50 camera questions

First of all I want to say thank you very much to all your advice. I´ll work hard on it and learn.

i am looking for a camera something to start out with maybe later upgrade,, 600 or 700 dollars range

My opinion is: the Fuji S2 Pro.

If that's all you can spend, I'd say to look for a great deal on eBay for a used SLR.

photography is all about capturing your subject with the proper or unique lighting and knowing from experience what settings to use for those moments!

Those are the technical skills. But don´t you think the subject makes a difference? The subject and the environment?

Since a few DSLRs have been mentioned..

Anyone have problems/solutions for dust on your CCD/CMOS?

For the Nikon I've used very weak compressed air.. the way I accomplish this is take the little straw that comes with your compressed air can, cut some slits in the end of it and let it spread out slowly.

Then I use very short bursts from about 8" away, keeping the can perfectly upright.

I've read about people using swabs or lens cloth but I'm an electrical engineer by trade, done a lot of work in the semiconductor industry and wouldn't reccommend that for frequent or even occaisional use.

I used to use swabs... until I fucked up my D1x and had to send it in for repair. Now I do that same thing you do... compressed air only.

Donovan-$500 a day, how long is the model at your studio? Can you get enough content for two clients?

I consider a day to be 8 hours, not counting any lunch breaks.

Who cares about the subject or the enviroment, knowing how to shoot with the proper lighting or understanding of what kind of light you have to work with is the key. Otherwise your pictures are gonna be all overexposed, underexposed, or gonna have to spend hours being retouched and processed.

Save yourself the time, models hr wage, and headache by knowing how to create the proper lighting or understanding how to work with lighting thats not perfect.

BMB-Your image clarity is beyond absurd.:thumbsup What type of lens do you use? What's your favorite aperature setting? Do you usually stand back and zoom in or physically move closer to the model? Thanks.

I'm telling you, BMB is the BEST in the biz!

I know the answers to your questions because BMB and I talk regularly, but I don't know if he wants to reveal his "secrets" so I won't go there...

DP, do you bother with density or color filters? Particularily for outdoors sets?

I use grad filters for outdoor sets

I've played with grad filters.. have a 1-stop and a 2-stop, which can be layered to make a 3-stop with really soft gradation.

I like the 1-stop filter the most for outdoors.. it seems to darken the surroundings and really make the foreground object (be it a girl, car or some other things that I do photo for) jump out.

...
 

:disgust

Melvin - here's the deal on making it happen with one light. Because you only have one source of illumination, it has to be stretegically placed to get the right effect, or...you'll have dark backgrounds as you have stated. Here's a couple of things to keep in mind when using one light and shooting indoors.


Keep your model close to the background - 3 or 4 feet is perfect. The idea here is that by keeping your model close to the background, you create a situation where the same light that is used to light up your model can light up your background. If you have a lot of distance between the model and background, your asking for trouble.

The next thing is to shoot it "flat". By that I mean....keep your camera right under the light source so that the shadows are cast "behind the model" and hidden from view. Unless you want shadows on the background, this would be the best placement for your light.

Lastly and the most complicated to explain is this. Imagine placing your light 5 feet from your model. You meter the light on your model and it says f16. Now you meter the light hitting the background and it says f4. Now your background is gonna be way too dark because there so much difference between the f-stop of the model and the f-stop of the background.

Now, just as Donovan P. said....move the light "back" to say 10 feet from the model. Meter the light again. What you'll find is that since the distance between the light source and the model has "increased", the f-stop difference between the model and background has "decreased". I know this is complicated, but it really does work. Now, your background should be lighter and more acceptable. Of course, the best idea is to purchase another light, but if this is just not something you can do, keeping in mind what we've just discussed should help out a lot.

-Thanks for the invite DP.

d*

Dean,

Thanks for taking the time to explain that. When I said it would help "a little" someone else called me on it and said I was wrong. I didn't want to take the time to explain why I was not wrong. You did a great job explaining that!

Hi Charly, I just bought a Sony TRV950 and it kicks the big ass. A lot of people who shoot professionally referred me to the camera. It has a lot of great features wrapped up in a small package. Check it out and lemme' know what you think,

d*

:thumbsup

What's a grad filter ? Which of those would be for a Canon 10D ?

Thank you very much, Dean. I do understand the theory that the closer your light source to your subject, the darker your background, and farther your light source it brings the fstop exposure for your subject & background closer together. I was think this is what I might have to do.

Thank you for your time to explain this and offer advice :)

Actually, he was right!

As I explained in another thread........

"Lastly and the most complicated to explain is this. Imagine placing your light 5 feet from your model. You meter the light on your model and it says f16. Now you meter the light hitting the background and it says f4. Now your background is gonna be way too dark because there so much difference between the f-stop of the model and the f-stop of the background.

Now, just as Donovan P. said....move the light "back" to say 10 feet from the model. Meter the light again. What you'll find is that since the distance between the light source and the model has "increased", the f-stop difference between the model and background has "decreased". I know this is complicated, but it really does work. Now, your background should be lighter and more acceptable. Of course, the best idea is to purchase another light, but if this is just not something you can do, keeping in mind what we've just discussed should help out a lot."

Here's a diagram to explain my point. Notice that as the light source is moved farther away from the subject, the f-stop decreases beween the model and background, thus....lightening up the background by 2 stops. This is a crude illustration but it should prove the point :thumbsup

http://www.deancapture.com/images/light.gif

Gradation.. usually half-color & half clear, or part clear & part neutral density, with smooth transisition in between.

You can add color selectively, balance sky to foreground and other such things when taking the picture as opposed to post-processing.

They make them for all sorts of cameras, I'd say check out google, the canon website or a local canon dealer.

I'd also suggest going to the local library, bookstore or amazon and reading up on the technology options that are out there if you aren't familiar with lens & filter options. Chosing the right one (while a good filter might cost $100, $200, or more) can save you a lot of time in Photoshop.. and if your time is money then the investment pays off.

With all the talk about lighting, distance from model, where to put the camera, distance from background when indoors, I thought this pic would be a good example of the opposite, where the shadows created by a bright light source and a model close to the background really works.

I'm not sure who shot this or who the model is, but I think it's a fantastic image (and a super-hot redhead!).

http://home.comcast.net/~petersilver/fr-glamour.jpg


EDIT
Well I found where the image came from.. hair products company in the UK.. http://www.art-hair.co.uk/NewFiles/fr-options.html ...click the text on the left, bunch more pics of that gorgeous woman and her amazing hair.

And the guy who took the shots http://www.bobcarlosclarke.com/shop2/pages/homepage.asp

well spark plugs must be attractive to spark plug buyers :)

You cannot get more light on your background by moving the light away from the background. The further the light is, the less light you're going to get.

The reason you are seeing an improvement at all is because you are giving the model less light. This brings the model down closer to the amount of light hitting the background (virtually none). The light hitting the background is so isignificant that moving the light back hardly changes it at all, but the light hitting the model is so much brighter, that you will see quite a difference there by moving the light back.


Here is a quote:
"Illumination from a light source reduces considerably over distance. The relationship between illumination and distance from source is explained by the "Inverse square law of illumination". For example if you double the distance then the illumination is reduced to a quarter of its original value."

From the following website:
http://www.ted.photographer.org.uk/p...e_lighting.htm

So say your background is F4, mainly because it's quite dark. Your model is F16. Huge ratio. If you move the light back, your background will probably stay around F4, but your model will move to a larger aperture at about F11 or even F8. This way, you shrink the ratio, and now your film will see it.

If you're using color slide film, you'll still be out of luck, but color neg has a pretty good latitude, black and white even more.

And then if you're using digital, all the better.

Thank you Monica for your thoughts. If anyone has anymore questions relating to photography lighting, Monica would be the one to ask. I have only been shooting for 15 years but have not yet garnered enough experience or skills to answer basic lighting questions. So, Monica......the floor is all yours :winkwink:

Donovan, I didn't at all mean to sound like I was insulting anyone.

I think people are just mistaken on why they are seeing an improvement in the lighting when they move the light back. I don't mean to sit here and sound like a know-it-all.

You definately have very valuable experience to share with everyone regarding photography. Sorry for hijacking your thread. :(

what do you suggest for shooting in nightclubs/mardi gras ect?

Would have been a better image without the shadows IMHO

:)

Ivy

A good flash

when you first started up in the industry did you find it hard to offload your content?

Whats the best way to get the right skin tone without getting too hot on close ups?

Do you bounce your on camera flash off the ceilings? I have been getting great skin tone results by doing this, as long as the ceiling is white. I can dial down the flash and use a difusion for the camera flash to shoot direct to subject, but models tend to close their eyes more. Any advice is appreciated:glugglug

I just picked up one of these radio transmitters...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...VIClosedWinner

I still haven't recieved it though so I can't tell you if I'm happy w/ it yet. Do you think it's any good?

Thank you for posting this topic. This will help.

I personally dislike that picture quite a bit. looks flat to me.

Take a flashlight, hold it 6" away from a
peice of paper. Now move it back 18".

Seems obvious to me.


Of course, I mostly do 3D graphics with radiosity, which tends to be a bit different then traditional photography, mainly much much harder to get lighting done 'correctly'.

I see a transmitter... but what about a receiver?

Monica,

Dean and I are correct. Sorry. Just read Dean's explanation. If you don't believe it, print it out and take it to your local Junior College photography department and let a professor explain it to you.

the distance from the light source (and size of the light source) will effect contrast.

most skin will look best with fairly soft contrast, this reduces skin imperfections---to make the skin look best this usually requires a large bounced light source like a light bank, or very big umbrellas, (or the sun). the closer the light source is to the model the lower the contrast, modeling the light on the figure (small shadowing to simulate natural light) is necessary to give the girl a beautiful look, this is usually done with a "main" light, and a secondary or "fill" light.

with digital this is easy, adjust your lights, and look at the camera LCD, or shoot directly into the laptop with firewire, and check the lighting on a 17in screen.

killing background shadows is usually done with a small w/s strobe placed directly behind the model, sometimes with a color filter should you want a different colored background, but want to keep the model's skin tone the correct WB.

usually the photgrapher will have the model hold a standard color chart and do a manual white balance every time lights are moved or the lens is changed (some lenses will introduce subtle tints), then the images can be correctly balanced for sRGB in PS.

but the best tool any photographer has is his mind, and a good model. interesting images rarely just happen, they are imagined in someone's mind first, written on a notepad, then created on the set.

You're welcome to, if you're a customer, to turn up here anytime. Just give me some notice.

But it's also about creating something that makes the viewer think along the lines you want him to.

From, that looks nice and I would like to buy it, to our end where the thoughts should be "I can join in"

Thanks Dean, will take a look at it. I think Tim of Timi Photo uses it and will also ask him.

Built in slave.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/l...ges/129713.jpg

It came in the mail today. It works. It's setting off my flash heads. I got it on Ebay for $30. They are selling more of them for those who are interested.