Portraits of the Famous, Infamous, Past, & Present

nickphoto123

Hello All,

We had an opportunity to shoot some portraits
of the Famous & Infamous from the Past & Present:

http://nickphoto123.smugmug.com/gallery/1141825

Regards, Nicholas

pathfinder

Las Vegas??

Can these be captured in natural light without the harsh flash shadow??

If not a Fong LightSPhere Pj might help some.

nickphoto123

Portraits of the Famous & Infamous

pathfinder wrote:

Las Vegas??

Can these be captured in natural light without the harsh flash shadow??

If not a Fong LightSPhere Pj might help some.

I only had my D60. When I get my S9000 back from repair I will visit again and shoot everything in a proper fashion. The DSLR was too cumbersome and the finder caused me to shoot at incorrect heights.

The reason for my post was to show the amazing artistry of each statue.

Regards, Nicholas

W.W. Webster

pathfinder wrote:

Can these be captured in natural light without the harsh flash shadow?

The light is no less natural than the subjects, as far as I can see!

gubbs

nickphoto123 wrote:

I only had my D60. When I get my S9000 back from repair I will visit again and shoot everything in a proper fashion. The DSLR was too cumbersome and the finder caused me to shoot at incorrect heights.

bad workman.........:D

nickphoto123

Portraits of the Famous & Infamous

gubbs wrote:

bad workman.........:D

I don't understand your reply.

If you are stating : "Bad work man", that is ok with me, everyone should express his opinion.

But if I may point out two things which you are not aware of,

IMHO, 1) The museum rules regarding photography read as follows:

"Photography for personal use is allowed with hand-held cameras and with available light or electronic flash attachments. Tripods and lights may not be used. "

The ambient light in the museum in most parts was dim like a nightclub. An image without flash would reveal a 'deadeye'. The statues in most cases were placed near a wall which is the reason for many of the shadows. You would never photograph someone that close to a wall if you did not have to.
Such a shoot would require off camera lights to do it properly but such activity is against the rules. When I get my S9000 back from repair I will revisit the museum with my re-fitted Vivitar bare bulb flash. This will enable me to shoot with the ambient light and throw a spark of light in the eyes.

2) I believe my series of portraits does justice to the artist's work, reveals the personality of each individual as presented by the artist, and overall, IMHO, notwithstanding your 'bad workman' comment, is pretty good shooting.

Thanks for yor comments,

Regards, Nicholas

Andy

nickphoto123 wrote:

I only had my D60. When I get my S9000 back from repair I will visit again and shoot everything in a proper fashion. The DSLR was too cumbersome and the finder caused me to shoot at incorrect heights.

The reason for my post was to show the amazing artistry of each statue.

Regards, Nicholas

Nick,

What PF was suggesting is that using a flash diffuser, will help soften the harsh shadows behind Madame Tussaud's subjects (or any live subject, too)

pathfinder

Nick - I do admire the artistry of the sculpters that did the wax figures - I wasn't even sure they were wax for the first few.

But the light is snapshot light, or a photojounalist's capture at midnight of a breaking story - neither of which does these statues justice in my mind. That is why I asked about natural light as opposed to flash.

4labs

Nick why would you be beating on Derek Jeter Must be a Met fan. Were these taken in NYC, I'll have to visit the place.

nickphoto123

Portraits of the Famous & Infamous

4labs wrote:

Nick why would you be beating on Derek Jeter Must be a Met fan. Were these taken in NYC, I'll have to visit the place.

4labs,

He was getting cute with my wife Carole (she seemed to be enjoying it).

I am very happy at least one person responded to the humor.

Andy,

You seem to to the interpretor of Digitalgrin. You made such comments on two of my other threads which you closed after stating inaccuracies as to my posts.
You tell me what PF is saying. He expresses himself quite well.
It is the remark by Gubbs that needs the interpretation. And am sure when Gubbs gets back on to this thread, he is quite capable of explaining his remark.
Please stay on topic, your transcendant comments are making me quite uncomfortable. I come here for photography, nothing else. And when I visit I expect to be able to look accross the forum table, and not have to look upward to anybody.

Regards, Nicholas

Andy

nickphoto123 wrote:

4labs,

He was getting cute with my wife Carole (she seemed to be enjoying it).

I am very happy at least one person responded to the humor.

Andy,

You seem to to the interpretor of Digitalgrin. You made such comments on two of my other threads which you closed after stating inaccuracies as to my posts.
You tell me what PF is saying. He expresses himself quite well.
It is the remark by Gubbs that needs the interpretation. And am sure when Gubbs gets back on to this thread, he is quite capable of explaining his remark.
Please stay on topic, your transcendant comments are making me quite uncomfortable. I come here for photography, nothing else. And when I visit I expect to be able to look accross the forum table, and not have to look upward to anybody.

Regards, Nicholas

Ouch, Nick - I can see you are upset! I and everyone here on this forum just try to help. No worries though, I'll try elsewhere, where it's more receptive. BTW - I don't expect anyone to look up to me. If you feel that way, I'm terribly sorry about that, and sorry I upset you. I sure hope you can have a better day.

Cheers Nick.

ScottMcLeod

nickphoto123 wrote:

Andy,
Please stay on topic, your transcendant comments are making me quite uncomfortable. I come here for photography, nothing else. And when I visit I expect to be able to look accross the forum table, and not have to look upward to anybody.

Regards, Nicholas

Why is it that whenever someone reaches out to try to clarify or help you out, you get defensive and lash out? :cry

I don't think I've seen a thread from you lately where you didn't take someone's comment personally. :uhoh

We're all friends here, and of *all* people to be condescending, Andy is by FAR the least likely to be so. I don't think Andy could hurt a fly if he wanted to.

EDIT: Oops, Andy beat me to the reply!

Back on topic,
I'm curious to see the reply to gubbs' comment too. Must be some goat-joke that the rest of us don't get!

DoctorIt

ScottMcLeod wrote:

Why is it that whenever someone reaches out to try to clarify or help you out, you get defensive and lash out? :cry

I don't think I've seen a thread from you lately where you didn't take someone's comment personally. :uhoh

Yeah, why is that sir Nick???

And for pete's sake, stop blaming bad photos on the poor D60!

gubbs

nickphoto123 wrote:

I only had my D60. When I get my S9000 back from repair I will visit again and shoot everything in a proper fashion. The DSLR was too cumbersome and the finder caused me to shoot at incorrect heights.

nickphoto123 wrote:

I don't understand your reply.

"a bad workman blames his tools" It's a UK expression

ScottMcLeod

gubbs wrote:

"a bad workman blames his tools" It's a UK expression

Ah, that's what I thought it referred to.

Take away a pro's equipment and give him a rangefinder with only a few rolls of film, and if he can still bring out the same quality of photos as he could with his pro equipment, you know he's got the skills for what he's doing.

I often go back to my basic equipment (Canon AE-1 Program, Zenit-E, Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax MZ-5), etc...