PDA

View Full Version : Another Arizona POTN get together (2)?


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68

BrianAZ
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 14:20
I can't believe that you couldn't make your own. Get some ripstop nylon, and some PVC or tubing, and you should be all set.


Took the daughter out for some shots today. She really wasn't into pictures, and wouldn't even look at me. She was into people watching as there were some young boys playing on the playground.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3656/3456021247_2a9aee9d70.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3597/3456094447_1721eaf0f4.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3612/3456132383_606053cd80.jpg

Hatch1921
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 14:54
Nice captures Brian! Sometimes I guess they want to do...what they want to do. LOL

85L?

BrianAZ
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 15:08
At 2 years old, they ALWAYS do whatever they want to do. :) You just have to roll with it. I tried bringing out the bubbles as I thought it would be great, but the wind was blowing pretty good and we just couldn't get them into the shot.

The bottom one was the 85L. The top 2 were the 70-200. I'm not using the 85L on kids anymore. It's just too slow to focus, and I can't use it in AI Servo because it can't track. Kids are always moving so much, and so fast, that the lens is useless unless you can pin them down.

disneydork06
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 15:22
Great shots Hatch and Kristy. Jay, love the first shot. :-D and I like the dirt jumpers as well, especially the second photo where you have the little advert for speed there :-)

disneydork06
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 15:32
I can't believe that you couldn't make your own. Get some ripstop nylon, and some PVC or tubing, and you should be all set.


Took the daughter out for some shots today. She really wasn't into pictures, and wouldn't even look at me. She was into people watching as there were some young boys playing on the playground.



boy watching already? at age two? :-)

FlyingPhotog
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 15:32
boy watching already? at age two? :-)

Probably only becuase they were moving...

BrianAZ
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 15:36
Probably only becuase they were moving...

I wish. She has been boy crazy for a while. She would much rather be around boys than girls.

Kristy
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 15:41
@Jay... Awesome shots! :) How the heck you freeze those motorcycles like that is just amazing tome...

@Hatch... love the last 2... your shots are so much better than mine... I'm quitting now.

@Brian... your daughter is so darn cute... so much fun to play at the park...

So... Brian, my shots look too contrasty...? All of them... ? Bad? Maybe my processing sucks.... blah.... back to cleaning my house.. I'm really good at cleaning. lol...

BrianAZ
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 15:45
Thanks, Kristy.

I never said that your shots look "too contrasty". I said they have a lot of contrast. I like it. If you were looking at your images alone, and not next to Frank's, most people wouldn't even think about it.

Kristy
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 15:49
Thanks, Kristy.

I never said that your shots look "too contrasty". I said they have a lot of contrast. I like it. If you were looking at your images alone, and not next to Frank's, most people wouldn't even think about it.

I pushed the color on purpose... I wanted them to have punch.... so maybe in comparison, they don't look as good....? I guess we all have a different vision or style.. and typically I do things very soft... so I was working outside of my box for a change...

Anyway.. any and all feedback is so appreciated... I can only stand to learn.. and yesterday I learned that creatively... I need TONS of practice.... I suck at posing and trying to get ideas. I think maybe I'm better suited for shooting little people and babies... but as with anything.. practice makes perfect... so I suppose I just need to get out more often and shoot.

BrianAZ
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 16:00
so maybe in comparison, they don't look as good....?


Don't judge your work by anyone else's. You do fantastic things so many people can't duplicate. The reverse is also true.

Your images in this series are fine. They look good. They are different, because they aren't processed the way you normally would do them. If you keep at it, you might find some trick and techniques that would make people want to emulate your techniques.

nuklehead
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 16:12
Hi guys, I'm a noob in the West Valley. I saw this Arizona post and was hoping someone can get me up to speed...maybe message/email me about the next meet up or anything interesting you guys are doing in AZ? (650pgs is a LOT to go through!)
thanks!

FlyingPhotog
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 16:18
Hi guys, I'm a noob in the West Valley. I saw this Arizona post and was hoping someone can get me up to speed...maybe message/email me about the next meet up or anything interest you guys are doing in AZ? (650pgs is a LOT to go through!)
thanks!

Welcome Barbie...

Jay in Chandler

azpix
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 16:57
I'd look for a place from which I could shoot facing north with one gate head on and another from the side. That way I can shoot planes coming at me between the uprights and/or pan with planes going through a gate perpendicular to me.


Jay,
From the sounds of it, you have been to the air race in San Diego... did you go to one of the 'pay' areas or did you find your own spot?

Thanks.

FlyingPhotog
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 18:18
Jay,
From the sounds of it, you have been to the air race in San Diego... did you go to one of the 'pay' areas or did you find your own spot?

Thanks.

Actually, I've not been...

I just assume I know what angles would be most dramatic/effective and I know that I'd prefer the sun was behind me. ;)

Looking at the website however, it would appear the ticketed areas are all north and east of the course...

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 18:19
Hi guys, I'm a noob in the West Valley. I saw this Arizona post and was hoping someone can get me up to speed...maybe message/email me about the next meet up or anything interesting you guys are doing in AZ? (650pgs is a LOT to go through!)
thanks!
Welcome Barbie! Took a look at your website. Some nice stuff there! :)

As for the next meet up... I'm not sure when it will be. I know we're trying to get a BBQ going on... but it's hard finding a day that works for most everyone. :)

Just stay active here, and you'll get notified. :)

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 18:20
I can't believe that you couldn't make your own. Get some ripstop nylon, and some PVC or tubing, and you should be all set.


Took the daughter out for some shots today. She really wasn't into pictures, and wouldn't even look at me. She was into people watching as there were some young boys playing on the playground.
Great shots Brian! She's such a cutie. :)

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 18:49
Sooo... who here has a remote/wireless trigger for their camera? What do you have? How does it work? etc. lol

Is the PocketWizard a wireless remote? Or does it just do the flash thingies?

FlyingPhotog
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 18:52
Sooo... who here has a remote/wireless trigger for their camera? What do you have? How does it work? etc. lol

Is the PocketWizard a wireless remote? Or does it just do the flash thingies?

AFAIK, PWs can be used to trigger a camera remotely.

I think you need to get the version that is a transceiver. Not exactly sure as to which model of PW that would be though, sorry.

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 18:56
So this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/605720-REG/PocketWizard_801_150_FlexTT5_Transceiver_Radio_Sla ve.html) and this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/221277-REG/PocketWizard_802_450_MultiMax_32_Channel_Transceiv er.html)?

FlyingPhotog
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 18:57
So this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/605720-REG/PocketWizard_801_150_FlexTT5_Transceiver_Radio_Sla ve.html) and this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/221277-REG/PocketWizard_802_450_MultiMax_32_Channel_Transceiv er.html)?

I may be wrong, but I think you need two of the second link.

Not sure about the remote camera trigger capabilities of the new PW Minis or whatever they're called.

Are you thinking about a remote camera for that wedding you have coming up?

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 18:58
I may be wrong, but I think you need two of the second link.

Not sure about the remote camera trigger capabilities of the new PW Minis or whatever they're called.

Are you thinking about a remote camera for that wedding you have coming up?
Oh really.... hmmmmm... that sucks. :p lol They have a range of like... 800 FEET!!! :shock: That's crazyness.

nuklehead
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:01
I got my remote trigger off ebay (recommended by a different forum) CTR-301...love it! $28 free shipping

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&item=150329235233

FlyingPhotog
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:02
Oh really.... hmmmmm... that sucks. :p lol They have a range of like... 800 FEET!!! :shock: That's crazyness.

That's how the pros set up cameras behind backboards at NBA games and cameras pointed at home plate for MLB as well.

Or, at The Olympics (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/09/100_remotelycontrolled_cameras_all_gunning_to_capt ure_the_same_moment-2.html)

FlyingPhotog
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:03
I got my remote trigger off ebay (recommended by a different forum) CTR-301...love it! $28 free shipping

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&item=150329235233

But can these be used as remote shutter release?

I think that's what Jeremy is looking for.

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:05
I got my remote trigger off ebay (recommended by a different forum) CTR-301...love it! $28 free shipping

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&item=150329235233
Oh coolio!! Thanks for the link!! :D

That's how the pros set up cameras behind backboards at NBA games and cameras pointed at home plate for MLB as well.

Or, at The Olympics (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/09/100_remotelycontrolled_cameras_all_gunning_to_capt ure_the_same_moment-2.html)
Holy F**K!! :shock: That's a lot of money right there. lol

nuklehead
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:07
and those are flash triggers sorry if thats not what you were talking about! but that ebay seller is really good (in Hong Kong but thats why the price is right!)

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:07
and those are flash triggers sorry if thats not what you were talking about! but that ebay seller is really good (in Hong Kong but thats why the price is right!)
Oooooh, yeah. Like Jay said, I was looking for remote trigger thingies... for the camera, not the flash. :)

nuklehead
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:12
hee hee sorry! ... my screen name isnt random! its earned!

but that seller might have those too though

Hatch1921
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:14
AFAIK, PWs can be used to trigger a camera remotely.

I think you need to get the version that is a transceiver. Not exactly sure as to which model of PW that would be though, sorry.

Didn't look at the links... but... yes... you can trigger your camera with the PW's... you need the cord to keep the camera awake. $99.00

Wizards are nice... new versions out now... I think they offer ETTL....

I'm headed towards skyports to control my stuff...


Welcome to the group Barbie :) 650 pages... tiny.... we hit 10K and they started another thread for us.

Good times!
Hatch

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:15
hee hee sorry! ... my screen name isnt random! its earned!

but that seller might have those too though
But what's the distance? I wanna be able to shoot remotely... in another state. ;) LOL

FlyingPhotog
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:18
But what's the distance? I wanna be able to shoot remotely... in another state. ;) LOL

So you want to shoot tethered but remotely? Seriously? 'Cause that opens up a whole new can of stuff...

FWIW, I did find this cable at FlashZebra:http://flashzebra.com/shutter_pw/0090.shtml

It takes the signal from a Skyport as a camera trigger. I might get me one of these.

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:20
So you want to shoot tethered but remotely? Seriously? 'Cause that opens up a whole new can of stuff...

FWIW, I did find this cable at FlashZebra:http://flashzebra.com/shutter_pw/0090.shtml

It takes the signal from a Skyport as a camera trigger. I might get me one of these.
I'm lost... :o lol

Hatch1921
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:22
I'm lost... :o lol

Me too!

LOL

You want to trigger the camera via remote correct? Or, you want to fire it from a laptop? Or, you want to trigger it via remote hooked up to a laptop? :D

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:23
Me too!

LOL

You want to trigger the camera via remote correct? Or, you want to fire it from a laptop? Or, you want to trigger it via remote hooked up to a laptop? :D
Hahaha! I want to fire the camera... without touching it... with it just sitting there. lol No laptop involved... but I guess that would be pretty nifty. :razz:

FlyingPhotog
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:23
I'm lost... :o lol

Me Too...

You said you want to shoot remotely in another state? Joking or not? It could be done via the Web, Anywhere PC and a camera tethered to the remote computer.

As for the FlashZebra link, that's simply an alternative to PWs. I have Skyports for use with my Strobes and Speedlites and that cable would let me use a Skyport receiver to trigger a camera.

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:24
Me Too...

You said you want to shoot remotely in another state? Joking or not? It could be done via the Web, Anywhere PC and a camera tethered to the remote computer.

As for the FlashZebra link, that's simply an alternative to PWs. I have Skyports for use with my Strobes and Speedlites and that cable would let me use a Skyport receiver to trigger a camera.
OH! Haha. Sorry. I meant as in like... I want a lot of distance. Not literally being able to shoot from another state. That's way to complicated for me. :lol:

Hatch1921
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:28
Okay... I haven't researched other alternatives....

Going off a Pocket wizard set(2) you would need this cable (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/198049-REG/PocketWizard_804_511_CM_N3_P_Pre_Trigger_Motor_Cor d_.html)


I have it... it works well...

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:29
Okay... I haven't researched other alternatives....

Going off a Pocket wizard set(2) you would need this cable (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/198049-REG/PocketWizard_804_511_CM_N3_P_Pre_Trigger_Motor_Cor d_.html)


I have it... it works well...
COOL! Thanks Frank!! :D

Hatch1921
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:33
COOL! Thanks Frank!! :D


Not sure what you want to remote.... but... setting the camera to AI Servo and the desired f/stop...shutter speed will allow you to tripod the camera and move around.... the camera will do it's best to track you.... or your subjects.

Hatch1921
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:34
Did you all see Kristy's 3rd shot of Erica? http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=680708

ROCKS!

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:35
Not sure what you want to remote.... but... setting the camera to AI Servo and the desired f/stop...shutter speed will allow you to tripod the camera and move around.... the camera will do it's best to track you.... or your subjects.
I don't know. Just something to spend my money on. :D lol I've also sort of been looking at lighting stuff. That is confusing right there...

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:39
Just found my next TV for watching movies... Check this thing out... (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/568087-REG/Christie_HD_30K_Roadster_HD_30K_1080_HD.html#featu res) :shock: lol I'm in love...

jbrown7815
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:54
Just bought Canon 70-200mm f/4L for $498 SHIPPED through AAFES.


Price matched Amazon @ $600 + 15% off coupon FTW



Looks like I'll be waiting a bit longer for Alien Bees... I couldn't pass up that deal :o

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:56
Just bought Canon 70-200mm f/4L for $498 SHIPPED through AAFES.


Price matched Amazon @ $600 + 15% off coupon FTW



Looks like I'll be waiting a bit longer for Alien Bees... I couldn't pass up that deal :o
WOO! Congrats! That's exciting news. :)

Blue-J
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:58
Just found my next TV for watching movies... Check this thing out... (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/568087-REG/Christie_HD_30K_Roadster_HD_30K_1080_HD.html#featu res) :shock: lol I'm in love...


Wait a few months... The new 4K pixel TVs are right around the corner. That thing is only 2K pixels.

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 19:59
Wait a few months... The new 4K pixel TVs are right around the corner. That thing is only 2K pixels.
Ok. :D

Hatch1921
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 20:48
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3503/3458023210_a885552e1f_o.jpg

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 20:49
Wow! The DoF is so shallow! Looks wonderful. :)

Hatch1921
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 20:51
Wow! The DoF is so shallow! Looks wonderful. :)


Thank you :) F/2.5... not much in focus. LOL

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 20:52
Thank you :) F/2.5... not much in focus. LOL
And all these were just with a reflector and diffuser? Both at the same time... or which ever you decided to use?

Hatch1921
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 20:56
And all these were just with a reflector and diffuser? Both at the same time... or which ever you decided to use?


Wedding dress.... full on sun... so... we used a diffusion panel over the top... a reflector for fill.

Rust shots... reflector to push light on her as she was in the shade.

Concrete series... just a reflector... she was in the shade.

A couple of other series... used the Ranger to light them... they didn't look good.... very hard to balance the white dress with the darker skin tones...

Very pleased with all the natural light stuff...

Garage door shot... a reflector from about 30ft away...again... she was in the shade.

At one point... used the silver reflector to push light in to the diffusion panel to get nice soft light on her.

Good times!

jbdavies
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 20:59
Wedding dress.... full on sun... so... we used a diffusion panel over the top... a reflector for fill.

Rust shots... reflector to push light on her as she was in the shade.

Concrete series... just a reflector... she was in the shade.

A couple of other series... used the Ranger to light them... they didn't look good.... very hard to balance the white dress with the darker skin tones...

Very pleased with all the natural light stuff...

Garage door shot... a reflector from about 30ft away...again... she was in the shade.

At one point... used the silver reflector to push light in to the diffusion panel to get nice soft light on her.

Good times!
That's intense. lol Definitely turned out very nice. :)

Hatch1921
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 21:04
That's intense. lol Definitely turned out very nice. :)


Not as bad as you think... it's a matter of looking at the eyes and seeing if you are getting the catchlights and the general lighting you want for the shot. We made plenty of mistakes... always do... great learning experience all around...

FlyingPhotog
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 21:04
Not as bad as you think... it's a matter of looking at the eyes and seeing if you are getting the catchlights and the general lighting you want for the shot. We made plenty of mistakes... always do... great learning experience all around...

Are you using a hand-held meter for these sessions?

Hatch1921
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 21:06
Are you using a hand-held meter for these sessions?

No sir... just keeping an eye on the exposures on the back of the camera.... at times I pushed the images 2 stops over just to get her face to expose properly...which... made things difficult when it came to the white dress shots... very good learning experience.

FlyingPhotog
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 21:16
No sir... just keeping an eye on the exposures on the back of the camera.... at times I pushed the images 2 stops over just to get her face to expose properly...which... made things difficult when it came to the white dress shots... very good learning experience.

Far be it from me to tell you anything but...

You'd take a lot of the guesswork out of the process with a meter.

Light Skin, Dark Skin, Martian Skin... Doesn't matter what you're shooting.

1/125 @ f/2 ISO 100 is 1/125 @ f/2 ISO 100. The meter won't lie and can't be fooled by white clothing or dark skin (provided you're metering incident and not reflected light.)

Hatch1921
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 21:24
Far be it from me to tell you anything but...

You'd take a lot of the guesswork out of the process with a meter.

Light Skin, Dark Skin, Martian Skin... Doesn't matter what you're shooting.

1/125 @ f/2 ISO 100 is 1/125 @ f/2 ISO 100. The meter won't lie and can't be fooled by white clothing or dark skin (provided you're metering incident and not reflected light.)

The situation....

Model has darker skin
Model is in bright white dress
Model is in the super duper bright Arizona sun.

So... we bring in a duffsion panel to soften the harsh light... drops the exposure on her face/hair by a stop or more...

We then have to push light back on her to get the catchlights.. .and the bring her to life...without blowing out the whites... the contrasting scene...with a meter or without... wouldn't make a difference IMO. I could have metered for the dress... then the face...and went with and average... but... something would have been under exposed or over exposed.

Or... am I missing something... I could bust out with the meter next time out...

The garage situation... full shade... darker skin tones... white dress... had to push the light back on her to expose for skin tones... starts to clip the whites...

It was a rough shoot... LOL

BrianAZ
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 21:36
I think what Jay is saying, and I'd agree, is if the same light is hitting both the dress and her face, then there really should be one exposure. The problem is what makes a good looking exposure for both skin tones and the dress. From what you are saying, her skin looks best if it is overexposed a bit, and the dress needs to be somewhat underexposed to keep detail.

There are a few things you can do here. One of them is getting the diffusion panel closest to her face and further from the dress. That will bring into play the inverse square law and should keep her face brighter than the dress.

Hatch1921
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 22:10
I think what Jay is saying, and I'd agree, is if the same light is hitting both the dress and her face, then there really should be one exposure. The problem is what makes a good looking exposure for both skin tones and the dress. From what you are saying, her skin looks best if it is overexposed a bit, and the dress needs to be somewhat underexposed to keep detail.

There are a few things you can do here. One of them is getting the diffusion panel closest to her face and further from the dress. That will bring into play the inverse square law and should keep her face brighter than the dress.

Sent a PM :)

FlyingPhotog
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 22:38
Sorry if I p*ssed anyone off. :oops:

I'm just gonna lay out now. :(

Chalk it up to my being a good theoretical photographer trapped in a bad practical photographer's body.

BrianAZ
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 22:48
I think it is a valid discussion. I'll agree with you Jay that there is only 1 proper exposure if the same light is hitting the skin as is hitting the dress.

Now, for white skin, you show detail/contour with shadow. For dark skin, you show detail/contour with highlight (either diffused or specular). The question is really how to get the highlight onto the dark skin without it hitting the dress. My favorite technique is to turn the dress away from the light, and her face toward it.

For bonus points, how would you light it in studio? If there should be different exposures using natural light, wouldn't the same be true of strobes? Would we still want to bracket?

How about for a white female wearing a black dress, or a white male wearing a black tux?





ooooooooooo. Technical details. I'm all tingly.

Hatch1921
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 23:48
Sorry if I p*ssed anyone off. :oops:

I'm just gonna lay out now. :(

Chalk it up to my being a good theoretical photographer trapped in a bad practical photographer's body.


You didn't make me mad at all... I'm always looking for better ways to do things. If a meter would help.. .I would use it... :) All is well... good questions all around.

Hatch1921
19th of April 2009 (Sun), 23:52
I think it is a valid discussion. I'll agree with you Jay that there is only 1 proper exposure if the same light is hitting the skin as is hitting the dress.

Now, for white skin, you show detail/contour with shadow. For dark skin, you show detail/contour with highlight (either diffused or specular). The question is really how to get the highlight onto the dark skin without it hitting the dress. My favorite technique is to turn the dress away from the light, and her face toward it.

For bonus points, how would you light it in studio? If there should be different exposures using natural light, wouldn't the same be true of strobes? Would we still want to bracket?

How about for a white female wearing a black dress, or a white male wearing a black tux?





ooooooooooo. Technical details. I'm all tingly.


In studio I would be able to power the lights to the settings I need to balance the scene... with only a diffusion panel and a reflector... we/I had to deal with reflected light from the ground and all around... light from the reflector and diffused light from the sun... all of which are missing an adjustment button. LOL

Now... I could have placed another panel with a black fabric next to her to help tone things down a little... but... I still think... for shooting outdoors without the controlled environment... I did what I could with what I had. NOT A MAD POST!!! ROFL All is well... :D

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:00
So, are you saying that you would like her skin seperately from her dress?

Normally, you would have a key, or a key/fill. Both of them would light both the skin and the dress, just as the light from your diffusion panel lit both the skin and the dress.

I think you would find that there isn't a difference. The "problem" you faced here would be the same in studio.

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:05
So, are you saying that you would like her skin seperately from her dress?

Normally, you would have a key, or a key/fill. Both of them would light both the skin and the dress, just as the light from your diffusion panel lit both the skin and the dress.

I think you would find that there isn't a difference. The "problem" you faced here would be the same in studio.


I disagree and challenge you to a duel kind sir! ROFL

Points I agree on....
1 light...it is equal from head to toe... cool with that...
1 light source is all that you are allowed... which is all we had vs. me breaking out with the Ranger.

So... the scene

Shade side of the building... model is in the shade... wearing a white dress but her skin tones in the shade appear to be darker than if I had a model with fair skin.

So... for me to push light on her... to bring her face and shoulders up to an acceptable exposure... I had to go about 1/2 to 1 stop over what I would with a fair skin model. This created an issue with the white dress.... I clipped the whites.

So... with 1 light... how do you find the balance?

Please note... all these replies are with a "happy tone":lol:

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:14
I accept your challenge. We shall meet at dawn, and duel with speedlights at 20 paces.

Here is the obvious thing:

"wearing a white dress but her skin tones in the shade appear to be darker than if I had a model with fair skin."

She's black/African American. He skin SHOULD look darker because it is darker. If you shot in broad daylight, it would still look darker. So, if you meter for the light falling on your subject, and dress, the SAME exposure should render them the correct way on the histogram.

Think about it in studio. You set up your key light, take out your meter, and power your strobes so that you get 5.6, 8.0, or whatever from that light. Whatever you meter it at, you set your camera to, and that light is hitting both the skin and the dress. If you choose to use a fill, it will do the exact same thing, and when you combine them both for your overall exposure, the same thing will happen a third time.

There is a difference between a flattering light, and a correct exposure. That is why I brought up the white subject in black clothing. It's just the reverse of your situation, but it still holds true.

http://www.zarias.com/?p=77

Scroll down on the page to where he has a subject wear a black shirt, and a white shirt.


ETA: Just want to be clear that I'm not upset or arguing. We are all friends here. We just may have differing points of view on this topic.

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:18
**walks in an inturrupts the conversation...**

FlyingPhotog
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:19
**walks in an inturrupts the conversation...**

<Hides Behind Kristy>

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:20
So basically... I was just e-mailing about this.....

The only thing we could have done... and we would have needed an extra set of hands for.... would have been to block the light bounce from the chest down...

but... not realistic...

If we were in studio.. we could have directed the light with grids or barn doors, or whatever.. gobo..... and kept it off the dress.

Natural environment... 2 sets of hands... we did well for what we were working with.

A meter is a meter, is a meter.. the result is going to be determined by the spot you are metering.. a white dress is going to meter at a different place than a darker skin tone... less light reflecting off the surface...

So IMO.. a meter wouldn't really solve the problem.... Gobo.... or grids yes... controling the light and where it falls off... but a meter.... not so much...

Does that make any sense to anyone...?

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:21
**now she runs and hides from the aftermath....** ;)

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:24
So basically... I was just e-mailing about this.....

The only thing we could have done... and we would have needed an extra set of hands for.... would have been to block the light bounce from the chest down...

but... not realistic...

If we were in studio.. we could have directed the light with grids or barn doors, or whatever.. gobo..... and kept it off the dress.

Natural environment... 2 sets of hands... we did well for what we were working with.

A meter is a meter, is a meter.. the result is going to be determined by the spot you are metering.. a white dress is going to meter at a different place than a darker skin tone... less light reflecting off the surface...

So IMO.. a meter wouldn't really solve the problem.... Gobo.... or grids yes... controling the light and where it falls off... but a meter.... not so much...

Does that make any sense to anyone...?

It makes sense, except for the fact you are confusing reflective metering with incident metering. Your camera is a reflective meter, and your Sekonic is an incident meter. Your camera is trying to find 18% grey, and gets confused in light and dark scenes where there are none. It can be compunded depending on what metering mode (spot, center weighted, etc) you are using. It takes light scenes and darkens them, and takes dark scenes and lightens them. A light meter just takes how much light is hiting the sensor and determines what is the proper aperature/ISO/shutter speed based on the variables input. That is also why it is far more accurate.

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:26
You have to remove yourself from the studio... a studio is a controlled environment.

Yes... she will look darker in the shadows with her skin tones... and she will require more light to bring her skin tones up to a nice exposure.

I fully agree with you if I meter her face at F/11... the same light hitting her dress will be f/11 however, she needs a little more light to bring her skin tones up. That was the challenge with the tools at hand.

For the wedding shots... we could have only push light on to her face with a small reflector ... I think this would have helped... the white dress was already getting enough exposure from the reflected light all around.

But... there really isn't a way that I know of to split the light... we needed 2 exposures... but only had 1 light source.

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:26
It makes sense, except for the fact you are confusing reflective metering with incident metering. Your camera is a reflective meter, and your Sekonic is an incident meter. Your camera is trying to find 18% grey, and gets confused in light and dark scenes where there are none. It takes light scenes and darkens them, and takes dark scenes and lightens them. A light meter just takes how much light is hiting the sensor and determines what is the proper aperature/ISO/shutter speed based on the variables input.

Valid point... however.. keep in mind... that all of the light in our situation was reflective... light reflecting off water, pavement, white dress, blah, blah, blah... the meter would read one thing for the dress, and another thing for the face... 2 completely different readings...

So... there would be no way to control it without blocking it.

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:27
**TOUCHE"** lol... (so totally teasing...)

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:29
Tell you what.... we bring Miss Erika out again for another shoot... I baby sit her little girl, so... no problem..

We sit back and watch Brian obtain perfect exposure in our setting... with just one diffuser and one set of hands....

Go Brian....!! We're cheering for you.. because we need to learn your craft.. :) (Huge smile... onery smile, but huge just the same...)

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:30
ps... you can ban me now...

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:31
by the way... her is her beautiful daughter....

http://ksnyderphoto.smugmug.com/photos/462342044_fdzvd-XL-2.jpg

good looks run in the family... ;)

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:31
Here is my theroy....

The meter would read lets say f/8 all the way up and down here... but.. the reflective surface...ie... her skin and the dress ...would read differently.

That to me... is where the challenge was/is. She was eely lit head to toe... but her darker skin tones need a little more light to make the image work... and that little extra light pushed the already exposed whites over the top.

My $.02

Come on people... jump in the middle of this mess!

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:32
You have to remove yourself from the studio... a studio is a controlled environment.

Yes... she will look darker in the shadows with her skin tones... and she will require more light to bring her skin tones up to a nice exposure.

I fully agree with you if I meter her face at F/11... the same light hitting her dress will be f/11 however, she needs a little more light to bring her skin tones up. That was the challenge with the tools at hand.

For the wedding shots... we could have only push light on to her face with a small reflector ... I think this would have helped... the white dress was already getting enough exposure from the reflected light all around.

But... there really isn't a way that I know of to split the light... we needed 2 exposures... but only had 1 light source.

I think you need to go try it in the studio. You would see that there isn't a difference. ;)

So, if we agree that the skin and dress both meter with an incident meter at f/11, and you shoot at f/11, then the result is that the skin is exposed properly. Everyone agree?

You just don't like the way it looks, because her skin lacks pop. It's also why short/broad lighting and posing are important. If you short light her, most of her face would be devoid of highlight. Instead, she should be broadlit so that most of her face is in hightlight (either specular or diffused). Turn her dress away from the light, and her face back towards it.

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:35
Valid point... however.. keep in mind... that all of the light in our situation was reflective... light reflecting off water, pavement, white dress, blah, blah, blah... the meter would read one thing for the dress, and another thing for the face... 2 completely different readings...

So... there would be no way to control it without blocking it.


Uh, Kristy. In EVERY shot you take the light is reflective. Your camera captures an image by capturing the REFLECING light off the subject. ;)

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:37
Tell you what.... we bring Miss Erika out again for another shoot... I baby sit her little girl, so... no problem..

We sit back and watch Brian obtain perfect exposure in our setting... with just one diffuser and one set of hands....

Go Brian....!! We're cheering for you.. because we need to learn your craft.. :) (Huge smile... onery smile, but huge just the same...)


Bring it!

:)

In all seriousness, I'd love to do it. I've taken years of study on lighting, and trust me, none of the masters would say you need multiple exposures to properly expose someone with black skin. If it were true, don't you think there would be a huge amount of tutorials on it?

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:37
So, if we agree that the skin and dress both meter with an incident meter at f/11, and you shoot at f/11, then the result is that the skin is exposed properly. Everyone agree?
Nope... the skin may read F/11 but without any specularity it will look flat... and under exposed... so... I say again...from teh top of my house in Surprise... you have to bump up the exposure some to give the face shape...with specular highlights... which in turn clips your whites on the dress. ROFL

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:38
Bring it!

:)

In all seriousness, I'd love to do it. I've taken years of study on lighting, and trust me, none of the masters would say you need multiple exposures to properly expose someone with black skin. If it were true, don't you think there would be a huge amount of tutorials on it?


it isn't about exposing her skin... we exposed her skin.. which required us to over expose the dress....:D

jbdavies
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:39
*Walk in, reads two pages worth of lighting talk*

*Walks out, head explodes*

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:42
Sorry.. but I am laughing... too much techincal crap...

Her dress is super light... her skin is a little darker.. it just makes sense.. if you expose for the dress the darks are not going to expose properly..

When we use flash outdoors.... we meter for the sky.. because it is certainly brighter than our subject.. ie... the dress...

Then we use flash, or a reflector to bump some additional light on our subject to match it up with the sky.. or push it beyoned the sky...

so... how does that sound...?

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:42
*Walk in, reads two pages worth of lighting talk*

*Walks out, head explodes*


Is that like walking in on your parents having sex?

jbdavies
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:43
Is that like walking in on your parents having sex?
LOL! I wouldn't know...

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:43
**come back Jeremy** The fun has just begun... lol......

jbdavies
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:43
**come back Jeremy** The fun has just begun... lol......
Sorry. My Grey matter is splattered all about the room. Nice image huh? :p

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:44
Is that like walking in on your parents having sex?

eeewwwww...... :rolleyes:

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:45
Sorry. My Grey matter is splattered all about the room. Nice image huh? :p

Can you take a picture of it.. and expose the gray matter vs. the highlight properly...? We'd like to see it. lol...

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:46
Sorry.. but I am laughing... too much techincal crap...

Her dress is super light... her skin is a little darker.. it just makes sense.. if you expose for the dress the darks are not going to expose properly..

When we use flash outdoors.... we meter for the sky.. because it is certainly brighter than our subject.. ie... the dress...

Then we use flash, or a reflector to bump some additional light on our subject to match it up with the sky.. or push it beyoned the sky...

so... how does that sound...?


It sounds like we need to meet up and shoot. :)

Technique is fine, but Photography is about problem solving in many ways. That is why I study the physics behind it. If you only know a certain number of techniques, that only helps you in those situations that are exactly the same as what you have done before. New challenges require different techniques/solutions.

Every problem has a solution. How you solve it depends on how many resources you have at your disposal.

jbdavies
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:46
Can you take a picture of it.. and expose the gray matter vs. the highlight properly...? We'd like to see it. lol...
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I would... but I don't wanna show ya'll up. ;) :lol:

FlyingPhotog
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:47
Ok, here's some theoretical fuel for the fire...

You have a mutant model who just happens to have skin that is 18% grey dressed in a body suit that's 18% grey. (Stay with me on this...)

Your camera meter (in spot mode) says that for the given amount of light on hand, both her face and her body suit want f/5.6 for a proper exposure.

Magically, she raises the luminosity of her face two stops and decreases the body suit two stops.

Where should the aperture be set?

What if she did the opposite? Skin down two stops and body suit up two stops? Four Stops?

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:48
It sounds like we need to meet up and shoot. :)

Technique is fine, but Photography is about problem solving in many ways. That is why I study the physics behind it. If you only know a certain number of techniques, that only helps you in those situations that are exactly the same as what you have done before. New challenges require different techniques/solutions.

Every problem has a solution. How you solve it depends on how many resources you have at your disposal.

Wait a minute... Don't you shoot "fine art'.... I don't know that you are allowed to mingle with the common folk.... lol... ;)

jbdavies
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:48
Ok, here's some theoretical fuel for the fire...

You have a mutant model who just happens to have skin that is 18% grey dressed in a body suit that's 18% grey. (Stay with me on this...)

Your camera meter (in spot mode) says that for the given amount of light on hand, both her face and her body suit want f/5.6 for a proper exposure.

Magically, she raises the luminosity of her face two stops and decreases the body suit two stops.

Where should the aperture be set?
Wouldn't it be the same? 5.6?

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:49
Nope... the skin may read F/11 but without any specularity it will look flat... and under exposed... so... I say again...from teh top of my house in Surprise... you have to bump up the exposure some to give the face shape...with specular highlights... which in turn clips your whites on the dress. ROFL


Buddy, I hate to tell you this, but in your images you only have diffused highlight, not specular, in the skin. The only place you have specular is in the eyes, and on her lips. :)

FlyingPhotog
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:49
Can you take a picture of it..

Jeebus...

I thought you were going to ask for a shot of his parents having...

:shock:

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:51
Frank/Kristy,

How about when you shot her in the black dress. Did you see something similar?

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:51
Buddy, I hate to tell you this, but in your images you only have diffused highlight, not specular, in the skin. The only place you have specular is in the eyes, and on her lips.

I agree... wrong use of terms... her exposure is where is should be with the diffused light... about 1/2 stop over the proper exposure of the dress.... the one I clipped the whites on becuase I didn't have another option.

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:51
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I would... but I don't wanna show ya'll up. ;) :lol:
Just do it .... :)

Ok, here's some theoretical fuel for the fire...

You have a mutant model who just happens to have skin that is 18% grey dressed in a body suit that's 18% grey. (Stay with me on this...)

Your camera meter (in spot mode) says that for the given amount of light on hand, both her face and her body suit want f/5.6 for a proper exposure.

Magically, she raises the luminosity of her face two stops and decreases the body suit two stops.

Where should the aperture be set?

Geez.. I'm 2 glasses of cabernet in at the moment.. and sneezing of allergies.... and now I have to figure this....?

I'll adjust my aperature up some to keep her face from blowing out.. but slow down my aperture to allow the ambient to keep the body illuminated... and depending on what I see when I chimp... I'll use an aparatus of some kind to adjust things accordingly... lol..

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:52
Ok, here's some theoretical fuel for the fire...

You have a mutant model who just happens to have skin that is 18% grey dressed in a body suit that's 18% grey. (Stay with me on this...)

Your camera meter (in spot mode) says that for the given amount of light on hand, both her face and her body suit want f/5.6 for a proper exposure.

Magically, she raises the luminosity of her face two stops and decreases the body suit two stops.

Where should the aperture be set?

What if she did the opposite? Skin down two stops and body suit up two stops? Four Stops?

The aperature should be set properly based on the amount of light hitting the scene, as measured in ambient mode with my incident meter. ;)

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:53
Frank/Kristy,

How about when you shot her in the black dress. Did you see something similar?Nope... the blacks in the dress are not flat... or clipped... her skin/tonal range for the exposure is well above "0" and we exposed for her skin...not the dress...

jbdavies
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:53
Just do it .... :)



Geez.. I'm 2 glasses of cabernet in at the moment.. and sneezing of allergies.... and now I have to figure this....?

I'll adjust my aperature up some to keep her face from blowing out.. but slow down my aperture to allow the ambient to keep the body illuminated... and depending on what I see when I chimp... I'll use an aparatus of some kind to adjust things accordingly... lol..
I like how you word it. I don't get all the techy stuff. lol

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:54
Just do it .... :)



Geez.. I'm 2 glasses of cabernet in at the moment.. and sneezing of allergies.... and now I have to figure this....?

I'll adjust my aperature up some to keep her face from blowing out.. but slow down my aperture to allow the ambient to keep the body illuminated... and depending on what I see when I chimp... I'll use an aparatus of some kind to adjust things accordingly... lol..


I love you Kristy. I really do.

I'll let you wait until the morning, and when you are sober, to read that.

jbdavies
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:55
I love you Kristy. I really do.

I'll let you wait until the morning, and when you are sober, to read that.
LOL! Totally didn't catch that.

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:55
I love you Kristy. I really do.

I'll let you wait until the morning, and when you are sober, to read that.


Oh wait... you know I meant shutter speed... I was having a sneeze at that second... lol...... ;)

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 00:56
Nope... the blacks in the dress are not flat... or clipped... her skin/tonal range for the exposure is well above "0" and we exposed for her skin...not the dress...


OOOOOOOOOOOkay. That's where you and I diverge.

I only meter for one thing, over another, in a scene when there is a difference in the light hitting those objects. If the light is the same, there is only one exposure.

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 01:02
I posed everyone in an L-shaped cove of two of the walls. Light was bouncing from all directions, but I added another silver reflector camera left to create more side lighting and sort of a main light. I pushed the ISO up to 400 on the camera, selected a wide open aperture (plus one extra f/stop) and let the camera do it's thing with the shutter speed. That's all there was to it. Monte Zucker talking about photographing people of color... "plus 1 extra f/stop" Now his subjects had colorful clothing... not an all white dress... what do you think would have happend to his shot if they were all wearing white? Why did he push 1 extra stop? Skin tone! :)

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 01:05
That's what I needed for these portraits. Lots and lots of highlights! Had I been using an exposure meter, I would have taken an incident meter reading with the reflector in place, pointing the meter towards the camera. As it was, all I had to to was to do a test shot on my D30 and go from there. I knew that the light background might make the image of the people too dark, so I overroad the camera by one f/stop and it worked perfectly.

The rest of the story...

So you see... I can sleep well tonight knowing that the great master justified my reasoning on my exposures. I did the exact same thing... LOL

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 01:07
The rest of the story...

So you see... I can sleep well tonight knowing that the great master justified my reasoning on my exposures. I did the exact same thing... LOL


Yay! :) Documentation to support the theory. :) (and I think it actully works too... )

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 01:07
Monte Zucker talking about photographing people of color... "plus 1 extra f/stop" Now his subjects had colorful clothing... not an all white dress... what do you think would have happend to his shot if they were all wearing white? Why did he push 1 extra stop? Skin tone! :)


That's your assumption. Did he actually state he did it because of the skin tone? ;) Maybe he did it because whatever meter he was using, was underexposing the scene by 1 stop, or he wanted more background detail. Not looking at what you are, but on the face of it, it can be argued many different ways. Does he mention anywhere else where he pushed the exposure, and it wasn't for people with dark skin?

Night all. Long week ahead. :)

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 01:08
That's your assumption. Did he actually state he did it because of the skin tone? ;) Maybe he did it because whatever meter he was using, was underexposing the scene by 1 stop, or he wanted more background detail. Not looking at what you are, but on the face of it, it can be argued many different ways. Does he mention anywhere else where he pushed the exposure, and it wasn't for people with dark skin?

Night all. Long week ahead. :)

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Photographing-People-of-Colour--a-how-to-guide-4783

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 01:09
The rest of the story...

So you see... I can sleep well tonight knowing that the great master justified my reasoning on my exposures. I did the exact same thing... LOL

Oh SNAP!

Frank. You just proved my point, and not yours.

Look at what he said. The light background was fooling the camera meter, so he opened it by one stop. If he would have used an incident meter, it would have given him the correct exposure initially.

Those are his words.

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 01:11
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Photographing-People-of-Colour--a-how-to-guide-4783


Ahem. From your link:

That's the way you photograph dark skin.... by bringing in specular highlights from both sides. Nor is it necessary to open up the lens any more than usual. Light crossing over the skin brings out great highlights.

FlyingPhotog
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 01:12
Also, farther down the same article...

I explained to all the photographers that it isn't the amount of light that counts. It's simply the angle at which the light come towards the faces of dark-skinned people. When you cross their faces with light you pick up incredible detail.

Which is what Brian said earlier. You do subtractive lighting for fair skin (texture by shadow) and additive lighting for dark skin (texture by highlight)

Damn...

Brian reads faster than I do

jbdavies
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 01:15
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g18/jbdavies/Smilies/c5629416.gif

*Waits for rebuttal*

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 01:16
**chirp... chirp.... chirp...*

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 01:20
Serioulsy, my Friends. It has been an ejoyable experience on this learning journey.

Have a good night everyone.

jbdavies
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 01:20
Soooo... lovely day today, no? lol

We're actually supposed to have our spring weather this week!! No more freezing temperatures. YAY!!

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 01:21
Nighty night... I'm off to the same place..

Final words.. sometimes in theory things are spot on, but in practice... you encounter unforseen challenges.. ;)

jbdavies
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 01:21
How 'bout them Diamondbacks, eh?
Aren't they sucking it up this year? lol

disneydork06
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 01:34
Just bought Canon 70-200mm f/4L for $498 SHIPPED through AAFES.


Price matched Amazon @ $600 + 15% off coupon FTW



Looks like I'll be waiting a bit longer for Alien Bees... I couldn't pass up that deal :o
ooh, good get. lighting can wait...glass is forever :-) I mean, you do have a sun that shows up quite a bit especially these summer months :-P
Hi guys, I'm a noob in the West Valley. I saw this Arizona post and was hoping someone can get me up to speed...maybe message/email me about the next meet up or anything interesting you guys are doing in AZ? (650pgs is a LOT to go through!)
thanks!You can change your settings so that you can get like 50 posts per page which is what I have. makes it seem like a lot less :-P oh and Welcome! I'm kinda in the west valley as well. btw, the older girl in your portrait gallery (nice site) looks really familiar. can't place where I've seen her before. maybe playing volleyball. idk. anyways, again welcome! if you have any ideas for a meetup please don't be afraid to chime in :-)

disneydork06
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 02:37
wow guys. thanks for the interesting read on all the lighting. :-D thought I only had one page more to read only to find out it had blossomed into two pages :-P I just gotta say that I thoroughly enjoyed that. wish I could have chimed in but alas, I am too late :-D oh well.
oh and the idea of studio and location being quite similar seems true. in all reality you're just battling out the ambient light more in a location rather than in a studio.

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 07:29
Ahem. From your link:


ROFL... he also didn't have his subject sitting in a shadow... you will cross this delima one day and say... Hatch and Kristy were right... one day! ROFL :D

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 07:34
Also, farther down the same article...

I explained to all the photographers that it isn't the amount of light that counts. It's simply the angle at which the light come towards the faces of dark-skinned people. When you cross their faces with light you pick up incredible detail.

Which is what Brian said earlier. You do subtractive lighting for fair skin (texture by shadow) and additive lighting for dark skin (texture by highlight)

Damn...

Brian reads faster than I do


You too sir will face this challenge... and you will have an "ah ha!" moment.... I remember when Kristy and Hatch were having issues with this... but... my meter says one thing... but my shots look so under exposed.... then... and only then... will the clouds part and the light will beam from the heavens... (well... if that happened you wouldn't need the reflectors) and you will say I was so very wrong.... and in your guilt you will mail us each a 300mm F/2.8 lens to make up for your mistakes. HA HA HA!

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 07:38
oh and the idea of studio and location being quite similar seems true. in all reality you're just battling out the ambient light more in a location rather than in a studio.


In reality you are in a a controlled environment where you could clam shell light her... to control the light on the face and the light on the dress.... in reality we had reflected light from the buildings...reflected light from the reflector and in reality we couldn't balance the exposure.... not hostile...typed with a smile. :)

You all will face this challenge... and I expect a simple... "I'm sorry for ever doubting you and Kristy"

On that note... off to work I go.
:)
Good times!

Hatch

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 09:11
In reality you are in a a controlled environment where you could clam shell light her... to control the light on the face and the light on the dress.... in reality we had reflected light from the buildings...reflected light from the reflector and in reality we couldn't balance the exposure.... not hostile...typed with a smile. :)

You all will face this challenge... and I expect a simple... "I'm sorry for ever doubting you and Kristy"

On that note... off to work I go.
:)
Good times!

Hatch

And one day, you will realize that by putting your model in the shade had nothing to do with it. You will see that it was the direction of light that gave you fits, and you will harken back to my counsel and instead of lighting into her skin, you will light across it. :lol: And, there shall be much rejoicing in the land for you will no longer have to struggle in Post as thy image were obtained properly in Camera. Verily.

[Monty Python]Bring forth the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch![/Monty Python]


Oh, and I'm not one to say "I told you so", and I suspect Jay isn't either, but if you want to go ahead and try it the right way just once we won't tell anyone. Monte would have wanted it that way, too. ;)

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 09:17
And one day, you will realize that by putting your model in the shade had nothing to do with it. You will see that it was the direction of light that gave you fits, and you will harken back to my counsel and instead of lighting into her skin, you will light across it. :lol: And, there shall be much rejoicing in the land for you will no longer have to struggle in Post as thy image were obtained properly in Camera. Verily.

[Monty Python]Bring forth the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch![/Monty Python]


Oh, and I'm not one to say "I told you so", and I suspect Jay isn't either, but if you want to go ahead and try it the right way just once we won't tell anyone. Monte would have wanted it that way, too. ;)


We will have to recreate the crime scene... I have the time stamp... the location ... and need be... the same model... and you sir... will fully understand that there isn't another way to light the scene using the tools we had... no matter the direction of light or the amount we had. One thing had to suffer... her skin...or her dress.... I let the dress suffer. It needed a spilt exposure.

WE will have to agree to disagree until your methods are put in to application. Until then... Kristy and I are right. (sticks out tongue at screen) ;)

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 09:22
We will have to recreate the crime scene... I have the time stamp... the location ... and need be... the same model... and you sir... will fully understand that there isn't another way to light the scene using the tools we had... no matter the direction of light or the amount we had. One thing had to suffer... her skin...or her dress.... I let the dress suffer. It needed a spilt exposure.

WE will have to agree to disagree until your methods are put in to application. Until then... Kristy and I are right. (sticks out tongue at screen) ;)


And let's just hope your face doesn't freeze that way. :)

In all seriousness, Frank. If you had gone into it, knowing that for a model with dark skin meant that you needed to light across her skin, would you have done something differently? Either in posing, bringing other equipment, or something else?

I think if we try it again, but use a different technique you will be amazed. I wouldn't want to go into it and try to just recreate what you did, because it obviously didn't give the desired result.

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 09:27
And let's just hope your face doesn't freeze that way. :)

In all seriousness, Frank. If you had gone into it, knowing that for a model with dark skin meant that you needed to light across her skin, would you have done something differently? Either in posing, bringing other equipment, or something else?

I think if we try it again, but use a different technique you will be amazed. I wouldn't want to go into it and try to just recreate what you did, because it obviously didn't give the desired result.


Of course if I went with a different method to light her... we wouldn't have this running conversation... with what we had... this was the only way to light/expose her. ROFL I know there is a difference when you light different skin tones. The argument/discussion is about not being able to light her with the tools we had... in the settings we were in. That is where it all started... there was no way to expose for the face and the dress and win on both fronts. One had to suffer is all that I am saying :wink:

macroshooter1970
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 09:27
Can't wait till you guys go at it already :)

While you are out driving, be nice to the photo vans out there.

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 09:31
Can't wait till you guys go at it already :)

While you are out driving, be nice to the photo vans out there.

This is just a friendly discussion... we are both cracking up as we type this stuff... :) At least I am.... :cool:

macroshooter1970
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 09:35
This is just a friendly discussion... we are both cracking up as we type this stuff... :) At least I am.... :cool:


I know, I'd just like to see the results of it all.

Hatch1921
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 09:38
I know, I'd just like to see the results of it all.

The end results....

Bryan and (dragging Jay in to this) will treat Kristy and I to a coffee... and they will have to admit they are right in theroy but they couldn't pull it off in application.... using the EXACT same tools we used...at the EXACT same location....at the EXACT same time....with the EXACT same model.....with the EXACT .... LOL LOL LOL

It's all good... at least the thread has come to life again... we will be to 10K before we know it.

BrianAZ
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 10:10
The end results....

using the EXACT same tools we used...at the EXACT same location....at the EXACT same time....with the EXACT same model.....with the EXACT .... LOL LOL LOL



.....Would get us the EXACT same result!

That is why we would go into it with a different mindset, a different application of some of the tools, and depending on need using even new tools. Had I been there at the time of the shoot, I would have told you how I would have done it with what you already had.

Because, we wouldn't be lighting for the eyes, we would be lighting for the skin!

Oh 'Ye of little faith.

Set it up already. Enough talk. It's time for ACTION!

XOXO

Brian

:p

disneydork06
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 12:07
.....Would get us the EXACT same result!

That is why we would go into it with a different mindset, a different application of some of the tools, and depending on need using even new tools. Had I been there at the time of the shoot, I would have told you how I would have done it with what you already had.

Because, we wouldn't be lighting for the eyes, we would be lighting for the skin!

Oh 'Ye of little faith.

Set it up already. Enough talk. It's time for ACTION!

XOXO

Brian

:p
you could get more "witnesses" for this and we could call it a meetup!!! yeah! besides that workshop ya'll went to we haven't met up in awhile :-D be fun to see this in person as well.

sassinak
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 12:24
I'll just summarize the last 6 pages:

Brian: Yes
Hatch: No
Brian: Yes
Hatch: No
.
.
.
Brian: Yes, hah let's meetup and prove I'm right
Ryan: When was that meetup? I need to get the popcorn ready. :D

And by tonight I'll be reading the thread entitled Another Arizona Get Together (125,426)

Meetup sounds good, I'll try to stay up on things and see if I can make it.

disneydork06
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 13:03
I'll just summarize the last 6 pages:

Brian: Yes
Hatch: No
Brian: Yes
Hatch: No
.
.
.
Brian: Yes, hah let's meetup and prove I'm right
Ryan: When was that meetup? I need to get the popcorn ready. :D

And by tonight I'll be reading the thread entitled Another Arizona Get Together (125,426)

Meetup sounds good, I'll try to stay up on things and see if I can make it.oooh, popcorn! kettle corn! :-D thanks Adam for the summary

azpix
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 15:00
I'll just summarize the last 6 pages:

Brian: Yes
Hatch: No
Brian: Yes
Hatch: No
.
.
.
Brian: Yes, hah let's meetup and prove I'm right
Ryan: When was that meetup? I need to get the popcorn ready. :D

And by tonight I'll be reading the thread entitled Another Arizona Get Together (125,426)

Meetup sounds good, I'll try to stay up on things and see if I can make it.

what exactly is the question?

sassinak
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 15:07
It had to do with correctly exposing something, somewhere along the way of reading through it I lost track of WHAT it was they were trying to expose correctly

nuklehead
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 15:12
btw, the older girl in your portrait gallery (nice site) looks really familiar. can't place where I've seen her before. maybe playing volleyball. idk. anyways, again welcome! if you have any ideas for a meetup please don't be afraid to chime in :-)

thanks! I'm thinking you're talking about my sister Courtney? She played HS volleyball and softball (she's at NAU now - playing neither!)

Dean Rachwitz
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 15:20
Boy, you are a chatty bunch! :D

Sorry I haven't posted lately. Been busy having a grandchild. Well, actually, my daughter has been busy having a baby, and I've been busy fretting about it and trying to be a good, helpful grandpa.

Hope I got some pics worthy of posting, though Momma and baby haven't exactly been up to posing for a shoot just yet.

If you're on Facebook, you are already tired of hearing about this, LOL.

Hatch, Kristy, Brian - great shots all! The shots of Erika just make me feel sooo inadequate. :cool:

RenShots
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 16:23
This could be interesting photography early Wednesday morning.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17apr_lyrids.htm

disneydork06
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 16:53
thanks! I'm thinking you're talking about my sister Courtney? She played HS volleyball and softball (she's at NAU now - playing neither!)
oh, well maybe then I recognize her from nau. worked with the school paper so I was in quite a few places taking pictures. and I was all over the communications building if she had classes there
This could be interesting photography early Wednesday morning.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17apr_lyrids.htm
that's awesome...maybe for once I'll try and sleep early to get up early for that :-)

Kristy
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 16:53
Boy, you are a chatty bunch! :D

Sorry I haven't posted lately. Been busy having a grandchild. Well, actually, my daughter has been busy having a baby, and I've been busy fretting about it and trying to be a good, helpful grandpa.

Hope I got some pics worthy of posting, though Momma and baby haven't exactly been up to posing for a shoot just yet.

If you're on Facebook, you are already tired of hearing about this, LOL.

Hatch, Kristy, Brian - great shots all! The shots of Erika just make me feel sooo inadequate. :cool:

Come on Dean... you're holding out on us with that baby... let me come and shoot him with you.. . whatcha waiting for mister...?

RenShots
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 17:14
what exactly is the question?

To be or not to be... passionate about photography, win win. That thread was insane, and thought provoking enough to go do some more reading. Monty turned over in his grave on that one.

disneydork06
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 17:27
thanks! I'm thinking you're talking about my sister Courtney? She played HS volleyball and softball (she's at NAU now - playing neither!)
kinda looks like her maybe?
http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v110/212/97/27710201/n27710201_31708372_4149.jpg
sorry for the grain...I believe this was taken before I made the full switch over to canon...:-D

nuklehead
20th of April 2009 (Mon), 17:37
^kinda.

She saw you on my FB and said you guys had 5 common friends but she didnt know you.