stevesint

<table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td colspan="2">

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="100%">

<p >Hi All,<br /><br />I was reorganizing some old files and folders on my Big Mac and came across this image that I created a long time ago. In 1973 I was taking a college course on basic photography and the class’ first assignment was to make a self-portrait using “naturally occurring light”. I figured the instructor added the “naturally occurring light” caveat to eliminate the possibility of the students shooting an image of themselves in the bathroom mirror and calling it a day. This was no problem for me because I considered myself a “serious” student who was already pushing his way into the world of professional photography. <br /><br />Since I already had a part-time job sweeping up at a commercial studio, I decided to try to use some of the photographic tools I saw being used almost everyday when I was at work. At that time, my Dad had a favorite pair of cufflinks that I liked. Each one had two small mime masks on it that represented the Greek faces of comedy and tragedy. I decided to incorporate a similar theme into my self-portrait. With a mental image of what I wanted to create firmly in my mind’s eye, I set the footage scale and exposure settings on my camera (there was no AF and AE in those days), held it at arm’s length, and shot a bunch of pictures of me smiling. I printed the resulting best frame life sized on Agfa 6 because I wanted the smiling face part of the image to look cartoonish, and placed it in an ornate, gilded frame I found in my parent’s basement. Finally, I put the framed smiley face in the back of my VW bug and went searching for a suitable location for my self-portrait shoot.<br /><br />That weekend, I visited a friend in Connecticut and while sitting in his backyard I saw the rear porch of his house and knew I had found the location for my self-portrait shoot! I was excited because the sun was floating in a bare sky that day but the white siding of his house would be a perfect fill card as I sat on the porch’s steps and that would fulfill my final requirement about using a studio technique for my self-portrait shot under “naturally occurring light”.<br /><br />I really liked the final photograph, and showed it to my girlfriend before I handed it in. I was especially happy when she said: “It’s perfect!” I, fishing for more compliments, said: “Do you really think so?” She said: “Yes, because you are a Gemini!” With all the thought and effort I had put into the image, that fact had never crossed my mind.<br /><br />Thought I'd share, it's from when I had more hair.. <img src="http://www.nikonians.org/forums/images/happy.gif" alt="" /> <br />S<br /><a href="mailto:steve@stevesint.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">steve@stevesint.com</a> </p>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table><div></div>

<p>I use the Sekonic L-358 with the PW module. It eats more expensive batteries than my Minolta IVF, is more top heavy (than the IVF), and the LCD readout is not as contrasty as the IVF but, the PW module, retractable dome, the comparison between ambient light and flash readout all make the L-358 my favorite.<br>

SS </p>

<p>Hi JC,<br>

I'm happy you found this tutorial worthy of being passed on to your son. I hope he finds it both inspirational and educational.<br>

As for your protective program blocking the site...I'm sorry but at least the tutorials I'm producing for Set Shop's tutorial website are viewable for free and I don't think there is much I can do about your protective program. Like the repeating posts on PN, I guess it's just something I (and we) will have to live with.<br>

Regardless, thanks for your thanks,<br>

SS</p>

<p>You're absolutely welcome.<br>

And, thanks for the thanks...:)<br>

SS</p>

<p>You're absolutely welcome.<br>

And, thanks for the thanks...:)<br>

SS</p>

<p>You're absolutely welcome.<br>

And, thanks for the thanks...:)<br>

SS</p>

<table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td colspan="2">

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="100%">

<p >Hi All,<br /><br />A new tutorial on lighting design is up on the web. You can view it here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.setshoptutorials.com/item/13-lighting-design" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.setshoptutorials.com/item/13-lighting-design</a><br /><br />Comments always welcomed.<br />Hope you like it.<br /><br />SS<br /><a href="mailto:steve@stevesint.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">steve@stevesint.com</a></p>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table><div></div>

<p>Hi JC,<br>

I think you're missing the point about ratios. A 5:1 ratio denotes a 5 stop difference between two lights of equal power positioned at different distances from the subject. That means the fill light is 1/16 as powerful as the main light (equal, one-half, one-quarter, one-eighth, one-sixteenth,). For all practical purposes, using your notation system, the 5:1 ratio is your 1:0 relationship because the fill light is no longer strong enough to illuminate any detail on the subject it is lighting.<br>

SS</p>

<p>Thanks for mentioning that...you're welcome...glad to be of help.<br>

SS</p>

<table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td colspan="2">

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="100%">

<p >Hi All,<br /><br />A new tutorial on ratios and intensifying color with gelled lights is up on the Set Shop Tutorial website.<br /><br />You can view it here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.setshoptutorials.com/item/12-ratios-and-gels" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.setshoptutorials.com/item/12-ratios-and-gels</a><br /><br />Comments always welcomed.<br /><br />Steve<br /><a href="mailto:steve@stevesint.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">steve@stevesint.com</a></p>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table><div></div>

<p>Hi JC,<br>

Just as long as you can clean the barnacles off them...;)<br>

S</p>

<p>Hi All,</p>

<p>Black Magic Mirror!<br />This week's image is not about the subjects, it's about the surface the subjects are resting on. It's a piece of glossy black acrylic reflecting a lit surface into the camera's lens. Hint: Cleanliness is next to Godliness.</p>

<p>From Digital Still Life Photography: Art, Business, and Style - release date January 7, 2013.</p>

<p>Happy Holidays to All<br />And to All a good night.</p>

<p>Steve Sint<br />steve@stevesint.com</p><div></div>

<p>Grips! Like an extra pair of hands, grips are always welcome on a still life set.<br>

From Digital Still Life Photography: Art, Business, and Style: release date January 7, 2013.<br>

Happy Holidays.<br />Steve Sint<br />steve@stevesint.com</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Gary,</p>

<p>Sorry for not responding sooner. I went to your website and looked at your images. Many of them are very nice and I appreciated seeing them. Furthermore, thank you for your comments, for not meaning to be hurtful, and of course I am trying to sell my book(s)! The term is called marketing and it is both something I do proactively and explain to my readers that they should be doing too! I am also glad that many of the folks on photography forums “will find the work (I do) earth shattering” and I can accept, be at peace with, and be more than satisfied if only half of the people who see my images enjoy them. I also understand, respect, and accept that you fall into your part of the group of people who see my images. </p>

<p>Although we both have been in the business for a long time, that’s not the point of my response to you. My books are aimed at photographers who are starting out, who need help understanding basic concepts, and are working on a shoestring budget. Without knowing if you have read any of my previous books, you are certainly free to have your own insightful opinion that my new still life book is mediocre after seeing 10 of the books over 350 images and not reading a word of its text, but even so, my books are not designed for photographers with 30 years experience like yourself. Nor are they designed for many of the current and past luminaries in our profession like Chris Collins, Annie Leibovitz, or Arnold Newman and Irving Penn.</p>

<p>Likewise, I understand you having the right to express your opinion about me posting sophomoric images, but I must point out what is probably obvious to others: I’m trying to explain things to sophomores! I also think the specific image I presented would be technically better if shot with my 4X5 view camera, fitted with my bag bellows, using a 65 or 75 mm lens mounted on a recessed lens board, and a medium format, 40 plus MP, digital back attached to the camera’s reducing back as many of my friends do. But, to a lot of neophyte photographers, who are starting out with just a 35 mm sized DSLR, that amount of information could be so overwhelming that it would probably result in budgetary and creative paralysis. My opinion is, I believe many art directors, charged with finding a photographer to shoot cosmetics, would overlook the image’s technical shortcomings and see that the concept is sound and the lipsticks themselves are lit to look liquid, creamy, and luscious.</p>

<p>Regardless of your feelings about the image I presented, I will continue to create and still find joy in seeing what others (like yourself) create. I will leave it at this; I’m happy to teach the basics and give my readers a language we can all communicate in and then you can teach them your thoughts about the finer points of advanced imaging in your workshops.</p>

<p>Happy Holidays to you and yours,<br>

Steve Sint<br>

steve@stevesint.com</p>

<p>Hi Gary,</p>

<p>Sorry for not responding sooner. I went to your website and looked at your images. Many of them are very nice and I appreciated seeing them. Furthermore, thank you for your comments, for not meaning to be hurtful, and of course I am trying to sell my book(s)! The term is called marketing and it is both something I do proactively and explain to my readers that they should be doing too! I am also glad that many of the folks on photography forums “will find the work (I do) earth shattering” and I can accept, be at peace with, and be more than satisfied if only half of the people who see my images enjoy them. I also understand, respect, and accept that you fall into your part of the group of people who see my images. </p>

<p>Although we both have been in the business for a long time, that’s not the point of my response to you. My books are aimed at photographers who are starting out, who need help understanding basic concepts, and are working on a shoestring budget. Without knowing if you have read any of my previous books, you are certainly free to have your own insightful opinion that my new still life book is mediocre after seeing 10 of the books over 350 images and not reading a word of its text, but even so, my books are not designed for photographers with 30 years experience like yourself. Nor are they designed for many of the current and past luminaries in our profession like Chris Collins, Annie Leibovitz, or Arnold Newman and Irving Penn.</p>

<p>Likewise, I understand you having the right to express your opinion about me posting sophomoric images, but I must point out what is probably obvious to others: I’m trying to explain things to sophomores! I also think the specific image I presented would be technically better if shot with my 4X5 view camera, fitted with my bag bellows, using a 65 or 75 mm lens mounted on a recessed lens board, and a medium format, 40 plus MP, digital back attached to the camera’s reducing back as many of my friends do. But, to a lot of neophyte photographers, who are starting out with just a 35 mm sized DSLR, that amount of information could be so overwhelming that it would probably result in budgetary and creative paralysis. My opinion is, I believe many art directors, charged with finding a photographer to shoot cosmetics, would overlook the image’s technical shortcomings and see that the concept is sound and the lipsticks themselves are lit to look liquid, creamy, and luscious.</p>

<p>Regardless of your feelings about the image I presented, I will continue to create and still find joy in seeing what others (like yourself) create. I will leave it at this; I’m happy to teach the basics and give my readers a language we can all communicate in and then you can teach them your thoughts about the finer points of advanced imaging in your workshops.</p>

<p>Happy Holidays to you and yours,<br>

Steve Sint<br>

steve@stevesint.com</p>

<p>Hi John,<br>

Thanks for the kind words, I'm glad you like the image. Probably the most important trait when creating a still life image can be summed up in one word: tenacity (as in stubborn or persistent). The image shown here is the third try at this subject after the first two tries resulted in failure (at least in my eyes). The portfolio samples chapter in my new Still Life book describes exactly (in disgustingly fine detail...:)) how the image was created using over 500 words on 4 pages and using 6 images to do so. The only detail that was left out is that the studio was warm which caused the lipsticks to melt slightly and have a liquid surface sheen to them. I didn't figure out why the lipsticks looked so creamy (the liquid surface sheen) until after the text and images were sent to my publisher (so it was too late to add the info in the book) but I am including it here for you and others to know about. I also have some experience shooting cosmetics for some very big companies and have learned a lot about shooting lipsticks but you still have to be stubborn and persistent about not settling for anything less than the perfection you can imagine in your mind's eye.</p>

<p>For Rodeo,<br>

The 8 bullets were polished with a rag cut from an old tee shirt (because it had been washed so many times it was lint free) in about 2-3 minutes and, in truth you can't polish, dust, or even touch a visible surface on a column of lipstick in any way without ruining it. I will say (and it is described in my soon to be released book) that it did take about 30 minutes to prep and position the lipstick columns the way I wanted them and I did ruin about 6-8 sacrificial lipsticks as I tried to succeed.<br>

Unlike what you've suggested, I don't hold back secrets but must also point out that I don't share information just for altruistic reasons. I share everything I have learned because, as I figure out how to explain something, doing so cements the reasoning behind doing it into my own head which makes me a better photographer. I also share because I have found that as I have gotten older, and gained experience, I find it important to push info down the road so the photographers who will come after I'm long gone won't have to reinvent the wheel over and over again. That just seems like a waste of precious time to me.</p>

<p>SS<br>

steve@stevesint.com</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi All,</p>

<p>Many of you have heard of Guns and Roses. This week I present to you Lipsticks and Bullets!</p>

<p>See how it was done in the portfolio chapter of Digital Still Life Photography: Art, Business, and Style. Release Date: January, 07, 2013.</p>

<p>Happy Holidaze to All,<br />Steve Sint<br />steve@stevesint.com</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Brooks,<br>

Forgive my ignorance, but what does "Dutch Angle" mean?<br>

SS</p>

<p>Brooks wrote:<br>

Sometimes it just doesn't matter when the AD goes all Dutch Angle on you...</p>

<p>Hey Rodeo,<br>

I'm familiar with with the skew control in transform and, in fact, fixed the skewed liquid line that way too. It was just much faster to level my tabletop before I shot the image. I tend to look at creating an image as a time line from imagining the image, though making my set, through lighting, through exposure, through post. Invariably, I have found that the earlier on that timeline I can make a correction the faster and easier I can do it.</p>

<p>One of my students at Maine Media Workshops shot her first wedding gig without regard to setting her white balance either using K (as I do) or a custom WB setting (as I also suggested as an alternative). She emailed me a tale of woe about how it took her over 40 hours to correct her 1000 files in post. I calculated she made a little over $ 10/hour for doing the job. So, although I truly believe in Photoshop and use it constantly, please forgive me for continuing to use my carpenter's level when I can before I take the shot of a liquid in a glass container.<br>

SS</p>