Only nit, Spray starch for #6. Only because I was just flipping through some fashion catalogues earlier this morning and noticed how well pressed the clothing was.
Faves, #1, 4, and 8!
Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358
Only nit, Spray starch for #6. Only because I was just flipping through some fashion catalogues earlier this morning and noticed how well pressed the clothing was.
Faves, #1, 4, and 8!
Thank you!
Yeah, I know, noticed it the moment she put them on... :cry That's the disadnavtage of having the model traveling a great distance with a huge wardrobe in a small car... It gets wrinkled
I need to come out with a way to be able to iron things quickly. I already have a makeshift makeup corner, but putting an ironboard there is just not feasible at the moment.... Oh well..
Seems like you're going a bit heavy on the back lighting in a couple-- least for me. I'd tone it down a half a stop or so and consider a wider aperture to soften the back lighting a bit. What modifiers do you have on those lights? I've had great success lately with strip domes and grids.
And watch the neck-- she has none on #7.
For backdrops and props-- well you probably know what I'm going to say. I know none of us look much at the sets in glam mags like Playboy, but they're important aspects of the photos. Each model gets a slightly different set or location. It's part of the "story". It doesn't have to be elaborate-- the current Chanel print ad campaign is on basic black and heavily depends on wardrobe styling. You might consider cropping tighter if you want to keep using the backdrop in your photos. Just seems like you're trying to show the slightly more sophisticated sexy woman in these images so never mind if you're not!
You've got the lighting down pretty much, next step is styling -- both the set and working with the model, hair, and accessories
Seems like you're going a bit heavy on the back lighting in a couple-- least for me. I'd tone it down a half a stop or so and consider a wider aperture to soften the back lighting a bit. What modifiers do you have on those lights? I've had great success lately with strip domes and grids.
And watch the neck-- she has none on #7.
For backdrops and props-- well you probably know what I'm going to say. I know none of us look much at the sets in glam mags like Playboy, but they're important aspects of the photos. Each model gets a slightly different set or location. It's part of the "story". It doesn't have to be elaborate-- the current Chanel print ad campaign is on basic black and heavily depends on wardrobe styling. You might consider cropping tighter if you want to keep using the backdrop in your photos. Just seems like you're trying to show the slightly more sophisticated sexy woman in these images so never mind if you're not!
You've got the lighting down pretty much, next step is styling -- both the set and working with the model, hair, and accessories
Pete,
thank you for your detailed comments!
Rim lights are four ABs, two with 40-degree grids (torso) and two with 30-degree (legs). Hairlight is a small gridded softbox (and another AB:-).
Strip domes are cool idea, I was thinking in that direction. I'll see how the funds go.
I think I will try something else next time. This setup is definitely working, so time to try something different. Probably more dramatic. I have some ideas, we'll see how it goes.
The back lighting stands out far to much for me. Maybe a muslin sock and a half or full stop reduction? That's what I see. They are colorful and I like that!
The back lighting stands out far to much for me. Maybe a muslin sock and a half or full stop reduction? That's what I see. They are colorful and I like that!
I want one of those step ladders too. Which brand is it?
Dont remember, something like ladderkart. It was either B&H or Adorama... Prety useful thing though
EDIT:
sorry, was wrong. Got it via Amazon, here's the linky: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000A1FQEY. Thank God for the paper trail, couldn't find it in any electonic data collections...
Nik, i would like to see your light placement, i really like how you lighting up your subjects in all of your other posts. Mind to share?
I just got 2 additional lights, and still playing with them, but no where near what you've accomplished.
Marina,
as I mentioned earlier, for full height standing poses I used 6 lights:
1) 7' octabox with grid as a main
2) small (1'x2') softbox with grid as hair
3) 4 grided ABs as rim lights
I don't have a pictures of all lights in working position, but here's some idea.
This is waht I had a month ago (when I was two lights short):
Now remove that oddly positioned single light on the mid-right,
add two symmetrical grided ones positioned at hip level under the higher ones ( you can guess their position by this image):
also add two flags to avoid light pollution, and you get this:
I do think to get the grided strip lights for the rims, though, it's a great idea and I would be able to use only two rim lights instead of four.
Thank you Nik, while i only have 3 lights, i might just get some ideas from you and try to impliment what i possibly could.
Marina,
for a very long time I only had an on camera flash and two sunpacks, and even at that it was an "either-or" deal (now with 580EXII I can use PWs to trigger all three).
With three lights you can easily do one main and two shoulder rims.
And with two you can do one main and one rim/hair. I used diagonal lighting outdoors many times.
Seems like your ligths are quite away from you subject, how far exactly?
Not nearly as far enough as I would like them to be. 5-6 ft top. Large main box is usually a bit farther, 6-8 ft.
Also, do you have on camera flash that you use at all?
I do own 580EXII, but I only use it on the red carpet/reception type of events, when I have to constantly move or have no way to set up anything off camera.
Thanks again, 6 lights, eh?
For this setup, yes. I still didn't have my hand around highkey, for that I may need all the rest ones, to..
I agree with dogwood's earlier comment about cropping. I would suggest getting in more personal. Wouldn't be hard, would it? Or maybe it would!
What I'm saying is there is a conflict between model and background. You make them of equal importance. Both have their own space, both are lit in their own and different ways, the model hardedge (in line with your lighting philosophy), and the BG soft according to your predilection for swathes/atmospheres of colorful drapery. For me, model & BG don't gel, they fight. But tipping the emphasis to the model by getting in closer might decide the winner. In this respect, #4 is better than some others (but the drape edge running right along the edge of her bum is ugly, I think).
I don't have an argument against your figure lighting philosophy, I think it's interesting, but I think maybe you make it too strenuously. For eg her face in #4 I would like to see with some selective light softening in places, especially inner cheek R. Can you compromise?
Mentioning once again involvement and relationship with the subject is possibly risking your, and others', tolerance, but I am compelled. All of these shots are happening AT you, not with you. When I look at her I don't get any sense of you from her. Contrast that to what I found in a recent set of cmorgan's, where the involvement of photog & model, and their relationship, was wildly lively and effective, producing shots with huge zing.
You are right with it with your studio setup, all that care and attention, but then when it comes to the click you leave yourself out. I liked your recent competition entry for the way the camera got in among the lines and surfaces of the subject, there was a connection between the subject and the camera, they 'moved' together. You remember I have said that I think you use the model to express something in yourself, and here is further proof, that only she is there and not you, she is there INSTEAD of you! As a result the shots are somewhat sterile, posed and lifeless. There is nothing in most of the faces and eyes here but a purposely posed, and thus artificial, seductiveness. Have I convinced you? The model cannot in fact express what you intend unless you give her what you intend through your interaction and relationship in real time during the shoot. It's not about the relative stop values of this or that light, FGS! If you are not allowing time for this then I think your stuff will never achieve its full potential.
I leave it to the joker kids in the forum to give their impoverished paraphrase of all this after they have recovered from their apoplexy. G*d forbid!
Best regards. Looking forward to what's coming from you next!
Neil
PS Clothes can be HUNG in most cars from hooks on the hand grips above the rear doors.
Neil,
thank you very much for your comments, I do appreciate it!.
Yeah, that line in #4 - I agree, my fault, I had to move ever so slightly to avoid it. To my excuse, I was heavily distracted..
Communication, involvement... I hear ya.. Here's the conundrum: all the images you're referring to as a good example of such involvement (mine or not) were taken at a very close distance with a relatively short focal length. Good for artsy stuff - not so much for classic fashion/commercial look. Please don't forget - my subjects are either professional models or at least aspiring ones. They do need certain looks, and those cannot be done with 10-22 from the distance of 1 feet...
That been said, I think I got enough of "1 main + 1 hair + 4 rims" material for now, and I'm really looking forward to do something different. Luckily, this weekend promises to be very productive, so I hope I'll be able to produce something intersting...
Comments
Way to go on the lighting IMO!
Only nit, Spray starch for #6. Only because I was just flipping through some fashion catalogues earlier this morning and noticed how well pressed the clothing was.
Faves, #1, 4, and 8!
dak.smugmug.com
Thank you!
Yeah, I know, noticed it the moment she put them on... :cry That's the disadnavtage of having the model traveling a great distance with a huge wardrobe in a small car... It gets wrinkled
I need to come out with a way to be able to iron things quickly. I already have a makeshift makeup corner, but putting an ironboard there is just not feasible at the moment.... Oh well..
Seems like you're going a bit heavy on the back lighting in a couple-- least for me. I'd tone it down a half a stop or so and consider a wider aperture to soften the back lighting a bit. What modifiers do you have on those lights? I've had great success lately with strip domes and grids.
And watch the neck-- she has none on #7.
For backdrops and props-- well you probably know what I'm going to say. I know none of us look much at the sets in glam mags like Playboy, but they're important aspects of the photos. Each model gets a slightly different set or location. It's part of the "story". It doesn't have to be elaborate-- the current Chanel print ad campaign is on basic black and heavily depends on wardrobe styling. You might consider cropping tighter if you want to keep using the backdrop in your photos. Just seems like you're trying to show the slightly more sophisticated sexy woman in these images so never mind if you're not!
You've got the lighting down pretty much, next step is styling -- both the set and working with the model, hair, and accessories
Portland, Oregon Photographer Pete Springer
website blog instagram facebook g+
Pete,
thank you for your detailed comments!
Rim lights are four ABs, two with 40-degree grids (torso) and two with 30-degree (legs). Hairlight is a small gridded softbox (and another AB:-).
Strip domes are cool idea, I was thinking in that direction. I'll see how the funds go.
I think I will try something else next time. This setup is definitely working, so time to try something different. Probably more dramatic. I have some ideas, we'll see how it goes.
Cheers,
David
Sam
Thank you, David!
EDIT:
sorry, was wrong. Got it via Amazon, here's the linky: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000A1FQEY. Thank God for the paper trail, couldn't find it in any electonic data collections...
I just got 2 additional lights, and still playing with them, but no where near what you've accomplished.
www.intruecolors.com
Nikon D700 x2/D300
Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
Pentax K1000 | M28mm F2.8 | M50mm F2 | Takumar Bayonet 135mm F2.5
www.southshoresnapshots.smugmug.com
Marina,
as I mentioned earlier, for full height standing poses I used 6 lights:
1) 7' octabox with grid as a main
2) small (1'x2') softbox with grid as hair
3) 4 grided ABs as rim lights
I don't have a pictures of all lights in working position, but here's some idea.
This is waht I had a month ago (when I was two lights short):
Now remove that oddly positioned single light on the mid-right,
add two symmetrical grided ones positioned at hip level under the higher ones ( you can guess their position by this image):
also add two flags to avoid light pollution, and you get this:
I do think to get the grided strip lights for the rims, though, it's a great idea and I would be able to use only two rim lights instead of four.
HTH
Seems like your ligths are quiet away from you subject, how far exactly?
Also, do you have on camera flash that you use at all?
Thanks again, 6 lights, eh?
www.intruecolors.com
Nikon D700 x2/D300
Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
for a very long time I only had an on camera flash and two sunpacks, and even at that it was an "either-or" deal (now with 580EXII I can use PWs to trigger all three).
With three lights you can easily do one main and two shoulder rims.
And with two you can do one main and one rim/hair. I used diagonal lighting outdoors many times.
Not nearly as far enough as I would like them to be. 5-6 ft top. Large main box is usually a bit farther, 6-8 ft.
I do own 580EXII, but I only use it on the red carpet/reception type of events, when I have to constantly move or have no way to set up anything off camera.
For this setup, yes. I still didn't have my hand around highkey, for that I may need all the rest ones, to..
#4 :whew
#3 Do you see the plant growing out of her head?
I agree with dogwood's earlier comment about cropping. I would suggest getting in more personal. Wouldn't be hard, would it?
What I'm saying is there is a conflict between model and background. You make them of equal importance. Both have their own space, both are lit in their own and different ways, the model hardedge (in line with your lighting philosophy), and the BG soft according to your predilection for swathes/atmospheres of colorful drapery. For me, model & BG don't gel, they fight. But tipping the emphasis to the model by getting in closer might decide the winner. In this respect, #4 is better than some others (but the drape edge running right along the edge of her bum is ugly, I think).
I don't have an argument against your figure lighting philosophy, I think it's interesting, but I think maybe you make it too strenuously. For eg her face in #4 I would like to see with some selective light softening in places, especially inner cheek R. Can you compromise?
Mentioning once again involvement and relationship with the subject is possibly risking your, and others', tolerance, but I am compelled. All of these shots are happening AT you, not with you. When I look at her I don't get any sense of you from her. Contrast that to what I found in a recent set of cmorgan's, where the involvement of photog & model, and their relationship, was wildly lively and effective, producing shots with huge zing.
You are right with it with your studio setup, all that care and attention, but then when it comes to the click you leave yourself out. I liked your recent competition entry for the way the camera got in among the lines and surfaces of the subject, there was a connection between the subject and the camera, they 'moved' together. You remember I have said that I think you use the model to express something in yourself, and here is further proof, that only she is there and not you, she is there INSTEAD of you! As a result the shots are somewhat sterile, posed and lifeless. There is nothing in most of the faces and eyes here but a purposely posed, and thus artificial, seductiveness. Have I convinced you? The model cannot in fact express what you intend unless you give her what you intend through your interaction and relationship in real time during the shoot. It's not about the relative stop values of this or that light, FGS! If you are not allowing time for this then I think your stuff will never achieve its full potential.
I leave it to the joker kids in the forum to give their impoverished paraphrase of all this after they have recovered from their apoplexy. G*d forbid!
Best regards. Looking forward to what's coming from you next!
Neil
PS Clothes can be HUNG in most cars from hooks on the hand grips above the rear doors.
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
thank you very much for your comments, I do appreciate it!.
Yeah, that line in #4 - I agree, my fault, I had to move ever so slightly to avoid it. To my excuse, I was heavily distracted..
Communication, involvement... I hear ya.. Here's the conundrum: all the images you're referring to as a good example of such involvement (mine or not) were taken at a very close distance with a relatively short focal length. Good for artsy stuff - not so much for classic fashion/commercial look. Please don't forget - my subjects are either professional models or at least aspiring ones. They do need certain looks, and those cannot be done with 10-22 from the distance of 1 feet...
That been said, I think I got enough of "1 main + 1 hair + 4 rims" material for now, and I'm really looking forward to do something different. Luckily, this weekend promises to be very productive, so I hope I'll be able to produce something intersting...
Stay tuned!
Ah yes, I do remember now you explained that all before.
And so yes, yes, now I get the implications!!
Still, I guess I would like it to look like you were both having real fun, and that it was not just work.
But enough of that!
I am learning a lot from this trip you are taking us on. Thank you!!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix