File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/, I have three questions to ask you:

1) I am shooting some pixxx of amateur models wearing t-shirts for a website. Torso shots that need to have totally white backgrounds.
I am working with a 10D with a Promaster Spectrum 7 19-35mm lens, and 2 Calumet Travelite 750s with box diffusers.
Right now I have one light positioned directly 3-4' to the left of the model shooting at the background as fill, and the other light about 4-5' in front of the model, and about 6"-1' to the right of the camera. Both flashes are firing at 1/2 intensity.

Amidoinitrite? Is there a better way for me to set these flashes up? Pic related.

2) How do you deal with shooting slightly surly models? What kinds of direction should I give? This girl is really attractive, but her forced smile is terrible and I don't know a lot of jokes. I'm also not very good at shooting people in general, on account of being an antisocial nerd type.

3) Uh... I guess I only had two questions.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:06 15:27:27Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/18.0ISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/18.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageFlashNo FlashFocal Length21.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1360Image Height1368RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
On 2:

Either don't have her smile, shoot her until the pose breaks down, just make conversation with her, or all of a sudden just start belting out "Bohemian Rhapsody."
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>176371
>Right now I have one light positioned directly 3-4' to the left of the model shooting at the background as fill, and the other light about 4-5' in front of the model, and about 6"-1' to the right of the camera. Both flashes are firing at 1/2 intensity.

Looking at my setup again, it's more like this.
The light is closer to the model, probably about 2'-3' away.
I don't have a ton of room in the "studio" (corner of warehouse), but I could probably pull back and up the intensity on both the lights if that would help...
>> Anonymous
OH I GET IT YOU'RE SHOOTING PORNOGRAPHY
>> Anonymous
your lens has to be shitty as fuck to be this soft at f/18 holy fuck
>> Anonymous
Move the light on the right light a little further away from the camera so it's more of a 45 degree angle to the model. If the light is too close to the lens it doesn't look natural. If you could put a fill card (a big white reflector of some kind) on the left that would help fill in the shadows too.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>176371
I think that considering the subject is the TSHIRT and not the actual MODEL as such, that the tshirt should be better lit (half is to dark) and not skewed.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>176387
yes, srsly why is it so fucking soft?
>> Anonymous
>>176387
you actually lose detail after about f/8 or 5.6 but yeah it shouldnt be that soft
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>176394
in before MTF charts, but ive not seen lenses that go that soft that quickly, its worse than my 1.7 wide open.
>> Anonymous
You need another light to fill the right side of the background since you don't have enough space to put the light directly behind the "model".

Oh, and change your ISO to 100 for obvious reasons, open your aperture to like f11 to avoid difraction, slow your shutter speed to 1/100 or even lower. No need to go to 1/250.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
op: smart sharpen in shooop works wonders.
>> OP
>>176387
>your lens has to be shitty as fuck to be this soft at f/18 holy fuck

Yeah, I've been told that Promaster in general, and this particular lens in specific, is utter shit. I may start using my own camera soon because this is so awful. Unfortunately my Pentax K10D doesn't have the right oirt for the sync cord from the flash so I need to get another cable I think?

>>176394
>you actually lose detail after about f/8 or 5.6 but yeah it shouldnt be that soft

Explain plz?

>>176391
>I think that considering the subject is the TSHIRT and not the actual MODEL as such, that the tshirt should be better lit (half is to dark) and not skewed.

I agree. I've been told that the shots need to look "casual" and not too posed but you make a very good point. Suggestions on how to light it better using the current setup?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>176400
When the aperture gets so small (ie past f8 or 11) the light starts to defract as it passes it and as a result looses some sharpness. Wiki or google defraction to get a full explanation.

Dont go past F11 unless you have a shithot lens.
>> Anonymous
>>176400
>Explain plz?
diffraction takes away image quality once the aperture gets too small, hence why pinhole camera images look really soft. but closing the aperture also makes up for defects in the lens. so you kinda have to pick a point inbetween the two extremes for the sharpest image
>> Anonymous
Promasters are legendary.
>> OP
     File :-(, x)
>>176397
>You need another light to fill the right side of the background since you don't have enough space to put the light directly behind the "model".

Unfortunately I can't do this. I plan on just entirely shooping out the background, but I want to get it as white as possible so I don't have to spend all day selecting around the models.

>Oh, and change your ISO to 100 for obvious reasons, open your aperture to like f11 to avoid difraction, slow your shutter speed to 1/100 or even lower. No need to go to 1/250.

Ok. I switched to f11 & 1/100, which meant I had to reduce the flash intensity to 1/8 power, and moved the rear flash about 1.5' away from me. Here's a test shot. I think it's better?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:06 16:41:03Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/11.0ISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/11.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageFlashNo FlashFocal Length24.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1369Image Height1332RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
     File :-(, x)
>>176400
>need to look "casual" and not too posed

First clothing site that came to mind:
http://glamourkills.bigcartel.com/
They're shots are just torso's, although they have bands modeling their merch aswell.
Photo related.
Could take ideas from that, and reverse-engineer their lighting.

I havent got very much experience with studio lighting, so I cant offer any more advice as such sorry.

Pic rel.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Created2008:03:30 23:57:35Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width300Image Height300
>> Anonymous
>>176371

Time to get the spinning purple dildo hotshoe mount...

Cracks 'em up every time.
>> Anonymous
Or the purple dildo battery pack.
>> OP
>>176411
>>176410
>>176384

...what?
>> Anonymous
>>176410
>>176411
Is that some hivemind I see?
>> OP
Hey gang,

I just had to shoot another model, and I think the shots came out a little better this time after switching to f11 & 1/100.
Still getting them on the computer, but just from looking at them on the camera they looked less blurry-as-fuck.

Did get some blown highlights on a couple shirts that I'll need to figure out how to take care of in the future, but thanks for the tips!
>> Anonymous
maybe try putting the left light behind the model so it fills it in better instead of getting the gradient lighting. and maybe more power to it.
>> OP
     File :-(, x)
>>176487

Also a good idea.
I'll try upping the power and getting the model to stand further away from the background next time.

Here's the slightly shooped result of>>176478
Basically just knocked out the background and ran the sharpen filter over it.

Thanks again!
>> Anonymous
>>176526
The absolutely gone background looks weird, but if that's what they want, then I guess you have to go with it.
>> Anonymous
looks fine/great without background

screw that guy^
>> OP
>>176528
>The absolutely gone background looks weird, but if that's what they want, then I guess you have to go with it.

If I had my druthers I'd leave a slight gradient, but I have an Art Director to contend with, and I does what I is told.

Actually if I had my extreme druthers I'd go shoot in the fucking alley next to the building so I could get some interesting backgrounds. We got some nice brick walls back there.
>> washer !kxrJVlZ8OE
there are tons of lenses you could fit on that 10d why do you have that lens fit on there?
>> OP
>>176538
>there are tons of lenses you could fit on that 10d why do you have that lens fit on there?

It's what they had at the office when I came here to work. I've suggested that they buy a new lens, but the budget won't allow it right now. I may just buy a wireless sync for my Pentax K10D and start using it instead.
>> Anonymous
>>176407

Still ISO 400, but a shitton better picture. Good job.
>> OP
Hey /p/!
So now my boss is impressed enough with the improvements in yesterday's shooting that he wants to invest more in the photography kit for the office.

Here is what we currently have:
1) Canon EOS 10D w/Promaster 3.5-4.5, 19-35mm lens
2) Pentax K10D w/Pentax 3.5-5.6, 18-55mm lens (mine)
3) Calumet "Travelite 750" 2-head kit. I don't think we have umbrellas, just... soft boxes? Don't know the term for what we have. Basically black cloth boxes with diffusing white cloth on front.
http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/CE1440/

In addition to white-background studio stuff I have to do a certain amount of outdoor photography in situations where I can't take the Travelite kit with me.

I figure I should ask for a reflector board/disk of some sort for outdoor shots, but what else do I need? Better lenses for either camera? Additional flashes for in the studio? A hotshoe flash? I want to come up with a reasonable wish list of things that can help me get more professional looking photos.

In b4 "LOL EXPERIENCE + RTFM ASSHOLE"
>> OP
>>176912

NOTE: The K10D does not have a PC Sync port, so one of the things I'm thinking about asking for is a wireless sync so I can use the K10D with the Travelite set since the kit lens on the K10D is a billion times better than the shit-ass Promaster on the EOS 10D.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Digital-Radio-Slave-Flash-Trigger-16-Channel-Wireless_W0QQitemZ260235663014QQihZ
016QQcategoryZ64354QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>> Anonymous
Get a better lens for the 10D, maybe a 24-105mm f4 L. What's the budget they gave you?
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>176912
In my opinion, I'd get a lens, because the one you currently have doesnt produce sharp enough photos at the required aperture.
>> Anonymous
>>176940

They haven't given me a budget, just asked me to create a wish list of things I'd like that they'll consider buying as money clears up, so lower priced is better.

Is there any reason why I would want to get a lens for the EOS 10D instead of the Pentax? Pentax lenses are generally cheaper, right?
>> Anonymous
Look into maybe getting a really nice normal lens, for either of them, something like the Sigma 30/1.4 or Pentax 31/1.8 or Canon 35/1.4L, and the Pentax 77mm, which is specifically designed for portrait and fashion photography.
>> Anonymous
>>176960
No reason, really, unless you're aiming for top professional lenses (and/or want to upgrade to a full-frame pro body later). There's slightly less choice of Pentax lenses and accessories currently, but I doubt it will be a problem.
>> Anonymous
>>176960
for the 10d, look into these lenses.
tamron 17-50 f2.8
sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5
canon 35mm f2
canon 24-105 f4L
canon 24-70 f2.8
>> Anonymous
>>176974Canon 35/1.4L

you realize how much that one is right?
>> OP
Thanks for the suggestions, everyone.

I don't think we're interested in going pro/full-frame in the foreseeable future, so I'm not really concerned with getting top-of-the-line gear.

So far the Sigma 30/1.4 looks pretty good. $400 or so is probably the most I can get them to spring for a lens
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>177055
You'll get slight distortion with the 30mm tho?
Best to shoot around 75, in my opinion.
>> Anonymous
>>177085

The distortion in the 30mm is pretty mild, nothing that's worrisome anyway. More than most primes, less than most zooms.
>> Anonymous
>>177085

distortion is negligible and it's a fucking prime, you have to be a goddamn idiot to make one with distortion

but yeah, the Canon 85mm 1.8 is cheaper and better than the Sigma 30mm 1.4 if you're going to be shooting models

why are you going wide anyway
>> Anonymous
>>177088

or ask them to buy the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4

cheap and works well
>> OP
>>177088
>why are you going wide anyway

Don't mean to be.
I still don't really understand the whole wide-angle thing at all. Which of these are wide?
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>177136
I may be wrong, but below 50 is technically wide, and 'wide' lenses are usually classed around 10-30?
>> OP
>>177091

Is this the lens you're referring to?
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU

Because holy fucking hell that's cheap as shit!
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>177144
It would be, the 50/1.8 was the kit lens for a long time on film bodies as zooms were expensive/not around. On 35mm film it has roughly the same coverage (give 2mm) as the human eye, making it a "normal" lens.

As its also relativly easy to make, it is one of the cheapist, fastest lenses avalible today.

That goes for all manufactures 50/1.8(7) not just canon (unless you're leica and want it to be perfectly 48mm)
>> Anonymous
>>177139
You are. For 135 film (normal 35mm, etc.), the "perfect normal" that gives the same look as the human eye is 43mm. Early on, we're talking the very first 135 film cameras, it much easier to make a good lens a little longer, so they settled on a clean 50mm as the approximate target- lenses are almost never exactly their lengths; most "50mms" are really like 51.something.

Normal lenses, as a class, span from 40mm-60mm. Outside of this range, you have wide angles that expand space and telephotos that contract it. Wide-angles go up to <40mm, and there's a subcategory of "superwides" that are all lenses <28mm.

Telephotos- properly called "long focus" lenses, telephoto is a specific sort of optical design used in almost all long focus lenses- are anything 60mm<. There's two subsets here: medium telephotos, between 60mm and 135mm, and supertelephotos, from 200mm (though some say a little longer) up.

Divide or multiply these by the difference in size between 135mm film and the format in question to get the right focal lengths. For example, a 28mm lens on a DX sensor is the same as 42mm on 135 film- almost exactly the perfect 43mm, and since most 28mm lenses are .something longer, awfully close. A 50mm on any of the digital sensors he has is a medium telephoto. On medium format film, it's a wide angle.
>> Anonymous
>>177148
This is also incorrect. It's 43mm, not 48, that's perfect and while Leica has made fifties that are 48mm, IIRC all current production Leica fifties are slightly longer.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>177164
Thankyou, i wasnt sure.
>> Anonymous
>>177162There's two subsets here: medium telephotos, between 60mm and 135mm, and supertelephotos, from 200mm (though some say a little longer) up.

for me, and probably most

70-200 short tele
200-400 tele
400+ super tele
>> Anonymous
The 50mm 1.8 is great. It will be slightly telephoto on your camera, which is good for the kind of portraits you are doing.

Don't bother buying a reflector, but a ~$5 piece of white foam board. You can bend it, cut it, and clip it to stands to do exactly what you want it to.

Keeping the subject further from the background makes life easier. You can blast it with light without back-lighting your subject, and you can make sure it is out of focus to reduce the appearance of wrinkles or whatever might be on it.

Use ISO 100.