z-pro digests 41-43
zeitgeist
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/z-ProPhoto
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 2 messages in this issue.
Topics in today's digest:
1. RE: Re: unprofessional family photo
question
From: "Matthew"
2. Re: Outdoor portrait photo advice
From: zeitgeist
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:33:16 -0800
From: "Reyes, Matthew" <MRE...@dbc.com>
Subject: RE: Re: unprofessional family photo
question
We took my in-laws out on a lake tour of a
nearby nature preserve. (My
mother in-law was always a reluctant photo
subject.) They enjoyed themselves
and the beach made a lovely natural
reflector, while a canopy provided even
shade. All I had to do was point and shoot
to catch them smiling and
laughing together, with the wind providing a
soft breeze through her hair.
Grandparents to grandchildren we all had a
good time.
A short time later, without warning, we lost
my mother in-law to an
aneurysm. It turned out that there weren't
many photos of her since her
youth and the grandchildren didn't recognize
that teenager as being grandma.
It's been a year and a half, and memory
begins to fade, especially for the
little ones. Fortunately we have those
photographs from the day on the lake
to point to, reminding them and ourselves of
her smiles and laughter.
Sorry to be so sappy, but photos of loved
ones are never wasted film.
Matt-
http://www.reyesphotography.com
>
> From: zeitgeist
>
>
>
> Gabe Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > So, everyone has that one person in the
family who won't be
> photographed.
> > With us, it's my mom. And honestly,
she's getting older and we want
> > photos of her, but we sure don't want to
use that argument to get her to
> > sit still! I do some amateur stuff. I
tell her I'll make her look like a
> > million bucks. No success.
> >
> > I've been looking at sites for older
people, trying to find out how to
> up
> > her self-esteem so she can get past the
vanity and just be natural.
> > CaregiveZone and some of the others had
a good information about making
> > her feel generally good and healthy, but
not much about body image or
> > beauty. Not to get too psychological,
but what kinds of tricks get a
> > reluctant model to show off?
>
> Instead of putting her on the spot, why
not create some
> activities that it becomes natural.
Also, there is no
> requirement that the image needs to have
everyone staring at
> the camera, do some candid shots when
every one is having
> fun, walking down the beach, or long a
river bed, makes a
> natural folks tend to walk in a line, look
out at the water
> or where they are going or each other.
>
> Go to a horse riding farm and while
everyone is standing
> along the fence watching the grandkid of
hour ride on a
> horse for the first time, everyone will be
beeming.
>
> for quality images, the best time to do
this is late
> afternoon, twilight. get everyone dressed
in jeans and
> light colored tops so clothes don't clash.
>
> One of the themes that seems to draw some
reluctant seniors
> out is a three or four generation
portrait. Again, they
> don't have to be staring at the camera
like a kiddie pix,
> have them do some thing even if it is only
to count the toes
> on the infant great grandchild...
>
> The reluctance of seniors is fairly
common, it is the main
> reason restorationists get so much work,
folks bring in one
> of the few images they have of their
mother, sometimes it is
> merely a driver's license or a group at a
wedding. WEddings
> are one of those occasions were it is
expected and they just
> naturally do it.
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:28:19 -0800
From: zeitgeist
Subject: Re: Outdoor portrait photo advice
peter wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Could anybody advise me on what other
accessories needed to do a good
> > portrait photo in outdoor like parks or
lakes.
> >
> > I'm using a F60 + 28-80D + 70-300D +
Poloriser
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > klgan
>
The most important thing you can do for a
sucessful out door
portrait shoot iss to do it at the 'correct'
time and/or
location. Use of reflectors and scrims are
to correct
major problems.
Most folks stand in the middle of the lawn
in the bright sun
and wonder why their subjects look like
raccoons, the sun
drops deep shadows in their eyes so they are
black and the
the nose is catching the spectral highlight
and gets blown
out white.
The best time of day is late afternoon,
early evening, just
around sundown, if there are trees or a hill
to block the
direct sun, you can start earlier. The
ideal location will
have a small circle of trees with an open
side, an overhang
is also good, I've found some of the best
sites along
creeks and streams, there is a row of trees,
a few rocks and
where there is a break in the trees on the
shady side is an
openning for nice soft semi directional
light. If there is
one in a park nearby it would be worth
spending an hour or
so to clean up the trash to make it suitable
for posing
families. Most of the time you will not
even need a
reflector. Lakes tend to be great places
for images, they
tend to be surrounded by trees with hills
and have great
depth with leading lines from the water's
edge etc. Usually
any time near sundown is fabulous.
A white/silver reflector is handy to have to
work under open
shade overhangs, like a big tree. BIG
POINT, using a
reflector in the direct sun can be worse
than using flash
fill, besides risking blinding your
subjects, they can have
some serious hot spots, they are almost
point light
sources. reflectors are for placing in the
shadow side to
bounce back a little more back to the
shadowed part of the
subject.
Translucent scrims, these are "reflectors"
with a thin white
cloth, they pass some of the light and are
great if you are
stuck out in the middle of the lawn with
much too bright
direct sun. You know, the client just has
to have the photo
done with the cityscape as the background,
or the beach,
it's a wedding at noon. Hold the scrim
over the subjects
and you have a nice soft diffuse light that
is one and half
stops less than the background. This will
give you nice
washed out colors, a hi key background which
is great if
your subjects are dressed in white, try to
find a dark
background if not, the one and a half stops
will lighten the
background, shady side of trees or a
building, very nicely,
this is classic Dean Collins. You do not
want any sky in
the image as it will go white, though you
could use a
vignetter which will darken the corners.
Flash, use of flash for outdoor portraiture,
not of the
photojournalistic variety, is the last ditch
effort to get
something decent on film. To me, it is an
admittion of
failure, either to find a decent location,
or to educate my
client as to the desirability of doing the
photo session at
the right time. WEddings is the most common
problem area,
they proudly tell you that they went out of
their way to
arrange the photo time when the garden of
their parent's
home will be in full glorious noon day sun,
you know most of
the day it's in shade right...
You don't need a polarizer, the accessories
that
indispensible are, a tripod, a vignetter,
and a hand held
meter. Tripod cause you want or need
sharpness, especially
at the slower shutter speeds twilight
imagery requires, I
typically shoot at 1/15th and slower.
Vignetter, this is the one cheap and simple
gimick that will
show vast improvement in just about any
level of
photographer. don't leave home without it.
a pro lens
shade is recommend too, keeps the glare down
and makes you
look cool while doing it.
Handheld meter, may be problematic with most
zoom lenses
these days since you don't know exactly what
your lens's
f/stop actually is at any given zoom
setting, but I want to
know what the light is falling ON my
subject, not wondering
what part of the scene the meter might be
looking at, the
reflections on the water or the brightness
of the sky, the
deep shadows in the tree line? With a
vignette, the subject
area will be the brightest in the scene
anyway and you want
to meter that area.
This post, like most of my schtick, is
echoed to the
z-prophoto mailing list at onelist.com
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 00:30:01 -0800
From: zeitgeist
Subject: Re: Filter choices?
Steve wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if anyone has a preference
over round, screw-in filters vs.
> square filters that fit in a holder.
Experience? Observations?
>
I use a combination of both. I bought some
adapters to hold
my round filters in my bellows 'hood. This
works great
cause round filters are cheaper than square
ones, I guess
they like to sock it to pros, and you end up
paying for that
filter that in the c corners. This will
save you some real
money if you want a circular polarizer which
costs an extra
fortune if you get a square one, something
about trying to
put a square into a round hole or is it a
round into a
square hole...
of course this means that I have to have a
series 8 adapter
on the lenses that I wish to use my bellows,
(and several
need step down rings) and filters on, which
precluded most
of my super wide angles.
so it is a struggle to balance practicality
with reality.
There are 4 messages in this issue.
Topics in today's digest:
1. Re: grain on skin
From: zeitgeist
2. Re: Photography schools
From: zeitgeist
3. Re: Horse photo
From: zeitgeist
4. Key/fill slave flash for weddings
and other shoots.
From: zeitgeist
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:37:04 -0800
From: zeitgeist
Subject: Re: grain on skin
Most labs use averaging meters, and they are
far more used
to bright subjects with very dark
backgrounds, (typical
flash on camera with black background) then
they are with
the opposite. Try a better lab, one that
uses video
previewing. Or, if you are using a one hour
place and the
whole roll is the same, ask, even pay for a
test or two so
they can figure out how much to over ride
the machine's
sensors.
Put photographically you would be better off
with a set up
with a darker background, more trees etc.
typical exposure
range from under a tree to bright full sun
is four or more
stops which will give you blown out white
background. While
you may not care, the density build up can
bleed into the
subject area, causing a halation like glow
at the edges, a
fogging of sorts. this also causes a loss of
contrast and
can show up as more grain.
Is your lens one of those 2.8-3.5 or 4 etc.
If so, then
your f/5.6 just might be f/6.3 or something
else. While a
half stop off shouldn't make that much
difference, with the
extreme over exposure of the background, who
knows.
If you are under a tree, what do you need
flash for, you can
find some nice sweet and lovely light, soft
and
directional.
that might be your problem, your flash
sensor 'sees' all
that bright light from the background and
doesn't think you
need much additional light, so your faces
could be under
exposed.
I have bounced this post to the z-prophoto
mailing list at
onelist.com and maybe some of the 35mm users
will add
something.
jd...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Folks,
> Here is my setup
> 1. Kodak gold dx-100
> 2. Sekonic 508L
> 3. Nikon sb-28 TTL flash
> 4. N90s, 35-70 mm f/2.8
> 5. Tripod (bogen)
>
> On a sunny day, I try to take some
portraits.
> Step 1: Background exposure is f/5.6 &
1/250s. (incident meter)
> Step 2: subject exposure is f/5.6 & 1/60s
(incident meter). Subject is
> under a big tree.
> Step 3: I don't care about the background,
so I set f/5.6 & 1/60s on
> N90s (manual mode).
> Step 4: I set the flash on TTL mode
> Step 5: Compose & take a picture (camera
is on tripod).
> Subject is around 7-10 feet
away.
>
> Here is my problem.
>
> 1. The background is over expouse. I
don't care about it.
> 2. The subject color seems to look very
good to me. Not a problem.
> 3. Color skin is look darker. WHY? I
have a correct exposure. Leaf's color
> is the cause of the problem?
> 4. Also, the face of subjects is
grainny. WHY? I use tripod, no shaking
> hand. The film speed is 100. The
distance is around 7-10 feet. BTW
> the len is very clean.
> The lab told me that, I underexpose
my film? How can it happens
> when I use incident meter & manually
set up the exposure on the
> camera.
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 00:00:26 -0800
From: zeitgeist
Subject: Re: Photography schools
cheyanne wrote:
>
> I am interested in finding a school in
the U.S,
> preferably in Florida, where I can go to
take a photagraphy
> course and get an Associates degree in the
shortest time
> possible. Any suggestions of schools
would be appreciated
> as well as links to web sites, PLEASE!
>
what is your goal, to get an associate
degree? OR to learn
photography?
I can't think of any 2 year schools with a
quarter or
trimester system which is sometimes faster,
so you may be
stuck with a two year program.
If your goal is to learn photography, I
would recommend you
avoid traditional schools, even though there
just may be
some good ones out there, (usually dependent
on an energetic
and enthusiastic teacher/dept head, not the
school's program
itself) and look at some workshops and
seminars like the
Santa Fe, Maine, Rocky Mountain, etc, and
the many others
with fine arts orientation, or, for
portrait, wedding,
digital, or commercial, any of the many PPA
and their state
and local associations that sponsor week
long 'colleges'
These weeklong workshops cost between 4-500
to 12-1,300 and
you will learn more in that week that you
will use in actual
working conditions than you could possibly
do in a couple
years of community college. I know, I did
both.
You will learn from the best of the
business, how and why
they do things, who and when they market it,
what their
equipment and the suppliers are. why cool.
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 00:10:06 -0800
From: zeitgeist
Subject: Re: Horse photo
ronniegsd wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> My friend wants me to take pictures of her
horses for advertisement purpose;
> I am an amateur and usually do people. I
have a Nikon N90s with 70-300, 85
> f1.8, 50, 24,50 and sb-28 Could you give
me any suggestions on what lens,
> best print film, and from which angle I
should shoot.
> You help is appreciated
> Ronnie
I do portraits etc, not horse photos which
is a specialty
and you will want to look at a magazine with
those kinds of
ads to see what the 'pose' is, it's very
specific and you
would want a handler, (wrangler?) to do the
actual posing.
For nice images, works great for people and
fabulous for
horses is to wait for the sun to drop behind
the row of
trees, or the barn or the hill, and shoot in
the late
afternoon twilight, the soft light will rim
light the horse
very lovely.
Otherwise, just shoot in the sun with flash
enough to give
you at least f/11 with iso 100 film at a
distance you will
need to be to show the whole horse with a
slightly long
lens. use a tripod for sharpness,
especially if you do the
late afternoon thing.
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:02:40 -0800
From: zeitgeist
Subject: Key/fill slave flash for weddings
and other shoots.
One thing that will distinguish wedding
images of a top pro
from all the hacks and newbie college
students hustling
weddings out there are images that look a
significant level
better. I mean, how else are you going to
justify your fees
if the work doesn't perceive to be any
better than what
Uncle Harry could/should/ougtta do. In the
'60s and on up
into the '80s it was fairly required to know
what you are
doing to get decent exposures and focus out
of the average
camera.
One thing that will take simple wedding
formals up a big
notch is using a second light slaved to the
camera. This
does several way cool things.
Directional light give great sense of
dimention, figures and
faces become more defined, the colors glow,
the image seems
to have more depth, the people pop out
almost in 3-d
relief. don't forget, the paper is flat and
we need to
create the impression of round dimentional
things with
visual clues like the highlight and
shadowing that reveals
shape.
You get much more detail, the lace and
pearls of the dress
stand out, even plain simple ball gowns will
reveal more
cloth like texture.
The subjects faces don't get that wet shinny
greasy look
around the eyes, the spectrals will be on
the side edge, not
right in the middle where the flat parts of
the eye and
forehead is.
Oh, and you'll look really cool doing it
to.
another thing you can do is stash a flash in
the corner of
the reception site and bounce it off the
ceiling to raise
the ambient level of light so the candids
will have a
background that is not black.
during the reception when using the slave
for a key light, I
will leave it where there is a built in
modeling light,
often the dj has some effects lights, or
there is a video
guy with lights, I will place it near his it
is my modeling
light.
reception stuff pretty much requires a non
visual slave or
the hundreds of other camera flashes will
drain your
batteries.
The simpleist way to slave is to use a
visual slave. then
you have infrared slaves and radio syncs.
As you can
imagine, the price escalates with each
step.
visual slaves cost for $20 to $50 or so, (I
don't know,
haven't priced them in a while)
most of the good ones are designed for HH
(household blade
connections) and their reliability varies,
especially in
bright conditions and in large rooms like
churches and
resception halls. The other main drawback
is that they will
fire when anyone shoots a flash picture,
though, depending
on the equipement you have, it is possible
to make this an
advantage too.
infrared slaves cost about $150 or so, and
need a
transmitter to send the signal to the slave
receiver. These
are supposed to be more reliable but suffer
from large hall
problems. They are not however triggered by
everyone else's
flashes.
radio slaves started out as rewired garage
door openers,
literally, and are now digital smart devices
and cost from
$400 on up. Some models will let you
trigger any or all of
four other flash heads. do you want a
backlight or a kick
to the veil, do you want to left light or
right side light
the couple? I don't know anyone who does
that, but I do
know several who do stash a head behind the
couple to
highlight the veil and turn it on or off
when needed. These
units have a high degree of reliability, and
the newer
digital ones are avoiding some of the
interference problems
triggering the flash. Even with my early
model lindahl with
only a or b settings, I never had problems
except at the
hotel where the pro association meetings
were and I was the
official photographer, <G> seriously, talk
about
embarrassing... what is cool is the flash
doesn't have to
see the transmitter or the on camera flash,
you can stash
it, hide the flash behind a column, or even
leave it outside
the church and flash light the stained glass
window.
Oh, yeah, you will also need a second flash
unit, and a
stand to put it on.
I set my exposure to the key slave and my on
camera flash
one stop less, if i can, I will choose an
f/stop that would
be one stop down from the ambient light.
This will
highlight the subjects, making them the
brightest in the
image, but give me full detail in the entire
scene. No
ghosts in a coal mine. IMages that have
significant depth
and dimention and will look much better than
the flash on
camera stuff the average amatuer and wedding
hack uses.
BTW, I do not use softboxes, or other
modifiers, I find that
just having the addition of the key light so
much of an
improvement that a relatively minor step up
of a softbox or
brollie is not that much more and not worth
the effort of
manuevering a light stand that is top heavy
and prone to
sailing away in any draft or breeze. That
may sound
surprizing since I usually advocate scrims
the size of a
sailboat spinaker, maybe I'm just over
compensating.
monte Zucker discusses this much more, with
other cool
imbellishments at his site, www.zuga.net
This message,
like most of mine is echoed to the
z-prophoto mailing list
at onelist.com