reflectedglory

<p>Tara,<br>

as a rule, flash meters do not trigger the lights - they just measure the incident light when you trigger them yourself.<br>

If you have a DSLR, you probably won't benefit too much from a flash meter as you can see your results instantaneously. I own one, but rarely use it these days.<br>

As long as you are in the habit of checking the histogram on the camera and train yourself to be sensitive to the relative light levels within the shot you should be fine.<br>

Dave</p>

<p>Pasha,<br>

I created a simple action to automate applying a blur filter to smooth skin. It uses a high pass filter to mask out existing edges - and you can then use that mask to make further adjustments (like making the eyes totally sharp).<br>

Theres more info on <a href="http://www.better-boudoir-photography.com/adobe-photoshop-online-tutorial-quick-airbrushing.html">airbrushing skin</a> and a link to the download - its free so have a play :)<br>

David</p>

<p>I think we need more information and a specific example to look at.<br>

In general though lens quality is everything: a prime (fixed) lens will give you the sharpest results. Even cheap prime lenses offer very good quality. I did a <a href="http://www.better-boudoir-photography.com/digital-camera-lens-comparison.html">50mm lens test</a> a while back and was quite surprised just how good an $80 50mm lens was. Easily as good as my $800+ 28-70/f2.8L pro zoom and in a different league to cheaper zooms (I know those are Canon examples, but the principle will be true for Nikon too).<br>

Dave</p>

<p>First off I should say that I quite like the portrait - I like a harsher light for male portraits. But to answer your question, if you want softer lighting then you need softer light(!):</p>

<ol>

<li>Move the flash back a bit (1m is very close)</li>

<li>Use a larger umbrella, softbox or bounce the flash off a wall or other large surface</li>

</ol>

<p>David</p>

<p>As Matt said, your problem is balancing the ambient and flash lights. What you describe is the flashes being far brighter than the ambient light.<br>

You could try slowing your shutter speed, but you might end up going so slowly that you will get motion blur if the subject moves at all (will show up as a brightly frozen image in the middle of a slightly smeary portrait).<br>

The other things you can try are:</p>

<ul>

<li>turning the lights right down to their lowest power setting</li>

<li>moving the lights further away from the subject</li>

<li>add a reflector to either bounce light onto the background (this may be the most practical solution). Alternatively use one of the strobes for the background and use a reflector and the other light for the subject.</li>

</ul>

<p>Hope that all makes sense!<br>

Dave</p>

<p>I actually like the pictures - they have a warmth that is very nice.<br>

I quite like the soft effect too, but I would modify it slightly:<br>

- Create a mask to keep the detail in some of the elements (hair, jewelry, eyes, lips etc). Personally I use a High Pass filter as a basis for the mask and then work from there.<br>

Using one layer to create a layer mask for another is a little too complex to go into here, but you could google it.<br>

A little while back I created a basic blurring tutorial <a href="http://www.better-boudoir-photography.com/adobe-photoshop-online-tutorial-quick-airbrushing.html">airbrushing skin</a> which has a downloadable Photoshop Action you could play with.<br>

Dave</p>

<p>Loving this thread! Here's my attempt (I hope people don't mind ladies bottoms in photos)<br>

Dave<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10127441-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>OK, here goes - my thoughts on how this image was lit</p>

<ul>

<li>Main light source to the left is large and diffuse - most likely a biggish softbox. It is positioned almost to the side of the model, just a little front of her.</li>

<li>It doesn't look to me like the backdrop is lit separately at all, but there is adequate separation between the model and background so that the light falling on it is less intense (the inverse square law at work).</li>

<li>Regarding the soft effect around the model, this has either been taken with a very wide aperture, or it has been photoshop'd .Photoshop would also be the easiest way to achieve the darkening around the right and top of the picture. </li>

</ul>

<p>For your setup, I would recommend the white backdrop and as much distance between it and the model as possible (2m or so would be good). A single light source with a large softbox nearly all the way round to the side.<br>

I look forward to being corrected :)<br>

Dave</p>

<p>You might find that hooking up with a good make-up artist/stylist is actually a better starting point.<br>

The make-up/styling for these shots is *critical* and the input they can provide is absolutely invaluable; i've watched talented MUAs create outfits out of practically nothing!<br>

Having a good MUA on board will also make you more attractive when it comes to getting models etc.<br>

Just my $0.02<br>

Dave<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2507/4031726030_3e44696914.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="274" /></p>

<p>The hotel sounds like a good option - particularly if they want glamourous style nudes. You could perhaps get more arty shots outdoors, but the lighting is much more difficult (especially if they don't want to get up before dawn), its getting colder and privacy might be an issue.<br>

Of course, indoor lighting in a strange environment can pose its own challenges (I wrote a brief <a href="http://www.better-boudoir-photography.com/photographic-lighting.html">lighting workshop for nude/boudoir photography</a> ... might be useful in planning equipment etc)<br>

Good luck,<br>

Dave</p>

<p>I'd add my vote for a 50mm prime. I did a <a href="http://www.better-boudoir-photography.com/digital-camera-lens-comparison.html">lens comparison</a> a while back and was really impressed by the 50mm 1.8: for about 80 bucks you can't beat it (for the 50D anyway - if you go full format, then an 85mm f1.8 would be better)<br>

That said, if you have the cash then any of the 70-200 L series are great as is the 24-70 f2.8L or 28-70 f2.8L<br>

Stay away from cheaper zoom lenses if you want decent quality.</p>

<p>I think all the comments above are excellent. The only thing I would add is to carefully consider your lighting strategy, as it is often the lighting that makes the difference between a stunning shot and a rather ordinary one. Control of lighting can also help you make stunning shots from very ordinary locations.<br>

I hesitate to give advice without knowing your experience level - so please dont take offence if these any of these are too obvious!<br>

If you can shoot at first light or dusk you will get the most desirable warm, low angled light for free.<br>

Even so, many shots require two light sources - and you can achieve a surprising amount with a simple speedlite, particularly if you can trigger it remotely. At this point it goes beyond providing fill-in flash and can be used for side or back lighting. Large reflectors are similarly useful, and if you are shooting at dawn/dusk then don't be afraid of a gold ones; they match that warm light very well.<br>

If dawn and dusk aren't possible then you will need to find some shade or use a large skrim to block out that direct light. I know one pro who lights many of his outdoor shots solely with a huge skrim and/or a big gold reflector and I watched him create a beautiful set out of a small ugly area here that we only normally use to store garden tools!<br>

For those wanting a bit more detail, I have a page explaining the basics of <a href="http://www.better-boudoir-photography.com/photography-lighting-tutorial-tip_fill-flash.html">outdoor nude lighting</a> .<br>

Good luck! Outdoor nudes can be a bit daunting at first but the results make it worth the effort.<br>

Dave</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry this is a bit late in answering, but i've only just re-joined photo.net...<br>

I've been building a site which has lots of info for amateur photographers on Boudoir and art-nude photography:<br>

http://www.better-boudoir-photography.com<br>

By the way, Boudoir Photography is alive and well - it just isn't a term used by photographers much - we usually use Glamour or Artistic Nude. But it is quite fashionable now for brides to be to create something special for their husbands to be and many women are getting photos done in their thirties and forties too - and they tend to use the term Boudoir Photography.<br>

PS. If you don't find what you are looking for on the site then drop me a line and I will try to add it!<br>

Cheers<br>

David</p>

<p>Wow, what a bizarre response to a simple request!<br>

There seems to be a consensus that boudoir photographs are going to be sleazy or embarrassing. Nothing should be further than the truth! And hell if you're worried about them falling into the wrong hands, take the pictures yourself, or with the help of a friend you trust. In this digital age, it has never been easier.<br>

But honestly, I cannot quite get my head around the general attitude here - think sensual, not sleazy!!!<br>

FWIW, I compiled a list of the major photographer directories on my site:<br>

http://www.better-boudoir-photography.com/professional-model-directories.html<br>

I think they all have forums where you can ask for someone near you, then check out their portfolio and GET REFERENCES (same advice to all potential models).<br>

There is also lots of info on the site about taking the pics yourself. I've just posted an article on using a compact camera for boudoir photography - so anyone can do it!<br>

http://www.better-boudoir-photography.com/compact-camera-boudoir-photography.html<br>

Hope that helps,<br>

Dave</p>

<p>Interesting debate. I have a info site on boudoir/nude photography and I must confess I haven't touched on these issues yet. I've had to deal with an inquisitive public, but never the police!<br>

Brian, its a really good article - I'd be happy to reproduce it on my site: http://www.better-boudoir-photography.com as it is in the same spirit of information sharing as the rest of the site.<br>

Dave</p>