What an eyes

Not sure why I'm even posting this, but shooting in RAW is the smart thing to do.

You see, shooting "JPGs-only" is like using a film camera that only spits out printed proofs (polaroids?).

Ages ago, film cameras gave you negatives... from which you could make a bad print or a gorgeous print.

That's what a RAW image is -- a digital negative.

Frankly, I'm glad that most people don't shoot RAW, thinking it's too hard to learn how to process them. It shows in the blown out highlights of many an image.

Decent cameras these days do both at the same time. The Nikon D200 and the Canon D20 do.

I agree - I love shooting in RAW. It was a bitch at first...trying to understand the workflow. But after much practice, it starts to come together. People who have a passion for doing better then average work will find that learning the RAW digital workflow will take their pictures to a higher level of quality. For everyone else, Jpegs are just fine.

look sunshine, no one here could see the raw image from canon, or NEF, or kodak.dcr for that matter.

the browsers won't convert it.

pros shoot in raw for a variety of reasons, not just to facilitate more efficient post processing.

the cameras buffer will hold more big raw files than same file size jpgs so it achieves a higher fps, and shooting in raw allows recovery of data that would be lost if exposure is off.

a common problem is if you are shooting on manual with strobes and moving the camera position around and working fast (gonzo style shooting) you will have exposure variability---raw allows you to save the various under or over-exposed frames in post processing.

and using photoshop CS there are some tweaks that are occasionally needed that work best when shooting in raw (correcting lens chromatic aberration, fix vignetting, etc.)

put my name down for your workshop dean

:)

Makeup artist in Las Vegas
 

Venus, check out http://www.fotolook.com/ my favorite makeup artist in Las Vegas. If you are in need of a rental studio take a look at http://studio3775.com/.

Done :thumbsup

http://www.sueupton.net/photos/sue_et_al.jpg

ADG Webmaster

compare
 

it would be nice to see the photo before & after photoshop... ;-) Anyway its a great shoot. I am not big fan of "doll" skin effect but its VERY nice glamour shoot.

Yea, it would be nice to see the raw footage that comes out of Steven Spielberg's movie camera but is he going to show that to you? Of course not!

You only get to see the finished product, after the footage has been color corrected and "enhanced". If I wanted everyone to see my raw images - that's what I would show. I want people to see the finished product and that's what they are going to see. "After" the images are color corrected and "enhanced". The only people who ever get to see my raw files are the people that come to my Glamour Workshop :winkwink:

Sure it will be very interesting workshop, you are really skilled. I will have to wait until january 2007 after vegas, or maybe you come russia or spain to do a special workshop ;-) take care.

:thumbsup

Insertion ?

hey dean

ill throw one at ya actually a couple

how far were you from the model?

how far was the bedsheet from the model? (that sounds funny)

was it indoor or out?

im guessin he shot this indoors

at around 28


nice shot by the way

Hi Dean

I have a question or too for you as well.

was the above picture ran thru any noise reduction software??

If you were starting today and shooting primarily for porn what lighting setup would you go for right now and why?

Jonesy, I was about 12 to 15 feet back from the model and the bedsheet was 8 to 10 feet from the model. I didn't meaure anything out just adjusted the lighting until it looked good on my girl. If you get the lighting too close, you'll constantly be adjusting it as she moves around. By keeping it back a bit...you give her a little more room to move without having to stop and tweak the lighting every few shots!

Hey Dean,
I just had a class today on lighting and centerfold shooting, very interesting, remember when you said earlier in this thread that playboy can use up to 30 lights for a shoot, well, thats what we did today.
The photographer I was working with went over "building lights", basically, start with the main light, then you start adding light, I think we got up to 10 lights on a couple of the shots. All the shots were taken on a tripod and keeping the model inside the lighted you had just built up.

here is a pic I took today, keep in mind there was no photoshopping at all, this was a indoor set with only lights and wardrobe was not a priority, this was just a lighting class.. so all you haters who want to pick the model apart..dont worry about it... this was not for content... just a class on lighting.

http://wwww.landofvenus.com/dance/steph.jpg

Hey ps, no...that image was not run thru any noise reduction software. I do have some noise reduction software but have only used it maybe twice since I installed it a year ago.

In regards to a lighting setup for porn....I would go with a simple 2 light setup that's lightweight yet fast and reliable (try Dynalite). The more lights you add to your kit, the more you'll be able to do with it but it's also going to take more time to set it all up and move it around during your shoots. So, there are a lot of things to consider when picking out a kit....such as, how much money do you have to spend for a kit? Are you doing amateur type stuff or high-quality professional style pictures? Are you setting up this kit yourself or do you have assistants to help? Are you experienced with shooting with multiple lights (main, accents, background lights etc..etc)?

Venus my dear....I don't mean any disrespect but the lighting on that model is not good. I would be embarrassed to have you as a student at one of my workshops and have you leave with an image that looks like that. The lighting is bad, the cropping is bad and the models expression is bad. Who did you take this workshop from? Do you have a link to some of his work?

You should entertain the idea of attending my workshop when I get all the details setup. I guarantee you it will be an eye opening experience that'll change the way you shoot forever. If you want more info, shoot me an email at: GlamourWorkshop -at- yahoo.com and I'll put you on the list to receive additional info as it becomes available!

Thanks! :thumbsup

Have you thought about maybe putting your class on DVD or online versus on location in Cali. I would be more then willing to signup if you were able to set up somne sort of distance learning maybe with a cam??

and oh one last question if you dont mind

When I started out I found the easiest way for me to go at the time was difused hot lights the lamps

I was running 2 600 Watt daylight bulbs on the models

I have noticed that the flash lighting setups have a significant lower watt rating for instance this dynalite says 400 ws http://www.dynalite.com/info/?p=15


my question is this are total watts on the hot light and the ws rating on the flash light pretty much the same thing??

in other words would 500watts hot be the same as 500 ws flash as far as brightness is concerned

Hey ps, yes...as a matter of fact I have. I've been tossing around ideas for a Glamour/Nude/Erotic "Online Workshop" for quite sometime now. I've been picking up domain names over the past year or so in anticipation of putting something together. So far I have: TheGlamourWorkshop.com, LearnGlamour.com, GlamourSchool.com and ProGlamour.com. I have a lot of great ideas on how the site should be setup and what kind of material I would include just haven't yet gotten around to putting those ideas into action!

Hmmmm, I'm not sure about that one. Maybe someone else will be able to answer that. I much prefer shooting with flash (strobe) then I do hot lights. For one thing....hot lights are "hot"! It's hot enough here in LA without adding more hot lights to my kit. Secondly, it's much easier to freeze the action with a strobe then it is with a hot light. The only advantages to using hot lights for stills is that because they are so bright, you see exactly where your light is going (which is much more difficult with flash) and hot lights are usually much less expensive then flash.

ok thanks:) I will be watching to see what direction you take with the classes

I actually meant an on-camera flash ;)

looks like photoshopography

For those that wish to work with something simple here is a cheap and fast lighting setup. This picture was taken in the living room of an apartment. The lighting source was two $ 29.95 shop lights from home depot. One was placed behind a light panel ( a bed sheet will work too ) and to the model's right. This was my main light. Another was placed to the model's left and positioned to soften the shadows.

The lights are on and get real hot so it's VERY important to make sure nothing will come in contact with them that might catch fire.

Because the light was constant and not a flash I didn't need a flash meter and could use the camera for the exposure. I don't like to use a tripod and prefer to move around changing the angle so all the pictures won't look the same. I used a Canon 20D and did some tweaking in PP. So for those that want a cheap, portable and easy to use lighting setup that will get you ok results this is a great place to start. Of course there is lots of room for improvement but it is what it is and a successful photographer is one that can achieve the results he intended.

http://www.julie-clarke.com/public_h...rke_bamboo.jpg

his site is
http://www.cavecreek-photo.com/welcome.htm

the model was new, and cheap, she just started, her expressions and such was not an issue to me, as I said, allot of things were wrong if this was an image that was going to be used for anything except learning, the lighting was exactly what the light meter said, then you add light, take light away, object is just to see what happens by moving a light here, adding a hot light there, using a flash here. It was more on understanding on what you can do and how to do things. I actually learned allot on understanding lights and how to change things, using snoots, honey combs, softboxes. The light actually landed on her where it was intended, now that I know what lights to use and how to use them and attachments and what different attachments so, all I have to do is put it into practice to how I want my images to look.

Yes there is allot wrong, but I got out of it what I needed to learn. I will never shoot like him, nor like you, or other people, but I have a better understanding.. does that make sense?

Since the majority of my work is for web application .. And needs to be done quickly I shoot in JPG .. I shoot in Raw when ever I'm on a set specifically for Print .. Like DVD cover of Magazine work


Great thread once more .. Thanks Dean

That shot looks under exposed to me ... not by much .. One to One and half Stops ..
Also looks liker your using an 28 to 80 lens and it's set on it's widest and biggest onpening (80 mm at 5.0 or even 4.0) ... Lastly your key light (softbox sheet) needs to be more central and a little Higher up (You can do that by bringing the light way up on the sheet and tilting it down)... Oh and The Silkly back drop would of had better use if iether she incororated it to her Poseing (holding or wrapped up in it) or if you moved it behind her a few feet (4 -6') ...

Mind you I'm not dissing the image its a good picture .. but you are posting it on a photography theard and the point of these threads is to learn something and improve your work ..

I spent many years Examining pictures and imagining the lighting set up in my mind .. For this reason I'm one of the worst people you can have sitting next to you in the theater .. as I'm constanly calling out lens, fstop and Camera Accessories ....

Thanks guys - this was fun! Until next time, feel free to contact me directly if you have any more questions. I love talking about Photography and helping others (if I can)!

You can reach me via my website (link in my sig)!

I'm off to shoot another gorgeous creature for Twistys - catch ya' later!

You missed the point of my post which was only about a cheap and very easy to use light source and you've made a few assumptions which I'd like to clear up.

This was shot in an apartment living room which gave very little room for setting up. There was only enough room to set lights on each side of the model and for me to stand in the middle to shoot. The exact width was 12 feet of space to work with. You said the key light needs to be more central but this was impossible as that would leave me no room or angle to shoot.

As for using the silky backdrop, I wanted to back light it but there wasn't any room so I just used it as a frame. You said the model should have incorporated it into the shoot by grabbing it. This is only one shot of a few hundred of this set and there are plenty of her holding, pulling etc as she disrobes. In this particular shot she is pulling on her bottoms. I just happened to pick this one to illustrate what can be done with a cheap set of lights.

Again my post was about making do with what you have to work with. Of course this picture is nothing great nor was it intended to be. I'm thinking the beginning shooters here are more apt to be shooting with a tight budget and in a cramped space so this was an example as to what could be done in a pinch. Yes, this is a thread about photography and I don't have a problem posting an average picture so others can learn from it. I appreciate your comments but please take into consideration that this picture was taken with limited space and resources. It is what it is and I intended it as a starting point for the beginners.