Studio Portrait Photography

[usayit]

One being an amateur home user, the other a professional with much different needs.

<< Exactly! me thinks that professionals don't often offer the best advice to amateurs.

(its like watching a tennis match... very educational toss of a ball back and forth)

 

[usayit]

I don't see how you guys can focus with the crappy viewfinders in modern DSLRs today.... they are absolutely horrid. It was one of the main reasons for my choice of cameras...

 

[Alpha]

I don't see how you guys can focus with the crappy viewfinders in modern DSLRs today.... they are absolutely horrid. It was one of the main reasons for my choice of cameras...

How's that meter looking in the M8 finder against bright sun? And how are those frame lines in backlighting?

Everybody's got a crutch. Modeling lights solve my focus issues. That was my whole point.

 

[usayit]

btw... I have a few flashes acquired during the years. Battery options are NOT limited.
* several came with a high voltage battery pack. Fast recycling time.
* The 622 pro that came with my pentax 67 has a battery pack as well. That sucker has punch.
* several more compact (the 422D) have a small slot cut into the battery door and coiled wires to 4 D-cell batteries. Same recycling time BUT longer running. DIY from radio shack parts. Run the cables to small lowepro velcro shut cases.
* My 550EX has a coiled wire that goes to the Canon Transistor pack which inturn has been modified to take 6 D cell batteries. Faster recycling time and longer running. I use this setup a lot.

Oh lets not forget the multitude of options from Quantum instruments. I've tagged along several wedding photographers and many still use the same flash systems from before they went digital.

Granted they don't have the battery and power of a studio strobe sets with power BUT I guarantee you that a lone amateur (me) is going to take them along more often.

 

[epatsellis]

btw... I have a few flashes acquired during the years. Battery options are NOT limited.
* several came with a high voltage battery pack. Fast recycling time.
* The 622 pro that came with my pentax 67 has a battery pack as well. That sucker has punch.
* several more compact (the 422D) have a small slot cut into the battery door and coiled wires to 4 D-cell batteries. Same recycling time BUT longer running. DIY from radio shack parts. Run the cables to small lowepro velcro shut cases.
* My 550EX has a coiled wire that goes to the Canon Transistor pack which inturn has been modified to take 6 D cell batteries. Faster recycling time and longer running. I use this setup a lot.

Oh lets not forget the multitude of options from Quantum instruments. I've tagged along several wedding photographers and many still use the same flash systems from before they went digital.

Granted they don't have the battery and power of a studio strobe sets with power BUT I guarantee you that a lone amateur (me) is going to take them along more often.

Yup, that's why I have a minivan, or if need be, access to a box truck, for location work, bulky in their transit cases, but even United Parcel Smashers can't hurt any of the equipment packed to go on location.

 

[usayit]

How's that meter looking in the M8 finder against bright sun? And how are those frame lines in backlighting?

The frame lines are great! The frame lines are far and above better than my M6 in regards to seeing them clearly. M6 bodies are known to have flare issues at the focusing patch. I'm not sure in comparison to the M7 as I never owned one. The M8's framelines are calibrated differently from the previous M-bodies. As such, it takes a little time to adjust... I like it because it general means that you get a tiny bit more than the frame lines. Just enough to take care of any slight framing mishaps.

The meter works fine.... its very biased towards the center (remember we are talking conservative Leica). You don't have the option for any type of evaluative mumbo jumbo intelligent metering. So exposure mishaps are almost 90% of the time the photographer and does require experience to leverage properly. If you pretend you are shooting slide film, the meter works great! Its just like shooting with a traditional Leica except that film has more latitude. Gotta watch those highlights when shooting on a digital sensor.

There are a few quirks about the camera but that's what you expect from a small speciality company of any time (Ferrari and lamborghini comes to mind- no I don't own either).

Its easier to focus a rangefinder in lower light... period. Much easier... more so than even the 1-series (which are not as bright as even the older Canon bodies ex. F-1).


Other than the shutter selection dial of my M6 being opposite of the M8, I'm enjoying my M8 more so than my 1D MII. If I ever did go on assignment, I'd probably still rely on the 1dMII and the M8 on my belt as a secondary.

 

[usayit]

Yup, that's why I have a minivan, or if need be, access to a box truck, for location work, bulky in their transit cases, but even United Parcel Smashers can't hurt any of the equipment packed to go on location.

something an amateur like me and Jerry won't have access to.

Btw... I just did a few shots of my 20 month old son (hard bugger to keep in one setting) with a budget strobist setup (see other thread). I had a blast... and I was able to go directly to the mall for some shopping afterwards. Enjoying yourself and being practical is what counts if you are not in it for a paycheck but for pure enjoyment. Don't loose sight of that difference.

No box truck or minivan full of expensive equipment to worry about in the mall parking lot.

As I said.... pro versus amateur || strobist versus full studio strobes. You guys are arguing apples and oranges.

But .. please continue.. it is an amusing thread full of good info.

 

[mr_baseball_08]

Another thing no one has mentioned is that this Strobist "movement" (if that's what it could even be called) is hardly even a year old yet and it's already getting amazing coverage. How long have continuous lighting systems been around? Half a century?

Manufacturers are slowly stepping to the plate but I think over the next couple of years we'll see giant feature increases on the strobe market. Portability is the new big thing and I think we're going to start seeing a market shift from the giant bulky systems so these smaller strobes that can go anywhere. You just have to give technology the time to catch up to what the consumer is asking for.

 

[Alpha]

Another thing no one has mentioned is that this Strobist "movement" (if that's what it could even be called) is hardly even a year old yet and it's already getting amazing coverage. How long have continuous lighting systems been around? Half a century?

Manufacturers are slowly stepping to the plate but I think over the next couple of years we'll see giant feature increases on the strobe market. Portability is the new big thing and I think we're going to start seeing a market shift from the giant bulky systems so these smaller strobes that can go anywhere. You just have to give technology the time to catch up to what the consumer is asking for.

This is America. Your average consumer is retarded.

 

[Bifurcator]

The ultimate lighting solution!

Twin modeling lights with built-in reflectors! State-of-the-art!

Or a Multi-directional parabolic hi-tech beauty light:

Yeah baby, yeah!


​

 

[mr_baseball_08]

Maybe, but the average consumer decides what the market will and will not bear, not the professionals.

At one point most all of the pro's didn't like digital and never thought film would be overcome. The average consumer made the push and digital is the thing now. Strobes will the same.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

The lighting you use - as any real professional will tell you - depends upon what you are trying to do and where.
I worked with most of the top advertising pros in the early 80's on stuff like this:
http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/images/bensons.htm

This particular little AD&D award winner (photographer Ed White) was lit in a very interesting way.
http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/images/bensons_files/image006.jpg
If any of the people holding forth on here can tell me what the main light source for this shot was then I might believe that they actually know what they are talking about.
But all I see at the moment is posturing and posing coming from most contributors (and one in particular).
What neither 'side' in this 'debate' can see is that there is no real argument at all. Just people polishing their egos.

I have a Swiss Army knife. It is a useful thing with many features. I could use it to make an ornately carved chair if I could be bothered. But I could do the same job a lot quicker with the proper tools.
Lighting is pretty much the same. You use what you need to use to get the effects you want. Sometimes your choice is limited by budget. Sometimes the constraints of the shot dictate. Sometimes you have to work with what you've got.
It's certainly easier if you have exactly the right piece of kit, but there are times when the right piece of kit doesn't exist, or it's got lost or stolen or broken, and you have to do the best you can with what you do have.
No one wants to hear excuses - they just want the shots by the deadline.

 

[Alpha]

Who knows, what with the low quality and all. I'm gonna say candle or like, or sun.

 

[Bifurcator]

Another thing no one has mentioned is that this Strobist "movement" (if that's what it could even be called) is hardly even a year old yet and it's already getting amazing coverage. How long have continuous lighting systems been around? Half a century?

What??? Sure, put it on a web-page and call it a movement and convince people that it's something new. LOL

I was doing the same kind of things 30 years ago. I kid you not. And I'm sure I wasn't the only one. Every piece of equipment there is for this "strobist" stuff existed 30 years ago already and was in wide use.

New movement?

 

[mr_baseball_08]

This particular little AD&D award winner (photographer Ed White) was lit in a very interesting way.
http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/images/bensons_files/image006.jpg
If any of the people holding forth on here can tell me what the main light source for this shot was then I might believe that they actually know what they are talking about.
But all I see at the moment is posturing and posing coming from most contributors (and one in particular).
What neither 'side' in this 'debate' can see is that there is no real argument at all. Just people polishing their egos.

If anyone here can tell me what that's a picture of, I'll believe you know what your talking about. Haha, how are we suppose to derive anything from a 575x300 low res scan?

I'm guessing bees and/or large piles of dung, but who knows..