mostly nude portraits

lynnma

thought that would grab your attention...:rofl

I've been asked to take some shots of ladies (real ones) similar to shots of the Calendar Girls done in England. Local ladies in the act of just performing their jobs or hobbies. Most of their bodies will be covered but necks arms legs etc will be exposed. Now then... I don't do portraits... or skin... have not a clue where to start. I'm assuming that I will need a lot of soft big lighting and A LOT OF PHOTOSHOP which is fine, and maybe a filter or two.
I need all the help I can get here pros.. this is for charity. I thought I'd do it in soft color, b&w is too hard, (these women are not young) and sepia sounds blah.. whaddya think.. impossible for an inexerperienced shooter like me?? I"ll show them to you all as I do them as reward...or maybe horror show.
Lynn

DoctorIt

you really think BW is too hard? I'd have said the opposite... with most of the people shooting i've ever done, mostly of my ladyfriend (no one else would let me do repeated portraits) i usually make her look much better in BW. Especially in the winter when we look pasty or too blushed... make sense? all those unflattering pinks or reds fade away in BW.

Just my highly inexperienced .02

Deacon

color filters
A cheap solution to using color filters is to get gel samples from a theatrical lighting company. They are just the right size to attach over the face of your strobe. Experiment with different ones to get warmer or cooler tones as needed.

Deacon

pathfinder

DoctorIt wrote:

you really think BW is too hard? I'd have said the opposite... with most of the people shooting i've ever done, mostly of my ladyfriend (no one else would let me do repeated portraits) i usually make her look much better in BW. Especially in the winter when we look pasty or too blushed... make sense? all those unflattering pinks or reds fade away in BW.

Just my highly inexperienced .02

I second what Erik says - esp since you will be shooting with a 300D - Just shoot away and then look at images in the RED Channel - you might find the b&W you are looking forward to - and the skin tones may be much nicer in the Red channel than the blue or green channels

Go for soft window light or filtered late afternoon sunlight - or the equivalent softbox light - look at portraits in oil done by the old masters - they always drew in soft window light - they sure were smart fellars.

Looking forward to seeing your pics, Lynn.

lynnma

pathfinder wrote:

I second what Erik says - esp since you will be shooting with a 300D - Just shoot away and then look at images in the RED Channel - you might find the b&W you are looking forward to - and the skin tones may be much nicer in the Red channel than the blue or green channels

Go for soft window light or filtered late afternoon sunlight - or the equivalent softbox light - look at portraits in oil done by the old masters - they always drew in soft window light - they sure were smart fellars.

Looking forward to seeing your pics, Lynn.

Thats true.. I'll take a couple and post them for help...and by the way, I don't have a strobe looks like afternoon light will be it.....oh god, now I'm really panicked.. these things are gonna be printed and go all over town.. the printer wants them done in cmyk does that make sense to you? why would that be and what difference does it make..methinks I may have mithspoke..

lynnma

lynnma wrote:

Thats true.. I'll take a couple and post them for help...and by the way, I don't have a strobe looks like afternoon light will be it.....oh god, now I'm really panicked.. these things are gonna be printed and go all over town.. the printer wants them done in cmyk does that make sense to you? why would that be and what difference does it make..methinks I may have mithspoke..

Husband is helping now.. suggested taking them out side.. I have a little courtyard with flowers, rock, bistro set etc... completely private, may be nice to take them out there using props like ..watering cans, old pump, afternoon teas, parasol... parasol??? book reading etc. Did anyone see the movie? http://calendargirls.movies.go.com/

Baldy

In my opinion, the most important thing is to get a big light source and get it as close to the subject as you can. The bigger and closer it is, the more the light softly "wraps" around the subject, softening the shadows.

It isn't that you get no shadows so the lighting is so flat as to be boring, it's that the sharp lines of the shadows become soft. I use a 4x6' softbox for the primary light and a 6' round reflector to fill the shadows some.

I'm not the best portrait photographer, but here's some examples of the big softbox and reflector:





I shot some Halloween piccies for a church party and took a smaller soft box, and you can see the shadows getting sharper and a little more shine off the skin (the reflector was further away to provide darker shadows because it was....scary):

zero-zero

Lynn, Erik, Pathfinder and the Bald One are giving you right-on-the-money advice. I'd advise, too, to go B&W, soft window light and reflectors. I think the black & white conversion tip I posted elsewhere in this site will yield a betted result than red-channel only, however. Whatever you do, try to kill those shadows as much as possible if you're going for a flattering look, as it seems.

Re CMYK: don't worry, in this case you just need to work as usual and at the end go to image / mode and convert to CMYK, being B&W you'll have no problems there (this is not always the case).

Before you do that, make sure that your color settings in Photoshop (under the edit menu, towards the bottom) are set to "US Prepress" and your CMYK working space is set to sheetfed coated. After you finish, you can revert to whatever you please, but if this sounds like ancient greek to you, just leave them there. Not a matter of life and death, but the printer will probably appreciate it.

lynnma

zero-zero wrote:

Lynn, Erik, Pathfinder and the Bald One are giving you right-on-the-money advice. I'd advise, too, to go B&W, soft window light and reflectors. I think the black & white conversion tip I posted elsewhere in this site will yield a betted result than red-channel only, however. Whatever you do, try to kill those shadows as much as possible if you're going for a flattering look, as it seems.

Re CMYK: don't worry, in this case you just need to work as usual and at the end go to image / mode and convert to CMYK, being B&W you'll have no problems there (this is not always the case).

Before you do that, make sure that your color settings in Photoshop (under the edit menu, towards the bottom) are set to "US Prepress" and your CMYK working space is set to sheetfed coated. After you finish, you can revert to whatever you please, but if this sounds like ancient greek to you, just leave them there. Not a matter of life and death, but the printer will probably appreciate it.

Thanks Zero and thanks Baldy...all this is very very helpful. I am very limited with what I have for lights and reflectors but I can get creative (I hope) If these shots come out looking anything like anything it's gonna be a miricle! but I'm very game...hey!I'll just send em to you guys to fix

zero-zero

Rule of thumb: If you're not used to work with artificial lighting, it's best you try to use available light and reflectors, maybe with a flash bounced into one.

Reflectors can be easily made of white foam, white cardboard and such, no need to go the LastoLite way. Overcast wheather is a favorite, although I prefer open shade on a sunnier day.

mystic7

If I may add my two cents, I've always felt that a lot of B&W nudes were the result of the color version not looking so hot, so I'm in agreement with the others.

I myself will be doing some nude photography this weekend with a stunning model. At least she looks stunning with clothes on. Hopefully she won't have a Photoshop body. Hey I think I just coined a new phrase

I'll post some of them here (can I do that?) Of course I'll start my own thread.
M7

Shay Stephens

mystic7 wrote:

I'll post some of them here (can I do that?) Of course I'll start my own thread.
M7

Post links, that way people can decide to view or not.

mystic7

Shay Stephens wrote:

Post links, that way people can decide to view or not.

Well DUH! How stupid of me to not even think of that. Thanks Shay.
M7

wxwax

mystic7 wrote:

I myself will be doing some nude photography this weekend with a stunning model.

Will your model be nude too?

mystic7

wxwax wrote:

Will your model be nude too?

She'd better be, or I'm gonna look like a fool! :whip
M7

gus

mystic7 wrote:

She'd better be, or I'm gonna look like a fool! :whip
M7

heres some info from the olympus site....you may get something from it.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/lessons/angela/index.html

mystic7

Humungus wrote:

heres some info from the olympus site....you may get something from it.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/lessons/angela/index.html

That was REALLY informative. Thanks! But there's no way I'm gonna be able to afford any of that equipment for a while, so it's gonna be post production for me. There's something sensual about magnetically lassoing a nude female anyway
M7

lynnma

Humungus wrote:

heres some info from the olympus site....you may get something from it.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/lessons/angela/index.html

Thanks Humy... I did actually, I printed it all out. Very interesting indeed. AND I'm gonna get creative and make some equipment...
Lynn

lynnma

lynnma wrote:

Thanks Humy... I did actually, I printed it all out. Very interesting indeed. AND I'm gonna get creative and make some equipment...
Lynn

By the way... does anyone else know of any online tutorials (free) on portraits?

fish

wxwax wrote:

Will your model be nude too?

:lol

jimf

lynnma wrote:

By the way... does anyone else know of any online tutorials (free) on portraits?

I found this one:

http://www.dcmag.co.uk/news/article/mps/UAN/339/v/1/sp/328765336475364149534

which is brief but has some good tips. I note that their comment about reflector stands being expensive may be a matter of opinion; I literally just bought several stands at Calumet in Cambridge MA (which I mention because you're in Lynn, right?) and got a 31" collapsible reflector, reflector cover with several options, stand, and reflector support arm for about $100. Compared to all the other stuff I've been buying that is cheap.

I have been experimenting with indoor portraiture on account of having to shoot my dad's wedding next weekend and the big problem I've had is harsh lighting and difficulty in managing the flash in the hot-shoe. Taking shots at different angles meant changing lighting and/or maneuvering the flash. Worse the diffuser I thought would help with sharp shadowing didn't do squat (I know why, now, but I had to learn :-). Plus camera, big lens, and flash starts to get pretty hefty.

My solution, which I'll try out this weekend, was to get a remote trigger for the flash (I have Canon ex-series flashes which can be triggered by IR), a stand for the flash, and another stand and arm for the reflector. The theory is that now I set up the light however I want it, it's big and soft, and I can move around much more freely.

That's the plan, anyway. I sure wish my dad's wedding were to be in daytime, it's so much easier. And also that it weren't in Miami.

lynnma

jimf wrote:

I found this one:

http://www.dcmag.co.uk/news/article/mps/UAN/339/v/1/sp/328765336475364149534

which is brief but has some good tips. I note that their comment about reflector stands being expensive may be a matter of opinion; I literally just bought several stands at Calumet in Cambridge MA (which I mention because you're in Lynn, right?) and got a 31" collapsible reflector, reflector cover with several options, stand, and reflector support arm for about $100. Compared to all the other stuff I've been buying that is cheap.

I have been experimenting with indoor portraiture on account of having to shoot my dad's wedding next weekend and the big problem I've had is harsh lighting and difficulty in managing the flash in the hot-shoe. Taking shots at different angles meant changing lighting and/or maneuvering the flash. Worse the diffuser I thought would help with sharp shadowing didn't do squat (I know why, now, but I had to learn :-). Plus camera, big lens, and flash starts to get pretty hefty.

My solution, which I'll try out this weekend, was to get a remote trigger for the flash (I have Canon ex-series flashes which can be triggered by IR), a stand for the flash, and another stand and arm for the reflector. The theory is that now I set up the light however I want it, it's big and soft, and I can move around much more freely.

That's the plan, anyway. I sure wish my dad's wedding were to be in daytime, it's so much easier. And also that it weren't in Miami.

Hi Jim,
thanks for the link. I'll check it out. Good luck with the wedding. Show us what you get, we'd love to see it.
Lynn
p.s. did you mean to put your email on show? could be an invitation for spam for you.

wxwax

Jim, you're bouncing that flash into something, right?

fish

So lynn...yer gonna share all these nudie pics with us, right?

jimf

wxwax wrote:

Jim, you're bouncing that flash into something, right?

I wasn't, generally, and I know that was the problem (or, at least, a problem).

This one was the best shot I took out of the series:



That was using the main bounced off the ceiling and a slave lighting from directly in front of her. Both had diffusers.

I've done a couple of portrait shoots this week trying to figure out how to use the flash(es) effectively. That taught me a few things: 1) I don't want an on-camera flash at all. It's bulky, heavy, and has to be rearranged too much to get decent light; 2) Portraiture is a lot easier if you use a constant light source location. I can move around with the camera but the light stays the same; 3) Diffusers don't work very well for portraiture, I really wanted a big reflector.

These things spurred the purchases of a remote flash trigger for the camera plus one of those fold-up reflectors and stands for flash and reflector.

I note that I liked that shot better in B&W:



I've figured out how to use Photoshop to get a TMAX-like image out of the 300D, woo-hoo! I always loved TMAX.

jimf

lynnma wrote:

p.s. did you mean to put your email on show? could be an invitation for spam for you.

Hah, my email has been very public since before there even was spam. Or, for that matter, the web. I have an excellent filter system; it was the only way to keep my sanity.

wxwax

It sounds like having at least an umbrella in which to shoot the flash might make a big difference to the harshness of the light. Have you explored an umbrella or a softbox? I'm not knowlegeable, just curious.

I watched the movie links on lighting that someone posted this week. I found them to be terribly interesting. Most interesting was the concept of big light versus little light - a fundamental I had no idea existed.

lynnma

fish wrote:

So lynn...yer gonna share all these nudie pics with us, right?

yep... got one comin up soon fish..

jimf

wxwax wrote:

It sounds like having at least an umbrella in which to shoot the flash might make a big difference to the harshness of the light. Have you explored an umbrella or a softbox? I'm not knowlegeable, just curious.

The problem with an umbrella is you need some real power to use them, and I'm just using a 550ex and/or 420ex. But as I said, I hit Calumet and bought a zip disk and some stands. The results speak for themselves, go see my thread on "Two moods of a child" in "Show us your best stuff." I still see a number of things I can improve but hey, it was a lot easier to get good results.

I like how cheap the reflectors and stands are, but it's sick to have to pay $230 for Canon's IR flash trigger. Ouch! Though it dropped like a pound off of the camera versus using the 550ex as the master.

AltPro

lynnma wrote:

Thanks Zero and thanks Baldy...all this is very very helpful. I am very limited with what I have for lights and reflectors but I can get creative (I hope) If these shots come out looking anything like anything it's gonna be a miricle! but I'm very game...hey!I'll just send em to you guys to fix

Hello: As you may tell, I'm new to the forum, but not new to photographing the "human landscape." I agree with all the others here on the topic of film choice. B&W is really the most flattering way to go, although it is not always as simple as point and shoot. Try and consider the possibility of zooming in close on some of your shots, unless of course, like "Calendar Girls," all of the women must be recognizable.
You can really achieve some beautiful nude work when you get up very close, and when you think you're close enough, pull up even tighter. You will be able to see some beautiful textures of the skin, pick up different skin tones between individuals.
Outside shots are almost always the most beautiful, and most fun for the photographer, provided of course that the model is able to relax and be assured that she will not be gazed upon by voyeurs. By the same token, one of my series was done of different ages, all shot indoors, with relatively inexpensive "Photo Bulbs," purchased at the local Pro-shop. One of the women was hooked to her oxygen tank, she loved it!
As soon as I can scan in some of my negatives, I will... If I can be of any help, almost two weeks out of the original thread...

Good Luck... Sounds like a fun and gratifying project.
I remain,
ginette

wxwax

Oh, by all means post your shots. And thanks for your input... you sound like you have a lot of experience, and so your advice is most welcome. And I'm intrigued by the oxygen bottle nude. A little unusual.