petert531 Posted September 21, 2006 Share #1 Posted September 21, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Another Russian. Still trying to perfect this shot. Pretty close. Most people think the makeup is too heavy for the look. Cropped with very little touch up. This is likely to be my last post for a while. Since I refuse to use anything less than a FF 35 I am not using a Leica for my studio work. I may be able to post if I get an adapter and use some of my R lenses. I can only IMPLORE Leica to build a FF 35 R10, digital only camera and get it on the market in 1 year. Film is no longer used by pros, or anyone else no point in a hybrid solution. I switched to digi because the camera paid for itself in 4 months of film cost-take 1000 frames a week and see how expensive that is. Why no DMR, although I bought a used R8 for that purpose? Back ordered forever when I needed it and not competitively priced and not FF to get shallow DOF. I have to be fiscally responsible at a point. I love Leica lenses, I have 4 bodies and bag of lenses. So here's hoping the M8 is everything we want it to be and an R10 will follow soon behind. Peter Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/5739-valeryia/?do=findComment&comment=55496'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 Hi petert531, Take a look here Valeryia. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
albertwang Posted September 21, 2006 Share #2 Posted September 21, 2006 Wonderful pic with side lighting... One question, where do you manage to find so many Russian models? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petert531 Posted September 21, 2006 Author Share #3 Posted September 21, 2006 Toronto is just about the most cosmopoliton city in the world. It's hard NOT to find them. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted September 21, 2006 Share #4 Posted September 21, 2006 peter - like on previous post.... as a NORMAL studio portrait it is very good, even exelent. but u still dont make a creative step etc. again - it is good to make your collection larger, it is good for a model. but not for a photographer (creative photographer). there is also no emotional depth in the portrait which is common to "normal" studio work of course. about the full frame and selective focus... r u serious..... sometimes im wondering - how many of people who talk about full frame are proffessionals or artists??? have u ever eard about full frame rollei camera, about full frame hasselblad... or another camera that proffesionals in fashion use - mamiya???? have u ever heard about such things????? do they have any complaints???? look into the newest medium format proffesional system - the sinar m camera - everything from the biggining... new body, new digi back, new lenses.... no body talks about full frame. personally, i have never been bothered about it as well. u want selective focus... this selective focus argument... buy the summilux 75mm, or i think it supposed to be 80 on r camera of leica. comon - u will not need more than that. if u do - use large format camera - u will do amazing things with it if u want and can. and not that true.... proffesionals still work with film. there are application and requirments sometimes that digital is not even concidered (even the best digi backs - not canon or dmr), and not only in 9x12 format, in 6x6 too. :-))))))))))) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petert531 Posted September 21, 2006 Author Share #5 Posted September 21, 2006 I may agree on the creative aspects, but for now I am keeping it simple getting the basic craft down. I own two 'blads myself with seveal lenses and film back. I DREAM of 6x6 with Shallow DOF. I have never shot larger, so I can't comment. I like vertical orientation as I shoot mostly people, hence 6X6. I cannot afford even the lowest end of digi backs for this camera at around 10K. It's a studio only camera, no matter what anybody says. Film is OK, as long as nobody wants it 'now please', which is how it is here in North America. Film is used by 'art' photogs shooting trees and birds, not newspaper guys or fashion guys here. It's old too quickly. I hung on to film way past too long. I have a fridge full of 120 and 135, I use it for personal work (i.e vacation and family snaps) as my M's are so much fun to use. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted September 21, 2006 Share #6 Posted September 21, 2006 man.. dont take me wrong.... i myslef planing to complete the rollei (most likely) with digi back (waiting for there news and future plans - suppose after fotokina it will be more clear). ya... some ask digi cause u need fast - that true. i already felt it, and very recently, it happened one time that i had a really crazy day where digi back would make it far eassier with times and tide shedule. but still, for so many stuff - the first question u here is 4x5, 4x5, only 4x5. oh - film, any way film 6x6 or 6x7.... part of what u say - is simply aggressive marketing, very agressive and very intelegent. see how the digi back companies still fight with the film... read between the lines of their ads. u will see... they know exactly that fashion and some other applications guys are not newspaper guys - it is far tougher to play in that ground. only recently (very recently) u hear some releif in "between the lines ads" when the digi backs reached performance that sutisfy many uses very well. pay attention... every digio back maker has a movie on their sites - called "leaf back in action, phase one back in action, imacon in action".... what is it???? think abiut it - they have alot of work to do in those fields.... canon and nikon already made it in their fields - that is true. but their field is very different :-)))))))) recomendation... for hasselblad - there is a unique lens - called - rodenstok imagon 120 or 150 mm. look into it if u look for something unique and unsual :-))))))))))) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petert531 Posted September 21, 2006 Author Share #7 Posted September 21, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) No worries! Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuny Posted September 21, 2006 Share #8 Posted September 21, 2006 Peter - I like how the shadows on the left are both soft and hard as they bend around the face, neck and shoulder. In my experience, any large North American city has no shortage of lovely Russian immigrant women. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted September 22, 2006 Share #9 Posted September 22, 2006 I think you need to sort out something with the hand. Either work out a way to show it or dont. As it is the hand is just a lumpy chest and the whole shot is compromised. Am not real keen on the lighting, nor the creased neck pose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petert531 Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share #10 Posted September 22, 2006 Thanks for the tips on posing, always my weak point. How would you have lit it? Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted September 22, 2006 Share #11 Posted September 22, 2006 I figure the model you have is beauty in perfection, so the shot just isnt going to work with the same lighting you would use on wizened character or lifetimes experience etched into their face. I think those are easier portraits because the character overrides a lot of the photographers sins. With what you have in this model, you have to be prefect, and also look for something more. You are also in a controlled environment. So the image production is your responsibilty, and within your influence, not hit and miss, and not dependent on timing of some event you witness. I would be googling some of the Man Ray stuff, but I like the way he treats his models pose, the lighting and backrounds. Actually you often see him not use a light background unless he is painting it dramatically with the models shadows. In that way, what often first appears quite simple is beguilingly complex You are right though, I dont know your end use for the image. If you want stark clarity for a mail order bride catalogue why be artistic? My thought though on this one is that you would need to sort the pose out, it might only mean moving her inches one way or the other. Pay attention to details of the model herself, because there is too much astray with this as it stands, and the lighting picks it up and worse, emphasises it. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petert531 Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share #12 Posted September 22, 2006 I guess I was asking...what light modifier(s) An would you use since you didn't like the lighting and where would you place it? I am trying to perfect this and find it needs some kind of tweak but I just can't figure it out. I know a fair amount about this so you can be quite specific. Here is another beauty shot taken earlier with what I call over and under lighting, with some back light. and a pretty (I hate to say) over the top glam (due to makeup) with a dish/gird combo. ANd lastly an alternate view of scene 1. I feel you may be right about the separation from the background, but I lit it this way because it softens it up for me, which is definitely what I am going for. Peter Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/5739-valeryia/?do=findComment&comment=55692'>More sharing options...
albertwang Posted September 22, 2006 Share #13 Posted September 22, 2006 Such stunning beauty! I think that it's remarkable that you can share those with us! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerhardt Isringhaus Posted September 22, 2006 Share #14 Posted September 22, 2006 Peter, She's a beauty and you shot it well. Could be a Leica, or whatever camera. The lighting was designed for the ultimate impact, well done. I see why you chose the Leica lenses. Best, Gerhardt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted September 22, 2006 Share #15 Posted September 22, 2006 peter - the second portrait now gets really good (i mean in the second post here). u have visual tension, still gentel and romatic but provoking some additional attention. the head tilt with the body and then with the frame makes it. about modifiers - well - try to use the so called "beauty dish".. i dont know what manufactureer u use but elinchrom and multiblitz have it. if u use elinchrom newer softboxes u will have additional control - they are amazing - called rotalux. the big one can be used even as single sourse - i love the simplicity sometimes in lighting compo. i higky recomend u to start playing with the main light sourse and watch what impact it gives u... watch with naked eye - then through the hassy finder - preferable the weist level finder. when u spot on... then add the second light to make the balance. remember - it goes with RATIO between the light sources. if u get the beauty dish u will see how rewarding it will be. other option is to use a small softbox - up to 70x70 and see how u get it there . then add the biger softbox or umbrella for balance - depend on what u want. and remember RATIO. it is not diificut. u can also use the polaroids - it is used alot for examination even if u r very efficent light builder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chriisi Posted September 22, 2006 Share #16 Posted September 22, 2006 for me, in all of the four photos there is too less light in the eyes.. if you got the opportunity shooting in studio, with good lighting, it would be the first thing i would have a look.. greetings Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petert531 Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share #17 Posted September 22, 2006 The 'Glam' shot was taken with my friend's Profoto Dish. I have an Elinchrom, but it's not even close. I would switch to Profoto to get this dish alone if I thought I could afford it. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuny Posted September 23, 2006 Share #18 Posted September 23, 2006 Peter - Reading Rob's comment and then going back to the original photo I must agree regarding the hand and the neck creases. Beyond that, it works for me. Regarding the subsequent photos, I find the first to be beautiful. I may be influenced by her face appearing the most beautiful of all and that she clearly has the body type I prefer, but I think the pose and lighting work well. The second seems too bright on the face, and therefore a bit too obviously artificial, giving a harsher air to her. Interestingly, it is very suggestive (just below her arm) even though it isn’t at all revealing. The third is quite nice, also suggestive because of the strap, but I’m not so sure about the hands/arm position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petert531 Posted September 23, 2006 Author Share #19 Posted September 23, 2006 Thanks for all everyone. Work like this is truly a craft and looking at it is all about looking for tweaks. It takes hours to set up, it is not a lucky grab. For people not doing it, it seems like it should all be about just moving slightly this and that. You are in the studio, you have all the controls etc. Not quite. In my experience you have just a few minutes, up to 15 to get it done. THen you lose the magic. For me anyway, it's a whole lot less scientific and clinical than it may appear. That's why people shoot like mad when doing this. A slight this or that is the difference between a decent, good and great picture. YOu see something magical through the viewfinder and press. Look at the display and it's not there, missed it by a milli second. THis isnt just my experience I have talked to local pros and they agree this happens! It's why, as I stated at the top of this thread I was forced to go digital. I took 400 frames of Valeryia that evening. There are few pix that are truly bad but only 30 I would call good and maybe 5 I would call pretty good. It's not spray and pray either, just the realization that it is like this, that people will focus on the minor issues that if it were a street photo nobody would care. I can only encourage the readers of this forum to look into this type of work (it doesnt have to be fashion). You will come away with an understanding of lighting (and it's qualities, not all light is the same, not even close) and composition that will astound you. You will look into the eyes of the subject of a photo to see how it was lit. You will be amazed by minor nuances. Then you have to forget all that and try and get emotions from your subject. Try it and you will see how hard this really is and gain an appreciation of the masters like sieff and roversi. And if you choose the right subject, it doesn't seem like work at all :-) Thanks for looking Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uulrich Posted September 23, 2006 Share #20 Posted September 23, 2006 Hi Peter; IMO there's too little space left at the top; cropping is too tight. Now that your models are all beauties this apparently makes the picture; other wise ask yourself; no beaty, would it be a good picture? ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.