|
The Fomo posted:The second. The first has too much glare/detail on the glass, while the second you can't see the glass at all. The first is brighter, which is better, but the detail on the glass is not good.
|
| # ? Jan 9, 2009 20:17 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 19:20 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Or even just ask on the forums - we're from all over. Any Vancouver goons are more than welcome to play with my AB400 a bit. Yeah if any dudes in the Bay Area want a free education in lighting gear I always need assistants for personal shoots where there isn't much of a budget (I'm doing one tonight in Berkeley actually, and have another next weekend). poopinmymouth posted:Love this one. It's a lot more natural than some of the other more posed stuff you've posted.
|
| # ? Jan 9, 2009 20:20 |
|
|
I convinced myself to get real light stands, go me. I should get them soon (Got to love Vistek.ca's inventory system.. told me it had a few prior to ordering, and is now b/o for 6-10 days  )Anyway, my strobes don't have pc jacks and cactus receivers are flimsy poo poo. How are those Hong Kong adapters? Like this one. Anyone tried them? Care to comment? I'd love to get Hamas and I just might unless those China adapters are not as bad as I though.
|
| # ? Jan 9, 2009 20:47 |
|
|
IsaacNewton posted:I convinced myself to get real light stands, go me. I should get them soon (Got to love Vistek.ca's inventory system.. told me it had a few prior to ordering, and is now b/o for 6-10 days Same thing happened to me and the Elenchrome kit I ordered. I ordered before the new year and I'm told they might ship in a couple weeks.
|
| # ? Jan 9, 2009 20:49 |
|
|
IsaacNewton posted:Anyway, my strobes don't have pc jacks and cactus receivers are flimsy poo poo. How are those Hong Kong adapters? Like this one. Anyone tried them? Care to comment? I bought one to use with my Olympus FL36 and occasionally I have to take the batteries out of my flash because the adapter causes it to freeze up, not even the power button will cause it to shut off and restart. I stopped using it because of it, and thats the only problem I have ever had with my flash. Nothing like that has ever happened since. I purchased mine from Dealextreme.com so it might be different. It seems like it should work though if you have a more common flash. Just try and find reviews if you can and buy the best one within your price range.
|
| # ? Jan 9, 2009 21:35 |
|
|
I have 2 strobes and I was asked to photograph a model from head to toe, but i'm not sure how I should light this. Its for clothing, so i was thinking soft box facing down 45 degrees and maybe using the second strobe as a hair light?
|
| # ? Jan 9, 2009 22:01 |
|
|
somnambulist posted:I have 2 strobes and I was asked to photograph a model from head to toe, but i'm not sure how I should light this. Its for clothing, so i was thinking soft box facing down 45 degrees and maybe using the second strobe as a hair light? It kind of depends on what kind of clothing it is and what sort of look you are going for. If you are shooting a female and its not meant to be super high fashion/glamor, I would look at something like Anthropologie catalogs because they do a great job of photographing the model and clothing without making too much of a lean towards one or the other. Then again they also use a lot of available light and tone down any additional lights that they use. Its all up to the direction of the person you are doing this for then from there you can determine what sort of look you are going for. It sort of depends on the situation as well because you might be on shoot and realize that you have the softbox lighting then the hair is nicely exposed but maybe the clothing could use more light. Its really going to depend on the situation. Am I wrong or does 45 degrees seem like it would be a harsh angle? I guess it depends on the size of the softbox and the availble light otherwise it might cause some long shadows.
|
| # ? Jan 9, 2009 22:55 |
|
|
The Fomo posted:I know this is somewhat nit-picking, but every watch ad you will ever see, the watch is set for 10:10. The devil is ALWAYS in the details, that's the one thing my studio professor at school hounded us about.
|
| # ? Jan 9, 2009 23:55 |
|
|
Myshra posted:I know this is somewhat nit-picking, but every watch ad you will ever see, the watch is set for 10:10. I have been told that as well, plus most watch images the glass has been removed from the face. The way the watch is sitting seems a little awkward as well plus you might want to add some context to it to spice it up. Here is my attempt at a watch image, I am going to re-shoot this when the semester starts. 
raggedphoto fucked around with this message at Jan 10, 2009 around 00:37 |
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 00:34 |
|
|
I'm learning a lot from this thread actually, and I there's a lot of great pictures being posted. sonambulist's question got me thinking though, I'd love to see people's lighting setups along with their shots, at least for shots where they have a setup picture. It might help give people ideas about how to get the look they want. I don't have setup shots for anything good, but here's one for my terrible typewriter snapshot. 
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 02:21 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I don't have setup shots for anything good, but here's one for my terrible typewriter snapshot. Do you have interesting neighbors or do you bird watch? Anyway I have found that drawing a diagram with watt-seconds, aperture readings for each light, distance from subject and modifier used is much more useful than a pic of the set up. That way you have all the info if you should have to re-shoot something plus gives your peers a chance to trouble shoot with you after the shoot.
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 02:34 |
|
|
raggedphoto posted:Do you have interesting neighbors or do you bird watch? Anyway I have found that drawing a diagram with watt-seconds, aperture readings for each light, distance from subject and modifier used is much more useful than a pic of the set up. That way you have all the info if you should have to re-shoot something plus gives your peers a chance to trouble shoot with you after the shoot. This was in a hotel, and they provide binoculars to check out the huge shipwreck looking things in the harbor. 160 w/s light, slightly below 1/16 power (stopless adjustment hell yes), f/8-f/11 at ISO 400.
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 02:57 |
|
|
Wait you guys like alien bees? Shown large just so you guys can make everything out: 1 AB1600 w/ octobox for key 2 AB800s rim light - one with 20degree Grid 2 AB800s with soft box on white back(floor)drop 1 AB400 off ceiling for a little extra fill Shot with a 5d mkii with 24-105mm f4 from atop that chair top center Shot is will be fully composited into something else, i just need to wait for good weather to take the shot they will be comped into. 4 other local photographers and I (ah, the midwest) got together and are all pitching in to rent studio space. Each of us has a minimum of 2 alien bees each and we all share so the pool is pretty nice. I'll get a photo of all our equipment once we get it together. Off the top of my head we have: 2 AB1600s 5 AB800s 3 AB400s 4 PCB Med Soft Boxes 2 PCB Beauty Dishes 2 Vagabond IIs 1 Octobox Hopefully the weather picks up soon. I wanna bring it all outside.
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 07:18 |
|
|
Knux posted:Wait you guys like alien bees? Cool setup, where in the midwest are you located?
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 14:19 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:160 w/s light, slightly below 1/16 power (stopless adjustment hell yes), f/8-f/11 at ISO 400. Just out of curiosity do you usually shoot at an ISO of 400? That seems high when you have control over the lighting, why not just bump up the w/s and keep your ISO low? I may be anal about noise but I always shoot at ISO 50 when I am in the studio.
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 17:04 |
|
|
shooting at anything but the lowest "real" (non-expansion) ISO if you have enough control over the lighting usually doesn't make sense. Shooting at ISO 50 on most digital SLRs is loving stupid because that's just ISO 100 pushed down. Hello decreased dynamic range! The only reason to use ISO 50 is if you can't stop your lens down anymore and you don't have any ND filters. (it's even worse on the Nikon bodies that only go down to ISO 200)
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 17:26 |
|
|
Most of my flickr images have a setup description, sometimes an actual shot of the setup. Here's one:
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 17:29 |
|
|
raggedphoto posted:Just out of curiosity do you usually shoot at an ISO of 400? That seems high when you have control over the lighting, why not just bump up the w/s and keep your ISO low? I may be anal about noise but I always shoot at ISO 50 when I am in the studio. Maybe the strobes are not powerful enough. I had to do the same when I was relying on 580EX (shooting mostly at ISO 200 instead of 100).
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 17:31 |
|
|
LuisX posted:Maybe the strobes are not powerful enough. I had to do the same when I was relying on 580EX (shooting mostly at ISO 200 instead of 100). he was shooting at 1/16 power so....
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 17:41 |
|
|
raggedphoto posted:Just out of curiosity do you usually shoot at an ISO of 400? That seems high when you have control over the lighting, why not just bump up the w/s and keep your ISO low? I may be anal about noise but I always shoot at ISO 50 when I am in the studio. I'd love for there to be some awesome technical reason, but I'd just forgotten that the camera was set at ISO 400.
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 17:43 |
|
|
^^^^^ I do that sometimes when I am metering my lights, the meter is set to 100 and my dSLR is set to something higher. How the hell am I over exposing, Oh, I am an idiot! friendship waffle posted:shooting at anything but the lowest "real" (non-expansion) ISO if you have enough control over the lighting usually doesn't make sense. Sorry I should have mentioned, when I am in the studio I shoot with a view camera and a leaf digital back which an ISO of 50 is pretty standard, I agree that shooting 50 on dSLR doesn't make much sense but I rarely bring my ISO above 100 if I can help it. I guess with most newer dSLR cameras the difference between 100 and 400 is nothing really, like I said I am just anal about noise when it comes to my product photography. raggedphoto fucked around with this message at Jan 10, 2009 around 18:11 |
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 18:08 |
|
|
Hey brad industry, just saw this on wired.com and thought of your speed car shoot: I normally don't look at tech mags and such, but is the showing light stands and strobes showing off a metal object's curves in a warehouse look an editorial trend of some kind?
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 18:55 |
|
|
raggedphoto posted:Sorry I should have mentioned, when I am in the studio I shoot with a view camera and a leaf digital back which an ISO of 50 is pretty standard, I agree that shooting 50 on dSLR doesn't make much sense but I rarely bring my ISO above 100 if I can help it. that's why I mentioned most dSLRs.  Those leaf backs go down to ISO 25 in some cases, of course the flip side is that they only really push ISO 400 or 800, and it's not exactly noise free at those levels.
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 19:15 |
|
|
RangerScum posted:Cool setup, where in the midwest are you located? Canton/Akron, Ohio.
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 20:08 |
|
|
Knux posted:Canton/Akron, Ohio. Darn I was hoping for central Illinois. I just did a shoot at coffee shop here in town, the first time I really used my AB800 much. I did all the shots with a shoot-through umbrella or that silver cone thing they include with it. What the hell is that thing called anyways?  
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 20:37 |
|
|
RangerScum posted:Darn I was hoping for central Illinois. A reflector. They say theirs is 80 degrees. Did you find the light to be a bit too hard without an umbrella or other diffuser?
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 21:36 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:A reflector. They say theirs is 80 degrees. Did you find the light to be a bit too hard without an umbrella or other diffuser? It was in some instances, but I was counting on a hard light in a few of the others.
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 21:53 |
|
|
Jahoodie posted:Hey brad industry, just saw this on wired.com and thought of your speed car shoot: I dunno about trend, that dude was probably in the same situation I was in and came to a similar solution (huge rear end space, large & interesting object that needed hard light, nowhere to hide the light sources without way more grip equipment that I would even know how to use, limited time). I think it's interesting how some photographers see the same things in different situations - I like how he got those highlights on the concrete right under the wings, I noticed the same thing on my shoot and angled the lights to make the bike thingie I shot 'glow' a little and pop from the rest of the environment. For the shot I did I actually sketched out beforehand what I wanted and I intended from the beginning to include the light sources in the frame. Who shot that BTW? If only Wired would stop firing their photo editors right after I send my promos maybe I could actually do a shoot for them  quote:Just out of curiosity do you usually shoot at an ISO of 400? That seems high when you have control over the lighting, why not just bump up the w/s and keep your ISO low? I may be anal about noise but I always shoot at ISO 50 when I am in the studio. I always shoot at 100 (or 50 on those MF backs if that's what is native, I think the Leaf ones are 50 and Phase One is 100). I think once or twice I have bumped up to 200 when I wanted to bring in some really, really dim ambient light and was dealing with super long shutters. Anyways I did a personal shoot last night and here is a super rough (pretty much straight out of the camera) outtake of the prop we built. This took about 2 hours to set up, reminded me that styling and subject matter is usually more important than the light (which for this was really straight forward and took about 2 minutes to setup). I put two large softboxes on either side (I almost never use softboxes) because I wanted the long highlights on the side of all the glassware: 
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 21:57 |
|
|
that's really good, but I'm torn on the ceiling
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2009 23:34 |
|
|
I am on the fence about the ceiling as well plus I would darken the background slightly to separate the whites in the glass from the background other than that I like the image.
|
| # ? Jan 11, 2009 00:29 |
|
|
I finally found this, which I had read a few weeks ago and forgot to bookmark. It's an excerpt from a book by Kevin Ames about photoshop and lightroom, but the selected stuff I thought was a really well explained primer on basic lighting technique.
|
| # ? Jan 11, 2009 23:14 |
|
|
friendship waffle posted:that's really good, but I'm torn on the ceiling I included it for balance, it doesn't work vertically without it. But that file is pretty much straight RAW with no processing, here is the actual shot (I think, I'm torn between this pose and 2 other frames):  Still not done... need to do a lot of retouching and comp in a bunch of  bubbling liquids and poo poo from other frames.
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2009 02:17 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I included it for balance, it doesn't work vertically without it. But that file is pretty much straight RAW with no processing, here is the actual shot (I think, I'm torn between this pose and 2 other frames): And this is a _personal_ shoot? Like, just for fun/portfolio?
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2009 02:45 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I included it for balance, it doesn't work vertically without it. But that file is pretty much straight RAW with no processing, here is the actual shot (I think, I'm torn between this pose and 2 other frames): Oh man, came out so well!
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2009 03:05 |
|
|
Yes it's for fun/portfolio. That shot I have been throwing around in my head for the last month and I finally pulled everything together to do it this past week, I am trying to get as much new stuff as possible into my new-year-promos that are going out in the next few days. I treat personal shoots the same as jobs (ie. I set a budget, find assistants/stylists, rent or buy props, rent a van, etc.). I just think of myself as the client. I try to shoot personal stuff at the same level as the jobs I want to get hired to do. Thanks dudes. Like I said if any of you guys are in the Bay Area you are more than welcome to come assist on these shoots.. I am doing another one next weekend that involves renting a pocket bike and having a model ride it at a windmill like Don Quixote.. that one will be a lot of fun and I'll buy you dinner/beer .
brad industry fucked around with this message at Jan 12, 2009 around 03:20 |
| # ? Jan 12, 2009 03:14 |
|
|
annie leibovitz uses ISO 800... (and a uv filter) (indoors). http://strobist.blogspot.com/2009/0...ke-it-fast.html
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2009 06:25 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I included it for balance, it doesn't work vertically without it. But that file is pretty much straight RAW with no processing, here is the actual shot (I think, I'm torn between this pose and 2 other frames): I'd have blown her hair up and back, and then put a milky sort of liquid in the beakers and tried to hit them with a grid. It's my own preconception of how the scene might work, but I imagine the opaque yet glowing liquid pushing her hair out and back in a mad scientist yet orderly kind of way.
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2009 07:10 |
|
|
evensevenone posted:annie leibovitz uses ISO 800... (and a uv filter) (indoors). On the other hand, her UV filter probably cost more than my camera body and is made of blood diamonds and the eyes of the last unicorn.
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2009 07:14 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:On the other hand, her UV filter probably cost more than my camera body and is made of blood diamonds and the eyes of the last unicorn. That and the D3 at 800 is probably more like everyone elses' cameras at 200.
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2009 07:21 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 19:20 |
|
|
if you want to be realistic she used a tiffen UV filter but paid some intern $3 an hour to spend five months processing the photo and adobe engineers contributed to the effort which made it into a youtube advertisement for photoshop CS5.
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2009 07:22 |
|
