Recent Professional Works

[ddk]

Great work, David.  No attempts to 'hide' her age, but it's accented instead.  It shows her real beauty.

Mike.

I agree entirely. I'm particularly taken with the third.

Jeremy

Thank you both for looking and commenting!

I didn't see any point in trying to make her look much younger with makeup, she'd never be able to compete with a real 20 odd year old. Instead I thought that it would be better to show off her attraction at age 50 and use slightly more dramatic lighting, but I'm not sure if she agreed with that logic...

[James R Russell]

[attachment=13785:smallfin...129_copy.jpg]


JRR

[Carsten W]

I love the atmosphere in that shot, James. I find myself wishing that the Blue Ribbon ad was completely inside the frame, and that the shadowy object on the left was not, but these are very minor quibbles. Is it for Pabst, or for something else?

[Frank Doorhof]

@James,
Mail when you're in the Netherlands
Love the atmosphere in this shot, just wish we would have locations like that close to my home town

[Kurt Kamka]

A recent shot with the P45+ and 110/2 Hasselblad lens.

Kurt

[James R Russell]

[attachment=13793:smfinalf...408_copy.jpg]



JRR

[PLLove]

[attachment=13793:smfinalf...408_copy.jpg]



JRR

AWESOME!!!  I love this!  Love it!  Love IT!!!!

[pixjohn]

I prefer this over the first shot. I feel the mood of  the model is better.


[quote name='James R Russell'



JRR[/quote]

[haefnerphoto]

James, I like this one the best too!  Nice touch with the dogs out the window.  Since I shoot cars and architecture my knowledge of glamour/fashion is limited but there seems to be a decided trend to retouch faces I think a bit too much.  Although I suppose it's similiar to how we've been retouching cars for so long.  Jim

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&id=13793

[Graham Mitchell]

[attachment=13793:smfinalf...408_copy.jpg]

I'd prefer the dog wasn't there, but I love the attitude of the model, the setting and especially the lighting and colours.

[geotzo]

Lighthouse of Gytheion

[James R Russell]

I'd prefer the dog wasn't there, but I love the attitude of the model, the setting and especially the lighting and colours.

I knew you'd be a cat person.

JRR

[Snook]

Nice Image James.
With what equipment and lens ISO may I ask.
Looks to be a high iso but with what camera.
Looks rather long the format.
Snook

[James R Russell]

Nice Image James.
With what equipment and lens ISO may I ask.
Looks to be a high iso but with what camera.
Looks rather long the format.
Snook

Snook,


Let me dig around in my box of cameras.

Ok, it's a Leaf with verso flex in 2:3 format . . . oh sorry, not that one.

Ok, here it is it's a Leica S2 also in a 2:3 format . . . oops, that's just a prototype, not working yet.

Ok, found it, it's a P30+ that I had a lens shade that blocked part of the frame . . . uh oh, wrong again, haven't used those in a while.

Now I found it , it's the Canon 1ds3, 50mm lens. F2.2  1./20th of a second at iso 800.

Processed in C-1 V 4, pushed approx one stop, (if you really do push this in processing).

Actually, lately I've seen a difference between the C-1 window and the photoshop window, when an image is processed it is flatter and darker when it goes into PS4.

Doesn't happen everytime, but about 50% of the time.

Don't get it.

JRR

[Snook]

Snook,


Let me dig around in my box of cameras.

Ok, it's a Leaf with verso flex in 2:3 format . . . oh sorry, not that one.

Ok, here it is it's a Leica S2 also in a 2:3 format . . . oops, that's just a prototype, not working yet.

Ok, found it, it's a P30+ that I had a lens shade that blocked part of the frame . . . uh oh, wrong again, haven't used those in a while.

Now I found it , it's the Canon 1ds3, 50mm lens. F2.2  1./20th of a second at iso 800.

Processed in C-1 V 4, pushed approx one stop, (if you really do push this in processing).

Actually, lately I've seen a difference between the C-1 window and the photoshop window, when an image is processed it is flatter and darker when it goes into PS4.

Doesn't happen everytime, but about 50% of the time.

Don't get it.

JRR

Wow, seems you have a lot of "use to be expensive" paper weights laying around.
I thought that format did not look MF.. But seeing how everyone loves you here I am sure they won't give you flack for posting in the wrong forum...
Nice shot either way, sure is nice having pretty girls to use. I have to wait until luckily one may cross my path....
I guess the Big city life has it downside as well...
Snook

[James R Russell]

Wow, seems you have a lot of "use to be expensive" paper weights laying around.
I thought that format did not look MF.. But seeing how everyone loves you here I am sure they won't give you flack for posting in the wrong forum...
Nice shot either way, sure is nice having pretty girls to use. I have to wait until luckily one may cross my path....
I guess the Big city life has it downside as well...
Snook

Snook,

I'ts very hard to joke with you, but in reality cameras mean nothing to me.  Since my first dsc 760 I've seen more changes in post processing than anything hardware related.

Also I don't understand format obsession, because none of these things are "standard" formats.  1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 crops.  It just enough to make my head spin and some cameras are good for some things, some aren't.  Lately the camera that works the best is the camera that is the most useable, because every project is on an foot to the floor accelerated scale.

Actually this was shot in Dallas, Texas.  I bought a studio here three years ago and this year have used it more in the last 4 months, than the previous 30.

Part reason is everyone is playing the numbers and we can produce here with less expense and a million times less hassle.  Texas doesn't have state income tax and our building in Dallas, though fairly expensive would have been impossible in NY, double the price in LA, plus it was a good investment as in the last three years they are building all around me.  36 major building projects so the city is changing, but is still pretty cool about allowing you to shoot without jumping through hoops.

The bar location only asked we pay the bar tab and tip well.  We actually worked two very different locations for this shoot and in LA or NY it would have been difficult to get from place to place with even a medium sized crew.

The economy has changed everything.   Not that we're not a location is everything based business, because there is and always will be a certain group of clients that believe unless your have a 1 or a 9 in front of your zip code your not going to get the call, which is one of the reasons I'm still based in NY.  (though I may modify that thought by the end of the year).

Still, the economy has pushed clients into a more open mindset of getting it done for the right price, and ease, rather than where is the best place to shop.

I've bid my last three jobs in LA, NY and Dallas and shot the last three in Dallas.  It doesn't have the talent pool of NY, doesn't have all the locations (no beach) of LA, but there are two large retailers and a whole slew of blue chip companies based here and the level of models and crew have gone up exponentially  in the last year.

This model is from Texas, though was based in LA, came back and works more now than she ever did in the 310 area code.  Same with the last 7 models we've used, so finding talent isn't that difficult.  Finding a beach in Dallas is.

JRR

[Snook]

Snook,

I'ts very hard to joke with you, but in reality cameras mean nothing to me.  Since my first dsc 760 I've seen more changes in post processing than anything hardware related.

Also I don't understand format obsession, because none of these things are "standard" formats.  1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 crops.  It just enough to make my head spin and some cameras are good for some things, some aren't.  Lately the camera that works the best is the camera that is the most useable, because every project is on an foot to the floor accelerated scale.

Actually this was shot in Dallas, Texas.  I bought a studio here three years ago and this year have used it more in the last 4 months, than the previous 30.

Part reason is everyone is playing the numbers and we can produce here with less expense and a million times less hassle.  Texas doesn't have state income tax and our building in Dallas, though fairly expensive would have been impossible in NY, double the price in LA, plus it was a good investment as in the last three years they are building all around me.  36 major building projects so the city is changing, but is still pretty cool about allowing you to shoot without jumping through hoops.

The bar location only asked we pay the bar tab and tip well.  We actually worked two very different locations for this shoot and in LA or NY it would have been difficult to get from place to place with even a medium sized crew.

The economy has changed everything.   Not that we're not a location is everything based business, because there is and always will be a certain group of clients that believe unless your have a 1 or a 9 in front of your zip code your not going to get the call, which is one of the reasons I'm still based in NY.  (though I may modify that thought by the end of the year).

Still, the economy has pushed clients into a more open mindset of getting it done for the right price, and ease, rather than where is the best place to shop.

I've bid my last three jobs in LA, NY and Dallas and shot the last three in Dallas.  It doesn't have the talent pool of NY, doesn't have all the locations (no beach) of LA, but there are two large retailers and a whole slew of blue chip companies based here and the level of models and crew have gone up exponentially  in the last year.

This model is from Texas, though was based in LA, came back and works more now than she ever did in the 310 area code.  Same with the last 7 models we've used, so finding talent isn't that difficult.  Finding a beach in Dallas is.

JRR

Did not know you were Joking..
You want beach... Go to Galveston.... hahahaha Nice pretty water there...:+}
Seriuolsy once you get past Corpus Christi the water and beaches are gorgeous.. Yeh something about those Texas girls...:+}
I went to highschool in Houston. Thinking about moving back there soon myself. Kind of tired of the South American way of working myself.
My sister says Texas is supposedly the only state with out economic crisis for the last 6 months. Must be the oil again.

By the way I think we who have been shooting digital for the past 8-10 years know that by now there is not really a difference in print of most medias. But everytime I open my PO p30 files I see a BIG difference, specially after going through some layers in Photoshop.

The only thing that would make me shoot Canon over MF would be for Higher asa/iso.
Otherwise like I have stated, I feel like a I would be letting myself down. Seriuosly!.

Snook

[James R Russell]

Did not know you were Joking..
You want beach... Go to Galveston.... hahahaha Nice pretty water there...:+}
Seriuolsy once you get past Corpus Christi the water and beaches are gorgeous.. Yeh something about those Texas girls...:+}
I went to highschool in Houston. Thinking about moving back there soon myself. Kind of tired of the South American way of working myself.
My sister says Texas is supposedly the only state with out economic crisis for the last 6 months. Must be the oil again.

By the way I think we who have been shooting digital for the past 8-10 years know that by now there is not really a difference in print of most medias. But everytime I open my PO p30 files I see a BIG difference, specially after going through some layers in Photoshop.

The only thing that would make me shoot Canon over MF would be for Higher asa/iso.
Otherwise like I have stated, I feel like a I would be letting myself down. Seriuosly!.

Snook

Not to take this off subject, but . . .

Texas' largest export is cotton, though the oil revenue does keep state income tax away and compared to LA, NY, the income tax makes owning here virtually free.

It's not perfect and I don't live here all the time, though the more time we spend here the more we like it, though I've found as along as we're making a living and shooting what we like we're usually happy.

Dallas shows some signs of the recession, but nothing like the coasts and maybe the money was allocated a long time ago, but they building that is going on in and around the downtown area is pretty amazing.

As far as living in a place, I've lived most everywhere and it takes three years to get use to a new place, at least for me.   I was born in Texas but hadn't put a  foot here in 15 years when I bought this building, but I was tired of the tax man and landlord eating my life savings, so there you go.

It's funny, there is perception and reality and usually both don't coexist well.  This business has always been about perception, until times get tough then reality takes over.  

I run into people here from LA all the time now and some moved here way before I invested.   I know models, makeup artists that were on the verge of starving in LA, that now live in 3,400 sq ft. homes and work every week, almost every day in Dallas.

That surprised me.

JRR

[tho_mas]

lately I've seen a difference between the C-1 window and the photoshop window, when an image is processed it is flatter and darker when it goes into PS4.

Doesn't happen everytime, but about 50% of the time.

Don't get it.

As the preview in C1 is just a preview (and not the final data) it has not the same bitdepth as the final image.
Though overall you will not take notice of that it takes effect especially in the darkest tonalvalues.
Secondly it depends on the output profile. If you embed the camera profile differences should be less. But if you process to AdobeRGB or such a "small" colour space the colour chanels get clipped more easliy at the low end. Admittedly the conversion to the output colour space is considered in the preview. But it's a kind of softproof (C1 converts the camera profile to the output colour space in the RAM and than transforms to the monitor profile) and therefore one step less accurate as direct conversion from the camera profile to the monitor profile.
Thirdly it has a huge effect on the expression of the image if you set the default dark background in C1 and the default middle grey background in Photoshop. Backgrounds in both applications should be the same (I for myself have C1 set to the "light" background and set exactly the same values in Photoshop as background). In C1 with the default setup everything looks more contrasty and you are more sensitive to subtile modulations in dark tonalvalues as compared to looking at the same image in Photoshop with its much brighter interface and background.
All three points together cause the impression that the images are flatter and darker in Photoshop. But actually only the darkest tonalvalues differ (due to the smaller bitdepth of the preview).
You can check this when you make screenshots of the C1 preview and the processed file in Photoshop and put both the screenshots together on layers in Photoshop in a new file - when you toggle the two layers they match except for the darkest tonalvalues (down from L*5 or what... so actually nearly black). At least this is the case here..

[Carsten W]

As the preview in C1 is just a preview (and not the final data) it has not the same bitdepth as the final image.
Though overall you will not take notice of that it takes effect especially in the darkest tonalvalues.
Secondly it depends on the output profile. If you embed the camera profile differences should be less. But if you process to AdobeRGB or such a "small" colour space the colour chanels get clipped more easliy at the low end. Admittedly the conversion to the output colour space is considered in the preview. But it's a kind of softproof (C1 converts the camera profile to the output colour space in the RAM and than transforms to the monitor profile) and therefore one step less accurate as direct conversion from the camera profile to the monitor profile.
Thirdly it has a huge effect on the expression of the image if you set the default dark background in C1 and the default middle grey background in Photoshop. Backgrounds in both applications should be the same (I for myself have C1 set to the "light" background and set exactly the same values in Photoshop as background). In C1 with the default setup everything looks more contrasty and you are more sensitive to subtile modulations in dark tonalvalues as compared to looking at the same image in Photoshop with its much brighter interface and background.
All three points together cause the impression that the images are flatter and darker in Photoshop. But actually only the darkest tonalvalues differ (due to the smaller bitdepth of the preview).
You can check this when you make screenshots of the C1 preview and the processed file in Photoshop and put both the screenshots together on layers in Photoshop in a new file - when you toggle the two layers they match except for the darkest tonalvalues (down from L*5 or what... so actually nearly black). At least this is the case here..

Thomas, interesting points, but at least points 2 and 3 don't explain why James *sometimes* sees the difference, and sometimes not.

James, do you just see the difference between the image in C1, or also between a processed image, and PS?