What Lenses do Playboy Photogs use ?

[BayAreaPhotog]

I am trying to achieve the same look as a typical Playboy shot. A model standing in doorway of what seems to be your average size office/den/bedroom. She is in sharp focus and the objects which seem to be anywhere from 2 feet to maybe 10' behind her are soft from the short depth of field.

Maybe I am missing something here, but I have tried tests with my lenses. My longest is a 135 f2.0 . . . I can get that great isolated depth of field if it's just a waist up shot, but if I want head to toe I just can't achieve that. Most of their models aren't that tall . . . maybe 5'9" in heels - so you wouldn't have to be that far back to get head to toe.

I've tried going wide open and still can't get it. What am I missing here? If I used a wider angle and got closer, I'd still have the long DOF from wide angles.

What lenses do you think the Playboy photogs are using? Do they use photoshop to ad some extra blur? . . . Any suggestions and or thoughts would be much appreciated.

[KevC]

You could always use photoshop, look around for tutorials. However, that 135/2L is an awesome lens. You can always pick up a 50/1.8 for extremely cheap (<$100) and you can get the whole girl in the frame, with decent bokeh (background blur) wide open.

Good luck!

[DocFrankenstein]

After looking over the 2002 playboy calendar, I'd say they use anything from f/5.6 to f/11

Those are definitely not f/2 f/2.8 shots

[BayAreaPhotog]

I actually have a 50mm 1.4 . . . but it's that separation from the short depth of field that I am looking for . . .

[Longwatcher]

Need bigger houses, they tend to shoot in larger houses then most people have. That will help for one thing. Also consider they tend to use a medium format or if there is a chance for centerfold they have a 8x10 framing camera if I remember correctly. That changes everything with regards DoF.

[edit: having just completed a review of the issue I have, I note that they start losing focus quickly just behind the model. Also I note that unless they are extensively using PS, (which they probably are) They have to have a bellows type camera or tilt-shift lens for some of the shots to get the focus the way they do. The best solution I can offer is to take into account that the length is longer behind the point of focus then in front, so use manual and front focus until it blurs just behind the model and you have a lot of focus in front. That may work for you .....end edit]

Then Again the most recent issue I have is Jan 2001. And I am honestly not sure if I bought it for Gabrielle Reece or the Arthur C. Clarke article. Knowing me I am leaning toward the article. :D

[primoz]

First they don't use lenses wide open. Normaly it's way up (around f8, plus minus 1 or 2 stops). Second... those photos don't go to print straight from camera. My wife was doing some of that editing in her previous job so I kinda know at least those basics from there (even if my area is sport photography and not this :) ). After those photos are taken it follows in best case day or two of editing, so even if it looks easy to make photo like that, you will never be anywhere close to that final photo. At least not straight from camera.

[Mike Panic]

some time ago someone somewhere posted photos of guest photographer carmen electra shooting a model for playboy... apperantly this is something they do often, have celebs shoot

she was shooting a canon eos a2e w/ what looked to be either an 85mm f/1.2 or a 24-70 f/2.8

if you watch that horrible show on E!, gastino girls, the one episode the daughter is getting shots for her porfolio and the photographer is using a 24-70 f/2.8... and in one shot is is almost ontop of her, no more then 3' away.

while 100-135mm is considered the ideal portrait lens, its not used nearly as much on digital bodies w/ the crop now, unless outside for that "bokeh" effect

a friend of mine shoots almost exclusivly an 85mm f/1.2 in his studio on a 1ds, and while he is standing much closer then he was on his old 1d, he said you just can't beat the optics of it, and i agree, having shot the lens several times. he is not cramped for space either, having nearly 40' front to back to work in...

[Adam Hicks]

Well guys that shoot for Playboy generally aren't too worried about the crop factor on their 300D :) So the 100-135 is still a great length.

Although I too suspect the 85mm (I'd rather use the 1.8 if they're moving around) and the 24-70 are the most popular.

Adam

[clicky]

Not sure, but I think Playboy PG's (at least a lot of them) either uses someting like the H1d or medium format (film or digital camera back) with MF-tele and "high-power-multi-flash-systems"

Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong!?

[eosster]

I am sure they use lot of PS to remove blemishes on those playboy models. Look it their skins, almost too perfect, LMFAO.

[Vegas Poboy]

I have a video from the Making of the 2005 Calender from what I could see is the Hasselblad H1 with leaf digital backs after watching the movie I did some more research & it seams most of the high end fashion photographers use the Hasselblad & Leaf backs. Roughly estimating $22,000.00 plus not including the PC, wireless networking & flash which looked to be a ring flash.

[PhotosGuy]

Look it their skins, almost too perfect, LMFAO. Didn't they airbrush out a navel once?:D

[Moments]

I don't know what they use now, but I do know that they used to use 8x10 Transparancy film on all thier shots. Probably now they use a high res medium format digital system like the sinar Sinarback. I have used the Sinarback 23HR and Sinarback 43HR and the quality of the files is outstanding. They go for the best quality and I have not seen any higher than the sinar backs at any size chip they offer.
I went to highschool with a guy that did the retouching for them back in the 80' and he said you have no idea of how much retouching they do to the girls.

[Claire]

I'd love to watch a retoucher in action. :) There's a project being done here in Sweden by some organisation named "Flicka" (i.e. "Girl"). They have a website etc about the way women are portrayed in today's (Western) society. Read that they recently put up an article on image manipulation in the women's magazines. They showed "before" and "after" pics, and a mouse-over would tell you what had been fixed.

Think I saw one of those things from a link someone posted on these forums. That was an EXTREME digital makeover! Kinda have to admit I love playing around with retouching though, but I don't do body makeovers. Just skin stuff. Would be awesome to see what a Playboy photographer and retoucher does though.

[elkootcho]

I know this is an older thread but there's an article in the July 2005 of Popular Photography regarding this subject. The photog interviewed (Arny Freytag) claims almost NO retouching. Crazy lighting setup.

[BrandonSi]

Think I saw one of those things from a link someone posted on these forums. That was an EXTREME digital makeover! Kinda have to admit I love playing around with retouching though, but I don't do body makeovers. Just skin stuff. Would be awesome to see what a Playboy photographer and retoucher does though.

Maybe you were talking about Greg Apodaca's work?

http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/digital.html

[EricKonieczny]

Here is a website of what good retouching can do


http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/digital.html

Extreme stuff

[garbidz]

Plastic fantastic...they could actually shoot flawless boobiedolls in the stead of real living people who grow pimples and hair and they EXCRETE!
In my opinion, if Playboy corresponds to your sense of beauty, then BigMac is the right kind of gourmet for you.
For me, this is an exemple of how we detach ourselves from the reality and start longing for things that do not exist anywhere outside of the realm of dreams.

You want it, they sell it.
You happy, they happy...with your money.

chacun son truc...

[rich_yau]

Large format 8by10 film stuff i think. B&H's ads dont even have large format cameras anymore.

[JuhaHa]

I'd love to watch a retoucher in action. :) There's a project being done here in Sweden by some organisation named "Flicka" (i.e. "Girl"). They have a website etc about the way women are portrayed in today's (Western) society. Read that they recently put up an article on image manipulation in the women's magazines. They showed "before" and "after" pics, and a mouse-over would tell you what had been fixed.

Think I saw one of those things from a link someone posted on these forums. That was an EXTREME digital makeover! Kinda have to admit I love playing around with retouching though, but I don't do body makeovers. Just skin stuff. Would be awesome to see what a Playboy photographer and retoucher does though.

You must be meaning this:
http://www.flicka.org/gotflash.html

[jimhancock]

What lenses do you think the Playboy photogs are using? Do they use photoshop to ad some extra blur? . . . Any suggestions and or thoughts would be much appreciated.[/QUOTE]

Well coming from a bonefide Playboy photographer..... the photographers use different equipment... the centerfold was shot for years with with 8 by 10, Sometimes even with a 6cm by 7cm..... this is the shallow depth of field your seeing.....

The rest of the layout, called the "small camera" stuff is typically shot with a 35mm...... my favorite lens is a 80-200 f2.8..... I shoot it as long and open as possible..... Of course if you're shooting digital you're gonna want a full frame camera......

So the bigger the sensor (or piece of film) the longer the lens, the wider the aperture the better to get the selective focus you desire.... but there is no Playboy lens in particular.....

I used to shoot Nikon..... I switched to Canon because Nikon was so late to use a full frame sensor and I couldn't get the selective focus I wanted.....

[delhi]

Like any modelling publication, judicious use of photoshop post-processing is always employed. Just go watch that American Top Model. Ignore that annoying blonde gay rants and its not too bad. :)

[Rick Rosen]

For many years all the centerfolds were shot on 8x10 transparency film. The barrow depth of field was the result of the large format and they posed to accommodate that. I don't know what they use now. Full body makeup for the shoot and a slow, deliberate photo session saves a lot of retouching later.

Rick

[4x4rock]

I never noticed the background when looking at PlayBoy centerfolds.

I only read the articles. :lol:

[EveryMilesAMemory]

Watched a marathon of 'The Girl Next Door' a few weeks back, I know, I was majorly hung over and it was a great way to ease the head ache.

Everytime they showed a photoshoot, Playboy's main photographer, the blong guy that does most of the centerfold stuff was using the new 39 megapixel Hasselblad. At one point, one of the girls asks what camera he is using and he goes over it for the video guys.

As they shoot, there are four people on Mac's in the back ground as the camera is teathered to the cpu's. Something tells me a multi-million dollar magazine isnt publishing images right out of the camera.

Good luck trying to match these images in a normal setting. Just the studio they were shooting in was the size of a warehouse and had about 25 people on hand to adjust lighting and the set itself.

Pat

[Kellis2038]

went to Hit the Lodge VIII in June and one of the mentors worked with the a couple of the Playboy Photographers, and had been on several centerfold shoots, He stated they use to use the 8x10 cameras but now they have gone digital, Very little retouching, good MUA's, the other thing he said was that they use from 11 to 30 lights, and of the lights 1 is a fresnel spot 1 stop higher than the strobes, (trade mark of playboy centerfolds face is the briter than the rest of the photo, they have a strobe with a grid aimed at the breast and one at the ankles, I believe he said 1 stop under the fresnel, and use of a lot of cto gel, he set up a playboy style shoot at the session to give us an idea

[tcphoto1]

I assisted a fashion shooter that shot for Playboy. It was the College Girl publication and he used an RZ for the shoots. The Centerfolds were all shot with 8x10 on transparency film. A couple of years ago, I read an article in PDN and the photographer talked about shooting with the H2 tethered to a G5 with 30" cinema display. He lit the girls the same as he always did.