|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/08/2005 06:38:29 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Kevin-Are you using a lightmeter also? I got the gist of this (the stopping the light up and down), and how to basically do it without one (set up what looks right and then a little trial and error here and there), to get what I want. If you do, whatcha using? What to look for in one. Reflective and incident both? One better than the other?
Thanks |
I have a Sekonic L-358. It really depends on the shoot and how I'm feeling. Most of the time I use the light meter to setup the initial shots and get a lighting ratio that's close to something I want to try (3:1, 4:1, etc). I then start taking photos and adjust to my tastes or just for experimentation. If the model changes clothes and I want to get back to a "zeroed" setting where I think I can get an exposure that will serve her well then I pull out the light meter, expose again and then start playing to see if I can get something more dramatic.
As far as asking my opinion on what to get . . . I'd ask someone else. I'm seriously just learning and you all are getting to see my growing pains. Heck, the first couple of times I tried using the darned thing I didn't even know which way to hold it for incidence metering (please God, I hope I get this right so I don't look like an idiot). Now I hold the meter in my hand with the lumisphere extended out of the housing. The opaque lumisphere is held above my hand and pointed back at the light I want to meter for and I hit the button and take my reading. If I aim the lumisphere at the key light then I want to take that reading and use it as the basis for all the other measurements. I set the other lights off that one. For reflected light I turn the lumisphere back towards the subject from the same angle that the camera will be facing him/her and fire off all the flashes at once.
For those who actually have skill at using these tools, please correct whatever poor information I may have given.
At least you get to see what I'm doing to start off my shoot with these models. Honestly the lighting in all the shots I posted was based on experimentation. None of these shots were from the first few exposures so I had already started playing with the lighting ratios.
Kev
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 07:00:36 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by samtrundle:
If you had it on DPC I'd add it as a favourite in a heartbeat! |
it's on DPC !!!!!
sorry I'm slow... it obvioulsy wasn't earlier...
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 07:02:04. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 07:08:47 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
I'll stick my neck out here a bit and say that the only one I like in your original post is the top shot (lying on her back). This has a richer set of tones and is lit in a more interesting way.
I have to ask, what is your intention with these images? |
These images were for different things. The first set was for promotional material for the subject. She needed some work to take to a company that wants to promote her singing. She wanted some studio work and we're getting together later for some outdoor work as well to add more depth and dimension. The shot with her by the column was a concept that I wanted to explore with her after she put her hair up and stepped into those shoes. I got the glasses from one of her friends who accompanied her to the shoot. I'm sure that if she gets on with some major promoter she will get shots done by someone who has more experience in a larger studio or then again, maybe they'll like something they see in the set I gave her on CD.
On the 2nd set of girls I have to confess some failure on my part. The original shoot was scheduled to be for a study that I'm doing. The whole afternoon was supposed to be shots of the model in black and we were going to be shooting her from the waist down for my study on women's legwear/footwear fashions. This is an artistic endeavor of mine. I was surprised when she brought a friend and it threw me off. Honestly I ended up steeling my nerve to shoot a young lady who has wonderful proportions because I was concerned that her friend would think I was a nut. I knew that the model had gladly agreed to the shoot so I was expecting to shoot with her but when she brought along her friend I was out of my element and it took me almost 90 minutes to really get a grip and say "OK, you came here for your legs, let's get you in some of these shoes and shoot". The outcome was the shot that many people seem to like. I'm satisfied with that photo at this point in the learning and self-expression process. It was an artistic expression of my soul about how I see women's legs and how I think women enjoy at times feeling sexy, adorned, pretty and empowered through their femininity (I mean, guys don't generally put polish on their toenails, wear thigh-highs which can be a PITA or strap on 5 inch FMPs). This is just one area where I see women enjoying their sexuality and I happen to find this attractive so I've embarked on a study to both capture my vision of what I find enticing, beautiful and one essence of a woman's sexual identity (and I know there are myriad more that have nothing whatsoever to do with this facet) and to present this vision in a way that others can say both "Wow, that's HOT" as well as "She looks as pretty as I want to feel sometimes". This was just my first submission on that process.
Originally posted by Imagineer:
I feel that the other shots lack soul and do none of the above. They simply present the model as she stood in the studio and make me feel nothing towards her, leaving me conscious of a photographic set-up. Personally, I think there has to be an element of good humour with shots such as these, or all-out sensuality and sexyness.
The reason I question this is becasue I've been approached to do some glamour/modelling shots myself, but I won't until I can find some purpose and a good 'angle' on the theme. |
And here you've found the nerve of the two sessions. I'm still working on technicalities. Some close friends and honest evaluators have to remind me that almost all my shots have little to no "soul" or expression to them. I focus on the technical when what inspires people is the art. People react to the shot of the girl tying the shoe on and in that shot I let several technical pieces go (such as the twist of the ribbon or the fact that the shoes are a good 1/2 size too large for her foot) but I got some of my soul into that shot. I showed others something I see and I didn't expose it as well as I could have but its the expression, the vision that cause most people to connect. The other shots of the two lovely young ladies in lingerie was just because I could get the experience and frankly because I have a new studio and I'm DYING to get people in here to shoot so that I can truly understand my lighting. I'm really wanting to figure out how to light people and since I had to people who wanted to model together I figured it was a great time and went for it. One shot I'm happiest with is this:
 because I got the lighting and color I wanted by using gels on a white background. This was a test shot to see how the lighting was metered and I am thrilled that I got it the way I did.
One thing to keep in mind is that you can have an experienced model who knows how to express him/herself and how to project something through the camera and you don't have to be a photographer with a lot of skill/talent to get a shot that your viewers will connect with. Seriously you could take an average photographer and some of these models who have done this and are good at expressing themselves will makeup for the photographer's lack of experience in posing a model or setting a scene and you can come away with photos that most people on DPC will find intimate or intriguing. Then again, you can have a photographer who is skilled at working with models and who knows how to set a scene and pose someone but a model who is tentative or inexperienced and you can come away with photos that again touch the viewers with their intimacy and emotion that the photographer has invested. Now in my case, the viewer is presented with a programmer who is trying to work out the technicalities because that's where I feel most comfortable working and models who have never modeled anything before. They don't know how to pose or how to express themselves and I'm just starting to get the hang of trying to turn a head or tilt a head and hands/arms still throw me off. You got the benefit of my understanding what I like in a woman's leg but comeon, I've had years to see women in short skirts and high-heels (I live in the warm south where shorts are an art form). Give me a whole woman who doesn't know how to pose and doesn't feel comfortable "vogueing" or hitting an expression and "owning" it and you're gonna come out with shots that can be uninspiring although they are getting better in the tecnical realm. I'm still working on learning to inject my vision into a shoot. I haven't apprenticed to anyone so I'm learning as I go and sadly I appear to be a slow learner when it comes to some of the more important aspects of connecting the subject with the viewer. But I'm trying. I appreciate your candor and anyone's stamina who has read down this far. :)
I hope I answered or at least spoke to your comments.
Kev
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 08:37:24 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:
Now I hold the meter in my hand with the lumisphere extended out of the housing. The opaque lumisphere is held above my hand and pointed back at the light I want to meter for and I hit the button and take my reading. If I aim the lumisphere at the key light then I want to take that reading and use it as the basis for all the other measurements. I set the other lights off that one. For reflected light I turn the lumisphere back towards the subject from the same angle that the camera will be facing him/her and fire off all the flashes at once.
For those who actually have skill at using these tools, please correct whatever poor information I may have given.
Kev |
I think you have it generally right about how to use the flashmeter, but if you're taking reflected light readings with the white ball pointed AT the subject, that's not the right way (unless meters have changed or I read your procedure wrong), it should be pointed at the camera lens for an overall reading. My Minolta Flashmeter has an attachment that replaces the sphere with a disc that has a hole in the middle for reflected light readings. If your Sekonic doesn't, no worry, your camera meter will work just fine.
Judging from your results, you certainly haven't gone too wrong.
Good work, keep it up!
The way I was taught was to think of the ball as a stand in for your subject.
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 08:38:39.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/16/2025 01:37:54 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/16/2025 01:37:54 AM EDT.
|
