</p>

<p>For my post process, I used red channel skin softening, increased the contrast of the iris by using the soft light blend mode and revealed the iris from a black layer mask. I added burn to the cheek bones and a little dodge to the protruding areas by adding a soft light 50% gray layer painted on with black or white foregrounds, respectively. The lip higlights were lightened a little and the eyebrows tidied and made a fuller. Lastly, the scleras were also whitened a touch and eye veins removed. I used red channel softening so that no surface or guassian (sp?) blur was added.</p>

<p>Finally the question! Do you think I am heading in the right direction here? Am I acheiving a three dimensional feel to the image? Does it look too processed? Should I just hang my camera up and leave it to those who are more gifted ;-)</p>

<p>Thank you all for your time and patience<br>

James</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for your responses everyone.<br>

John. you are not raining on my parade at all, in fact it is exactly the sort of advice I am after. Although, I am not trying to recreate the image itself (as this is someone elses vision), rather I want to understand how they crafted the light and possibly apply that technique to something of my own.<br>

Since it is such a large softbox, would this have a grid attached as there seems to be very little spill around the model? Judging by your advice, really I would need to be working with higher powered hot lights? <br>

Would a possible, albeit not as nice looking, workaround be to use a smaller softbox with the 580exII but push it close in to increase its apparent size?<br>

I tend to use a long ttl cable (ala Syl Arena) attached to my 580 so I could set this as an enabled master inside a softbox with other speedlites set as slaves). Hopefully the back light would see the preflash through the softbox!<br>

I had noticed that this image was made using a MFSLR and so appreciate that the DR of a cropped dSLR would not be anywhere near that of the Pentax. However, I am no light guru, indeed I am merely starting out along the long road of light craft. I always like to have things to aspire to and drive me. Even if I get 1/4 of the way there, I will be happy and will then gather the tools I need to make the remainder of the journey.<br>

Thanks again,<br>

James</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses. I assumed that posting of this photo would be prohibited, so after a few hours of trying to find the image, I finally found the link for it:<br>

<a href="http://www.500px.com/photo/3715724">http://www.500px.com/photo/3715724</a><br>

This is the sort of photography that I aspire to create. I think the model was lit camera left to produce loop light. Further I think that the key light was flagged to stop it contaminating the background which looks like it has been lit seperately to separate the model from it.</p>

<p>So can this look be created with small strobes? I am currently using two OCF, i.e. a 480exII and a 580exII. The shadows on her face are dark but still retain detail and have a soft transition to the lit side. By the advice so far, I would conclude that a large or close source was used. Would you agree?<br>

Thanks for your help everyone,<br>

James</p>

<p>Hi Everyone,<br>

I am currently collecting images which contain lighting and poses that I like in order to study and learn from them. I have a low res copy of an image which I absolutely adore and want to try and recreate the lighting that the photographer has made. Unfortunately I cannot post the image as it is not mine and I cannot find the link to the original image (not very helpful I know). However, I suspect that it is loop lighting. Although I think I can recognise the kind of lighting and roughly where I would put the strobe in terms of the lighting compass, I am a little clueless as to how far from the model I would put the strobe. The models face is 3/4 lit and the cheek and side of head facing the camera are in deep shadow. The nose shadow does not reach the cheek and so is not rembrandt. Would any of you be able to give me an idea of what sort of distance from the model I would place my key light in order to create this effect?</p>

<p>Thanks for your help, and hopefully someday in the future I can be one of those dishing out the advice rather than soaking it up!</p>

<p>James</p>

Thanks for all your responses. They have been

really helpful. Paul, I like your post work and can

now see how I should have done things. These are

the sort of pointers I am after. Let's face it,

reading can only tell you the theory, but putting

that to practice with a model is another thing.

Would placing a strobe camera right slightly above

with the light falling down achieve a similar result

as most of you suggested? Of course a modifier

would be needed to soften the light. Since I will be

mostly working alone, working with reflectors is a

little tricky.

How would you rate the composition? Does this

need major work also?

Because I've moved from natural light to creating

light, I'm finding things a little deflating.

Nevertheless, I shall keep plugging away until

things start to come together. This is something I

would like to do as a business but will not venture

into this until I'm competent enough to let people

part with there money for a decent image.

Again thanks for all your help and time.

James

<p>Hi All,</p>

<p>Now I know that I will probably get shot down here but this is a last resort really. I often submit images to the critique forum but normally get ratings and no feedback. Now here is my problem. I love portraiture, alot! I love light and controlling light to give people (particularly faces) shape, depth and form . To quote Syl Arenas mantra, I like to create interesting light by (trying at least) to create interesting shadows. Sometimes successfully, but more often than not, unsuccessfully! I've attached an image below to try and get some feedback on what I'm doing wrong (or right for that matter). Now, I practice whenever I can between my full time job and a small child (he is often my model). Recently, however, I've managed to get a couple of patient models to allow me to take some portraits. This image is actually from my first portrait shoot with a model.<br /> The attached image was created as follows. I wanted the sun behind the model so I was kind of shooting into it. The idea being I wanted a 'washed out' low contrast look and as a bonus the sun would act as a hair light. But, she would sillohette, right? So, I used a silver reflector to bounce some light back onto her right side. I didn't want to bounce it back full face as that would create a shadowless, flat look. Now I know I am far from brilliant and I am certainly not here for ego stroking (well maybe just a little ;-)) but any advice would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Whilst ratings can be useful, I find it sometimes a fruitless task as I often can't see exactly what I've done wrong.<br /> Thanks guys,<br /> James</p>

Sorry, my brain and fingers were not working in tandem! I will use

radio trigger as I understand that IR need line of sight for 'reliable'

firing. Thanks again for your help everyone, it is always useful to me

to get advice from better and more experienced photographers.

Thanks for all your advice. I think I'll probably go

with a used 550ex and some cheap IR triggers. I'll

be doing location shoots outside so will need the

extra power (depending on conditions!). Judging

from the consensus, optical triggering may just

not cut it in bright conditions, so I think the IR

route may be the best route.

@Scott, thanks for the link to the book. I've had

my eye on that for a while. I'll certainly have a

read.

Thanks again

James

<p>Hi All,<br>

I want to start getting a little creative with multi-light setups. I am currently using a single Canon 430EXII which, for me, are a little pricy. Since I am not earning much money from photography at the moment I want to experiment using a cheaper unit rather than get another 430EXII or 580EX. I have been having a look around and see that SunPak have some nice cheap units. I will be using manual flash so ETTL compatibility is not a real issue. What is important to me, however, is how they can be triggered wirelessly. At the moment, I use the pop-up flash on my 60D to fire my 430EXII slave. My question is, does anyone know if the SunPak PZ42X will fire as a slave unit when the 60D pop-up flash is used as the master unit? I would not be using the 60D pop-up to expose the image at all, merely using it to pop the other units. <br>

My finances (i.e. the wife) will not allow me to stretch to PW's so that option is totally gone. However, if the Sunpak unit won't pop then the cheap-bay IR units are always an option.<br>

Thanks for any advice,<br>

James</p>

<p>A friend of mine captured on a quick coffee break. Used a Canon 60D, 24-70/2.8L at 2.8. ISO2000ish. A little PP to remove some skin imperfections.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I would not dive straight in and start spending alot of money (pounds on this side of the pond) on a 5DII and just sub £1k lenses. Speaking from my own experience, I started with a Sony a200 and an 18-55mm kit lens, then went onto a couple of primes. I found that the Sony body, whilst great, no longer fitted my purpose and I went to a Canon 60D again with a kit lens then a little 50/1.8mkII. It's only been recently that I found my tastes in photography moving into portraiture so I bit the bullet and bought a 24-70/2.8. The point to this rambling is that when you start your tastes in photography seem set in stone, but as most of us have experienced, they quickly change as we experiment and gain experience. Do yourself a big favour, start mid range, see what you like and grow. A camera will only record what the photographer points it at! :-)<br>

Going from a comapct to a 5DmkII and some L-glass is like going from a Ford Fiesta to a Lambo, IMHO. Whatever happens, have fun :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for all your comments. I don't tend to look too much into MTF charts as I find that they do not really represent a real world scenario, but that is just my opinion.<br>

@Mark Peierot, I fully agree with your statements fully. I shot most of my images for the two hours at f/2.8 merely to test the lens wide open. under normal circumstances I would have stopped to at least f/4.<br>

Another reason I ask is that I am currently moving into the area of paid shoots just to fund my hobby (at the moment as I am nowhere near skilled enough for any more than that). Alot of mums around here want environmental shots of their children playing rather that your typical uber-clean studio shots (although I must admit I do like those kinds). So my next question really is, would you have been happy to part with cash for shots like that? Would I be over charging if I charged £70 for a 2 hour shoot?<br>

@Robin Smith, whilst I appreciate you taking the time to respond, I must disagree with you slightly. No selective processing was applied to the little boys skin only a global drop in clarity in camera raw and certainly not enough to make his skin look plastic. Also, no contrast adjustments were made. I pulled the highlights and shadows a tiny bit just to spread the histogram and widen my dynamic range. It is interesting that the consensus is that the eyes are in focus some of whom seem to imply that they are the sharpest part of the image! I am not moaning at you here as you are entitled to your opinion and I certainly accept that :-)</p>

<p>@Robin Gordon - so true! But did I get that expression? ;-)</p>

<p>Again, thanks for all your comments, I think I got a pretty good copy of this lens so will stop pp'ing and just get shooting and improving my technique!<br>

James</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Guys,<br>

To start with, I must confess, yes I am pixel peeping! I want to ask you all this question - I have recently purchased a 24-70/2.8L and have been mildly disappointed with the sharpness of this lens even compared to my 50/1.8!<br>

Do you think the attached image is acceptably sharp for this lens? It was shot indoors at around ISO400, and a shutter speed of around 1/500 at f/2.8. To be clear what I have done to it in ps: 0.5px sharpen on the eyes. Some exposure, highlights and shadows adjustment. <br>

Am I being unrealistic in what I expect from this lens?<br>

Thanks in advance,<br>

James</p><div></div>