Chainsaw Babe

scotthofferphotography

We were playing around in my homemade studio taking some pictures with a chainsaw. Please give me your thoughts of how to make them better, and what you would have done differently.

Any comments are welcome as I am learning.

I am shooting with a canon t2i, a 28-135 kit lens, a 580exii flash to light the background and a 1600 watt light output homemade 4 feet by 4 feet soft box.

Her husband owns a company that sells these saws, This shoot was to make a calendar for him for christmas, the huge white spaces were left to add his company information to.
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Quincy T

I think #3 is your best shot, but I'm no studio expert. I can tell you that it doesn't appear that your exposure is even across the board. You've got a few that look a tad hot and a few that look underexposed in some areas. #19 is kind of odd, and doesn't really fit in.

In the future, number your images so that it's easier for people to comment, especially when you post so many. Leading off of that, post less pictures at once and that will keep people's attention for enough time to comment. Unless, of course, you're doing a "Best of 2011" thread, or something.

scotthofferphotography

Thanks for the comment. I am learning studio exposure, and its really tough not knowing anyone in person to consult. The entire shoot was a test type shoot, and she was just gonna use the pictures for a calendar. The lighting is all homemade lights, nothing purchased but the 580exii speedlight.

scotthofferphotography

fixed numbers, removed the last couple pics, somehow they got in there by accident.

BrettDeutsch

Tough to do truly pro shoots with homemade lights (I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I assume, standard household fixtures). Your color and exposure is all over the place, probably in part because the 580exii is a different color than the household lights (which may be different colors from each other). You can buy some really cheap photo floods online (at B&H for instance), and then at least you know that the color will all be consistent (though the flash will be a different color). Or you could upgrade to day balanced fluorescents, which you could then mix with your flash. Good luck.

scotthofferphotography

The homemade lights are homemade softboxes with 5700k fluorescents. A bed wetting plastic sheet for a child is used for the diffuser. it was the only thing local I could find with no wrinkles and a solid color with no pattern. The lights consist of a 100 watt 5700k fluorescent dish light, and the rest is 16 5700k 100 watt flrorescents in a homemade softbox.

scotthofferphotography

scotthofferphotography wrote: »

The homemade lights are homemade softboxes with 5700k fluorescents. A bed wetting plastic sheet for a child is used for the diffuser. it was the only thing local I could find with no wrinkles and a solid color with no pattern. The lights consist of a 100 watt 5700k fluorescent dish light, and the rest is 16 5700k 100 watt flrorescents in a homemade softbox.

is this what it should look like?



and the other images are poop?

scotthofferphotography

I'm learning, not sure what to buy from B&H, and I don't have much money. Nobody is paying me for shoots, so I'm not making money from there to buy equipment. I'm doing time for digital prints until I get good enough in my opinion to charge people.

scotthofferphotography

Behind the scenes photos of homemade studio. Keep in mind, I don't have much money.












The light box now has 16 lights in it, not 5 like the picture above.

D3Sshooter

You are very inventive, however I am afraid that you will never get the results you want . The lights that you use are not stable enough (degrees kelvin). And the spectrum is not uniform, that means that you have side bands with light temperatures that are not 5700. Typical flash units are about 5300.

I see that you have put a lot of effort in the shoot, congratulations. However the model is not been lit as she should have been, and it is hard to do that with the stuff you used.


Why did you not shoot outside with the same set-up except all the lights, and only a fill-in Flash . That would have made it a much better exposure.

I have the impression that you made the background really hot (light) so that the details of the card boxes were burned out.

The poses are very well chosen.

What puzzles me a bit is why you opted for studio work, I would have gone for a real forest shot, with wood chips flying around.

scotthofferphotography

because its really snowy here and she didn't want to go out in the cold and my garage is heated.

Is there anything I can do to make the light more even? my white balance was on auto on my camera the entire time.. does that make a difference? the flash was used for making the background solid white because without it, my other lights were not bright enough to get rid of the seams where it was put together. The materials used were all given to me by a friend that works for a company that uses those plastic sheets.

Why is this the only image that came out good? Its the only one that actually looks like her skin color?

zoomer

5 for me and 15 is a close.
Need some more light in the face on these, looks like a really fun project.

Quincy T

scotthofferphotography wrote: »

because its really snowy here and she didn't want to go out in the cold and my garage is heated.

That's unfortunate, because those would probably be absolutely badass pictures. You could even maybe setup a light and make it appear as though she were on-site, lumberjacking. In the case with the studio shots...they just don't look right.

Is there anything I can do to make the light more even? my white balance was on auto on my camera the entire time.. does that make a difference? the flash was used for making the background solid white because without it, my other lights were not bright enough to get rid of the seams where it was put together. The materials used were all given to me by a friend that works for a company that uses those plastic sheets.

Your ingenuity is pretty impressive, I will tell you that much, but D3Shooter outlined the reasons and rhymes for the problems in these shots.

If you're doing studio work, you might as well choose the white balance that is appropriate for that rather than leaving the camera on AWB, but as long as you're shooting in RAW it shouldn't be a huge issue (I may be totally wrong here, more experienced folks can correct me)

I get that it was just for a calendar for a friend, but at the same time, if that calendar generates revenue, you may want to consider:

1) Investing the appropriate amount of money in quality products to make your studio work up-to-par.
2) Getting reimbursed for providing people with annual calendar photos in order to get better quality products.

scotthofferphotography

Thanks for the comments. I am not sure what to do.. I don't have any money. I think I could make better images with better equipment, I am just bummed out.

This was taken using the same gear.. is it any better / worse?

marikris

scotthofferphotography wrote: »

Thanks for the comments. I am not sure what to do.. I don't have any money. I think I could make better images with better equipment, I am just bummed out.

This was taken using the same gear.. is it any better / worse?

For me, it's better. But you've really got to watch the shadows in the eye areas. Put a reflector to light the eyes so you don't have to bring up the raccoon shadows in post. The lighting is still uneven on her face and instead of the highlights being on the broad side of her face, try to get the brighter area to be on the narrow side of her face so she appears slimmer. Your lights are still a little too hot, so there's a lot of spill over, but when you learn to control that, you'd notice a significant improvement. It puts me in mind of a Zack Arias video I once saw where he explains how he does high key and eliminates light spill.

To add to what others have said about your original pictures, posing wise, it struck me that where the chainsaw is situated can be a little suggestive...since it's so....phallic (there, I said it), unless you intended it that way. Ahem.

TonyCooper

To comment on something other than the lighting...what jumps out at me is
the mismatch of the model and the setting with the prop. You have this
stark white setting and a model without a hair out of place, and a chain
saw that is badly marked up and worn on the blade.

With that saw, the setting should be rough and reflective of what we
really do with chain saws. With your setting, you need a chain saw
right out of the box or some Photoshop skills.

I understand budget restraints and practicing technique, but you asked
for comments on what you've provided.

Quincy T

scotthofferphotography wrote: »

Thanks for the comments. I am not sure what to do.. I don't have any money. I think I could make better images with better equipment, I am just bummed out.

This was taken using the same gear.. is it any better / worse?

You're not sure what to do? Everyone is telling you what to do. You can choose to adapt and overcome, or just continue to "Took this using the same gear and same idea, but simply replaced the model and removed two props. YOUR THOUGHTS?!"

Do you see where I'm coming from?

scotthofferphotography

I guess your a marine from that statement?

Thank you for your service. I was in Iraq and spent 3 tours there also.

Quincy T

scotthofferphotography wrote: »

I guess your a marine from that statement?

Yes

Thank you for your service. I was in Iraq and spent 3 tours there also.

And thank you, sincerely. I noticed on your profile you mentioned you were disabled. I only spent one year in Iraq, and it was IT work. I'm sure your line of business was much less relaxing, and I appreciate what you do more than you know.

scotthofferphotography

Thank you sir. I was in Infantry. Shooting pics is a better feeling that shooting guns now.

Quincy T

scotthofferphotography wrote: »

Thank you sir. I was in Infantry. Shooting pics is a better feeling that shooting guns now.

I'm sure! If you maintain this same level of intuitiveness you've shown in building your own impromptu studio, and apply it to the instrument (camera), you will most likely go far.

scotthofferphotography

Thanks for the compliments. I am trying.

ziggy53

scotthofferphotography wrote: »

... Is there anything I can do to make the light more even? my white balance was on auto on my camera the entire time.. does that make a difference? the flash was used for making the background solid white because without it, my other lights were not bright enough to get rid of the seams where it was put together. The materials used were all given to me by a friend that works for a company that uses those plastic sheets.

Why is this the only image that came out good? Its the only one that actually looks like her skin color?

You're doing a lot that is right. Take some comfort in that fact.

I suggest switching your lighting around and use the 580EX/umbrella for your key light, a reflector (or several) for fill, and the florescent lights for the background. I suggest splitting the florescent lights into 2 - banks, and place them on either side of the background. Use "flags" to prevent light spill. Maybe add a flo-light for a rim light too.

The problem with florescent lights is that they lack a continuous spectrum*. While they often "can" work with subject matter that doesn't have an 'a priori' recognizable color and tone, for skin tones I don't like the results.

The other problem with continuous-burning lights in general is that the pupils in subjects get pretty small. With instantaneous flash the pupils tend to be much larger with more pleasing eyes as a result.

Here are some links to studio lighting setups:

http://www.photographytips.com/page.cfm/2972

http://www.geocities.ws/glowluzid/portrait/portrait.html

Tons of links:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=742194&postcount=10

---

*(Daylight, incandescent and typical fluorescent spectrum (electronic flash is very close to daylight): http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~avery/course/3400/light/blackbody_color.gif)

scotthofferphotography

Thanks Ziggy for your help.