Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best D-SLR for Portraits

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
December 21, 2004 1:21:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am currently trying to decide on a Digital SLR camera. I plan on doing
mostly protrait work, with the occasional shots of my kids in their after
school sports and other family type pics. Please recommend what you think
is best and tell me why!! I prefer something in the 6Mp or higher range for
larger prints in the 11x14 and larger range

More about : slr portraits

Anonymous
December 21, 2004 1:21:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott" <sst5817@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0gIxd.5537$RH4.3961@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I am currently trying to decide on a Digital SLR camera. I plan on doing
>mostly protrait work, with the occasional shots of my kids in their after
>school sports and other family type pics. Please recommend what you think
>is best and tell me why!! I prefer something in the 6Mp or higher range
>for larger prints in the 11x14 and larger range

The Canon 20D is worth looking at. Why? It's an affordable yet fairly
serious DSLR with a nice history (the 10D) and easy access to a wealth of
lenses and other accessories.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 1:21:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There are a lot of studio's that use the Fuji s2 pro. It gets little
press because it sits in between the high end journalist cameras and the
lower end prosumer ones.

It gets used alot because it generates really nice images. It works
with folks Nikon kits, and the overall speed and quality of the sensor
is quite nice.

This is being replaced by the s3, that for all reports is going to have
a smokin sensor for portrait photography, with lots of dynamic range in
the images.

I have the s2 and I get really nice 12x18 images as well.


Scott wrote:
> I am currently trying to decide on a Digital SLR camera. I plan on doing
> mostly protrait work, with the occasional shots of my kids in their after
> school sports and other family type pics. Please recommend what you think
> is best and tell me why!! I prefer something in the 6Mp or higher range for
> larger prints in the 11x14 and larger range
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 1:24:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott" <sst5817@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:0gIxd.5537$RH4.3961@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> I am currently trying to decide on a Digital SLR camera. I plan on
> doing mostly protrait work, with the occasional shots of my kids in
> their after school sports and other family type pics. Please
> recommend what you think is best and tell me why!! I prefer something
> in the 6Mp or higher range for larger prints in the 11x14 and larger
> range

Any DSLR is good good for portraits. The lens, lightning
and general technique etc are more important than the actual
camera.


/Roland
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 1:24:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95C5EE30CB38Eklotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "Scott" <sst5817@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:0gIxd.5537$RH4.3961@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > I am currently trying to decide on a Digital SLR camera. I plan on
> > doing mostly protrait work, with the occasional shots of my kids in
> > their after school sports and other family type pics. Please
> > recommend what you think is best and tell me why!! I prefer something
> > in the 6Mp or higher range for larger prints in the 11x14 and larger
> > range
>
> Any DSLR is good good for portraits. The lens, lightning
> and general technique etc are more important than the actual
> camera.
>
>
> /Roland

If you plan to print at 11x14 and LARGER for portraits, then you need to
know that you're looking at some pretty high-end alternatives, like the
Canon D1s Mark II (16MP) or the latest Nikon pro body.

On the other hand, if you're less picky about resolution, you can certainly
use Canon's 8MP D20 and assume viewing distances won't be too close with the
final print.

If you stretch a 6MP image (for example) to be 11 inches at the shorter
measurement side, then you'd only be printing at 185dpi--quite a bit lower
than standard. The 8MP D20 will only do marginally better.

Obviously, the best alternative available will be the Canon 1Ds Mark II, but
then you're talking about $7K+ without any lenses.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 1:24:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Oops. The following was meant for Scott...not Roland.

>
> If you plan to print at 11x14 and LARGER for portraits, then you need to
> know that you're looking at some pretty high-end alternatives, like the
> Canon D1s Mark II (16MP) or the latest Nikon pro body.
>
> On the other hand, if you're less picky about resolution, you can
certainly
> use Canon's 8MP D20 and assume viewing distances won't be too close with
the
> final print.
>
> If you stretch a 6MP image (for example) to be 11 inches at the shorter
> measurement side, then you'd only be printing at 185dpi--quite a bit lower
> than standard. The 8MP D20 will only do marginally better.
>
> Obviously, the best alternative available will be the Canon 1Ds Mark II,
but
> then you're talking about $7K+ without any lenses.
>
>
>
>
December 21, 2004 1:24:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

And, even though I'm a long-time Nikon owner, isn't the model the Canon
EOS-1 Ds Mark II? Nice camera...if only they'd put the anti-shake in the
body like Konica/Minolta it'd be perfect (except for price).

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:eLIxd.60771$ka2.18626@fed1read04...
>
> Oops. The following was meant for Scott...not Roland.
>
> >
> > If you plan to print at 11x14 and LARGER for portraits, then you need to
> > know that you're looking at some pretty high-end alternatives, like the
> > Canon D1s Mark II (16MP) or the latest Nikon pro body.
> >
> > On the other hand, if you're less picky about resolution, you can
> certainly
> > use Canon's 8MP D20 and assume viewing distances won't be too close with
> the
> > final print.
> >
> > If you stretch a 6MP image (for example) to be 11 inches at the shorter
> > measurement side, then you'd only be printing at 185dpi--quite a bit
lower
> > than standard. The 8MP D20 will only do marginally better.
> >
> > Obviously, the best alternative available will be the Canon 1Ds Mark II,
> but
> > then you're talking about $7K+ without any lenses.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 2:06:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> writes:

> And, even though I'm a long-time Nikon owner, isn't the model the Canon
> EOS-1 Ds Mark II? Nice camera...if only they'd put the anti-shake in the
> body like Konica/Minolta it'd be perfect (except for price).

For portraits why would you need anti-shake in the body or IS/VR in the lens?
I would assume most portrait sessions are done with the camera firmly in the
tripod. Even the photographer is hand holding, flash/strobe is usually used,
so the shutter speed is the flash sync speed. Unless you are shooting your
subject with a 300mm lens (extreme bad breath perhaps), camera shake should not
be a problem.

Granted there are many uses of AS/IS/VR, but typically portraiture would not
come to my mind.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 2:06:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael Meissner" <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote in message
news:m3oego8fdj.fsf@tiktok.the-meissners.org...
> "George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> writes:
>
>> And, even though I'm a long-time Nikon owner, isn't the model the Canon
>> EOS-1 Ds Mark II? Nice camera...if only they'd put the anti-shake in the
>> body like Konica/Minolta it'd be perfect (except for price).
>
> For portraits why would you need anti-shake in the body or IS/VR in the
> lens?
> I would assume most portrait sessions are done with the camera firmly in
> the
> tripod. Even the photographer is hand holding, flash/strobe is usually
> used,
> so the shutter speed is the flash sync speed. Unless you are shooting
> your
> subject with a 300mm lens (extreme bad breath perhaps), camera shake
> should not
> be a problem.
>
> Granted there are many uses of AS/IS/VR, but typically portraiture would
> not
> come to my mind.
>
> --
> Michael Meissner
> email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
> http://www.the-meissners.org

I used to shoot with photofloods, which give off much less light than
strobes, and I found a tripod to be to constricting, and an obstruction in
the small space I use for a studio. In fact, my wife still shoots with the
floods pretty consistently, and I do occasionally. And IS has been
invaluable in that situation.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 2:24:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott" <sst5817@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:0gIxd.5537$RH4.3961@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> I am currently trying to decide on a Digital SLR camera. I plan on
> doing mostly protrait work, with the occasional shots of my kids in
> their after school sports and other family type pics. Please
> recommend what you think is best and tell me why!! I prefer something
> in the 6Mp or higher range for larger prints in the 11x14 and larger
> range
>

OK - you have three main alternatives

1. Any 6 Mp APS size sensor cameras. All are
of nearly equal quality. Lots to choose from.
It is a little low for 11x14 and up, but for
softer portraits that is OK. Reasonable priced.
Pentax, Minolta, Canon, Nikon. And maybe even
Oly E1 at 5 Mpixels, but this is only 4/3 format.

2. A full 35 mm sensor camera with more Mpixels
costing lots of money, e.g. 1Ds or Kodaks
pro thingies. The Nikon D2X (also costing lots
of kilobucks) is only APS, but has 12 Mpixels.

3. A compromise - 20D at 8 Mpixels and APS size.
Costs - not very much and not very little. Or
maybe the Olympus E300 at 8 Mpixels. No one out
yet - so we don't know the quality. Only 4/3
format also.

So - I am personally not a pro portrait photographer,
but I assume that alt. 1 is good for almost all purposes.


/Roland
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 2:24:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> writes:

> "Scott" <sst5817@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:0gIxd.5537$RH4.3961@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > I am currently trying to decide on a Digital SLR camera. I plan on
> > doing mostly protrait work, with the occasional shots of my kids in
> > their after school sports and other family type pics. Please
> > recommend what you think is best and tell me why!! I prefer something
> > in the 6Mp or higher range for larger prints in the 11x14 and larger
> > range
> >
>
> OK - you have three main alternatives
>
> 1. Any 6 Mp APS size sensor cameras. All are
> of nearly equal quality. Lots to choose from.
> It is a little low for 11x14 and up, but for
> softer portraits that is OK. Reasonable priced.
> Pentax, Minolta, Canon, Nikon. And maybe even
> Oly E1 at 5 Mpixels, but this is only 4/3 format.

Note, the E1 and E300/EVOLT have a 4:3 aspect ratio rather than 3:2 that most
of the other DSLR cameras use. For 11x14 prints, this means you would need to
cut off few bits to crop it to an 14:11 aspect ratio (ditto for 16x20 prints).

> 2. A full 35 mm sensor camera with more Mpixels
> costing lots of money, e.g. 1Ds or Kodaks
> pro thingies. The Nikon D2X (also costing lots
> of kilobucks) is only APS, but has 12 Mpixels.
>
> 3. A compromise - 20D at 8 Mpixels and APS size.
> Costs - not very much and not very little. Or
> maybe the Olympus E300 at 8 Mpixels. No one out
> yet - so we don't know the quality. Only 4/3
> format also.

E300/EVOLT is evidently now in the stores, and people are posting the usual
comparison pictures with it.

> So - I am personally not a pro portrait photographer,
> but I assume that alt. 1 is good for almost all purposes.

Bear in mind that lighting might cost more than the camera itself. I would
imagine to get a really good setup, you are looking at least $2k in terms of
lighting equipment. You can certainly start at a lower level than that
(probably at least $600, for a single Alien Bee setup with reflectors, flash
meter, background stands, and muslins).

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 2:36:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott" <sst5817@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0gIxd.5537$RH4.3961@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I am currently trying to decide on a Digital SLR camera. I plan on doing
>mostly protrait work, with the occasional shots of my kids in their after
>school sports and other family type pics. Please recommend what you think
>is best and tell me why!! I prefer something in the 6Mp or higher range
>for larger prints in the 11x14 and larger range
>

I use the 20d in my studio and love it.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 3:00:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

here you go if you want "best" 16 MP

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=detai...

not quite 10Gs of course you still need the camera body and lenses

Wayne


"Fitpix" <David@delawarestudioNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:7mJxd.4944$vb7.1704@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
>
> "Scott" <sst5817@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:0gIxd.5537$RH4.3961@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>I am currently trying to decide on a Digital SLR camera. I plan on doing
>>mostly protrait work, with the occasional shots of my kids in their after
>>school sports and other family type pics. Please recommend what you think
>>is best and tell me why!! I prefer something in the 6Mp or higher range
>>for larger prints in the 11x14 and larger range
>>
>
> I use the 20d in my studio and love it.
>
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 12:43:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 21/12/04 6:18 am, in article EePxd.3987$JI.3166@fed1read07, "Skip M"
<shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> I used to shoot with photofloods, which give off much less light than
> strobes, and I found a tripod to be to constricting, and an obstruction in
> the small space I use for a studio. In fact, my wife still shoots with the
> floods pretty consistently, and I do occasionally. And IS has been
> invaluable in that situation.

One advantage in using photofloods is the models tend to hold a pose better.
It's natural to relax once a flash has gone off, but with a continuous light
source that doesn't seem to happen as much.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 12:43:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
news:BDEDA089.EF1D%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
> On 21/12/04 6:18 am, in article EePxd.3987$JI.3166@fed1read07, "Skip M"
> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> I used to shoot with photofloods, which give off much less light than
>> strobes, and I found a tripod to be to constricting, and an obstruction
>> in
>> the small space I use for a studio. In fact, my wife still shoots with
>> the
>> floods pretty consistently, and I do occasionally. And IS has been
>> invaluable in that situation.
>
> One advantage in using photofloods is the models tend to hold a pose
> better.
> It's natural to relax once a flash has gone off, but with a continuous
> light
> source that doesn't seem to happen as much.
>
Also, what you see is really what you get, a modeling light on a strobe only
gives you an approximation of the lighting.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 12:48:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Or if you want studio photographer prefered DSLR for potraits .. choose
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c or n ... :) 
14mpx , ISO 6 - 1600 [ although some said ISO 400 above is junk ] & full
frame :p 

=bob=

"Scott" <sst5817@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0gIxd.5537$RH4.3961@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I am currently trying to decide on a Digital SLR camera. I plan on doing
>mostly protrait work, with the occasional shots of my kids in their after
>school sports and other family type pics. Please recommend what you think
>is best and tell me why!! I prefer something in the 6Mp or higher range
>for larger prints in the 11x14 and larger range
>
December 21, 2004 1:41:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you have any Nikon Lenses, try the D70.

The D70 with the Nikon 50MM 1.8 is excellent. Get a good flash also unless
you have studio lights. The SB800 was my choice.

g-Man


"Scott" <sst5817@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0gIxd.5537$RH4.3961@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I am currently trying to decide on a Digital SLR camera. I plan on doing
>mostly protrait work, with the occasional shots of my kids in their after
>school sports and other family type pics. Please recommend what you think
>is best and tell me why!! I prefer something in the 6Mp or higher range
>for larger prints in the 11x14 and larger range
>
December 21, 2004 4:49:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael Meissner" <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote in message
news:m3oego8fdj.fsf@tiktok.the-meissners.org...
> "George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> writes:
>
> > And, even though I'm a long-time Nikon owner, isn't the model the Canon
> > EOS-1 Ds Mark II? Nice camera...if only they'd put the anti-shake in
the
> > body like Konica/Minolta it'd be perfect (except for price).
>
> For portraits why would you need anti-shake in the body or IS/VR in the
lens?
> I would assume most portrait sessions are done with the camera firmly in
the
> tripod. Even the photographer is hand holding, flash/strobe is usually
used,
> so the shutter speed is the flash sync speed. Unless you are shooting
your
> subject with a 300mm lens (extreme bad breath perhaps), camera shake
should not
> be a problem.
>
> Granted there are many uses of AS/IS/VR, but typically portraiture would
not
> come to my mind.
>
> --
> Michael Meissner
> email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
> http://www.the-meissners.org

Two trains of thought <g>. I was responding to the poster AND stating what
would make the camera great for me as a general purpose camera. Of course,
lots of candid portraits are taken with lenses like 180 or 200mm f/2.0 or
f/2.8...there, it would be helpful. Sorry for the confusion.

George
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 8:37:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 21/12/04 5:20 pm, in article DXYxd.4023$JI.1920@fed1read07, "Skip M"
<shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
> news:BDEDA089.EF1D%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>> On 21/12/04 6:18 am, in article EePxd.3987$JI.3166@fed1read07, "Skip M"
>> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I used to shoot with photofloods, which give off much less light than
>>> strobes, and I found a tripod to be to constricting, and an obstruction
>>> in
>>> the small space I use for a studio. In fact, my wife still shoots with
>>> the
>>> floods pretty consistently, and I do occasionally. And IS has been
>>> invaluable in that situation.
>>
>> One advantage in using photofloods is the models tend to hold a pose
>> better.
>> It's natural to relax once a flash has gone off, but with a continuous
>> light
>> source that doesn't seem to happen as much.
>>
> Also, what you see is really what you get, a modeling light on a strobe only
> gives you an approximation of the lighting.

That could help at the beginning of a shoot I suppose, but is still only a
guide when you consider film or sensor latitude. Though I do get your point.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 8:37:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
news:BDEE0FE2.F004%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
> On 21/12/04 5:20 pm, in article DXYxd.4023$JI.1920@fed1read07, "Skip M"
> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>> news:BDEDA089.EF1D%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>> On 21/12/04 6:18 am, in article EePxd.3987$JI.3166@fed1read07, "Skip M"
>>> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I used to shoot with photofloods, which give off much less light than
>>>> strobes, and I found a tripod to be to constricting, and an obstruction
>>>> in
>>>> the small space I use for a studio. In fact, my wife still shoots with
>>>> the
>>>> floods pretty consistently, and I do occasionally. And IS has been
>>>> invaluable in that situation.
>>>
>>> One advantage in using photofloods is the models tend to hold a pose
>>> better.
>>> It's natural to relax once a flash has gone off, but with a continuous
>>> light
>>> source that doesn't seem to happen as much.
>>>
>> Also, what you see is really what you get, a modeling light on a strobe
>> only
>> gives you an approximation of the lighting.
>
> That could help at the beginning of a shoot I suppose, but is still only a
> guide when you consider film or sensor latitude. Though I do get your
> point.
>

More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not light
"quantity."

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
December 21, 2004 8:37:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:xrZxd.4031$JI.981@fed1read07...
> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
> news:BDEE0FE2.F004%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
> > On 21/12/04 5:20 pm, in article DXYxd.4023$JI.1920@fed1read07, "Skip M"
> > <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
> >> news:BDEDA089.EF1D%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
> >>> On 21/12/04 6:18 am, in article EePxd.3987$JI.3166@fed1read07, "Skip
M"
> >>> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I used to shoot with photofloods, which give off much less light than
> >>>> strobes, and I found a tripod to be to constricting, and an
obstruction
> >>>> in
> >>>> the small space I use for a studio. In fact, my wife still shoots
with
> >>>> the
> >>>> floods pretty consistently, and I do occasionally. And IS has been
> >>>> invaluable in that situation.
> >>>
> >>> One advantage in using photofloods is the models tend to hold a pose
> >>> better.
> >>> It's natural to relax once a flash has gone off, but with a continuous
> >>> light
> >>> source that doesn't seem to happen as much.
> >>>
> >> Also, what you see is really what you get, a modeling light on a strobe
> >> only
> >> gives you an approximation of the lighting.
> >
> > That could help at the beginning of a shoot I suppose, but is still only
a
> > guide when you consider film or sensor latitude. Though I do get your
> > point.
> >
>
> More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not light
> "quantity."
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
>

The modeling lights on my flashes are set to proportional and I think give
an
excellent approximation. I used to use photofloods a long time ago but
didn't
care for the heat, possibility of explosion of bulbs, or keeping the model
tense
(someone posted in this thread that they considered "not relaxing" between
shots as an advantage) for long periods of time. To each his own, but I
can't
imagine using hot lights of any sort again.

George
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 8:37:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in message
news:fr_xd.2938$fZ1.2125@fe03.lga...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:xrZxd.4031$JI.981@fed1read07...
>> >
>>
>> More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not light
>> "quantity."
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>>
>
> The modeling lights on my flashes are set to proportional and I think give
> an
> excellent approximation. I used to use photofloods a long time ago but
> didn't
> care for the heat, possibility of explosion of bulbs, or keeping the model
> tense
> (someone posted in this thread that they considered "not relaxing" between
> shots as an advantage) for long periods of time. To each his own, but I
> can't
> imagine using hot lights of any sort again.
>
> George
>
>
Those are pretty much the reasons I use strobes, now, but the modeling
lights aren't as strong as the flash, nor as the hotlights, if they were,
we'd be back to the problem of heat, etc.
Also, hotlights give a slightly different look, more analogous to the old
photographers, like Weston and Hurrell.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 8:37:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
>
> "George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in message
> news:fr_xd.2938$fZ1.2125@fe03.lga...
> >
> > "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:xrZxd.4031$JI.981@fed1read07...
> >> >
> >>
> >> More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not light
> >> "quantity."
> >>
> >> --
> >> Skip Middleton
> >> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The modeling lights on my flashes are set to proportional and I think give
> > an
> > excellent approximation. I used to use photofloods a long time ago but
> > didn't
> > care for the heat, possibility of explosion of bulbs, or keeping the model
> > tense
> > (someone posted in this thread that they considered "not relaxing" between
> > shots as an advantage) for long periods of time. To each his own, but I
> > can't
> > imagine using hot lights of any sort again.
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> Those are pretty much the reasons I use strobes, now, but the modeling
> lights aren't as strong as the flash, nor as the hotlights, if they were,
> we'd be back to the problem of heat, etc.

which allows the model to open her eyes...

> Also, hotlights give a slightly different look, more analogous to the old
> photographers, like Weston and Hurrell.

sweat? :) 


>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 8:37:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Crownfield" <Crownfield@cox.net> wrote in message
news:41C8C268.252F@cox.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>>
>> "George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in message
>> news:fr_xd.2938$fZ1.2125@fe03.lga...
>> >
>> > "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
>> > news:xrZxd.4031$JI.981@fed1read07...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not
>> >> light
>> >> "quantity."
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Skip Middleton
>> >> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > The modeling lights on my flashes are set to proportional and I think
>> > give
>> > an
>> > excellent approximation. I used to use photofloods a long time ago but
>> > didn't
>> > care for the heat, possibility of explosion of bulbs, or keeping the
>> > model
>> > tense
>> > (someone posted in this thread that they considered "not relaxing"
>> > between
>> > shots as an advantage) for long periods of time. To each his own, but
>> > I
>> > can't
>> > imagine using hot lights of any sort again.
>> >
>> > George
>> >
>> >
>> Those are pretty much the reasons I use strobes, now, but the modeling
>> lights aren't as strong as the flash, nor as the hotlights, if they were,
>> we'd be back to the problem of heat, etc.
>
> which allows the model to open her eyes...
>
>> Also, hotlights give a slightly different look, more analogous to the old
>> photographers, like Weston and Hurrell.
>
> sweat? :) 
>
>
>>

Maybe that's what that elusive "glow" was... ;-)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 1:51:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 21/12/04 5:54 pm, in article xrZxd.4031$JI.981@fed1read07, "Skip M"
<shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
> news:BDEE0FE2.F004%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>> On 21/12/04 5:20 pm, in article DXYxd.4023$JI.1920@fed1read07, "Skip M"
>> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>>> news:BDEDA089.EF1D%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>>> On 21/12/04 6:18 am, in article EePxd.3987$JI.3166@fed1read07, "Skip M"
>>>> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I used to shoot with photofloods, which give off much less light than
>>>>> strobes, and I found a tripod to be to constricting, and an obstruction
>>>>> in
>>>>> the small space I use for a studio. In fact, my wife still shoots with
>>>>> the
>>>>> floods pretty consistently, and I do occasionally. And IS has been
>>>>> invaluable in that situation.
>>>>
>>>> One advantage in using photofloods is the models tend to hold a pose
>>>> better.
>>>> It's natural to relax once a flash has gone off, but with a continuous
>>>> light
>>>> source that doesn't seem to happen as much.
>>>>
>>> Also, what you see is really what you get, a modeling light on a strobe
>>> only
>>> gives you an approximation of the lighting.
>>
>> That could help at the beginning of a shoot I suppose, but is still only a
>> guide when you consider film or sensor latitude. Though I do get your
>> point.
>>
>
> More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not light
> "quantity."

Then surely the same can be said for modeling lights?
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 2:02:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 21/12/04 6:56 pm, in article fr_xd.2938$fZ1.2125@fe03.lga, "George"
<nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote:

>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:xrZxd.4031$JI.981@fed1read07...
>> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>> news:BDEE0FE2.F004%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>> On 21/12/04 5:20 pm, in article DXYxd.4023$JI.1920@fed1read07, "Skip M"
>>> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:BDEDA089.EF1D%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>>>> On 21/12/04 6:18 am, in article EePxd.3987$JI.3166@fed1read07, "Skip
> M"
>>>>> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I used to shoot with photofloods, which give off much less light than
>>>>>> strobes, and I found a tripod to be to constricting, and an
> obstruction
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the small space I use for a studio. In fact, my wife still shoots
> with
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> floods pretty consistently, and I do occasionally. And IS has been
>>>>>> invaluable in that situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> One advantage in using photofloods is the models tend to hold a pose
>>>>> better.
>>>>> It's natural to relax once a flash has gone off, but with a continuous
>>>>> light
>>>>> source that doesn't seem to happen as much.
>>>>>
>>>> Also, what you see is really what you get, a modeling light on a strobe
>>>> only
>>>> gives you an approximation of the lighting.
>>>
>>> That could help at the beginning of a shoot I suppose, but is still only
> a
>>> guide when you consider film or sensor latitude. Though I do get your
>>> point.
>>>
>>
>> More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not light
>> "quantity."
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>>
>
> The modeling lights on my flashes are set to proportional and I think give
> an
> excellent approximation. I used to use photofloods a long time ago but
> didn't
> care for the heat, possibility of explosion of bulbs, or keeping the model
> tense
> (someone posted in this thread that they considered "not relaxing" between
> shots as an advantage) for long periods of time. To each his own, but I
> can't
> imagine using hot lights of any sort again.

The lights were hmi in very large studio set ups. The clients liked the
natural expressions and didn't mind paying. But that was a while ago now.

All flash today.
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 2:12:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 21/12/04 10:51 pm, in article BDEE59AC.F0D4%teflon@bluebottlefly.com,
"teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote:

> On 21/12/04 5:54 pm, in article xrZxd.4031$JI.981@fed1read07, "Skip M"
> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>> news:BDEE0FE2.F004%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>> On 21/12/04 5:20 pm, in article DXYxd.4023$JI.1920@fed1read07, "Skip M"
>>> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:BDEDA089.EF1D%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>>>> On 21/12/04 6:18 am, in article EePxd.3987$JI.3166@fed1read07, "Skip M"
>>>>> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I used to shoot with photofloods, which give off much less light than
>>>>>> strobes, and I found a tripod to be to constricting, and an obstruction
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the small space I use for a studio. In fact, my wife still shoots with
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> floods pretty consistently, and I do occasionally. And IS has been
>>>>>> invaluable in that situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> One advantage in using photofloods is the models tend to hold a pose
>>>>> better.
>>>>> It's natural to relax once a flash has gone off, but with a continuous
>>>>> light
>>>>> source that doesn't seem to happen as much.
>>>>>
>>>> Also, what you see is really what you get, a modeling light on a strobe
>>>> only
>>>> gives you an approximation of the lighting.
>>>
>>> That could help at the beginning of a shoot I suppose, but is still only a
>>> guide when you consider film or sensor latitude. Though I do get your
>>> point.
>>>
>>
>> More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not light
>> "quantity."
>
> Then surely the same can be said for modeling lights?

....all lighting is an 'approximation' when you look at it directly.
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 4:25:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 21/12/04 6:56 pm, in article fr_xd.2938$fZ1.2125@fe03.lga, "George"
<nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote:

>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:xrZxd.4031$JI.981@fed1read07...
>> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>> news:BDEE0FE2.F004%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>> On 21/12/04 5:20 pm, in article DXYxd.4023$JI.1920@fed1read07, "Skip M"
>>> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:BDEDA089.EF1D%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>>>> On 21/12/04 6:18 am, in article EePxd.3987$JI.3166@fed1read07, "Skip
> M"
>>>>> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I used to shoot with photofloods, which give off much less light than
>>>>>> strobes, and I found a tripod to be to constricting, and an
> obstruction
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the small space I use for a studio. In fact, my wife still shoots
> with
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> floods pretty consistently, and I do occasionally. And IS has been
>>>>>> invaluable in that situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> One advantage in using photofloods is the models tend to hold a pose
>>>>> better.
>>>>> It's natural to relax once a flash has gone off, but with a continuous
>>>>> light
>>>>> source that doesn't seem to happen as much.
>>>>>
>>>> Also, what you see is really what you get, a modeling light on a strobe
>>>> only
>>>> gives you an approximation of the lighting.
>>>
>>> That could help at the beginning of a shoot I suppose, but is still only
> a
>>> guide when you consider film or sensor latitude. Though I do get your
>>> point.
>>>
>>
>> More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not light
>> "quantity."
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>>
>
> The modeling lights on my flashes are set to proportional and I think give
> an
> excellent approximation. I used to use photofloods a long time ago but
> didn't
> care for the heat, possibility of explosion of bulbs, or keeping the model
> tense
> (someone posted in this thread that they considered "not relaxing" between
> shots as an advantage) for long periods of time. To each his own, but I
> can't
> imagine using hot lights of any sort again.


You've quoted me out of context it seems. When you are after a specific look
in a lifestyle shot, it does help by not having to redirect a group of
models after every couple of frames. It's time consuming getting everybody
right in the first place, so when you get them there, you want to get
several frames off. There are only small movements, but they can affect the
finished look.

Obviously this might not be as much an issue for the family portrait for
instance, but next time you do one, you might see what I mean. We are never
too old to learn. ;]
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 3:42:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> writes:

> Maybe that's a fault of my relatively inexpensive (read: cheap)
> strobes, but the modeling lights seem much more diffuse, rendering
> them pretty useless for judging harshness of shadows.

You do have to use them in conditions where the modeling lights are
the only (at least the strongly dominant) light; weak modeling lights
can be rendered unreadable by fairly low levels of ambient room
light.

And you have to learn what to look for, to some extent. A shadow edge
that's clearly there in dim modeling light may not leap out at you if
you just glance at the scene quickly.

Or maybe your strobes have lousy modeling lights; I hear there are
significant differences in quality there. I've only worked with about
three studio strobe systems in my life, and two of them are different
models from the same brand (White Lightning); the ones I've used don't
give badly misleading indications, but my experience is pretty small.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
December 22, 2004 5:29:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
> news:BDEE0FE2.F004%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>
>>On 21/12/04 5:20 pm, in article DXYxd.4023$JI.1920@fed1read07, "Skip M"
>><shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>>>news:BDEDA089.EF1D%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>>
>>>>On 21/12/04 6:18 am, in article EePxd.3987$JI.3166@fed1read07, "Skip M"
>>>><shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I used to shoot with photofloods, which give off much less light than
>>>>>strobes, and I found a tripod to be to constricting, and an obstruction
>>>>>in
>>>>>the small space I use for a studio. In fact, my wife still shoots with
>>>>>the
>>>>>floods pretty consistently, and I do occasionally. And IS has been
>>>>>invaluable in that situation.
>>>>
>>>>One advantage in using photofloods is the models tend to hold a pose
>>>>better.
>>>>It's natural to relax once a flash has gone off, but with a continuous
>>>>light
>>>>source that doesn't seem to happen as much.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Also, what you see is really what you get, a modeling light on a strobe
>>>only
>>>gives you an approximation of the lighting.
>>
>>That could help at the beginning of a shoot I suppose, but is still only a
>>guide when you consider film or sensor latitude. Though I do get your
>>point.
>>
>
>
> More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not light
> "quantity."
>

Other than the color of the light, what else would you be talking about?
Isn't the lighting of the model and the shadowing THE quality of the light?

My modeling lights on my studio lights are a different color than the
strobes and they aren't as intense. However, the light comes from
exactly the same angles as the strobe light. The point of the modeling
lights are to show you the shadowed vs. the lighted areas. I use a light
meter to determine the intensity and WB testing to know the color. That
is all I need to know about the quality of the light.

Well, that and the ability to get the right light in the right place to
make a nice picture.

Clyde
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 5:29:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde" <lughclyde@attbi.comedy> wrote in message
news:D xfyd.224816$5K2.179606@attbi_s03...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>> news:BDEE0FE2.F004%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>
>>>On 21/12/04 5:20 pm, in article DXYxd.4023$JI.1920@fed1read07, "Skip M"
>>><shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:BDEDA089.EF1D%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>>>
>>>>>On 21/12/04 6:18 am, in article EePxd.3987$JI.3166@fed1read07, "Skip M"
>>>>><shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I used to shoot with photofloods, which give off much less light than
>>>>>>strobes, and I found a tripod to be to constricting, and an
>>>>>>obstruction
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>the small space I use for a studio. In fact, my wife still shoots
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>floods pretty consistently, and I do occasionally. And IS has been
>>>>>>invaluable in that situation.
>>>>>
>>>>>One advantage in using photofloods is the models tend to hold a pose
>>>>>better.
>>>>>It's natural to relax once a flash has gone off, but with a continuous
>>>>>light
>>>>>source that doesn't seem to happen as much.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Also, what you see is really what you get, a modeling light on a strobe
>>>>only
>>>>gives you an approximation of the lighting.
>>>
>>>That could help at the beginning of a shoot I suppose, but is still only
>>>a
>>>guide when you consider film or sensor latitude. Though I do get your
>>>point.
>>>
>>
>>
>> More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not light
>> "quantity."
>>
>
> Other than the color of the light, what else would you be talking about?
> Isn't the lighting of the model and the shadowing THE quality of the
> light?
>
> My modeling lights on my studio lights are a different color than the
> strobes and they aren't as intense. However, the light comes from exactly
> the same angles as the strobe light. The point of the modeling
> lights are to show you the shadowed vs. the lighted areas. I use a light
> meter to determine the intensity and WB testing to know the color. That is
> all I need to know about the quality of the light.
>
> Well, that and the ability to get the right light in the right place to
> make a nice picture.
>
> Clyde

Maybe that's a fault of my relatively inexpensive (read: cheap) strobes, but
the modeling lights seem much more diffuse, rendering them pretty useless
for judging harshness of shadows.
BTW, I said "quantity" not "quality."

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
December 22, 2004 5:34:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in message
> news:fr_xd.2938$fZ1.2125@fe03.lga...
>
>>"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:xrZxd.4031$JI.981@fed1read07...
>>
>>>More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not light
>>>"quantity."
>>>
>>>--
>>>Skip Middleton
>>>http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The modeling lights on my flashes are set to proportional and I think give
>>an
>>excellent approximation. I used to use photofloods a long time ago but
>>didn't
>>care for the heat, possibility of explosion of bulbs, or keeping the model
>>tense
>>(someone posted in this thread that they considered "not relaxing" between
>>shots as an advantage) for long periods of time. To each his own, but I
>>can't
>>imagine using hot lights of any sort again.
>>
>>George
>>
>>
>
> Those are pretty much the reasons I use strobes, now, but the modeling
> lights aren't as strong as the flash, nor as the hotlights, if they were,
> we'd be back to the problem of heat, etc.
> Also, hotlights give a slightly different look, more analogous to the old
> photographers, like Weston and Hurrell.
>

I don't see how hotlights would give a different look because they are
hotlights. Weston and Hurrell certainly had very different lighting
effects from each other. It had to do with size, placement, and ratio of
the lights. That can be done with any type of light source. You could
copy Hurrell's lighting with strobes with no more trouble than you could
with hotlights.

Clyde
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 5:34:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde" <lughclyde@attbi.comedy> wrote in message
news:bCfyd.224837$5K2.220712@attbi_s03...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in message
>> news:fr_xd.2938$fZ1.2125@fe03.lga...
>>
>>>"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:xrZxd.4031$JI.981@fed1read07...
>>>
>>>>More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not
>>>>light
>>>>"quantity."
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Skip Middleton
>>>>http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>The modeling lights on my flashes are set to proportional and I think
>>>give
>>>an
>>>excellent approximation. I used to use photofloods a long time ago but
>>>didn't
>>>care for the heat, possibility of explosion of bulbs, or keeping the
>>>model
>>>tense
>>>(someone posted in this thread that they considered "not relaxing"
>>>between
>>>shots as an advantage) for long periods of time. To each his own, but I
>>>can't
>>>imagine using hot lights of any sort again.
>>>
>>>George
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Those are pretty much the reasons I use strobes, now, but the modeling
>> lights aren't as strong as the flash, nor as the hotlights, if they were,
>> we'd be back to the problem of heat, etc.
>> Also, hotlights give a slightly different look, more analogous to the old
>> photographers, like Weston and Hurrell.
>>
>
> I don't see how hotlights would give a different look because they are
> hotlights. Weston and Hurrell certainly had very different lighting
> effects from each other. It had to do with size, placement, and ratio of
> the lights. That can be done with any type of light source. You could copy
> Hurrell's lighting with strobes with no more trouble than you could with
> hotlights.
>
> Clyde

It's indefinable, and, yes, I don't see how, either. But there is a
difference. But I'm talking about incandescent, not quartz hot lights,
which may account for much, if not all, of the difference.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
December 22, 2004 5:38:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "Crownfield" <Crownfield@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:41C8C268.252F@cox.net...
>
>>Skip M wrote:
>>
>>>"George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in message
>>>news:fr_xd.2938$fZ1.2125@fe03.lga...
>>>
>>>>"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:xrZxd.4031$JI.981@fed1read07...
>>>>
>>>>>More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not
>>>>>light
>>>>>"quantity."
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Skip Middleton
>>>>>http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The modeling lights on my flashes are set to proportional and I think
>>>>give
>>>>an
>>>>excellent approximation. I used to use photofloods a long time ago but
>>>>didn't
>>>>care for the heat, possibility of explosion of bulbs, or keeping the
>>>>model
>>>>tense
>>>>(someone posted in this thread that they considered "not relaxing"
>>>>between
>>>>shots as an advantage) for long periods of time. To each his own, but
>>>>I
>>>>can't
>>>>imagine using hot lights of any sort again.
>>>>
>>>>George
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Those are pretty much the reasons I use strobes, now, but the modeling
>>>lights aren't as strong as the flash, nor as the hotlights, if they were,
>>>we'd be back to the problem of heat, etc.
>>
>>which allows the model to open her eyes...
>>
>>
>>>Also, hotlights give a slightly different look, more analogous to the old
>>>photographers, like Weston and Hurrell.
>>
>>sweat? :) 
>>
>>
>>
>
> Maybe that's what that elusive "glow" was... ;-)
>

In the case of Hurrell, that elusive "glow" was due to highly retouched
large format negatives. The retouching may have had something to do with
the sweat, but his artists certainly went beyond that by a fair bit.

Clyde
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 5:38:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde" <lughclyde@attbi.comedy> wrote in message
news:tFfyd.694642$mD.380771@attbi_s02...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "Crownfield" <Crownfield@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:41C8C268.252F@cox.net...
>>
>>>Skip M wrote:
>>>
>>>>"George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:fr_xd.2938$fZ1.2125@fe03.lga...
>>>>
>>>>>"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:xrZxd.4031$JI.981@fed1read07...
>>>>>
>>>>>>More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not
>>>>>>light
>>>>>>"quantity."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Skip Middleton
>>>>>>http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The modeling lights on my flashes are set to proportional and I think
>>>>>give
>>>>>an
>>>>>excellent approximation. I used to use photofloods a long time ago but
>>>>>didn't
>>>>>care for the heat, possibility of explosion of bulbs, or keeping the
>>>>>model
>>>>>tense
>>>>>(someone posted in this thread that they considered "not relaxing"
>>>>>between
>>>>>shots as an advantage) for long periods of time. To each his own, but
>>>>>I
>>>>>can't
>>>>>imagine using hot lights of any sort again.
>>>>>
>>>>>George
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Those are pretty much the reasons I use strobes, now, but the modeling
>>>>lights aren't as strong as the flash, nor as the hotlights, if they
>>>>were,
>>>>we'd be back to the problem of heat, etc.
>>>
>>>which allows the model to open her eyes...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Also, hotlights give a slightly different look, more analogous to the
>>>>old
>>>>photographers, like Weston and Hurrell.
>>>
>>>sweat? :) 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Maybe that's what that elusive "glow" was... ;-)
>>
>
> In the case of Hurrell, that elusive "glow" was due to highly retouched
> large format negatives. The retouching may have had something to do with
> the sweat, but his artists certainly went beyond that by a fair bit.
>
> Clyde

Oh, I know, I was just being facetious. Since Hurrell was using 8x10 sheet
film, it was relatively easy for him to retouch directly on the negative,
using charcoal, talc, pencil and other materials. An option lost to 35mm
and digital shooters...and a skill.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
December 23, 2004 6:47:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
>>I don't see how hotlights would give a different look because they are
>>hotlights. Weston and Hurrell certainly had very different lighting
>>effects from each other. It had to do with size, placement, and ratio of
>>the lights. That can be done with any type of light source. You could copy
>>Hurrell's lighting with strobes with no more trouble than you could with
>>hotlights.
>>
>>Clyde
>
>
> It's indefinable, and, yes, I don't see how, either. But there is a
> difference. But I'm talking about incandescent, not quartz hot lights,
> which may account for much, if not all, of the difference.
>

Oh it's definable. It had better be definable or the artist/photographer
who did it wouldn't have been able to consistently do it. Besides, most
aspects of light are pretty definable - without getting too deep into
physics. As a photographer light IS your tool, so you had better learn
how to define what light does or you won't have a handle on your craft.

That is also the point of studying the great ones who went before us.
The object isn't to just look at nice pictures. We need to look at those
pictures to figure out how they made them. We can learn about the art of
how they created them, but we also need to study the craft.

Therefore, we should be able to look at a photo by Hurrell and define
what he did. Following that, we try the same techniques and methods. I
have seen a few photographer who have done just that with Hurrell. I
have seen their modern 'Hollywood Style' portraits. They have their own
touch, but really use that same lighting and highly retouched look. I
have seen those picture done with hotlights and with strobes and I can't
tell the difference.

So, do some more study and practice until you can define it. You may
learn a lot more about lighting. You may learn that the type of light
source has much less to do with the quality than does the size,
position, and angle of the light.

Clyde
December 23, 2004 7:13:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "Clyde" <lughclyde@attbi.comedy> wrote in message
> news:D xfyd.224816$5K2.179606@attbi_s03...
>
>>Skip M wrote:
>>
>>>"teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>>>news:BDEE0FE2.F004%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 21/12/04 5:20 pm, in article DXYxd.4023$JI.1920@fed1read07, "Skip M"
>>>><shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:BDEDA089.EF1D%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 21/12/04 6:18 am, in article EePxd.3987$JI.3166@fed1read07, "Skip M"
>>>>>><shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I used to shoot with photofloods, which give off much less light than
>>>>>>>strobes, and I found a tripod to be to constricting, and an
>>>>>>>obstruction
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>the small space I use for a studio. In fact, my wife still shoots
>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>floods pretty consistently, and I do occasionally. And IS has been
>>>>>>>invaluable in that situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One advantage in using photofloods is the models tend to hold a pose
>>>>>>better.
>>>>>>It's natural to relax once a flash has gone off, but with a continuous
>>>>>>light
>>>>>>source that doesn't seem to happen as much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Also, what you see is really what you get, a modeling light on a strobe
>>>>>only
>>>>>gives you an approximation of the lighting.
>>>>
>>>>That could help at the beginning of a shoot I suppose, but is still only
>>>>a
>>>>guide when you consider film or sensor latitude. Though I do get your
>>>>point.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not light
>>>"quantity."
>>>
>>
>>Other than the color of the light, what else would you be talking about?
>>Isn't the lighting of the model and the shadowing THE quality of the
>>light?
>>
>>My modeling lights on my studio lights are a different color than the
>>strobes and they aren't as intense. However, the light comes from exactly
>>the same angles as the strobe light. The point of the modeling
>>lights are to show you the shadowed vs. the lighted areas. I use a light
>>meter to determine the intensity and WB testing to know the color. That is
>>all I need to know about the quality of the light.
>>
>>Well, that and the ability to get the right light in the right place to
>>make a nice picture.
>>
>>Clyde
>
>
> Maybe that's a fault of my relatively inexpensive (read: cheap) strobes, but
> the modeling lights seem much more diffuse, rendering them pretty useless
> for judging harshness of shadows.
> BTW, I said "quantity" not "quality."
>

Diffusion of light has to do with the size of the light. It has nothing
to do with the method of making the light. Diffusion is judged by the
hardness or softness of the shadow edge.

The reason we use softboxes or umbrellas is to get more of the light on
the subject and to increase the size of the light in relationship to the
subject. Bare bulbs send light in all directions. Most of that would do
nothing to light the subject. So, we try to efficiently aim as much of
that to the subject as possible.

To soften the edge between shadow and light, you HAVE to have light
coming from more than one angle. Any point source of light is going to
give a hard edge. It can't help it; light always travels in a straight
line. (For photographic purposes we don't have enough gravity to alter
light paths.) So, any small flash will always act as a point light source.

One way of getting light from other angles is to use more lights.
However, if they are still small lights relative to the subject, you
will just be adding more hard edges between light and shadow.

The only way to soften that edge is to have light coming from multiple
angles at once. Therefore, you have to have a light source that is big
relative to the size of the subject. That makes the light come from more
angles and diffuse or soften the edge between what is lit and what isn't.

A good example of this is the sun. On a sunny day, the shadow edges are
hard because the sun is basiclly a point source of light. On a overcast
day, the light is coming from all directions making no shadows at all.
It would be like having softboxes or umbrellas in a 180 degree dome
around the subject - it's a big light tent.

Therefore, the modelling light on your strobe HAS to be just as diffuse
and 'soft' as the strobe. The physics won't allow anything else.

I bet the reason why it looks more diffuse is because of the ambient
light. You probably aren't shooting in a complete blacked out room.
Therefore, the other light(s) in the room is pretty close or much closer
to the intensity of the modelling light. The strobe is much stronger
than the ambient light and overwhelms it. So, make sure the modelling
light is the only light(s) in the room and you will fine that the edges
are just as diffuse as they are with the strobe.

Clyde
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 12:55:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde" <lughclyde@attbi.comedy> wrote in message
news:m8Cyd.699797$mD.193161@attbi_s02...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "Clyde" <lughclyde@attbi.comedy> wrote in message
>> news:D xfyd.224816$5K2.179606@attbi_s03...
>>
>>>Skip M wrote:
>>>
>>>>"teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:BDEE0FE2.F004%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 21/12/04 5:20 pm, in article DXYxd.4023$JI.1920@fed1read07, "Skip M"
>>>>><shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:BDEDA089.EF1D%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 21/12/04 6:18 am, in article EePxd.3987$JI.3166@fed1read07, "Skip
>>>>>>>M"
>>>>>>><shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I used to shoot with photofloods, which give off much less light
>>>>>>>>than
>>>>>>>>strobes, and I found a tripod to be to constricting, and an
>>>>>>>>obstruction
>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>the small space I use for a studio. In fact, my wife still shoots
>>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>floods pretty consistently, and I do occasionally. And IS has been
>>>>>>>>invaluable in that situation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>One advantage in using photofloods is the models tend to hold a pose
>>>>>>>better.
>>>>>>>It's natural to relax once a flash has gone off, but with a
>>>>>>>continuous
>>>>>>>light
>>>>>>>source that doesn't seem to happen as much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also, what you see is really what you get, a modeling light on a
>>>>>>strobe only
>>>>>>gives you an approximation of the lighting.
>>>>>
>>>>>That could help at the beginning of a shoot I suppose, but is still
>>>>>only a
>>>>>guide when you consider film or sensor latitude. Though I do get your
>>>>>point.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>More what I meant was shadowing, and the lighting of the model, not
>>>>light "quantity."
>>>>
>>>
>>>Other than the color of the light, what else would you be talking about?
>>>Isn't the lighting of the model and the shadowing THE quality of the
>>>light?
>>>
>>>My modeling lights on my studio lights are a different color than the
>>>strobes and they aren't as intense. However, the light comes from exactly
>>>the same angles as the strobe light. The point of the modeling
>>>lights are to show you the shadowed vs. the lighted areas. I use a light
>>>meter to determine the intensity and WB testing to know the color. That
>>>is all I need to know about the quality of the light.
>>>
>>>Well, that and the ability to get the right light in the right place to
>>>make a nice picture.
>>>
>>>Clyde
>>
>>
>> Maybe that's a fault of my relatively inexpensive (read: cheap) strobes,
>> but the modeling lights seem much more diffuse, rendering them pretty
>> useless for judging harshness of shadows.
>> BTW, I said "quantity" not "quality."
>>
>
> Diffusion of light has to do with the size of the light. It has nothing to
> do with the method of making the light. Diffusion is judged by the
> hardness or softness of the shadow edge.
>
> The reason we use softboxes or umbrellas is to get more of the light on
> the subject and to increase the size of the light in relationship to the
> subject. Bare bulbs send light in all directions. Most of that would do
> nothing to light the subject. So, we try to efficiently aim as much of
> that to the subject as possible.
>
> To soften the edge between shadow and light, you HAVE to have light coming
> from more than one angle. Any point source of light is going to give a
> hard edge. It can't help it; light always travels in a straight line. (For
> photographic purposes we don't have enough gravity to alter light paths.)
> So, any small flash will always act as a point light source.
>
> One way of getting light from other angles is to use more lights. However,
> if they are still small lights relative to the subject, you will just be
> adding more hard edges between light and shadow.
>
> The only way to soften that edge is to have light coming from multiple
> angles at once. Therefore, you have to have a light source that is big
> relative to the size of the subject. That makes the light come from more
> angles and diffuse or soften the edge between what is lit and what isn't.
>
> A good example of this is the sun. On a sunny day, the shadow edges are
> hard because the sun is basiclly a point source of light. On a overcast
> day, the light is coming from all directions making no shadows at all. It
> would be like having softboxes or umbrellas in a 180 degree dome around
> the subject - it's a big light tent.
>
> Therefore, the modelling light on your strobe HAS to be just as diffuse
> and 'soft' as the strobe. The physics won't allow anything else.
>
> I bet the reason why it looks more diffuse is because of the ambient
> light. You probably aren't shooting in a complete blacked out room.
> Therefore, the other light(s) in the room is pretty close or much closer
> to the intensity of the modelling light. The strobe is much stronger than
> the ambient light and overwhelms it. So, make sure the modelling light is
> the only light(s) in the room and you will fine that the edges are just as
> diffuse as they are with the strobe.
>
> Clyde

The only ambient light may be bleed over from another room, I turn all the
lights out in the room I use for a studio. I don't want to influence the
color temp, either.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 8:56:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
>> "Scott" <sst5817@earthlink.net> wrote in

>> > I am currently trying to decide on a Digital SLR camera. I plan on
>> > doing mostly protrait work, with the occasional shots of my kids in
>> > their after school sports and other family type pics. Please
>> > recommend what you think is best and tell me why!! I prefer something
>> > in the 6Mp or higher range for larger prints in the 11x14 and larger
>> > range
>>
>> Any DSLR is good good for portraits. The lens, lightning
>> and general technique etc are more important than the actual
>> camera.
>>
>>
>> /Roland
>
>If you plan to print at 11x14 and LARGER for portraits, then you need to
>know that you're looking at some pretty high-end alternatives, like the
>Canon D1s Mark II (16MP) or the latest Nikon pro body.

Nonsense. A 6MP camera will produce a perfectly fine 16x20 print.
The notion that 300dpi is a requirement for prints is ridiculous.
Most people won't even see 100dpi in a handheld print much less
300dpi, and a 6MP camera will do better than 100dpi on a 16x20 print.

>On the other hand, if you're less picky about resolution, you can certainly
>use Canon's 8MP D20 and assume viewing distances won't be too close with the
>final print.

People don't usually examine the print with a loupe

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 1:58:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>People don't usually examine the print with a loupe

Well, *rational* people don't. Remember, this is Usenet.
;-)


--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 2:07:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:crqh22$v9i$1@bolt.sonic.net...

> >If you plan to print at 11x14 and LARGER for portraits, then you need to
> >know that you're looking at some pretty high-end alternatives, like the
> >Canon D1s Mark II (16MP) or the latest Nikon pro body.
>
> Nonsense. A 6MP camera will produce a perfectly fine 16x20 print.
> The notion that 300dpi is a requirement for prints is ridiculous.
> Most people won't even see 100dpi in a handheld print much less
> 300dpi, and a 6MP camera will do better than 100dpi on a 16x20 print.
>
> >On the other hand, if you're less picky about resolution, you can
certainly
> >use Canon's 8MP D20 and assume viewing distances won't be too close with
the
> >final print.
>
> People don't usually examine the print with a loupe

We all have our different standards for quality, and I agree that acceptable
prints can certainly be made at 11x14 with a 6MP camera...but ...If you need
a loupe to see problems with a **100dpi print**, then there is either
something wrong with your vision, or you're just not very visually
discerning.
January 10, 2005 3:40:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 11:07:29 -0800
In message <OhfEd.79392$QR1.18958@fed1read04>
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> We all have our different standards for quality, and I agree that acceptable
> prints can certainly be made at 11x14 with a 6MP camera...but ...If you need
> a loupe to see problems with a **100dpi print**, then there is either
> something wrong with your vision, or you're just not very visually
> discerning.

Heck, I have a 133.333 ppi matt finish IBM flexview TFT
and *I* see problems in MY photos all the time... sigh...

(cant get close enough to see individual rgb elements)

Jeff
!