Family portraits
Shoeless in San Jose
I have a project coming up this weekend: my neighbor wants me to
take some portrait shots of him and his family. I'm rather new
at photography, and most of my experience has been with scenic
views coastlines.
Since I'm not too savvy (yet) with a flash unit, I figured it
would work well enough to do the portraits outside, but I plan
on having to do a little flash fill. I have a flash unit that
can be mounted on the camera (for automatic); if I take it off
and use the two-wire cable, it'll have to be done with the
manual settings. From what I've read in this newsgroup, the
best way is to get it about 10-12 inches above (or beside)
the lens 'center' so I can avoid red-eye as much as possible.
My other equipment (yes, I have a good Bogen tripod) includes
a Canon AE-1 with three lenses: 50mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2, and
a 50mm - 200mm zoom f/4. Which would be the best to use, and
how would you use them? Also, what would be a good film to
use for this?
Since neither he nor I has a lot of money to invest in this
project, and he's trying to save some by having me do it instead
of an expensive studio, I'd like to get this done for a reasonable
price, but with good results.
What is a typical fee one would charge for a session like this?
Does it go by the picture, or by the time?
Thanks in advance for any and all advice.
Greg
Bernard
> What is a typical fee one would charge for a session like this?
> Does it go by the picture, or by the time?
Well, no. There is no typical fee for when you're just starting. You
just be happy you got somebody willing to pose and not charge *you*.
Really, take out the stress of having to get things right, for it just
won't happen. You need *a lot* more experience than a couple of
coastlines. So just make the best of it and have fun with your neighbor.
Yes, get the flash off the camera in any case, and although people like
to debate that there is no such thing as a portrait lens, use the zoom
you got. The range from 80-135 is more or less what you'll need for
*most*, that is "conventionally acceptable", portraits. 50mm is for when
you want the whole everybody crowded in the pic. 35mm is for when you
want a nice part of the room as well, but then your flash is unlikely to
give off enough light, and since it's only one unit, the all too
traceable source won't look good.
Use windows for lighting! Gives nice light, and if you throw in some of
that fill flash from the other end (we're not mentioning reflectors,
okay), then it might just add up to something.
Any film is good for this sort of project, because you're not going to
get cut-edge results anyway. Use print-film, though, for it'll be more
lenient to your faulty exposures.
Bernard
PS Geez, I'm helpful today, gotta go measure my temperature.
D.Grabowski
<batc...@slip.net> wrote:
>
>I have a project coming up this weekend: my neighbor wants me to
>take some portrait shots of him and his family. I'm rather new
>at photography, and most of my experience has been with scenic
>views coastlines.
>
>Since I'm not too savvy (yet) with a flash unit, I figured it
>would work well enough to do the portraits outside, but I plan
>on having to do a little flash fill. I have a flash unit that
>can be mounted on the camera (for automatic); if I take it off
>and use the two-wire cable, it'll have to be done with the
>manual settings. From what I've read in this newsgroup, the
>best way is to get it about 10-12 inches above (or beside)
>the lens 'center' so I can avoid red-eye as much as possible.
>
>My other equipment (yes, I have a good Bogen tripod) includes
>a Canon AE-1 with three lenses: 50mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2, and
>a 50mm - 200mm zoom f/4. Which would be the best to use, and
>how would you use them? Also, what would be a good film to
>use for this?
>
>Since neither he nor I has a lot of money to invest in this
>project, and he's trying to save some by having me do it instead
>of an expensive studio, I'd like to get this done for a reasonable
>price, but with good results.
>
>What is a typical fee one would charge for a session like this?
>Does it go by the picture, or by the time?
>
>Thanks in advance for any and all advice.
>
>Greg
>
Greg,
I would be inclined to use the 50 mm. for the entire group shot
segment . If you start shooting individual children shots ,
particularly head and shoulder shots switch to the zoom then .
I am surprised that your flash has no auto mode for off camera , you
would lose ttl in most cases , but just double check about losing
auto to be sure. In any case you can determine the fill rate by guide
no. for off camera use. IMO you would do fine in just auto and
outdoors you may do well with a low fill ratio in open shade just
leaving the flash camera mounted . The key here is to have the low
fill rate ( wide ratio of fill to ambient light say 1+1/2 - 2 stops).
Call a couple of labs in the area and find out how they are channeled
, If they run a lot of Kodak Gold go with that , If they run a lot of
Fuji Superia go with that. Unless you hit on the pro guys you might
do better with plain old consumer films.In any case, pick a film ,
match it to a lab and shoot consistant exposures . Try to expose close
to the same throughout the shoot and the results will be better from a
print exposure standpoint. Shoot in open shade outdoors and stay away
from lots of exposure swing like severe backlighting for now, try for
even exposures throughout the roll..
Thats about it to keep it simple , your real problems will more
likely be compositional and group control , try to get people to look
at you when you take the shots.
Regards,
David Grabowski
Remove SP to e-mail
Keith Wiebe
I've found for portrait and family group shots. It explains what to do for
equipment and how to pose groups, etc. I'm deviating somewhat from what he
uses and am sticking my strobe on a stand (which he does) and use an
umbrella instead of bare strobe. You can also keep the strobe on the
camera-just make sure it's 2 stops under ambient light. The web-site
address is http://www.montezucker.com/articles.html
Keith Wiebe
Shoeless in San Jose <batc...@slip.net> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.3.96.981014021204.22269A-100000@slip-3>...
G. I. Jason
Will
more about portraits and wedding shootings. Thanks Keith!
Nathan Shafer
>
> The web site mentioned is the kind I've been looking for for a while to learn
> more about portraits and wedding shootings.
I read a news article about a wedding shooting recently. Something
about a disgruntled groom and his assault rifle...
Andrew S. Hu
Hello all,
After my frustrating experience with all those Portrait Studioes in town, I
think I decide to start learning how to take photos for my little daughter
Jessica (just turns 1 yr old)
myself.
Question is where should I start? First, I need a good carmea, right? My
$100 Canon compact would not be ediqate for sure. What kind of carmera
should I get? Lens, Flashes?
Thank you very much.
Andy
G. I. Jason
fresnels. Tri-X 320.
SPECTRUM
<hu...@tetratech-ffx.com> wrote:
|>:
|>: Hello all,
|>:
|>: After my frustrating experience with all those Portrait Studioes in town, I
|>: think I decide to start learning how to take photos for my little daughter
|>: Jessica (just turns 1 yr old)
|>: myself.
|>:
|>: Question is where should I start? First, I need a good carmea, right? My
|>: $100 Canon compact would not be ediqate for sure. What kind of carmera
|>: should I get? Lens, Flashes?
|>:
|>: Thank you very much.
|>:
|>: Andy
|>:
Mamiya RB67SD , White Lightening 1800's. Shoot Kodak
film the rest is garbage.
Regards,
John S. Douglas
S P E C T R U M P H O T O G R A P H I C I N C .
webm...@spectrumphoto.com http://www.spectrumphoto.com
732.505.8393 732.349.2622
Linda
SLR. That way you're not weighed down with a cumbersome camera you have
no idea how to work. With a smaller camera, you can probably get more
natural responses from Jessica. Start out with natural light from a
window. Get a book, manual... experiment... and take a lot of
pictures!! As you get more experienced and comfortable, then move into
a starter lighting system, umbrellas, processing your own film, etc...
Good luck.
Linda.
G. I. Jason
SPECTRUM wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:45:01 -0500, "G. I. Jason"
> <we...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> |>: I suggest the following. 8x10 Deardorf, 300mm Commercial Ektar. Five 1k
> |>: fresnels. Tri-X 320.
>
> Developed in PMK Pyro no doubt. Printed onto...... ?
SPECTRUM
SPECTRUM
<cial...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>: No, you do not need a large format camera. Just start with a basic 35mm
|>: SLR. That way you're not weighed down with a cumbersome camera you have
|>: no idea how to work. With a smaller camera, you can probably get more
|>: natural responses from Jessica. Start out with natural light from a
|>: window. Get a book, manual... experiment... and take a lot of
|>: pictures!! As you get more experienced and comfortable, then move into
|>: a starter lighting system, umbrellas, processing your own film, etc...
|>: Good luck.
|>:
|>: Linda.
Why invest in a system that will undoubtedly produce
mediocre results ? A C-220/330 will blow any 35mm away and
flash sync at all speeds as well as offer a negative that
can actually be retouched.
The gentleman who started this thread asked how to
improve upon the mediocrity of the images that he has seen
around at small "studios". Chances are they are shot on VPS
III in 35mm. Why suggest doing the same thing ?
Bernard
> Shoot Kodak film the rest is garbage.
Now that's what I call a patriot! Have Jason give you a nice place in
his charts!
Bernard.
SPECTRUM
<we...@flash.net> wrote:
|>: Copper plates
Gotcha' . Etched with nitric ? Gotta love that line
effect.
Nathan Shafer
>
> I suggest the following. 8x10 Deardorf, 300mm Commercial Ektar. Five 1k
> fresnels. Tri-X 320.
What about charts?
Jerry Hammond
sent to the cited author.]
In article <36267f28.0@news>, hu...@tetratech-ffx.com says...
>
> Hello all,
>
> After my frustrating experience with all those Portrait Studioes in town, I
> think I decide to start learning how to take photos for my little daughter
> Jessica (just turns 1 yr old)
> myself.
>
> Question is where should I start? First, I need a good carmea, right? My
> $100 Canon compact would not be ediqate for sure. What kind of carmera
> should I get? Lens, Flashes?
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
Sheesh...what kind of budget are you talking about?
1.) Camera and lens done on the cheap...$600 to $750
2.) Light meter (with flash sync)...$250 to $300 (cheap)
3.) Strobe Flash (approx. 600ws for the unit of 3)...$800 to $1200
(cheap)
4.) Filters ...approx. $150 worth.
5.) 100 rolls of film until you get it right with developing and
printing...approx. $350
How much is that so far? Hmmm... 2100 to 3500 dollars
or
A pro for $250 to $500 who should be willing to do re-shoots if the
results are not what you wanted...you do know what you want, don't you?
Btw: If you're in or around the Las Vegas area I recommend a great
photographer who does some of the best childrens work I've ever seen. Her
business is called Alternative Imagery (702-440-3322). btw, she's not a
friend of mine, but veiwing her images re-inspired me to get back into
photography...she IS that good.
Jerry
Pete Dixon
Jerry Hammond
says...
> You forgot the cost of a tripod and the Ritalin.
>
>
>
>
>
Terry
purchased this system to improve the quality of pictures I take of my kids.
With this flash setup I am able to consistently good to excellent pictures
of my kids, both indoors and outdoors. The SB-28 and Newer Nikon bodies
automatically balance the existing light and the light from your flash unit,
so a schmuck like me can take a decent picture. I get great highlights in
my daughters eyes. Taking these pictures is kind of addicting when so many
come out excellent, especially when I used to get snap shot pictures with a
point and shoot.
Look into and do some research on the "3-D matrix balanced fill flash".
When I was researching what camera system to buy, there were heavy reasons
to go with a Canon system, but at least for now, the Nikon flash system
seems to be about the best around.
kingsnake
wrote:
>You forgot the cost of a tripod and the Ritalin.
I was shooting with Ritalin for about a year, then discovered PPA was
OTC and just as effective.
Is that buzzing sound from the transformers?
I never noticed it before. The Ativans are quieter, and produce less
camera-shake without the tripod. ;->
--
-John S. Bond <kingsnake> WA6FRN/6
Gyro Gearloose Productions ~ a website in the making ~
nothing is too insane, but not everthing is too wise ;->
http://www.gyrogearloose.com/ ICQ uin:4604100
kingsnake
wrote:
>I have a Nikon N-70 with SB-28 flash,
[cut]
How did you manage to pull that combination off ????
-just curious
Patrik Söderlund
I think I know the answer to your question.
Mediumformat Is fine for portrait and my advice Is what you try to get your
hands on an old Rolleicord or Rolleiflex.
These old cameras have really sharp lenses and the big negative means
you can do very big enlargements If you want to.
I myself use a Rolleicord IVa thats 40 years old and still works perfect.
You have to use a separate lightmeter and the fact that It愀 a TLR-camera
makes It a little slow In use.
But as said, you get beatifully sharp negatives.
Another plus with especially the Rolleicord Is the fact that you can get one
without paying to much for It.
Bye, Patrik from Sweden!
Andrew S. Hu skrev i meddelandet <36267f28.0@news>...
Jeffrey Novick
real affection for it, but, quickly grew frustrated because I could never move
closer in for tight head shots, etc. It eventually forced me into investing in
a medium format system that offered inter changeable lenses and more control. I
can't tell you the difference it made. The Rollei's are great and are built
like tanks, but, I've never regretted changing cameras.
Jeff
Patrik Söderlund wrote:
> Hi there Andrew!
> I think I know the answer to your question.
> Mediumformat Is fine for portrait and my advice Is what you try to get your
> hands on an old Rolleicord or Rolleiflex.
> These old cameras have really sharp lenses and the big negative means
> you can do very big enlargements If you want to.
> I myself use a Rolleicord IVa thats 40 years old and still works perfect.
> You have to use a separate lightmeter and the fact that It´s a TLR-camera
Colin Povey
group, not on usenet.
For some realistic advice, start with a 35mm SLR. My preference is
Nikon, but Pentax and Minolta are OK too. Personally, I avoid Canon,
not that there stuff is bad, but about every 7 years, they come up
with a new system adn obsolete all previous equipment.
A decent flash will help, especially if you can place it off the
camera (your wife could sub as a light stand). Again, the Nikon flash
system (as another poster said) is probably the best available at
present.
As for lenses, try something like the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5. You need
some space between yourself and yr daughter, and the 'normal' 50mm
lens will not provide it. Also, avoid slow zoom lenses; f/4.0 or so
provides too much depth of field for protraits.
If you want some more help, please e-mail me at cpo...@mindspring.com
Colin
"Andrew S. Hu" <hu...@tetratech-ffx.com> wrote:
SPECTRUM
(Colin Povey) wrote:
|>: For some realistic advice, start with a 35mm SLR.
And be just as good as every other "studio" in town.
Don't know a single professional portraitist that uses 35mm.
|>: My preference is
|>: Nikon, but Pentax and Minolta are OK too.
Don't mean beans when compared to a Mamiya, 'blad,
Rollei but at least Pentax makes the 67.
|>:Personally, I avoid Canon,
|>: not that there stuff is bad, but about every 7 years, they come up
|>: with a new system adn obsolete all previous equipment.
I live for the day that every 35mm wiz bang "artist"
converts to either digital or APS.
|>: A decent flash will help, especially if you can place it off the
|>: camera (your wife could sub as a light stand). Again, the Nikon flash
|>: system (as another poster said) is probably the best available at
|>: present.
It's better than the Quantum Q-Flash ? The Sunpak
120J ? The Metz 60CT ? Gosh, ya learn something every day !
J Greely
>I live for the day that every 35mm wiz bang "artist"
>converts to either digital or APS.
You plan to live forever? Neat trick. Be sure to stay regular.
>It's better than the Quantum Q-Flash ? The Sunpak
>120J ? The Metz 60CT ? Gosh, ya learn something every day !
Note that he didn't say "the Nikon SB-26 is better", but "the Nikon
flash system is better". I read that as "Nikon's metering system
produces more accurate TTL flash exposures", which is something a lot
of people would agree with. I much prefer the quality of light I get
from my Qflash, but it's only as accurate as the TTL system you plug
it into.
-j
Jerry Hammond
webm...@spectrumphoto.com says...
> And be just as good as every other "studio" in town.
> Don't know a single professional portraitist that uses 35mm.
>
>
Robert Farber is rumored to use 35mm for some of his nude work. Though, I
agree, if one has a choice MF is the route to go for portraits/group
shots.
Best,
Jerry
Jeffrey Novick
Gorman, for one, comes to mind. In fact, in one of his recent books, he says
he has been using 35mm more and more lately. In some of the Pro-Lighting
series books, you will also see 35mm portraits by very well known
photographers.
John, you're getting to sound like some of these other know-it-all's, here.
Jeff
SPECTRUM wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 21:11:57 GMT, cpo...@mindspring.com
> (Colin Povey) wrote:
>
> |>: For some realistic advice, start with a 35mm SLR.
>
> And be just as good as every other "studio" in town.
> Don't know a single professional portraitist that uses 35mm.
>
> |>: My preference is
> |>: Nikon, but Pentax and Minolta are OK too.
>
> Don't mean beans when compared to a Mamiya, 'blad,
> Rollei but at least Pentax makes the 67.
>
> |>:Personally, I avoid Canon,
> |>: not that there stuff is bad, but about every 7 years, they come up
> |>: with a new system adn obsolete all previous equipment.
>
> I live for the day that every 35mm wiz bang "artist"
> converts to either digital or APS.
>
> |>: A decent flash will help, especially if you can place it off the
> |>: camera (your wife could sub as a light stand). Again, the Nikon flash
> |>: system (as another poster said) is probably the best available at
> |>: present.
>
> It's better than the Quantum Q-Flash ? The Sunpak
> 120J ? The Metz 60CT ? Gosh, ya learn something every day !
>
G. I. Jason
35mm when they were on a budget. I believe that has changed over the past 7.25
years. The technology of the film and the ability of pro labs to print larger,
sharper images have improved greatly. I think 35mm portraits are cool as long as
they are printed full frame or with full bleed. The type of portrait is
important as well. A 35mm with a motordrive is pretty much a necessity win it
comes to taking candid portrait of small children.
Steve1chsn
I'll second that. Especially the part about using the whole neg. I've known
some photographers that shoot so loose with their MF gear (so they can maintain
cropping flexability they claim) that they may as well have used 35 anyway.
And as far as the usefulness of a motor with small children, well let me add to
that a 2.8 zoom and you have a great combo for the kiddie shots.
------------------------------------------------------
steve vancosin --
digitalphoto
20,000 mf.........all for commercial / advertising work..........there is no
reason to shy away from whatever camera you need to deliver the client what
they want...........
the king
Jerry Hammond wrote:
> In article <36384951...@news.cybercomm.net>,
> webm...@spectrumphoto.com says...
> > And be just as good as every other "studio" in town.
> > Don't know a single professional portraitist that uses 35mm.
> >
> >
G. I. Jason
proportion of 35mm negs is begging to be completely filled.
Mel1wood1
>|>: A decent flash will help, especially if you can place it off the
>|>: camera (your wife could sub as a light stand). Again, the Nikon flash
>|>: system (as another poster said) is probably the best available at
>|>: present.
>
> It's better than the Quantum Q-Flash ? The Sunpak
>120J ? The Metz 60CT ? Gosh, ya learn something every day !
>
Nothing is better than my Q-Flash!
mel
Bernard
> Nothing is better than my Q-Flash!
Except for any one of my four Metzes!
Bernard
sah...@pcocd2.intel.com
portraits, too. Conditions change awefully fast! I would much rather
shoot that sort of thing with larger format, tho. My 4x5 portraits
always, ALWAYS look better to me.
G. I. Jason
a_g...@hotmail.com
webm...@spectrumphoto.com wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 21:11:57 GMT, cpo...@mindspring.com
> (Colin Povey) wrote:
>
> |>: For some realistic advice, start with a 35mm SLR.
>
> Don't know a single professional portraitist that uses 35mm.
Cartier Bresson? Not that I'd want to emulate his style, but...
The original poster was starting out, moving up from a Canon 35mm P&S. I'd
rather see someone start getting serious with a 35mm SLR than well used TLR,
and a MF SLR is gonna cost a minimum of $800, unless you wanna play Russian
roulette with a Ukranian Kiev (go for the Kiev 60 - avoid the Kiev 88).
To the original poster: The camera system itself is a lot less important than
the lenses you choose to use with it. Unfortunately, Canon, Nikon, Pentax and
Minolta have all delved into "consumer grade" optical gear that isn't worth
using as a wheel stop while jacking your car. Read the newsgroups a bit. For
instance, avoid the Canon 35-80 zoom, but the 28-105 USM is pretty darn good.
> Don't mean beans when compared to a Mamiya, 'blad,
> Rollei but at least Pentax makes the 67.
Mamiya, John? Really? After all your problems with your M645 Pro, you still
recommend it to someone just getting serious about photography?
> |>:Personally, I avoid Canon,
> |>: not that there stuff is bad, but about every 7 years, they come up
> |>: with a new system adn obsolete all previous equipment.
>
> I live for the day that every 35mm wiz bang "artist"
> converts to either digital or APS.
It'll never happen. Too many pros using 35mm. MF is in a more precarious
position - much smaller market share for the manufacturers. Even Hassy's now
makin' a 35mm camera :-).
> |>: A decent flash will help, especially if you can place it off the
> |>: camera (your wife could sub as a light stand). Again, the Nikon flash
> |>: system (as another poster said) is probably the best available at
> |>: present.
>
> It's better than the Quantum Q-Flash ? The Sunpak
> 120J ? The Metz 60CT ? Gosh, ya learn something every day !
Lighting is SO underestimated by people. Cameras simply record the light
illuminating our subjects. I think what the poster was refering to was the
TTL system used in the newer Nikon bodies, and how much improved it is over
the TTL systems other cameras use.
The Q-Flash and 120J are pretty much specialized flashes, though. Not
everyone likes the '40's photojournalistic look a barebulb provides (similar
to the flash bulbs used then). Sunpak's 622 Super Pro is a better matchup to
the Metz 60 series. There's also a barebulb head for the 622 if you want
your cake and eat it too.
All the best,
- Arved
Arved Grass Photography mailto:a_g...@hotmail.com
Orange Park, FL
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
digitalphoto
sah...@pcocd2.intel.com wrote:
> Found that 35mm is the most reasonable format for Horse and People
> portraits, too. Conditions change awefully fast! I would much rather
> shoot that sort of thing with larger format, tho. My 4x5 portraits
> always, ALWAYS look better to me.
why is there a difference between a 4x5 print from a 4x5 negative then a 4x5 print
from a 35mm negative...............i think not...............
the king
David-M
>
> Lighting is SO underestimated by people. Cameras simply record the light
> illuminating our subjects.
I totally agree, lighting is the key!
I have photographed the same (female) model in harsh front or side
lighting and they looked terrible. With backlight or on a cloudy day
they can look fabulous.
By the way I use an old Fujica ST801 and an 85mm Super-Takumar lens and
my results stand comparison against anything Nikon or Canon can offer.
My other favourite lens for people photography is the 60-120 f2.8 Tokina
ATX zoom.
Screaming Metal
(Jerry Hammond) wrote:
> In article <36384951...@news.cybercomm.net>,
> webm...@spectrumphoto.com says...
> > And be just as good as every other "studio" in town.
> > Don't know a single professional portraitist that uses 35mm.
> >
> >
> John,
>
> Robert Farber is rumored to use 35mm for some of his nude work. Though, I
> agree, if one has a choice MF is the route to go for portraits/group
> shots.
>
It's not just a rumor. Over 90 of the 100 images in the book 'Classic
Farber Nudes' were made with 35mm.
-SM
__________________________________
mac3d AT earthlink DOT net
Online 3D gallery at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~mac3d/
__________________________________
dot nyet
>Robert Farber is rumored to use 35mm for some of his nude work.
Add Gary Bernstein to that list as well.
Gene Windell
Check the very popular book "50 Portrait Lighting Techniques for
Pictures that Sell," by NY photographer John Hart. He shoots with a
105mm Nikkor almost exclusively.
I am a professional portraitist, and though I usually shoot medium
format I also use a 100mm f/2.8 Konica Hexanon for excellent results.
The downside of shooting 35mm is that the negative is not large enough
to allow retouching, there are few cropping options, and when
enlarging beyond 8X10 grain and loss of detail become a problem.