stevesint
-
Posts
162 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by stevesint
-
-
<p>Hi Tim and Joe,</p>
<p>Sorry for not responding sooner but yesterday's bride got in my way!</p>
<p>For Tim:<br>
The concepts I'm trying to express in the tutorials I'm producing now are global and can be recognized (and found) just as easily on location as in the studio. But, when creating a video tutorial, I find it easier to create them in a studio environment because then I can isolate the specific point I'm trying to make so it's easier to see and understand. An example of this is the fact that the windows of a building (and sometimes even its entire walls) are reflective surfaces and they react the same way the liquor bottle (in the light modifiers video) and the blue glass (in the fill card video) do to being lit by a point source versus a broad source (albeit on a larger scale). While the first 3 videos I've produced (and an upcoming fourth one) are about still life subjects, the four that follow those will be about portraiture. Since I do a lot of available light shooting too, even though they will also be about lighting, they will cover how to recognize the lighting I'll be creating in a studio environment when working on a location assignment. However, that being said, my whole game in photography is all about light and controlling it. I could care less about what brand of camera is used (although I do have personal preferences) because what really floats my boat is the lighting I either recognize or create.</p>
<p>For Joe,<br>
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here; with today's available digital imaging programs, why would you NOT want to use retouching to take care the lens dark spot in the green bottle? I feel that doing so is just spinning your wheels. I still have a front surface, semi-silvered mirror that I can clamp to the rail of my old Sinars, that I used to create seamless double exposures (one set in front of the camera, one set to the right [or left] at a 90 degree angle) but, why would I do that now when correcting the dark lens spot is only a 2 minute Photoshop manipulation? Trying to do it in camera is a specious argument for a few reasons: 1. a front surface, semi-silvered mirror large enough to pull off what you are suggesting would cost more than buying the Photoshop program (or at least the much less expensive Photoshop Elements program!) and 2. Balancing the color and intensity of the second light you suggest bouncing off the semi-silvered mirror in front of the camera lens would be a nightmare considering it's gold leaf on a curved surface on the subject bottle. Personally, I hate nightmares. There are some who will argue (and you might be one of them) that doing something just to prove you can do it is reward enough but I disagree. There was a time when I filed out the 35 mm negative carrier on my enlarger to prove I only shot full frame 35 mm images...as if that ragged black edge somehow made my images better. But the joke was on me, until I realized that by only shooting in a 3:2 ratio I could never have the cover of Life magazine (which I eventually got). If you are against simple digital retouching from an artistic purity POV, then I can only say you are living in a fantasy world when it comes to professional photography. Any (any!) tool that saves you time and effort while producing the effect you want should be embraced instead of ostracized. My only caveat to using digital retouching is it shouldn't be seen, nor make the photograph look like an illustration which happens all too often. Regardless IMO: It's all about the image; not how difficult it was to create it.</p>
<p>Apologies...forgive my rant...it's another Sunday and there's another bride waiting...;)<br>
SS<br>
Steve@stevesint.com </p>
-
<p>Hi Hosteen,</p>
<p>I couldn't agree more about using your imagination. In fact I think you should be as creative with your lighting solutions as you are with your photography. Truth is, my current favorite shoe mount flash diffuser is made from a medium sized Chinese food take-out soup container. Not only is it less expensive than a store bought one but I get to enjoy the soup that comes in it first!</p>
<p>You can read all about it on my website blog here:</p>
<p>http://stevesint.com/blog/page/5/</p>
<p>I'm glad you liked the videos - more are on the way.<br>
Regards,</p>
<p>SS<br>
Steve@stevesint.com</p>
-
<p>Hi Joe,<br /> Like I said at the beginning of the Light Modifiers tutorial ask 100 photographers, you get 99 different answers and, interestingly, all of them can be right!</p>
<p>A curtain could probably work too, but if the reflective surface of the subject is smooth the curtain would have to be pulled taut so as to not impart any texture to the reflection. I've shot a tremendous amount of glassware over the years (from high end liquors and wines to Kosta Boda crystal) and those client's are sticklers that the reflections in their products are pristine so I prefer the smoothness of reflections created from more substantial fill cards (show cards or foamcore) but taut material could work equally as well. More importantly, fill cards are listed on my invoices as expendable items and I've never had a client question their cost. The truth is, if a fill card gets creased, or dirty, or has a hole cut in it (as in this case) I just deep six it and take out another one.</p>
<p>That being said, in the disclaimer with my original post I mention that the whole idea of the tutorials I'm creating is that they shouldn't be taken as gospel (nor written in stone) so if you're into making, steaming, hanging and using a "taut" curtain instead of a using fill card with a hole in it my answer is to go for it.</p>
<p>I, and hopefully others, thank you for the input.</p>
<p>Steve<br /> steve@stevesint.com</p>
-
<p>Hi Leigh,<br>
You finally figured out hopw to view my tutorial! I'm glad...:)<br>
Thanks for the suggestion. My video editor and I discussed that very idea. We thought it might be repetitious and dead space if we didn't record a voice over for it (which we hadn't done at the shoot). As an alternative, we decided to include all three photos at the end of the video and in the stills at the bottom of the video's page; if you scroll down below the list of SetShop products I used you'll see them. We also included the two blue glass photos down there but the web master (a different person who laid out the page) decided to use the cover of my upcoming book to illustrate the "quiet" reflection in the blue glass image.</p>
<p>At first I disagreed with that second decision but, since I'm coming out with the new book and I could use the free publicity, I ended up going along with his decision for that reason. One thing I've come to realize as a pro, who often works as part of a team as opposed to those who work alone, is there are an amazing amount of times decisions about how my work is displayed is not completely up to me. I can't tell you how many times my publisher, client, art director, or editor have decided to use an image of mine that is not my first choice, or plop type all over an image I thought would be better displayed standing alone. Its happened so often, I've become stoic about it and will often acquiesce to keep harmony and be a team player. As a pro, I'm often only one gun of many guns who are hired as part of the team that creates the final product and, as I said, keeping harmony on the team by making room for other people's creative input is important (so that they keep giving it!). Welcome to my life! </p>
<p>BTW: As a hint, if I was doing the green bottle image for a client instead of this video, I would have taken the few extra minutes and taped the side fill cards to the frontal fill card (on the outside) so the joint between them in the reflection would have been even cleaner.<br>
Thanks for the input!<br>
SS<br>
Steve@stevesint.com<br>
<br>
</p>
-
<p>Hi All,<br /><br />My collaboration on creating video tutorials with the SetShop in NYC continues. With the help of their sponsorship, I am happy to announce the third in my series of tutorials; this one being on fill cards. It starts off by explaining why photographers need fill cards and proceeds to illustrate actually using them.<br /><br />It can be viewed here:<br /><a href="http://setshoptutorials.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://setshoptutorials.com</a>/<br /><br />As always, I issue the following disclaimer:<br />The thoughts I pass along in these videos are not the only way to conquer difficult lighting problems but the ideas I express can be combined with your own thoughts and creativity to develop your own, unique style.<br /><br />Constructive criticism is always welcomed.<br />Thanks.<br /><br />Steve Sint<br /><a href="mailto:Steve@stevesint.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Steve@stevesint.com</a></p>
-
<p>Blanket responses to all the posters:</p>
<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>First off, thank you for your kind words and your input, I’m glad you liked what I’m up to. As I say at the beginning of the Light Modifiers (diffusion frame) video; ask 99 photographers how to light something and you’ll get 99 different responses! The interesting thing is all of the techniques can work and work well! So, even if I disagree with what some of you have posted (and I do), it doesn’t mean your point of view is wrong…it’s just different than mine! More importantly, thank you for all your feedback, it’s nice not to be working in a vacuum! </p>
<p>That being said….</p>
<p>For Radio Joe: You’re mistaken; I’m not anti-soft box at all. In truth, I have and use 4 different sized soft boxes regularly for portraiture and fashion. However, when it comes to still life product photography, the point of using a diffusion frame is that not one commercially available soft box allows you to change the distance between the front of the soft box and the light in the rear of the soft box. Equally true, every (every!) commercially available soft box has the light at the back of the soft box centered on the front of the box’s diffuser.</p>
<p>As the end of the soft box video clearly shows (in the footage of the calculator and the moving highlight), the abilty to change the size of the light’s pattern, and its position relative to the diffuser, gives you added creative lighting possibilities. Furthermore, the thought that the studio must be painted black to get the contrast available from a closed bank is patently untrue. The video was shot in a 17 X 35 foot white room with a 12 foot ceiling (also painted white) but the distance (and therefore the intensity of) any light rays bouncing off the back of the diffuser hitting a wall or a ceiling and then reflecting back so as to effect the lighting on the subject is so great that the amount of spill is miniscule compared to the intensity of the light passing through the diffuser panel; so much so that it was irrelevant. I prefer to look at it as me not being anti-soft box, but being pro creativity (and saving a few bucks) whenever possible!</p>
<p>For Phil: Thanks Phil.</p>
<p>For Louis: Thanks for the kind words. I don’t know about old school versus new school but I do know that diffusion frames are alive and well! California Sun Bounce, Photoflex LiteDiscs, Dean Collin’s (may he rest in peace) tapes, and film sets all over the country prove that every day…:) The only difference between the two brands mentioned and the one I suggested using is the price and how portable it is. In today’s economy the former is always important and the latter doesn’t matter if the diffuser is never going to leave my studio.</p>
<p>As for pre-formed light tables, I have used them before, and while they certainly can get the job done, I prefer my design over them for a few reasons. The sprung loaded, flexed sheet of acrylic I suggest using is very strong, in fact far stronger than a thicker preformed sheet of acrylic. This concept is proven in racing cars, boats, planes, and rockets, and is called monocoque construction where a thin outer skin is flexed into a curved shape. Because of the added strength resulting in doing this, it eliminates the need for a separate frame on the car, boat, or plane that makes the vehicle both lighter and stronger. More importantly, the design I show (used in a working photographic studio by the way) can be broken down flat when not in use which frees up precious rental square footage for other purposes and has the added advantage of having one side sandblasted (or chemically etched) so you can choose whether you want the item you are photographing to be on a reflective or matte surface.</p>
<p>For Leigh: I’m sorry…:(</p>
<p>For Pete: I find your point about still photography vs cinematography lighting really interesting. I’ve been on a lot of still photography, cinema, and video sets and I’ve noticed that still photographers have a tendency to light the subject while the cine/video people light an area because they expect the subject to be moving through it. But I’ve also seen the cine/video guys ask the talent to hit a mark (on the floor) and then light a stand in as if the talent is a still photography subject. Likewise, I’ve seen cine/video gaffers who I respect highly light a dinner table with a dozen or two little pin spots and end up with a scene in which everything on the table sparkles but all the shadows fall in one direction! If the cine/video people can borrow lighting techniques from the still people then why can’t I borrow techniques from them? So, while I now light an area (instead of the subject) on high volume catalog shoots where speed is what makes the assignment profitable, as DSLRs cross over into the high quality video realm understanding how to light an area becomes more and more important to know about.</p>
<p>For Len: Geez Len, I’m blushing! Thanks for the nice things you say about me…obviously you don’t know me very well…:)</p>
<p>It's 2 AM! I gotta crash, goodnight all.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Hi All,<br /><br />My ongoing collaboration with SetShop in New York City to produce video tutorials is continuing. A second video tutorial on Light Modifiers was posted today and can be found at this web address:<br /><br /><a href="http://setshoptutorials.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://setshoptutorials.com</a>/<br /><br />There have been some problems recorded about getting it to play on MS Internet Explorer but it plays perfectly on both Safari and Mozilla Firefox browsers.<br /><br />As I continually mention, the thoughts and solutions expressed in any of the videos I'm producing are not the only way to solve a problem but the information provided has worked well for me and the concepts explained can be integrated with your own thoughts and creative solutions.<br /><br />I hope you enjoy it and any constructive feedback you wish to provide is welcomed.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Steve Sint<br /><a href="mailto:Steve@SteveSint.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Steve@SteveSint.com</a> </p>
-
<p>Hi Craig,<br>
Nice to see you're still on this forum!<br>
Thanks for the kind words.<br>
Glad you liked the video.<br>
SS</p>
-
<p>I like Gossen too!...;>...There's even a Luna-Pro in my equipment locker, but the brand doesn't matter, knowing how to use whichever meter you choose is the real issue.<br>
SS</p>
-
<p>I have a five Minoltas (I think it's 5, counting my Color Meter) in my equipment locker too...they are great meters but ever since I switched to Pocket Wizard radio slaves and Sekonic came out with the PW module I've been using Sekonics.<br>
Glad you liked the video.<br>
SS</p>
<div>
</div> -
<p>Hi All,</p>
<p>There's a new video up on youtube of me using my Sekonic meter on a fashion shoot.<br>
Some photographers have told me they like it, and maybe you will too, so I thought I should post a link to it here.</p>
<p>
<p>Feedback always welcome.<br>
Regards,<br>
Steve Sint<br>
SteveSint.com</p>
Anatomy of a Still Life
in Lighting Equipment
Posted