greg gorman seminar

Andy

i had the opportunity to attend a greg gorman seminar today at the photo plus expo here in nyc. if you don't know him, you should, imo. his work is amazing. he's primarily a bw portraitist.

overriding cool theme: "i so totally dig digitial, becuase i control every aspect of everything - shooting, lighting, and finishing - i'm not at the mercy of someone else to interpret my vision, i do it myself - the finished print."

it was a really fun two hours, and then i spent about another 1/2 hour with him afterwards. great guy, has the ability to impart knowledge very easily. his assistant just went out on his own, after 22 years of working for gorman. 22 years as an assistant! man that's dedication and it also says a lot about the photographer.

some random points that i noted:

• likes shooting at iso 1600 and 1000 on his canons, becuase "it's so much like film"
• uprezzes with software from pixel genius
• he recommends his own techiques but also likes fredmiranda's bw actions
• his favorite ligthing: window light
• don't answer all the questions in the photograph - leave something unanswered for the viewer
• lighting should not be the focus - gorman's signature is tight, and the eyes / face are the focus of his portraiture
• he feels shadow detail is "nearly irrelevant" and forces a lot of black in his work
• he lights "stronger" when shooting for b & w
• his most used portrait lens: canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS
• he works exclusively in the prophoto colorspace
• download his pdf from his website (look under "learn" for the contrast enhancement tricks and the toning techniques

DavidTO

Very cool, what a fantastic opportunity to talk to him. I love his work.

Interesting that he doesn't shoot at the lowest ISO, and in a studio he certainly has the latitude to shoot slower.

Andy

DavidTO wrote:

Very cool, what a fantastic opportunity to talk to him. I love his work.

Interesting that he doesn't shoot at the lowest ISO, and in a studio he certainly has the latitude to shoot slower.

oh i'm sure he uses iso 100 plenty. he just made a point, several times, that he totally loves iso 1000 and 1600 on the canon cameras. he blasted pixelpeepers and measurebators, too, several times. i got a huge laugh out of that.

pathfinder

DavidTO wrote:

Very cool, what a fantastic opportunity to talk to him. I love his work.

Interesting that he doesn't shoot at the lowest ISO, and in a studio he certainly has the latitude to shoot slower.

If his web site hasn't changed, there may be some information about his studio - it is an entire 2 story building with make up and changing rooms, in door and outdoor on the roof shooting areas, and a dining area. Having a portrait done by him is quite an affair - sometimes all day.

He was featured in The Epson Online Print Academy last year as a featured artist along with Jay Maisel. Epson's online academy was the best $39 I've spent in some time. It might have been $49 - I've slept since last winter
That is where I first learned Gorman's B&W conversion technique that is also posted on his website. And yes, his B&Ws tend to be dramatic with heavy shadows - kind of like some of the older B&W work was originally. Very interesting post Andy.

Andy

pathfinder wrote:

If his web site hasn't changed, there may be some information about his studio - it is an entire 2 story building with make up and changing rooms, in door and outdoor on the roof shooting areas, and a dining area. Having a portrait done by him is quite an affair - sometimes all day.

:nono pathfinder, you forgot his most important staff member: a full-time caterer.

Khaos

Cool. I prefer using the 70-200 for portraits also. I thought I was weird since I have the 85 1.8 and everyone raves that it or the 1.2 are the shiznit for portrait lenses.

I also sarted using Pixel Genius a couple of months ago. I highly recommend it to anyone. It's money well spent. They allow for a 14 day free trial. Check it out.

Since he likes the high ISO for the film look, I wonder if he uses the grain part of pixel genuis much?

I'm checking out his site now.

pathfinder

andy wrote:

:nono pathfinder, you forgot his most important staff member: a full-time caterer.

I should have known you would pick up on that!!

pathfinder

Khaos wrote:

Cool. I prefer using the 70-200 for portraits also. I thought I was weird since I have the 85 1.8 and everyone raves that it or the 1.2 are the shiznit for portrait lenses.

I also sarted using Pixel Genius a couple of months ago. I highly recommend it to anyone. It's money well spent. They allow for a 14 day free trial. Check it out.

Since he likes the high ISO for the film look, I wonder if he uses the grain part of pixel genuis much?

I'm checking out his site now.

Mereimage and I have talked about this a bit and our take is that the 70-200f2.8 L IS is a great lens, very sharp with great bokeh. But it is big, heavy, WHITE, and tends to imtimidate folks when shooting candid portraits.

I think the smaller, black lenses like the 85s and the 135s are much better for candids. Less noticeable - NOT WHITE, looks small.

Conversely, if you are spending 4 figures for a portrait, you kind of expect the photographer to have a big, impressive heavy expensive looking lens. The 70-200 is perefect for that. It is also optically excellent too, but that may be only part of it value to Mr Gorman.

I SUSPECT the appearance of the big white lens barrel is an assett for his work, but for candid portaits for mereimage and I, it is a disadvantage. It is very hard to use the big zoom without the subject being aware of it, whereas the 85 or the 135 f2 L is not nearly as noticeable by unaware subjects. I really like the 135 f2 L too!

I would also mention that Gorman is using a full frame camera( 1DsMkll), not an APS sensor camera, so he does not get the mag effect you would get with the 20D. You get almost exactly the same image in the viewfinder with a 20D with a 135 prime, that a full frame camera sees with a 200mm lens. Smaller, less intimidating, sneakier

Andy

pathfinder wrote:

Mereimage and I have talked about this a bit and our take is that the 70-200f2.8 L IS is a great lens, very sharp with great bokeh. But it is big, heavy, WHITE, and tends to imtimidate folks when shooting candid portraits.

gorman's the second pro in 2 weeks i've watched work with that lens. douglas kirkland also favors it. remember, too, these guys have big studios, so the like the flexiblity of the zoom range maybe. i could see it, but i tell ya, with a big studio like gorman's got, i wonder why he doesn't use the 135L - fast focus and not real heavy. i think it's a movement issue. he probably doesn't want to be sneaker-zooming back and fro all the time. the zoom allows him to stay stationery. i know that kirkland uses boxes to change his perspective on the subject, so that may be a factor, too.

Shay Stephens

Here is another vote for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS for portraits and candids. I do a lot of candids, and just the mere fact that you are in the photo taking stance gets people to alter their response once they notice you. It doesn't matter if I use the 50mm or the 70-200mm, the response is the same, however, I can be a little farther away with the 70-200, and distance does help make you less noticeable.

So for me, I have to stop and work something else until the subjects stop paying attention to me. Do this enough over the course of time and they learn to ignore you and you can get a lot more done.

rutt

Yeah, I think that 70-200 f/2.8 has taken a majority of my favorite portraits, especially candids. What's not to like? Sharp, great bokah. Great range. OK, it's not as fast as a super prime, but darn fast nonetheless. Gives you more of a chance to use that great canon ISO 1k+.

pathfinder

Shay Stephens wrote:

Here is another vote for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS for portraits and candids. I do a lot of candids, and just the mere fact that you are in the photo taking stance gets people to alter their response once they notice you. It doesn't matter if I use the 50mm or the 70-200mm, the response is the same, however, I can be a little farther away with the 70-200, and distance does help make you less noticeable.

So for me, I have to stop and work something else until the subjects stop paying attention to me. Do this enough over the course of time and they learn to ignore you and you can get a lot more done.

My post about the 70-2002 was semi in jest of course, but with a grain of truth in it. When I try to shoot candids of family members, the big white lens really is like a big red flag - they all run, and hide their faces. With a 135 or an 85 black lens, they just kind of ignore you. For my personal shooting, the 135 on 20D works much better than the 70-200 on the 1DsMkll. Like I said, smaller, sneakier. But I am not being paid by the subject in front of the lens.

I wonder if this may partly explain M Reichman's attachment to the 70-300 DO IS. Small, inconspicuous, black, with a lot of non-obvious reach.

Certainly, the remove you get with the 200mm on a 20D does allow you to be even farther away for candids. Would 400mm be even better then? Paparazzi anyone? DSFDF
Maybe the 70-300 DO IS even

Shay Stephens

pathfinder wrote:

Certainly, the remove you get with the 200mm on a 20D does allow you to be even farther away for candids. Would 400mm be even better then? Paparazzi anyone? DSFDF
Maybe the 70-300 DO IS even

It would if you are outside, yes, if inside, you probably don't have the working distance to pull off a 300mm or greater. Also the shutter speed factors in with the focal lengths above 200mm. I love the IS, I can shoot in low light at 1/30th of a second at full zoom with the 70-200mm IS and pull it off most of the time.

rutt

After my post I realized I didn't say what I really wanted to say. Primes are great but for action, portraits, photojournalism, they are a handicap compared to zooms. For me the big problem with those disciplines is actually getting the shots, not the quality of what I do get. Zooms have the advantage of more options at the very moment you shoot. With a prime you just might not be in the right place at the right time, no matter how hard you try.

pathfinder

rutt wrote:

After my post I realized I didn't say what I really wanted to say. Primes are great but for action, portraits, photojournalism, they are a handicap compared to zooms. For me the big problem with those disciplines is actually getting the shots, not the quality of what I do get. Zooms have the advantage of more options at the very moment you shoot. With a prime you just might not be in the right place at the right time, no matter how hard you try.

I like zooms too, I just wish they were black and a lot lighter!!

I agree with liking avoiding using the sneaker zoom with primes. But for carrying on my shoulder all day long, the big heavy 70-200 f2.8 IS L is quite a load on a full frame camera. A 20D with a 135 is a LOT more pleasant to carry and just as good optically. Maybe I'm just getting old and weak

DavidTO

pathfinder wrote:

I like zooms too, I just wish they were black and a lot lighter!!

I agree with liking avoiding using the sneaker zoom with primes. But for carrying on my shoulder all day long, the big heavy 70-200 f2.8 IS L is quite a load on a full frame camera. A 20D with a 135 is a LOT more pleasant to carry and just as good optically. Maybe I'm just getting old and weak

Don't forget that the 70-200 F4L is a great lens and a lot lighter than the 2.8IS. Still big and white, but not as big or heavy and the 2.8.

rutt

pathfinder wrote:

I like zooms too, I just wish they were black and a lot lighter!!

That's what spray paint and helium baloons are for.

pathfinder

Ya think it would hurt the resale value of my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L lens much, if I painted it a nice black camo color scheme?

rutt

pathfinder wrote:

Ya think it would hurt the resale value of my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L lens much, if I painted it a nice black camo color scheme?

I suppose it depends on who does the paint job and if s/he signs it.

Khaos

pathfinder wrote:

Ya think it would hurt the resale value of my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L lens much, if I painted it a nice black camo color scheme?

Why sell it? Forget painting. Yes, people notice the big white lens, but after awhile, they get used to it and you.

mwgrice

Since this thread was moved into the Digital Darkroom, I was wondering if any of you Photoshop savants could help me. I downloaded the PDF with Gorman's b&w conversion technique, but I'm a little confused by some of the later steps.

Step 15, create a new layer--okay. An empty layer?

Step 16: "While holding the Option button, go to the popup menu and select Merge Visible." Ur, what is the Option button here? Is the point here to merge the other layers (since changing the blending options would probably be difficult if you've merged all the layers).

DavidTO

mwgrice wrote:

Since this thread was moved into the Digital Darkroom, I was wondering if any of you Photoshop savants could help me. I downloaded the PDF with Gorman's b&w conversion technique, but I'm a little confused by some of the later steps.

Step 15, create a new layer--okay. An empty layer?

Step 16: "While holding the Option button, go to the popup menu and select Merge Visible." Ur, what is the Option button here? Is the point here to merge the other layers (since changing the blending options would probably be difficult if you've merged all the layers).

Yes, you're making an empty layer. When you option-select merge visible you are putting all the visible layers into this new layer, flattened (sort of, it's not true flattening). You're making one layer that is all the work you've done before.

If you're not on a Mac, then it's alt instead of option, and Nikolai had trouble because for some reason the PC works slightly diff. here. In any case, you need to opt(alt) merge visible.

I've written the steps into an action for CS2. If you want it, let me know.

mwgrice

DavidTO wrote:

Yes, you're making an empty layer. When you option-select merge visible you are putting all the visible layers into this new layer, flattened (sort of, it's not true flattening). You're making one layer that is all the work you've done before.

If you're not on a Mac, then it's alt instead of option, and Nikolai had trouble because for some reason the PC works slightly diff. here. In any case, you need to opt(alt) merge visible.

I've written the steps into an action for CS2. If you want it, let me know.

Hey, that'd be great!

DavidTO

mwgrice wrote:

Hey, that'd be great!

OK. The action has stops in it, but no explanation of what you're to do, so you have to have a basic understanding of how the action works. For instance, it stops to allow you to choose the color of the duotone, and it stops to give you a chance to work the curves...

Anyway, you (or anyone) can download the action here.

mwgrice

DavidTO wrote:

OK. The action has stops in it, but no explanation of what you're to do, so you have to have a basic understanding of how the action works. For instance, it stops to allow you to choose the color of the duotone, and it stops to give you a chance to work the curves...

Anyway, you (or anyone) can download the action here.

Thanks!

dandill

andy wrote:

• uprezzes with software from pixel genius

This may be the scheme, based on componets of Pixel Genius PhotoKit Sharpener, described by Jeff Schewe starting on page 52 of the September/October 2005 issue of Digital PhotoPro. I just tried the it, upresing a crop of a 6 mp (Canon 10D) capture by 400%, and it does seem to work well, viewing the print at a "normal " distance.

In brief, the scheme (for 6 mp capture) is,

• Raw develop with *no* sharpening
• Upres 400% using bicubic smoother
• Capture Sharpen: High Res
• Creative Sharpen: Super Sharpen 2 (use 1 for 16 mp upres)
• Creative Sharpen: Super Grian 200 (use 100 for 16 mp upres)
• Output Sharpen, based on the final size and media.