Photographer Irene Rudnyk has published a new video demonstrating how she captured portraits in her backyard using a garden shed and natural light. The process was fairly simple, involving a backdrop, large circular reflector, and two-step ladder, the total cost of which was minimal, camera gear aside.
The portraits were captured using a Mamiya 645 camera with a Mamiya 80mm F1.9 lens and Portra 400 film, as well as on digital using a Canon 5D Mark III with a Canon 85mm F1.2 lens. Two of the portraits captured during the photoshoot are available on Rudnyk's Instagram account. Rudnyk's other work can be found on 500px.
As an old film shooter, I appreciate the beautiful soft dynamic range of film. I love the fact that she was able to capture the light so well. Natural light is great for portrait work. Kudos to her sister for being such a great model.
proof is in the pudding. Nicely done with great results. I love the way you controlled the shoot, and your "awareness" of choosing different angles (i.e. using/not using the step ladder)
I gotta say I'm totally impressed! I think the color rendition from the Canon looks better than the Mamiya, which is probably the processing more than the camrea / film. Nice work!!
I remember, years ago, a photographer who took head shots of budding actors in the Hollywood area using a garage. OK it’s not new, but so what? She’s reinvented the idea with a garden shed, a beautiful model, designed a cool dress and produced some stunning photos. Bet there’s a ton of younger photographers who really enjoyed it. The cynics on here need to chill and stop trying to score points. Life doesn’t have to be a competition all the time.
Very nice pictures. A "garden" shed presumes a presentable garden or fancy horticultural ambitions. Might others obtain similar results with a backyard shed that accords with ordinary Hillbilly means? Such sheds feature a door with crescent moon. The occupants are, even if coarse, a bit shy. Most who pose aren't very pretty. But why let that bar it from becoming a whole genre of privy photography! After all, very human.
The light is only one, and it comes from the Sun, which is natural. Clouds, walls, the materials in the ground, the atmosphere.. everything else (that doesn't produce light "by itself") are modifiers. They can diffuse, reflect or both. Some of them could be considered natural, others were certainly made by mankind. If they were saying "natural light and natural modifiers" you could argue they are wrong. But it's not the case. You can use dozens of reflectors, mirrors and diffusers in a set, as long as the only source is the sunlight, it can still be considered natural light.
Ah... this takes me back to the days when I converted my lounge room into a studio and shot with the old Bronica EC-TL, a single studio strobe and brolly, a reflector, an optical slave and off-camera electronic flash mounted on a home-made wooden stand. Those session were such fun and produced some of my best work in the 1980s.
Well, this was really a welcome experience to share. And you have to look at Irene Rudyk's results. They are exciting, and become more so as the session develops.
This is real awareness and creativity.
Can I use an old word, 'crummy'? That's in the nature of the unpleasant comments. Just crummy. I have no idea why those making would have any 'professional' inclination to speak so, and from the enthusiasm for reverting replies, it seems most of us on DPReview would appreciate having an end to all such so. Thank you.
Well, and sister Orysia is truly elegant, takes you back to an older world, and the more you watch what is developing here.
That all this take place in a garden shed is great, and opens the mind for other approaches.
By the way, seems it's easy to have understood the examples from studio lighting: they were clipped for the visualization of controlling side gobos. Yes, there could also be a _back_ side light showing, if indeed it was anything important.
A thoroughly enjoyable video. I remember doing this kind of guerilla shooting when I was younger. It really goes to show that it's more about the vision and creativity of the photographer, along with the ability to effectively communicate with, and direct, your model, and not so much about the gear.
I didn't see this as an anti-studio lighting video, but rather one that shows that it's possible to create equally compelling images by simply using your imagination and creativity. Well done, and a service to the community.
I like Irene's enthusiasm for her photography as well as the results. She's also very good posing and working with models. Artistically and from a DIY's perspective she is also very creative and I hope her business continues to grow. Just on the technical side, this is an "Open Shade" lighting setup. The results come because the entire sky becomes a large and therefore somewhat diffuse light source. (You want to avoid any sun directly hitting your subject when you use this technique.) This creates the soft, wrapping effect of the light on her subject. Unless you were able to bounce light off a very, very large ceiling of a white studio, it would be difficult to recreate this look indoors. The black cards she mentioned in the video do produce negative fill (similar to the inside of a shed) but that is not the cause of the beautiful soft light on her subject.
Actually - I take that back: a very large softbox placed close and above the model in a studio can get you close though you'll probably want to fill the shadows with a reflector similar to what Irene did in the video. Good job!
A college-level class about light and lighting (and the interaction of color) would be extremely useful, especially if you carry a serious camera, suck as an MF, or a 5D series.
it's never the lighting..its always the model....by the way she cannot shoot in studio lights and she has not understood what artificial lighting means
I stopped watching this video when she claimed that the lighting yielded by placing a subject in her shed was the same as two examples of studio lighting illustrated in the video. Those studio examples she used are nearly diametrically opposed set-ups to hers. She couldn't have picked worse examples. This leads me to believe that she herself does not really understand much about lighting. Those examples were dominated by side-lighting on both sides, even though they were also partially somewhat front-lit. Her shed lighting is all soft front-lighting with the shed walls creating shadows on the subject's sides, rather than highlights. Finally, I doubt she understands the multiple color issues created by the different reflective surfaces of non-neutral color which will light her subjects. In short, she doesn't appear to know much about lighting, except to accidentally create something pleasant looking for a video, in order to get that elusive 15 minutes of fame or notoriety.
I could guess that the confusion with the side lighting comes that She is literally using a "barn doors" to open the light "in", and hence the idea that side-lighting from both sides is same effect as having those doors opening on both sides.
It's too bad that you stopped watching the video, as this young lady has an innate understanding of how to create a beautiful image, and to do so by using what's available.
David Franklin, I will agree with you as soon as I see some sample or your own master pieces. Irene is a great photographer that gives a lot to the photographer's community. She has no need for "15 minutes of fame or notoriety". She has, already, fame and notoriety and she gives hundreds of hours of great tutorials. She is a great photographer and a great person.
Not so long time ago, to be called "Great photographer" you really needed to work for it a lot. Now you just do a few youtube videos with the few guides that most photography basic lighting books tells in the first lessons and you are "Great photographer".
And what does it even matter is someone a "great person"? Like that a some kind step in a ladder to be a "Great photographer"?
And what are anyone here demanding others work, like it would evaluate them to be able to give opinions of others? Are you a Hollywood producer with a few nominations of movies you have done for Oscars or do you avoid giving any kind opinions to anyone about the movies, TV-shows etc that you watch or have seen? Have you been president or at least prime minister in your country, or do you not simply never vote?
Although I believe that this is certainly not actually necessary for someone to accept that my opinion is worthy to be expressed on this forum, you may view some small part of my work (probably not as much of my people work as I should have displayed) at my website: https://www.davidfranklinphoto.com . Some of the product pictures there have required as many as 15 or 20 light sources, some just one or used just natural light. I have been a pro photographer for about 40 years, have won numerous local, national and international awards for my work, shot for some of the biggest ad agencies and corporations in the world, shot at least (I stopped counting) 40 or 50 magazine covers, etc.
David, those are some gorgeous images, and you obviously have an excellent understanding of photographic lighting techniques (among other things), however, I think you missed the point of the video. It was a simple little video showing that it's possible to produce beautiful portraits without lots of extra lighting equipment.
My basic problem with your post was the tone of your reply. I look to this forum for helpful and thoughtful inspiration, and even though I've been a photographer for more years than I care to admit, and have shot many portrait sessions in a similar manner to that shown in this video, I can still appreciate the wonderfully creative approach shown by this young lady. Very inspiring indeed.
Whether or not you had valid points, there are much nicer and more helpful ways to get them across. I'd like think that, as a community, we are here to learn from, and support each other, and hopefully, make some friends along the way.
Problem is not that. But how people will praise to the heavens when someone does something very basic. It is like a parents and their kid, who is doing something simple and everyone should be praising the kid no matter what is done.
We can learn, we can get support etc. But praising something that is ABC in the photography lighting techniques is not something that should be done so.
Sure for a beginner such a simple thing can be magical, but that is not about the teaching but just ignorance from the receiving end.
What can be said is that it is nice that there is some people who does the tutorials from basics, but then again if that is done with errors, it is then less impressive.
And yet then people does in DPR the common personal attacks by starting to demand "Show your work" (that should be left unchallenged as it is fallacy and ad hominem).
Derek, after reading your last reply and thinking it over, yes, perhaps my tone was a bit too judgmental. I am sure that Ms. Rudnyk is a fine photographer, as far as her skill set goes. All decent photographers should learn to use natural available light. My reaction came when seeing so early in the video that she was misleading when comparing her natural lighting to studio set-ups which were obviously very different, not only in kind, but in effect. I was trying to point out her error, lest someone who doesn't understand the differences might think they could create the effects they saw in the video with studio lights, as was illustrated in the video. If she had omitted this comparison, I would have not judged her so harshly. Her one picture of her sister that I did see was indeed very pretty, if not in itself remarkable, and a good illustration of how to use open sky lighting with a simple reflector for people. So, I apologize for my harshness, but not for my reaction.
Interesting, but backwards lens hood in the way so she has to stick her pinky finger out? gosh it takes 2 seconds to flip the hood in the correct position, lets you hold the lens comfortably, and you get more contrast/ no flare and if you bump or drop lens then the hood protects it. guess its' my pet peeve. One assistant I was shooting with didn't even realize the hood could be reversed in the correct position, lol.
Well, partially true. If you drop the lens, especially onto the ground from that distance, I don't think the lens hood is going to help much. Additionally, depending on where the light source/sun is in relation to the model or camera position (ie. behind her for example, the hood may or may not help in that regard but to the side, which is how some people light their subjects then it would be beneficial).
Of course, I generally use the lens hood whenever shooting--even out cloudy days or even at night--for obvious reasons if my light source is near the front of the lens, but at least to protect it against bumps and stuff).
Yes it is a pet peeve of mine too, but if they aren't going to use it, at least take the thing off. What bothers me more is that on the cheaper camera kits and lenses, they don't come with a hood, and in some cases, you have to buy an aftermarket one, which can be problematic as they are designed to that specific lens.
Her excellent results speaks for itself. Regarding lens hoods- they always improve protection of lens and they always improve contrast even when sun is not hitting the lens!
Hey! Me too, it drives me nuts every time I go someplace there are tourists with really nice lenses happily shooting away with the hood on backwards. I want to have little cards printed up in all the languages politely telling them if they would only turn the hood around their pictures would come out so much better. But I’m an American and so I would never. We’re polite that way.
If you find anything in this video, perhaps have a peek at Julia Trotti ....... interesting both ladies shun flash and stick to simply daylight and 85 f1.4 , 35 f1.4 lenses on simple camera bodies. Their success seems to be in interaction and honing their craft . Watching them work and their images makes me think about the difference between guys photographing women and these ladies !
LOL, when I watched it, I thought to myself she talks like a guy. Phrases like yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah., YES!, YES! that's better! No don't do that, Yes this is better. total in articulate cliche phrases, not sure how anyone comes away with that kind of interaction being anything more than average. Besides it's her sister, they could of been in total silence and still have a good repertoire, its not like its' a stranger you need to set at ease.
@photoboothguru: Because it's Irenes's sister and she has photographed her for years, she doesn't have to give her many posing instructions. Suprisingly Irene also photographs non-relative people and mostly models (which know how to pose). There is also a small hint in the video where she mentions her (digital) moodboard which also helps the model.
I also mean the style of the images, soft simple light , quite feminine clothing . Yes sometimes alluring and provocative but in perhaps a more feminine way. Quite a change from the beauty dish and lip gloss.
there is no difference between how they work and how guys work IMHO . if i posted a transcript of her verbal communication with a model and another transcript of a male photog , my guess is 80% of the people would guess based on the transcript she was a guy talking. seriously. i am clueless as to why one woudl consider her verbal directions any better than other photographers. other youtube videos show same type of communication. give credit to great portraits, but lets not give credit where it is not due.
Really?? You’re criticizing her for being “in articulate” ? Give us a break! What does this have to do with her results??!! Say something useful or say nothing!
obviously you did not read all the comments. someone said she was better than 50% of the population : "Watching them work and their images makes me think about the difference between guys photographing women and these ladies !" and obviously that was BS that needed correcting.
No, the ENTIRE point of the video is cloudy or not has little impact when you're effectively shooting in shadow. That's the theme: example shoot in a shed, the inside which is only being lit by reflected light from outside. You do the same under a bridge, under trees, in a doorway, or... of by holding a translucent eflector overhead.
Lovely shots. 80mm 2.8 on 645 looks like 50mm 1.7 on 35mm is that about right? Explains why her nose looks a bit more flattering on the 85mm DSLR lens, and the DoF is about the same with the 50mm at 1.8 on DSLR too. Interesting to compare, I think the grading of both film/digital could easily be matched more if one wanted to.
I've been an on location photographer (that's the market I choose) for a long time and I can appreciate working with what you're given and I think for those who think it takes three speedlites, two assistants a reflector and a fog machine, no it doesn't. What it takes is creativity, imagination and knowledge. If you work as on location photographer you work with what you have and she makes that point with her results and results are what matters. She also has a bunch of images on her site for which you don't know if she's using other equipment and has very nice results. And as for this "How about for once showing you have more than 1 flash, 1 reflector, 1 cheap camera, etc.", she's using a Canon 5D Mark iii lol! Maybe check out her images using the hyperlink in the post as she's more than capable.
Lovely heart warming sisters. Love for photography! Great results. Nice doing film too. Portra 400 shines with some warmer sun; but it just got cloudy.
Which of these things does not go with the other? It was a fine, cool video and photo shoot. Good points about lighting. But it seems like if we're going to save with the shed then shouldn't we be saving on the camera/lens? Slight odd combo; but no wrong or anything. If the point was the results then no problem whatsoever.
So budget plus expensive didn't mix. I would like to see the shed thing with a (relatively) inexpensive 20+Mpx APS-C DSLR and 50mm f/1.8 portraits. Plus, vintage SLR with 35mm Portra 400; but still 85mm lens, maybe manual focus. The "amateur" film size. For a budget digi, film, shed shoot.
Oh and photography circles really needs to start giving guys a chance. These pro women are so good; that you'd think they would care about the mooks. :)
good result but very tacky choice of venue, i would be out of business shooting under those conditions. I strive for subject experience not photographer experience.
I strive for results, customer satisfaction. I've had so many clients who recommended places for their photos, not having any understanding of lighting and all that comes with portraiture, In the end it's the result.
Reading down I like all the " this is for beginners " please DPR is this what we are down to etc. Can we perhaps have a new rule on DPR , to make a disparaging comment about someone's photography first exhibit in the gallery or linked something better ! So many nasty experts hiding behind anonymity, but I am not seeing the mastery in the forums !
I am trying to learn even after decades of doing it for a living, the moment you cant see something or learn from even simple things your dead! Look again at the choice of fabrics and how the lens , aperture and soft light make the oof areas dreamy and blend. Not my area of work but there is a lovely blend there to see.
No, we need more of these dumb comments for the entertainment of this community! There are some ignorant and blind portrait photographers here when it comes to the quality of their own photography genre. They are like people with a fork in a world of soup.
So, get the subject under a some cover to block the overhead light to create more directional light coming in from the side. Great advice. Monte Zucker, as well as others taught this some 20, 30, 40 years ago. But I guess if its new to you...
Is there a reason to use so fast shutter speeds for portraits, if not using base ISO? Because if you can saturate base ISO, why add noise unless liking the noise those Canon sensors will easily produce? One more artistic reason to choose a Canon.
Reflector is an artificial item. It could change the reflected sunlight, so technically it is not 100% natural light then?
She was using the Canon to meter for her 400ASA film camera - and she wanted to shoot as wide open as possible to get shallow DOF in the final image. Hence the high shutter speeds. You'd want a fairly high shutter speed on the 120 film camera to ensure there was no loss of IQ due to shutter shock and mirror slap. The shutters and mirrors in those things are HUGE - you can hear it when it goes off.
@Chris with steady hands you can hand hold many MF cameras at 1/60th some can even pull off at 1/15th. @Fotoni, reflectors are everywhere, grass, concrete, colored walls, ceilings, etc... it's good to be aware of what is reflecting the light and it pays to be aware of what is reflecting!
I, too, was wondering about those shutter speeds. I thought that there couldn't be THAT much ambient light, and her sister is professional who can hold very still. I just stepped outside with a 2.0 lens and 1/2000 shutter speed on a bright sunny day. I would need to push those shadows in post.
So, I really think it was to extract maximum sharpness given how wide open and quickly she was shooting. I'd be interested to know how much she had to push these in post, but it's not like you can argue with the results.
It's a pretty old idea, which was popularized years ago for shooting headshots in the open door of a garage. I can't find the link now, but a successful LA headshot photographer had a nice video on this. I've used the idea a few times when I needed a quick headshot.
I've seen many portrait headshots done inside a garage with the doors open on a sunny day, and whilst the light is, in most cases, quite good, there is one thing that always gets me to stop trying to use this technique... The catch light!
The catch light in the subject is, from every image I've examined, SO BAD. With some subjects you can actually make out the details of the garage and what's in front of the house!
His name is Kevyn Major Howard, he played Pvt Rafterman (a combat photographer) in Full Metal Jacket.
Discovery Channel Show called the Human Face. Excerpts showing why Kevyn Major Howard is sought after as a headshot photographer, they call him "The King of the Hollywood Headshot". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZJA7xcwbLg
yes, and he made quite an entrance in the biz of casting and 8x10 for that purpose. The focal that he used (and made his work unique) was 200mm @2.8 or 180mm @2.8 (on nikon 35mm film) . That was his signature.
The Olympus OM-D E-M10 IV is the company's entry-level DSLR-shaped mirrorless camera. While it has a higher resolution sensor and new processor, its biggest focus is on selfies.
The Sony a7S III is a 12MP full-frame camera primarily designed with video in mind. We take a look beyond the specs to see what it offers to filmmakers.
The Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III is our favorite Micro Four Thirds camera for stills shooters to date. It jam-packs plenty of cool/useful features into a small, tough-built package that's a pleasure to shoot with and thus, has earned our silver award.
Although image stabilization technology has come a long way, there are few things you can do to improve your low-light or telephoto images more than using a tripod. In this roundup we take a look at four travel tripods and pick our favorite.
ON1 joins the ecosystem game with ON1 360, a subscription service and mobile app for iOS and Android that syncs the photos you choose between devices and ON1 Photo RAW on the desktop. Here are our first impressions using it.
Long-zoom compacts fill the gap between pocketable cameras and interchangeable lens models with expensive lenses, offering a great combination of lens reach and portability. Read on to learn about our favorite enthusiast long zoom cameras.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry-level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera for under $2000? These capable cameras costing less than $2000 should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $2000 and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.
We've updated our 'best cameras over $2000' buying guide, and the Sony a7R IV is now our favorite mirrorless camera in the $2000-4000 price range. It sits alongside the Nikon D850, which is our choice for those who prefer DSLRs.
According to BleepingComputer, ransomware group Maze is behind the attack. Maze says more than '10TB of data, private databases, etc,' were taken in the attack.
It's been eight years since Fujifilm released its XF 35mm F1.4 R lens, but that's not stopping the company from releasing a new promotional video for the popular prime.
We've been busy shooting with Sony's premier sports and action camera in a wide variety of scenarios: those with fast-moving subjects and some much slower. Have a look.
The system will track an image from creation to distribution and beyond, but whether it becomes a new standard will depend on the wider industry's participation.
In addition to new CPUs, more RAM capacity and better storage options, the new iMac also has an option to upgrade to a nano-textured glass display like that found on Apple's Pro Display XDR.
The Olympus 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS is a light and compact telephoto zoom for the Micro Four Thirds system. It gets the same weather sealing as Olympus's Pro lenses, but does it stand up optically? We put it to the test to find out.
Our team from DPReview TV took the new Olympus 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 to the Calgary zoo for a day of telephoto shooting. View our sample gallery to see how the images look.
The Olympus OM-D E-M10 IV is the company's entry-level DSLR-shaped mirrorless camera. While it has a higher resolution sensor and new processor, its biggest focus is on selfies.
Olympus's new M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5-6.3 IS has arrived and it adds a versatile piece of kit to the brand's vast arsenal of lenses. We've just started shooting with it and already we're impressed with the sharpness throughout the zoom range.
Olympus has announced the OM-D E-M10 IV, a compact Micro Four Thirds camera that adds a 20MP sensor, a flip-down touchscreen, improved autofocus and USB charging to an already capable camera.
Olympus is expanding its lens offerings to include a new tele-zoom: the M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS. With an equivalent reach of 800mm it offers three stops of stabilization along with a dust- and splash-proof design.
Tamron has announced the development of what it claims is the 'smallest and lightest' telephoto zoom for Sony E-mount: the 70-300mm F4.5-6.3 Di III RXD. This 544g (19.2oz) full-frame lens is expected to ship this fall.
Nikon has announced a special trade-in offer for its Z5 full-frame mirrorless camera. All you need to do is trade-in any working camera toward the purchase of a Nikon Z5. In addition to the trade-in value of your camera, Nikon is offering a $100 bonus from now until September 27, 2020.
Following issues over the weekend, Canon has confirmed its image and video hosting platform, image.canon, suffered a problem that's resulted in the loss of an unknown amount of users' original photo and video files.
Canon's EOS R5 and R6 video capabilities have been overshadowed by discussion of overheating concerns. We conducted a series of tests to see how serious the problem is.
We're getting acquainted with the D6, Nikon's newest pro flagship DSLR. Take a look at some of our early sample images, including a number from the AF-S Nikkor 120-300mm F2.8.
Shooting on film doesn't mean you have to entirely eschew the benefits of more modern technology. MetaLog makes it easy to keep track of settings, locations and more for every film photo you capture.
The EOS R5 is Canon's flagship mirrorless camera, and there's a lot to like. We put it to the test for both stills and video and also address the overheating issues you may have heard about.
Much of the early attention surrounding the Canon EOS R5 focused on video specs, but it's a mean photo machine as well. Check out this new gallery from DPReview TV, complete with Raw images.
Following a week of rumors over whether or not Canon's shipments of EOS R5 units were delayed, Canon U.S.A has come out to confirm the 'first set' of EOS R5 units shipped this week.
With the resurgence of interest in film photography, premium compacts are fetching high asking prices on the secondhand market. This begs the question, are these (mostly) fantastic plastic pocket cams worth the asking price?
Canon's Q2 financial results show a net profit, but a small one. Net sales and operating profit for its imaging division was down 30.8% and 93.9%, year-over-year, respectively.
Comments