"glamour" photography, and some of the issues involved

Abby:

Microdrives are not fragile - have used one for over a year.

Microdrives are not expensive anymore - the 340 mb is around $195
and the l gig version is around $350. This is the least expensive
storage that I know of.

Microdrives, especially the new ones, are very reliable - I have taken
thousands of pictures and not had one problem of any kind.

I love my microdrive - it really changes how you take digital pictures.

Also have enjoyed this thread and am very interested in taking
some glamour photos. Would welcome any suggestions, comments or offers.
Please send to my email address: [email protected]

Thanks.

Ed

Abby Winters said:

Frank C. Brants said:

Abby, you should definitely upgrade to a 1 Gig IBM Microdrive. So
if the model is doing well, you're not forced to stop & unload your
card.

Click to expand...

Never really been an issue. I just make sure I have a blank 128Mb
card before I start shooting a sequence that might go on for a bit.
I shoot at 1440 x 960, so I can get around 180 images on a 128mb
card.

Microdrives are fragile, expensive, and not as reliable, so they
are not the answer for me.

Abby Winters said:

BTW, I do like the looks of your site.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

Abby
http://www.abbywinters.com
(images may offend some)

Click to expand...

Abby,

I shoot a similar style as you, except I use two 550EX's triggered by an ST-E2, bounced off of umbrellas. While the recycle time is not as fast as a studio strobe, I often find that this setup usually provides too much light. I also find that my technique provide less of a "soft and sexy" effect and more of a "damn, I'm in a bright room" effect.

I have been using the ratio control available in the ST-E2, but often find that as soon as the model changes angle slightly, I have to change either ratios or postion of the light stands. This lag usually produces an unwanted "re-warmup time" for the model that I can't avoid, as I usually do not shoot with an assistant.

I am also interested in exactly how you set up hotlights in say, a "model on couch" scene:
Are all lights at 100%, or can you vary their output?

During a shoot, do you move the lights around depending on what the model is doing, or do you just set them down in fixed place and shoot away?
Could you describe your usual positioning of the lights, relative to the camera?
Do you bounce them off umbrellas, or aim them directly?
Do you shoot in P mode, or do you just meter and shoot manual?

Paul, I am also very interested in your work. I would also like to do your style of shooting, but I am afraid I lack many things... like the equipment, technique, experience.. just minor things.

Could you recommend a minimum lighting setup that you would be willing (re: able) to shoot with? Also, how much space does all of this equipment take up? Do you use an assistant to help set it up?

If anyone is willing to photograph the actual setup of your next shoot and share, I would love to learn more.

JoeyW

I'll take a shot at a couple of these.

1) If you're shooting with external strobes, then you have to meter and shoot manual. No ttl/e-ttl etc. (Or bracket in using the on-camera review function.)

2) External strobes usually have much more power than hand-held units, so they can be placed further away, so that light fall-off is more gradual, and as such minor changes in position don't require constant re-adjustment of the lights.

Shooting with 550ex's, on the other hand, usually means that the lights have to be closer to the model, so that fall-off is sharper, which means that a move of 6" one way or the other by the model can result in blown highlights or no highlights.

3) In regard to umbrella's, bounce, etc., it really goes to the effect you're looking for, hard dramatic light, soft romantic light, subject isolated, environmental, etc. You really need a good lighting book to see samples of this, like "Lighting for Glamour" by Steve Bavister.

4) Same goes for hot lights. You might want to check out a book like "Placing Shadows, Lighting Techniques for Video Production" in this area.

Hope some of this helps.

Hi Joey

JoeyW said:

I shoot a similar style as you, except I use two 550EX's triggered
by an ST-E2, bounced off of umbrellas. While the recycle time is
not as fast as a studio strobe, I often find that this setup
usually provides too much light. I also find that my technique
provide less of a "soft and sexy" effect and more of a "damn, I'm
in a bright room" effect.

Click to expand...

Got a URL for sample images, Joey?

To much light huh? Well, using 550's, you can stop them down, or use f32 on your cam.

JoeyW said:

I have been using the ratio control available in the ST-E2, but
often find that as soon as the model changes angle slightly, I have
to change either ratios or postion of the light stands. This lag
usually produces an unwanted "re-warmup time" for the model that I
can't avoid, as I usually do not shoot with an assistant.

Click to expand...

right. As someone else suggested, may be cos the lights are too close to the model.

JoeyW said:

Are all lights at 100%, or can you vary their output?

Click to expand...

yup, all at full (in a GPO). Dimming incandescant lights significantly changes their colour temperature (to cooler), which creates white balance problems. I use colour correction to move their colour temerature from tungsten (kinda yellow-ish) to daylight with a gel (Lee 201). The gels look blue to the naked eye, but are pretty well matched to daylight (not to be confused with direct sunlight, of course).

I also add some Lee 291, diffusion. The lights are pointing directly at the model. To get the fall off I want (which ends up looking like a ratio), I often have the ligts quite close to the model - 600mm (trwo feet), especially for closeups.

At other times, lights might be three to five feet from the model. I generally move the light between standing up, and sitting down, vertically.

With regards to positioning, best thing would be for me to include a pic. It includes a nude body, does that make it unsuitable for this forum?

JoeyW said:

Do you bounce them off umbrellas, or aim them directly?

Click to expand...

bouncing these lights off brollies would severely reduce their output, which is already too low for comfort. So i use them direct, with the colour correction (which reduces output by half a stop or so), and the diffusion (about 1.5 stops).

JoeyW said:

Do you shoot in P mode, or do you just meter and shoot manual?

Click to expand...

P mode, usually, sometimes Av.

Abby
http://www.abbywinters.com
(images may offend some)

Michael said:

Shooting with 550ex's, on the other hand, usually means that the
lights have to be closer to the model, so that fall-off is sharper,
which means that a move of 6" one way or the other by the model can
result in blown highlights or no highlights.

Click to expand...

I have definitely noticed this. Wouldn't this be taken into account by the ETTL though?

Michael Long said:

3) In regard to umbrella's, bounce, etc., it really goes to the
effect you're looking for, hard dramatic light, soft romantic
light, subject isolated, environmental, etc. You really need a good
lighting book to see samples of this, like "Lighting for Glamour"
by Steve Bavister.

Click to expand...

I have David Kimber's book, "Lighting for Glamour Photography". He spends most of his time with outdoor shots, but it has plenty of examples of indoor stuff. Very early 90's stuff though.

I am actually sastisfied with my indoor shots when I have time to set everything up and shoot multiple exposures of the same shot (see my reply to Abby in the next message for an example). What I am trying to get at is basically closer to "glamour" in what is really high frame count sequenced porn.

Thanks for your input!

Abby Winters said:

Got a URL for sample images, Joey?

Click to expand...

]]] Warning: image links are of an unclothed model [[[

http://www.kavagroup.com/d30test/example1.jpg
http://www.kavagroup.com/d30test/example2.jpg

Abby Winters said:

To much light huh? Well, using 550's, you can stop them down, or
use f32 on your cam.

Abby Winters said:

I have been using the ratio control available in the ST-E2, but
often find that as soon as the model changes angle slightly, I have
to change either ratios or postion of the light stands. This lag
usually produces an unwanted "re-warmup time" for the model that I
can't avoid, as I usually do not shoot with an assistant.

Click to expand...

right. As someone else suggested, may be cos the lights are too
close to the model.

Click to expand...

In "example2.jpg", the light stands are each about 5 feet away from the subject. Now that I look at it again, I think perhaps it's not too much light, but bad placement. The lights were placed 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right, in relation to looking straight onto the couch. Perhaps I think there is "too much light" because there are no real highlights and no real shadows?

Abby Winters said:

With regards to positioning, best thing would be for me to include
a pic. It includes a nude body, does that make it unsuitable for
this forum?

Click to expand...

I believe the concensus is that links are ok.

What I'm trying to get at is something closer to "example1" that doesn't require a 4 second exposure. I guess with other lights you can add warming filters to the light... Is there such a thing for the 550's? Maybe bounce off of a gold umbrella?

Joey

Hello

The issue about softboxes

Do You use them or umbrellas?

Is it worth spending money in softboxes if You have umbrellas?

Roine

Michael said:

You're right it's not, or at least, not always. Sometimes you want
selective focus, sometimes you don't.

As Paul indicates, softboxes eat a lot of light, especially large
ones.

But, umbrellas eat a lot less and can light a room easily. SB's
can--not always--give more light control, but blasting 3 32k w/s
packs into softboxes sounds like the entire room's lit like it's
high-noon.

Heck, you can always bounce a bare bulb or reflector off a wall or
ceiling, sort of like a super 550ex set to bounce. (Just
watch for color casts.)

Standing a model between two 7" octadomes may ensure every critical
detail is lit, but you know what? It's boring. No shape, no
defining shadows, no mood. Natural light doesn't look like that.

At any rate, my primary point was that with modern digital cameras,
with isos set to 100, or 200, a pair of thousand w/s lights can
give MORE than enough light. And as such can be backed down to
allow faster recycle times.

Click to expand...

A strobe bounced into an umbrella will give a very broad, semi-direct, bright light.

A softbox is also a broad light source, yet has a much more diffuse light.

Think of light leaving the strobe, bouncing off an umbrella, and directly hitting the subject vs. leaving the strobe, hitting the side of the box, deflecting through a difuser, hitting the other side, and finally going through the front diffuser to the subject.

The path of the later absorbs more energy, but also causes the light to bounce around and hit the subject from more directions, hence what appears to be "softer" light.

In either the closer the light, the broader the source. The further the light, the more it becomes a point source, and as such, harder.

You can get roughly the same effect with both. The main reason most pro's use softboxes and not umbrellas lies in spill control. Light's going to hit the umbrella and go everywhere. A softbox helps elminate spill to the sides.

Also some people don't like the "donut hole" effect an umbrella will give to the eyes when the light's bounced back around the strobe.

There are other choices too. People see the big softboxes and want to buy them, but many striking photos are done using reflectors, pans, snoots, and other light shaping tools.

hmm...a thread on how to be a pornographer...ok

chase said:

hmm...a thread on how to be a pornographer...ok

Click to expand...

Yes....and you just resurrected it after it had finally and thankfully gone away. And now I'm helping.....oh well. K.

the wizard (pocket wizard) can fire as many strobes as you want just keep adding recievers to your strobes

all pocket wizard models are compatible to each other even the new ones

and the latest model is a transciever so it can be either a sender or reciever

check out http://www.mamiya.com for more info

since mamiya is the exclusive importer to the united states

also since they also import sekonic meters they also made the new meters accept this tranciever chip so u can trigger your strobes with the meter as a sender and the wizard as a reciever hooked up to your strobes real cool
these wizards

http://www.bhphotovideo.com

Michael said:

And actually, you need the kit and a short adapter cable that fits
your strobes (e.g. PW to 1/4" Mono Plug).

Michael Long said:

How many monolights does the pocket wizard plus kit support? Will
that one kit fire off 4 monolights?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

there is nothing wrong with that style of photography

hey people still have relations with one another and people still like to drool over photographs of nice women

also people like to look at expensive restuarant menus without ordering because its expensive

i find it healthy to look at those pics and to shoot them

i find it unhealthy if someone finds them disgusting

of course the pics should be done with class like these gentelman have shot them

not to mention a totally selfish reason to like them many of these "glamour " photographers are my customers and of course the equiptment i sell is bread and butter companies like us

koo22 said:

chase said:

hmm...a thread on how to be a pornographer...ok

Click to expand...

Yes....and you just resurrected it after it had finally and
thankfully gone away. And now I'm helping.....oh well. K.

Click to expand...

Hi, Abby, I am currently shooting F11 and want to increase my total light output in order to shoot F16 or better. The main reason is when the model is lying down, I want her feet and her face not to mention all in between ALL in focus. thus smallest aperture possible. Ken

Abby Winters said:

Paul Pope said:

Michael Long said:

Also in regard to monolights, if you get a lighting system with
enough power (500/750/1000 real w/s), you can drop it down to
quarter-power or so and be able to shoot f/8 or f/16 easily almost
as fast as you can press the shutter.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi Paul

er, why is f16 anecessity? for the DOF? Surely you don't need that
much... and anyway, shoots are different (in my experience).
Sometimes you want shallow DOF, other times you want lots.

confused

Abby
http://www.abbywinters.com
(content may offend some)

Click to expand...

You think these were done with class? A site that's entitled "a nudie-girly site" with a difference? Hmm, that's more interesting than the content of your post. I guess you also are one of those people who likes to read Playboy "for the articles"? What I don't understand is why you guys can't just admit you look at this stuff purely for titillation. K.

jk said:

hey people still have relations with one another and people still
like to drool over photographs of nice women

also people like to look at expensive restuarant menus without
ordering because its expensive

i find it healthy to look at those pics and to shoot them

i find it unhealthy if someone finds them disgusting

of course the pics should be done with class like these gentelman
have shot them

not to mention a totally selfish reason to like them many of these
"glamour " photographers are my customers and of course the
equiptment i sell is bread and butter companies like us

koo22 said:

chase said:

hmm...a thread on how to be a pornographer...ok

Click to expand...

Yes....and you just resurrected it after it had finally and
thankfully gone away. And now I'm helping.....oh well. K.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I guess you also are one of those

koo22 said:

people who likes to read Playboy "for the articles"? What I don't
understand is why you guys can't just admit you look at this stuff
purely for titillation. K.

Click to expand...

And the bigger the better!!!

What articles in Playboy???, Karen.

Never read past Miss November, 19 years old ............ drool"!!!!! )))

Kudos to you for admitting it! You have my respect....these other dolts do not. K.

P.S. I don't think there's anything "wrong" with this type of photography. Just keep it where it belongs....something that guys like to look at and do in private....human nature, instinctive and all that. Please don't try to quantify it with "done with class", or "tasteful", etc. That's insulting to the rest of us (women anyway). It is what it is, and for one purpose only. Behind closed doors, whatever floats your boat. But I don't want to see it here.

Ger Bee said:

Ger Bee said:

people who likes to read Playboy "for the articles"? What I don't
understand is why you guys can't just admit you look at this stuff
purely for titillation. K.

Click to expand...

And the bigger the better!!!

What articles in Playboy???, Karen.

Never read past Miss November, 19 years old ............
drool"!!!!! )))

Click to expand...

where do I start ??

The only thing missing is the model's wage, I have the lights, studio, camera (all kinds, even one with a bellow).

how do you go about site hosting and membership paiement ?

Gaetan J.

Karen,

First, this is an interesting thread with relevence to photography, as long as it is discussed intelligently but not too seriously. I don't mind seeing it "resurrected", as long as the relevance and restraint are there.

As long as men are men and women are jealous -- I mean women -- (sorry, just an attempt at humor), most women just won't understand the "porn thing". Men's brains are just hardwired different. I actually like Desmond Morris' suggestion that much of the different attitudes about sexuality that comes, in a general way, from the two sexes has alot to do with reproduction. A man is physically able to reproduce every hour. (I won't get into it, just think on it if you have to.) After "reproducing", his job is finished. He's in no physical danger, has no vulnerabilities. He can move on and do it again. A woman, on the other hand, requires up to nine months to fully reproduce just once. She's physically more vulnerable and, until modern medical science, even risked death to do so. After countless generations, is it any wonder the two minds are different?!

There are lots of differences, however, between Playboy, for example, and Hustler. Yes, they are both "titilating". But one does have a bit more class and taste. To say there's no difference is like saying all war movies are the same, and that "Platoon" and "Missing in Action, Part VIII" are really just the same thing. Or, more related, that Victoria's Secret and Frederick's of Hollywood are the same. I know plenty of women that would happily wear Victoria's but not step a foot in Frederick's. Same stuff, though, right? No.. one really does have a little more class. And men should be allowed to have that distinction without women being "insulted". There's nothing "dirty" about Playboy. It has nudity, and some people are, for whatever reasons, put off by the human form without clothing. But the girls in Playboy are generally attractive, clean-cut looking girls. Hustler girls look like prostitutes in a bad neighborhood.

I once photographed a girl who was developing a portfolio for her modeling career. Her goal, she said, was to finally make it in Playboy. She was a nice girl, but it was obvious from her poses that she had probably looked at alot more Hustler magazines that Playboy. They just don't do that stuff at Hefner's pad... it's just not very tasteful.

M

koo22 said:

Ger Bee said:

koo22 said:

people who likes to read Playboy "for the articles"? What I don't
understand is why you guys can't just admit you look at this stuff
purely for titillation. K.

Click to expand...

And the bigger the better!!!

What articles in Playboy???, Karen.

Never read past Miss November, 19 years old ............
drool"!!!!! )))

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

koo22 said:

You think these were done with class? A site that's entitled "a
nudie-girly site" with a difference? Hmm, that's more interesting
than the content of your post. I guess you also are one of those
people who likes to read Playboy "for the articles"? What I don't
understand is why you guys can't just admit you look at this stuff
purely for titillation. K.

Click to expand...

Koo,

I couldn't help but wonder:

Do you think that a site such as the one under discussion can claim a "step-up" in class, over other "nudie-girly' sites which are often nothing more than "crotch-101"anatomy courses? (or to have " a difference"?)

Have you ever read a Playboy article? (some of them are VERY good) (and yes, I look at the photos, too, whenever I come across the magazine, which is seldom.)

Do you believe there is any thing to be appreciated in the nude female body OTHER-THAN a "titillation-quotient"? (or male, for that matter)

If "Yes.", then do you think there are males capable of such appreciation?

If "No." to either of the last 2 questions, you are missing-out on 1 or 2 counts.

Since you " don't want to see it here", and assuming no one is forcing your "click"-hand, ...should we assume that you are talking "blind" about something you have not seen? Or that you HAVE "seen it", indicating that for whatever reason, ... you DID "want to see it here".

I am not looking to participate in a flame war/personal attack string, and won't re-engage on this topic.

And my mood is not hostile. But I think these questions might be fairly asked of you, even though my itent is for them to be rhetorical.

My attention was captured by the stereotyping of the "guys" who "can't admit" to looking at such photos "purely" for titillation.

I'm not knocking titillation(are you?) , ...just want to point-out that there are many "guys' with deeper appreciation for a broader range of things than you seem to attribute to YOUR representative male.

I also find it interesting that you have posted 3 times (I think it is,) on this thread.

So far.

Is it the opportunity to chuckle disdainfully at the simplistic, comical(and usually quite young) "male animal" who "only wants ONE thing!" that draws you?

FWIW, Both my partner (female) and myself are quite capable of looking at a nude female, saying "great looking girl", "nice figure" , etc. (or even "Yummy!") with no salivating or mutual groping whatever. ("Not", as Seinfeld would say, "that there's anything wrong with THAT!")

And we both read a lot.

Larry

Hiya

Michael Long said:

At any rate, my primary point was that with modern digital cameras,
with isos set to 100, or 200, a pair of thousand w/s lights can
give MORE than enough light. And as such can be backed down to
allow faster recycle times.

Click to expand...

Ha... and so I thought... until I bought three Visatec heads (two 1500w/s, and one 600w/s). They have an infinately variable (well, between full and 1/16th) knob on them... but the thing is, they KNOW how much power they need to fire at a given setting, and only recharge to that each time. So recycle time is pretty similar (tho a little different) if you fire at full, or half, or 1/16th.

It'd make sense to me if it kepts the caps full charged all the time, and just take what it needs (so, if you shoot at 1/16th, you should be able to shoot at 8 fps with no problem, all day (ignoring overheat issues for now).

However, i guess Bron did not think so. I am yet to use my new lighting gear in a proper shoot yet, but they certainly seem powerful enough!

---abbywww.abbywinters.com(images may offend some)