Recent Professional Works

[K.C.]

The final image with the iridescence of the fabric and the strong backlight is interesting, but somehow having her face so dark draws too much attention, IMHO.

Interesting ideas.

Shot for stock, client, fun ?

[fredjeang]

In between the rain we had some time to do some outside work.

Frank,
I like very much this approach.
I wonder if a cinema Fresnel HMI would also work (for background). I have an oportunity with these and I prefer to work with fixed lightning.
The difficulty IMO with such strong light is D.O.F when the main subject is not enlighted with the same source, so I would tend to look for maximum D.O.F
because I'd like to avoid the blur burned on heavy light.  But here is the issue and compromises.
Have you ever used these lights?

[Dick Roadnight]

Tarzan had to stay home :-)

It was rather dark so I did not need a lot of power for the look.
In fact the mainlight is an Elinchrom Quadra and in the back an Elinchrom Ranger RX speed.
The Ranger is on full power but is placed far away, the quadra was I think app on half power on the A channel.

Thanks for the info...

I might have had enough power for this with my 4 Metzs, ...they are only about 200ws each, I think.

The guide numbers are metric 70 & 76, which should give 10m @ f7.6, but outside you only get about half of what the guide number tells you? ...and half of that if you use a silver umbrella? ...and half of that for a white umbrella?

[Frank Doorhof]

Thanks for the info...

I might have had enough power for this with my 4 Metzs, ...they are only about 200ws each, I think.

The guide numbers are metric 70 & 76, which should give 10m @ f7.6, but outside you only get about half of what the guide number tells you? ...and half of that if you use a silver umbrella? ...and half of that for a white umbrella?

I never work with Metz except a small flash on my camera to be honest.
Somehow the Quadra's are so much fun (and small) I never feel the need to invest in less heavy gear.

The shots were done for my own portfolio (also have to update that sometimes), we have a lot of location workshops coming up and these will be used in the seminar part of the workshops.

I LOVE Fresnels, I'm still looking for the Elinchrom one, but for now I'm using a "frankenstein" version I build myself.
Hotlights are more and more taking my interest because I'm thinking a lot about video lately so who knows.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

When working with strong natural light, which I like doing, I usually do a couple test shots to get a exposure for the outside and sunlight, then build my lighting around that.  In the bedroom shot I used one strobe bouncing off of the ceiling and one tungsten fresnel hitting the bed.  In a situation like this, since both the amount of light I use and the exposure time will have an effect on the contrast of the image, I bracketed by adjusting the strobe power and the shutter speed.   I took nine exposures with shutter speeds at a 25th, 30th, and 40th with strobe power over a one stop range moving in third stops for each shutter speed.  This one I liked the best, it gave the most detail and fill lighting while still making the image look natural with contrast.  And I think the adjusted version is the better version too.  

Marc very interesting photographs and architecture.  Must have been an neat project to photograph.

I like what you did especially the bracketing part and agree that building lighting around the main window is a sound strategy. The thing that I struggle with is ceiling fill. It seems bouncing light off ceilings always kills contrast and leaves lighting flat. Must one focus the light on a small portion of the ceiling to achieve more contrast?

I faced the same challenge with the two pictures below where I resorted to shooting the window and interior at drastically different exposures and pasting them together in one picture. I am not entirely happy with the results, but what was bad about this approach is the composting. Putting two drastically different exposures together was a nightmare around window edges especially so because of the chromatic aberration. How would you have approached those pictures knowing that too much fill would kill directional light and would ultimately make both the window and interior look different? Note the lighting on the bed looks nice but so so in the rest of both pictures.

[JonathanBenoit]

I like what you did especially the bracketing part and agree that building lighting around the main window is a sound strategy. The thing that I struggle with is ceiling fill. It seems bouncing light off ceilings always kills contrast and leaves lighting flat. Must one focus the light on a small portion of the ceiling to achieve more contrast?

I faced the same challenge with the two pictures below where I resorted to shooting the window and interior at drastically different exposures and pasting them together in one picture. I am not entirely happy with the results, but what was bad about this approach is the composting. Putting two drastically different exposures together was a nightmare around window edges especially so because of the chromatic aberration. How would you have approached those pictures knowing that too much fill would kill directional light and would ultimately make both the window and interior look different? Note the lighting on the bed looks nice but so so in the rest of both pictures.

I would have done the same thing, except the contrast and exposure for the windows is too strong and spot on to look natural. It seems your photographs have more contrast overall. My style is a bit different. You might disagree, but I feel like the windows are distracting. They are taking away from the subject, which is the interior.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Here's an unretouched capture of one of the rig shots.  If you looked at the link to the rig company you'll see that for the most part they are similar in design and construction.  Retouching these out is not a big deal at all, I'm sure it's more difficult on a motion shoot but the results must be worth it.  Jim
[attachment=22483:Rear_Rig_2_030.jpg]

fascinating stuff, many thanks for sharing!

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

I would have done the same thing, except the contrast and exposure for the windows is too strong and spot on to look natural. It seems your photographs have more contrast overall. My style is a bit different. You might disagree, but I feel like the windows are distracting. They are taking away from the subject, which is the interior.

As stated, I am NOT completely pleased with the pictures so all critique including yours is more than welcome.

Regarding the windows, what would you have done differently, made the outside look lighter or darker?

This hotel has a unique selling point in its local, a view out of the window. Other more luxurious hotels have nothing close. Only Park Hyatt has better views, so they wanted to emphasize that point.

Thanks for commenting

[JoeKitchen]

As stated, I am NOT completely pleased with the pictures so all critique including yours is more than welcome.

Regarding the windows, what would you have done differently, made the outside look lighter or darker?

This hotel has a unique selling point in its local, a view out of the window. Other more luxurious hotels have nothing close. Only Park Hyatt has better views, so they wanted to emphasize that point.

Thanks for commenting

I first would like to say that I do not consider myself to be a lighting expert, but since you asked my advice I will give it.  

In both images it looks as if you are using one strobe placed above your camera or near it bouncing off of the ceiling, and the head is placed fairly close to the ceiling.  When doing this the light traveling to the part of the ceiling directly above has to travel far less then the light bouncing off of the ceiling in say the middle of the room.  This means that the light bouncing above will be far stronger then the light bouncing off in the middle of the room producing the effect of making the foreground brighter then the background (or middle ground), which is why the beds are brighter then the rest.  To solve this place the head lower; the lower the head the closer the traveling distance will be for the light regardless of where it bouncing off of.  This means the intensity of the light in the middle of the room will be closer to that near the camera.  Now when you do this more light will spill all over the place, but you can solve this problem by either using reflectors, grids, or metal foil (I usually use a product called cinefoil but am sure regular metal foil you get a grocery store will work).  

Also, the side of your camera you place the strobe on will have an effect on whether or not you get shadows from using them.  For instance, in the second image you would need to place the strobe on the right side to avoid creating a shadow in the small area behind the window curtain.  

For both images I would have used one strobe in the fashion listed above and maybe hang a white silk on the right walls bouncing a second strobe off that as well.  I also would hit most of the furniture in the room with gelled tungsten fresnels.  I normally used half blue gels when working with strobes.  Full blue just absorbs too much light and using no gel gives too much of a color shift; half blue is like a happy medium adding a little warmth.  If the sunlight is really intense then I may even use direct strobe light with softening gels and grids.   That may even solve the problem with the dark curtains.  I also would have shoot the images with sunlight entering the room.  

Focusing the light on one part of the ceiling is not how you achieve contrast when working in this manner.  You get contrast by allowing the sunlight to take over.  Remember these scenes are very contrasty to begin with which is why we are using strobes, to even out the light.  If you want more contrast you need to decrease your strobe power, increase your exposure, and time your images to specific time of day.  Also, I guess you could increase contrast by using direct strobe light, but you would need many heads to do this and may produce odd shadows.  That is also why I use tungsten lights in that manner, you get that little extra direct light but usually the exposure is too fast to record the shadows, and it cost less to show up with 10 tungstens then 10 strobe heads.

PS, ceiling bounces are not always the answer, although I think it was the bet solution here.  Along with silks for bouncing, I also bring three different kinds of umbrellas for each head.

[DanielStone]

for anyone interested in seeing a good summary of the setup of a rig, and the implementation of such, along with the polaroids shot,

check this little video out.

very good photographer too!

Mats Cordt

http://www.matscordt.com/#/making-of/cape-...egends-audi-ttr

-Dan

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Which is therefore very important to remember... because these images are going to be use to advertise that fact.
So it's not about the reality or showing this one room - because they will have lots of rooms - it's about selling the dream of these types of rooms that have this view.

Which means the best room, the best view... and whatever it takes to make that happen.

That's what they want you to produce & provide them with - an image that will help them sell the dream of what they have to offer.

That's advertising Abdulrahman - and this is advertising - so don't get to hung-up on reality.

Thanks for the feedback Ashley, very detailed reply as always. That one word in bold sums up the issue, though I am using it to reference something different.

The few advertisers and graphic designers that saw my pictures felt there was something odd looking. It looked photoshoped in the words of one them. They, and we photographers, know that most pictures have a fair amount of photoshoping done, but the final result should not hint to the editing. They did not know about the two exposure blending I did so clearly those pictures especailly, the one on top , need a bit more lighting to make the whole image seamless. Its just that I am not sure what I should have done to make the lighting more consistent.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

I first would like to say that I do not consider myself to be a lighting expert, but since you asked my advice I will give it.  

In both images it looks as if you are using one strobe placed above your camera or near it bouncing off of the ceiling, and the head is placed fairly close to the ceiling.  When doing this the light traveling to the part of the ceiling directly above has to travel far less then the light bouncing off of the ceiling in say the middle of the room.  This means that the light bouncing above will be far stronger then the light bouncing off in the middle of the room producing the effect of making the foreground brighter then the background (or middle ground), which is why the beds are brighter then the rest.  To solve this place the head lower; the lower the head the closer the traveling distance will be for the light regardless of where it bouncing off of.  This means the intensity of the light in the middle of the room will be closer to that near the camera.  Now when you do this more light will spill all over the place, but you can solve this problem by either using reflectors, grids, or metal foil (I usually use a product called cinefoil but am sure regular metal foil you get a grocery store will work).  

Also, the side of your camera you place the strobe on will have an effect on whether or not you get shadows from using them.  For instance, in the second image you would need to place the strobe on the right side to avoid creating a shadow in the small area behind the window curtain.  

For both images I would have used one strobe in the fashion listed above and maybe hang a white silk on the right walls bouncing a second strobe off that as well.  I also would hit most of the furniture in the room with gelled tungsten fresnels. I normally used half blue gels when working with strobes.  Full blue just absorbs too much light and using no gel gives too much of a color shift; half blue is like a happy medium adding a little warmth.  If the sunlight is really intense then I may even use direct strobe light with softening gels and grids.   That may even solve the problem with the dark curtains.  I also would have shoot the images with sunlight entering the room.  

Focusing the light on one part of the ceiling is not how you achieve contrast when working in this manner.  You get contrast by allowing the sunlight to take over.  Remember these scenes are very contrasty to begin with which is why we are using strobes, to even out the light.  If you want more contrast you need to decrease your strobe power, increase your exposure, and time your images to specific time of day.  Also, I guess you could increase contrast by using direct strobe light, but you would need many heads to do this and may produce odd shadows.  That is also why I use tungsten lights in that manner, you get that little extra direct light but usually the exposure is too fast to record the shadows, and it cost less to show up with 10 tungstens then 10 strobe heads.

PS, ceiling bounces are not always the answer, although I think it was the bet solution here.  Along with silks for bouncing, I also bring three different kinds of umbrellas for each head.

Thanks for the feedback Joe. I think I should have done something similar to your statement in bold. That would have brought the velvet seats, sofa, and curtins closer to the rest of the picture. I also agree that ceiling lighting should be kept to a minimum or as a last resort after more directional fill is explored.


Thanks

[Dick Roadnight]

I also would hit most of the furniture in the room with gelled tungsten fresnels.

Thanks for the feedback Joe. I think I should have done something similar to your statement in bold. That would have brought the velvet seats, sofa, and curtains closer to the rest of the picture. I also agree that ceiling lighting should be kept to a minimum or as a last resort after more directional fill is explored.

Thanks

My theory is to merge-add several exposures using ¿small? flash units... should be able to photograph a large public building without clearing it... with strong sun you would need a leaf shutter for sync at high shutter speeds.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Consider thinking outside of the box Abdulrahman..

... a 3K out the window will usually do the trick.

The final image produced for Doonbeg Golf & Spa Resort in Co Clare.

That is exactly what I thought about at one point, lol!

I saw this technique demonstrated by Dean Collins in one of his videos on youtube. He did it for a grand Hyatt in Hawaii photo shoot, and the results were impressive. I think this technique would have worked nicely for the first shot, except I was shooting at the 6th floor to hide the ground and show more of the sea, no way to get a light up there except for putting a light on the window cleaning platform and lowering it to the desired spot.

You got me so tempted to try this now. Since this project is not finished yet I might give this technique a try, if the director of sales at the hotel agrees to that of course.

I also would hit most of the furniture in the room with gelled tungsten fresnels.


My theory is to merge-add several exposures using ¿small? flash units... should be able to photograph a large public building without clearing it... with strong sun you would need a leaf shutter for sync at high shutter speeds.

What do you mean? (part in bold)

[Dick Roadnight]

My theory is to merge-add several exposures using ¿small? flash units... should be able to photograph a large public building without clearing it... with strong sun you would need a leaf shutter for sync at high shutter speeds.

What do you mean? (part in bold)

...without clearing out the people, e.g. in a cathedral or hotel lobby that is usually full of people, you only need a small part of the room clear for most of the shots, and the room is never full of photo gear, so it can be "business as usual"

[Dick Roadnight]

Was there a 7th floor ?

Where there is a will, there is always a way... assuming you have the budget in place

Yes, Ashley, I think you have clients who appreciate good work, and are prepared to pay for it, but for some the skill is to produce miracles on a shoestring, or a rock-climbing harness!

...and if there was no 7th floor, there might have been an accessible roof.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Was there a 7th floor ?

Where there is a will, there is always a way... assuming you have the budget in place

No the 6th is the last floor. I can probably shoot the first room from the fifth floor too without loosing too much sea view. This way there would be one floor on top, but what is the reason you ask?

By the way, looking at your picture again I have to wonder did you shoot the main exposure standing there holding the stand and light and then shot the windows clear and pasted that in top of the main exposure?  Is that why you are in the picture in the first place, or was it a quick test before going placing the stand and light?

My theory is to merge-add several exposures using ¿small? flash units... should be able to photograph a large public building without clearing it... with strong sun you would need a leaf shutter for sync at high shutter speeds.


...without clearing out the people, e.g. in a cathedral or hotel lobby that is usually full of people, you only need a small part of the room clear for most of the shots, and the room is never full of photo gear, so it can be "business as usual"

Ok, so you shoot the center area empty and the shoot the left area and on until you have all sections empty. Later you paste them together, very practical provided the camera does not move.

[fredjeang]

for anyone interested in seeing a good summary of the setup of a rig, and the implementation of such, along with the polaroids shot,

check this little video out.

very good photographer too!

Mats Cordt

http://www.matscordt.com/#/making-of/cape-...egends-audi-ttr

-Dan

Mats Cordt is indeed an impressive photographer. I like very much his works.

[aaron]

Mats Cordt is indeed an impressive photographer. I like very much his works.

And he is shooting one of those antique cameras too!  

[haefnerphoto]

And he is shooting one of those antique cameras too!  

Yes, I was surprised to see him shooting film in 2006.  I switched over in 2002.  Don't know that any car guys today still shoot film, productivity/cost issues make it almost impossible.  Jim