marcinwuu

<p>So, after a bit of research I got through to the photog who took that photo. His name's Rasmus Linaa, and he's a Danish fashion photographer. You can see his work here, it's well worth a look if I do say so myself: http://www.rasmuslinaa.com/<br>

The model's name is Fie Fenneberg.<br>

No relation to Avedon.<br>

I asked the photographer, and he said the photo was shot with 85mm.<br>

So much for the secret photo voodoo techniques, eh? </p>

<p>There's no way the first one was shot with 35mm.</p>

<p>I think it started somewhere around forties, or maybe a tad bit before that - with the early hollywood style, heavily retouched skin. The main difference being, back then you'd use pencil over the negative, while today a tablet over the photoshop does the trick faster and better.</p>

<p>"Don't move now or I'll kill you." Works like a charm.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot.<br>

Should've figured this out by myself by the way, must be the age chipping away at the gray cells...</p>

<p>Hit them with lots of rimlights. Preferably barebulb. Rimlights work great on baldies, give them powerful look, great for executive type.</p>

<p><img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img538/6844/hYB53W.jpg" alt="" width="569" height="850" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Does anyone know what's the actual focal distance the disposable QuickSnap is set to?</p>

<p>Dial the exposure down it's horribly overexposed.<br>

This shot:<br>

<img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img37/5811/dsc05123y.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Was made using single softbox (of exactly the same size as yours - 60x60cm), no reflector, white backdrop, white walls, in a room about 2x3m in size, with a softbox almost to the face of model. If the shadows are too deep, use reflector for fill. Use the othe light for rimlight instead of reflecting it from the wall. In such a small room you'll have plenty of fill from light reflected off the walls anyway. Like here:<br>

<img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img266/6217/dsc05675editediteditedi.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Same room, same softbox, but with reflector just under the girl and extra hairlight from the left (barebulb).<br>

Also, you DO want to postprocess, and very much so. There's a limit of what you can do in the camera, and the cheaper the set the more limiting the limit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For one you don't use a hair light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This one piqued me interest. I mean, obviously in the absence of said hair you wouldn't call it hair light, but some rimlights would certainly be ok, especially if the gentelman in question has a shapely skull?</p>

<p>the 1/30 sync time is definitely going to be a problem, especially if you want to get some of that lovely shallow dof.</p>

<p>To get a good eyes on the photo, you need to:<br /> - have a model with big bright eyes, possibly with an interesting texture of iris<br /> - have a lot of constant light directly into model's eyes (to make their irises to contract)<br /> - make a shot that puts emphasis on eyes, i.e. makes them prominent part of the image. And no, it doesn't matter a single bit whether it's shot from above, or below, or from the side of the model, so long as the eyes are the key point of your image<br /> - do some simple postprocess - enhancing contrast and clarity, pumping up the vibrance. Don't overdo it - as a side note I have to say the level of plastic-android-skin on the examples above make my skin crawl in a not good sort of way.<br /> Here's a simple headshot to illustrate:<br /> <img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img911/6904/0KoXk3.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Hey, thanks for the input everyone, sorry I've been absent - had a crazy month.<br>

I did some testing with the Bowens Fresnel 200, which is pretty much the same as the mentioned above Profoto one. I used to shoot with a homemade fresnel before, but it was very hard to use, due to it's McGyver type construction. Anyways, this thing is very interesting - certainly nothing like snoot, and nothing like PAR/barndoors combo that I use almost everyday for my portraits. More control over the beam, and yes, it's softer than snoot and spills much less. A bit on the big side, as far as light modifiers go. I'll certainly give it a proper go at the nearest gig.</p><div></div>

<p>A quick question to studio photographers. Do you use fresnels on your strobes? I mean proper fresnels, not the silly things that come built in into hotshoe mounted flashes?<br>

And if so, then could you show me examples of your fresnel-lit work?</p>

<p>Just out of pure curiosity. Why is it "for digital age?" Is it somehow different from what you'd do in "analog age?"</p>

<p>Thanks, that's it :)</p>

<p>Hello. A quick question - will RB67 ProSD film casette work with RB67 Professional? I know the back will not fit, but the casette fits and seems to be working. I'm kinda reluctant to waste a roll of film just to find out there are some issues, so any help would be appreciated.<br>

Thanks in advance :)</p>

<p>This is actually pretty basic. Single light, straight to the face and slightly above. IMO, barebulb is the best for this kind of look. Rembrandt's selife has the light higher than mine here, but the idea's the same.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17713396-lg.jpg" alt="" width="567" height="850" /></p>

<p>(By the way, the "Rembrandt lighting setup" is not so common on Rembrandt's portraits as you might think judging by the name...)</p>

<p>I have to agree with Ian - this isn't exactly dramatic. Try using some hard lights, barebulb is the way to go if you really care for strong, striking effect.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Would the visual concept of a centralized hub (your head/portrait) in relation to the fanning out of the spokes of an enormous wheel help you understand you can't get perspective distortion with a lens at that close range? Does that help?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, I know this is lame but will wikipedia help? This is what I (and I think everyone here except you) mean when using term "perspective distortion": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29<br>

When you move, relations between sizes of projected objects changes. Noses get bigger, ears get smaller or the other way around. It's got nothing to do with lens, it's pure geometry of non parallel projection. The closer you get, the more dramatic the change with every move.<br>

And I'll say that again, it's not such a big deal in portraiture as long as you keep your mm's within reasonable limits.</p>

<p>Kinda lost for words here...<br>

The OP's problem is not with lens distortion, but with "ideal distance" whatever this may be. You brought up the lens distortion as a factor in portrait - I believe it's a contrived problem. Moot. And if you feel it is a factor in your portraiture, then a solution would be pretty simple wouldn't it? Don't use lenses that suffer from distortion. No one forces you to shoot lame kits. Plop on one of Pentax's cute little Limiteds and you're set to go. Problem solved.<br>

I only participated in this because you started with the statement about being able to shoot up close without distortion with a full frame camera. I'm a curious man, therefore I asked for clarification. And I disagreed with you therefore I verbalized (or keyboardalized as it might be) my thoughts on importance of lens distortion in portraiture. Which I believe is none altogether. I am not suggesting that I have more experience than you - what I said is simply that I have a lot of it. Quite enough actually, to be able to decide what is important in photographic portraiture, and what's not. Important for me that is. Your mileage may vary, but making it personal is not the right way of leading any kind of discussion. Going Schopenhauer on me will not help to drive your point home, believe me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What else explains the distortion differences of the two shots of the old man I took at 80mm just moving back a couple of feet and yours and Steve's don't exhibit any distortion? This may have something to do with cheap zoom kit lenses is what I'm getting at, not perspective induced distortion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What do you mean, what else? Nothing else, that's just it, perspective distortion. The two feet difference equals probably 15-20% of the distance. You have to think about distortion in relative terms, not absolute. Take a look at these two:</p>

<p><img src="http://imageshack.us/a/img854/81/f9qt.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="450" /> </p>

<p><img src="http://imageshack.us/a/img69/3558/l9ns.jpg" alt="" /><br>

These are two shots from the same sitting (obviously), the top one being a kind of digital polaroid for the bottom one. Lighting setup was slightly changed inbetween, as was the crop.<br>

They were shot with two different cameras and lenses, from almost the same spot - there's about one foot difference. Both lenses cover exactly the same horizontal angle of view, so in terms of perspective they are same thing. Both are very high quality lenses, the first one exhibits very slight barrel distortion which was anyway corrected with lens profile in LR, the second has no distortion whatsoever (or if it does, then it's immeasurable, so it's like there is none at all). Notice how dramatic difference in perspective distortion is introduced by twelve inches of distance. Same thing in your selfies. 45mm and 50mm that's ten percent difference right away. Plus the 45mm was shot closer up (it had to, there's no other way for your head to end up bigger when shot with shorter lens).<br>

Anyway, this leads nowhere. In my portraitist's experience, and I'd call my experience substantial, lens distortion as a factor in portrait distance is negligible. Perspective distortion is the thing you should think about if you're going to care about distortion at all. But even then it's not a big deal if you're not going to use fisheyes or superteles. What you need to think about is your subject and your light. All the rest is fluff.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you've got visual proof this level of specificity isn't necessary please post so we can all be informed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok, so let me uderstand. What you're saying is, rectlilinear nature of the projected image is somehow less rectilinear on the edges of the image? And it has nothing to do with perspective? I'm sorry to ask, but were you paying enough attention at those perspective drawing lessons you had to take? Things get stretched, that would be your basic projection of a threedimensional space onto a flat plane at work here, wouldn't it? What you demonstrated with your photos is exactly perspective distortion at work. Yeah, nose gets bigger in relation to the farther parts of face, because guess what? You got closer to your subject. I.e. your perspective of the subject just got more distorted. Here, for your viewing pleasure an image shot with two lenses of the same focal length (50mm). One of them got full benefits of Lightroom profile, the other is dumb, connected using lens adapter thingy:<br>

<img src="http://imageshack.us/a/img6/176/4w33.jpg" alt="" /> <img src="http://imageshack.us/a/img42/2471/doin.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Good luck trying to discern them based on the degree of lens made distortion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Modern digital lenses are designed/engineered both within the build of the glass as well as any electronics communicated to the camera's onboard processor to focus the best results according to the size of the sensor and communicate this to aid in either jpeg rendering or Raw format for the camera manufacturer's Raw converter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Um. I think you misunderstand something here. The lens specific distortion correction that comes with your camera's jpeg engine or RAW developer or Photoshop has nothing to do with perspective distortion. You can't really do anything about perspective distortion without changing the subject distance, which is, well, physically impossible after the shot was taken, right?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course he's using a full frame Canon EOS 1Dx which makes getting closer doable with little distortion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This piqued my interest. Would you care to explain how bigger sensor format allows you to get closer to your subject with little distortion?</p>

<p>Uh. This whole "you will get distortion" thing is kinda misleading. You always get distortion, unless you shoot some kind of orthogonal camera (I don't know if such a thing exist). With an orthogonal camera you'd get undistorted portrait. It would be very, very weird. Not distorted, but certainly disturbing.<br>

That said, I don't think there is such a thing as "ideal distance". Depends much on what you want to achieve.</p>