I shot my first set of content - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Kevin2 · 07-23-2003, 01:15 AM

Gimmy and they are all just waiting for you to buy them

Webby · 07-23-2003, 01:37 AM

Kristinka:

Depends on the niche.. obviously "amateur"... but stripper kit don't ooze amateur!

Shit.. I've been trying for years to get pro photographers to kill the "pro look"!

The editor of one well-known print mag I know has ended up shooting sets with a $10 disposable 35mm camera to create the "rough look" - and that mag sells simpley because the "models" look real and "accessable" for $10 or less!

eiht_98 · 07-23-2003, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by flashfreak
I believe you... she's so fresh from the boat she didn't had time to buy decent make up stuff...

slavdogg · 07-23-2003, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pornwolf

If you need a fluffer, or whatever you call a guy that gets the lips looking nice and primed for the shots just let me know. I'm less than a borough away.

you wanna be a male fluffer ?

fluffer is the one that sucks dick b4 a shoot to get guy's dicks hard

Kristinka · 07-23-2003, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld
Kristinka, here is some REAL advice about the photography and not the model (I will not offer any opinions on this one, because for every model, there is some Joe who will pull down his zipper).

Lighting is the key to moving from mere snapshot photography like this to something a bit more professional looking, or at least where the photographer becomes what I call "invisible."

There are two ways the photographer becomes visible. One is with harsh light coming directly from the camera, resulting in what's called "snapshot photography," which is what the example you showed us is.

The other way is to have such complex lighting that as soon as someone sees it they think "done by a pro photographer in his studio."

Personally (and of course others will feel different), I like it when the photography is such that it has one thinking about the model more than how harsh the lighting is or "how in the world did he do that?"

So, get your lighting off the camera. There are two basic ways of doing this: with wires or without.

A lot of photographers set up lights connected to the camera by wires or cables. There is a standard cable, called a "PC cord," and there are mfr specific wiring technologies, each kind having its merits...the latter one having more of a merit for the mfr to commit you to his hardware.

The other way to do this is to use a wireless system. I'm aware of at least three ways of doing this: 1) radio control, 2) infrared control, and 3) flash-initiated slaves.

Some else here can probably speak more about radio and infrared control. I've never used radio and have not used infrared for several years.

Now, I simply have off-camera slave flashheads that are tripped when my built-in flash goes off. My built-in flash is filtered way down so that only when I've very close is much light actually reaching the subject from my camera, and as I get closer, I adjust exposure accordingly. If I want to shoot a close-up, I'll adjust my exposure up to three full stops depending up on HOW close. Digital cameras don't work with most traditional slave units when the camera is in a program mode, so you will most likely have to learn to shoot manually. I can set proper exposure pretty well by simply looking at the display built into my camera (Nikon D100), but nevertheless, a flash meter is a good investment and a more than adequate one will run you about $150-$175. Believe it or not, metering for flash is one of the easiest metering situations you'll run into. (Try shooting outdoors sometime with a subject who is in mixed light and shade or moving about from light to shade and you'll start going crazy.)

In addition to the flash units, and whether or not you'll be using wired or wireless flash control, you'll want some kind of diffusers. If you point the flash(es) directly at your model, the lighting will look very harsh with deeply sculpted light and shadow. You can offset a flash coming from one site with one coming from the other, but still the lighting will not be soft and you'll be setting up some weird shadows.

The cheapest form of diffusing is called "bounce," where you bounce light off a wall or ceiling. Because the light spreads as it leaves the flashhead, it hits the wall or ceiling in a much wider pattern than the approx 1"x2" light on the flashhead. And from there, it spreads even further. This is diffusion. By the time light hits the subject, it is no longer coming from a very narrow source, but a fairly wide one. What this does is soften shadow lines greatly, making for much less harshness.

A mixture of light from the camera with light bounced off a wall or (more frequently) the ceiling is called "fill and bounce" and is as close as you'll get to true professional lighting without the investment. I shot 90% of the content on http://www.unseenworld.com using this technique, and I would now and then get other photographers either asking me what kind of lighting I used, or expressing astonishment that fill and bounce (a very primitive form of photo lighting) could actually look that good.

Next up is umbrellas. Here you have an umbrella mounted so that your flashhead either shoots at it or (less frequently, perhaps) through it. I suggest getting umbrellas with liners because these give you the most flexibility. Typically, a lined umbrella will have a liner which is silverized on one side and white on the other. Between shooting with the inside of the umbrella pointed at the subject or through the umbrella with the umbrella turned the other way around, plus some possibilities I probably haven't thought of or looked into, two flash/umbrella units gives you various lighting possibilities.

I also bring along a third flash unit in case there is just not enough light for whatever reason (or as a spare). If there isn't enough light, I can always bounce some off the ceiling! Even though my camera gives me the option of using ISO equivalents well into the stratosphere, quality goes down accordingly, and I don't like to go higher than 400. This is when I throw in a little bounce just to "top off" the lighting and either keep it at 400 or even get it back down into the 200 range.

Another common diffuser option is the light box. Many will argue this is a better solution than the umbrella, and I won't argue with them except that I do most of my shooting away and my umbrellas are very compact and easy to set up. They take up MUCH less space in a hotel room or other location with limited space, and I just think they are much easier to use and much less stress-inducing for this reason.

I haven't mentioned "studio lighting" so far, because it is mostly unnecessary when you are working outside a studio. Also, with a few exceptions, your typical studio light is about the size of a small toolbox. Some are larger than that. They are also much heavier than a flashhead. (By "flashhead," I mean something like you could mount on a camera shoe mount.) I don't know about you, but I like to fit everything inside a suitcase, and that means lighting, umbrellas, tripods for mounting them, camera, and anything else you bring to a shoot. Since I supply wardrobe, and I frequently just bring a bunch of skirts, shorts, tops, shoes, undies, hosiery, and accessories. If I'm overnighting, there's my own stuff as well. I also tend to bring along a laptop and a computer audio system, so that fills up a large suitcase. Studio lighting would be out of the question even if I wanted to use it.

Another reason for not using studio lighting is that apparently getting studio lights fitted to a light box can be a bit of a hassle.

I'm sure I've just set up a lot of counter opinions by expressing my own (or if I've made some mistakes, I'm sure I'll hear about them) and that's what's so beautiful about a discussion.

Great advice, Thanks! I definitely need more practice and better tools

Kristinka · 07-23-2003, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gimmy
che Kristinka, ne mogla naiti luche devok, tam u vas v New Yorke polno krassivix russkix devok

Konechno mogla, i nashla. Tolko ih nado snyat'

Feivel · 07-23-2003, 07:40 AM

net nice

Porn Mickey · 07-23-2003, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mastamindz
Is that a cock peeking thru its panties?

shemale?

07-23-2003, 01:15 AM	#51
Kevin2 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 1,429	Gimmy and they are all just waiting for you to buy them __________________ Webmasters Trade Traffic!!!

07-23-2003, 07:40 AM	#57
Feivel Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: in a house Posts: 1,203	net nice __________________ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

07-23-2003, 01:37 AM	#52
Webby Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Far far away - as possible Posts: 14,956	Kristinka: Depends on the niche.. obviously "amateur"... but stripper kit don't ooze amateur! Shit.. I've been trying for years to get pro photographers to kill the "pro look"! The editor of one well-known print mag I know has ended up shooting sets with a $10 disposable 35mm camera to create the "rough look" - and that mag sells simpley because the "models" look real and "accessable" for $10 or less!