Beauty photography

[ziocan]

Ziocan

Thanks for the advice, which my ego forces me to see as a compliment, but no way!

It was a compliment indeed.

[cyeh01]

I shoot a H3DII-31. I still have my D3. Though it's not exactly the same I think you'll appreciate the jump in MP, dynamic range, bit-depth, etc. I shoot beauty/editorial/fashion (www.lucima.com). Focal length is key, so get the right lens so you don't have to crop away megapixels.

Good luck! I think you'll enjoy the P30 on the Hassy!

[Rob C]

A bit OT, but mine is 1,900cc, 212K miles, BMW Z3... the engine seems past it's prime.I am thinking of getting a CF39 as a back-up system and 2nd camera... but having 2 4kg cameras round my neck for any length of time does not seem a good idea... especially as they could bang together and destroy each other!

Dick, I didn't know you were into American wheels!

I hate cameras around the neck too, but only on second reading did I realise you meant two cameras; on first reading I mistook it to mean it was fear of head and a 2-to-four kilo camera destroying each other: that was far more funny. To me. Not only funny, but quite realistic should you have to move rapidly.

Move slowly!

Rob C

[Dick Roadnight]

I shoot a H3DII-31. I still have my D3. Though it's not exactly the same I think you'll appreciate the jump in MP, dynamic range, bit-depth, etc. I shoot beauty/editorial/fashion (www.lucima.com). Focal length is key, so get the right lens so you don't have to crop away megapixels.

Good luck! I think you'll enjoy the P30 on the Hassy!

Were all the picture on you web site taken with the H3D11-31?

I would have thought that it would have made the skin texture look better than that.

I have ordered a 300mm and an H4D-60, ¿which would be good for part-face shots?

I have a 50-110, and it would be nice to have a 200 as well.

[Rob C]

Dick

I've just looked at the site too. I think that what offends you isn't the camera, but simply that it's the current 'look' that is too spaced from any sense of reality. I appreciate that that's where the business is at, but it doesn't mean that one has to like it. I think the photographer is perfectly capable of doing his job, it's just that digital is like doing it with one hand tied up behind your back. Why? Because it creates an identity that can end up fighting you. Or maybe it isn't a film v. digi thing, but a case of PS over-dependency. Look at any of the top (new) fashionista sites and it all looks exactly the same, regardless of the story they are telling. Do you remember when simple things like grain could create mood...?

Rob C

[Dick Roadnight]

Dick

I've just looked at the site too.... PS over-dependency.
Rob C

... and I thought that "plastic complexion" was a Canon "feature".

[cyeh01]

Link to "original": http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyeh01/4909336284/sizes/o/in/photostream/ (not exactly but the largest I uploaded).

We can do grain too. These were shot with the H3DII-31

What's a "part face shot"? You mean a headshot with head and shoulders? Or a close-up of the face? Obviously you'll need more reach to fill the frame with more face.

The OP wanted beauty didn't he? Beauty is about perfection I challenge you to submit any non-PS'd image client paying for beauty images

[cyeh01]

... and I thought that "plastic complexion" was a Canon "feature".

Show me one picture on my site where the model face is without pores I don't do plastic

[Dick Roadnight]

What's a "part face shot"? You mean a headshot with head and shoulders? Or a close-up of the face? Obviously you'll need more reach to fill the frame with more face.

A mean a close-up of part of the face, for which I would like to use 300mm on 645 (or 53.7 * 40.2)

[Dick Roadnight]

Show me one picture on my site where the model face is without pores I don't do plastic

Some like to sharpen the hair and eyes and soften the complexion, but "they" now want sharpened pores?

[Rob C]

Link to "original": http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyeh01/4909336284/sizes/o/in/photostream/ (not exactly but the largest I uploaded).

We can do grain too. These were shot with the H3DII-31

What's a "part face shot"? You mean a headshot with head and shoulders? Or a close-up of the face? Obviously you'll need more reach to fill the frame with more face.

The OP wanted beauty didn't he? Beauty is about perfection I challenge you to submit any non-PS'd image client paying for beauty images

I was careful in my post to say that your work is perfectly good, and that the ‘look’ is what’s going down at the moment. What I would also say, is that the ‘grain’ example you post simply doesn’t look like grain at all.

I have no idea how old you are, but if you experienced film, you’d see at once that what you offered bears no resemblance to film grain. It was never that crisp, that’s the point of it: it is a structural device which, when the correct relationship between size of image and type of film is struck, the effect is unobtrusive and looks natural. I suggest you find some Sarah Moon or David Hamilton and look very closely. Think Moon’s Pirelli or Cacharel. Look at Frank Horvat’s site:

http://www.horvatland.com

In larger versions, the little headshot on the Home Page of my wee site shows grain, but even that isn’t right because the original was Kodachrome which was always as grain-free as it comes; but, since the pic is a crop from an original that covers from top of head to groin, it does let me get a gentle impression of granularity simply because of magnification.

But please, don’t see this as any attack on you: it isn’t.

Rob C

[cyeh01]

Some like to sharpen the hair and eyes and soften the complexion, but "they" now want sharpened pores?

Last time I checked, plastic doesn't have pores. Not sure if we're talking about the same thing.

[cyeh01]

Hey Rob,

While digital images don't organically create that type of grain, it can be reproduced digitally (we can argue quality later). To my knowledge there are two ways to create the type of grain present in film. You can recreate from scratch digitally (generating noise/grain etc in PS) or sample grain from existing film images. While there isn't a huge database of different types of grain available from different film stock, I think it's a matter of time that either of the aforementioned solutions bridge the gap between digital and film effects.

Is digital reproduction of film grain there yet? No. But you can't stop evolution. You're absolutely right about the size of the image and the size of the grain having a nice relationship that makes for a pleasing effect. On the other hand, IMHO it's irresponsible for as photographers to relegate grain effects strictly to film we should keep pushing for ways to develop whatever effects we seek in digital.

On the other hand, there are people who don't want to push ahead. People who think digital photography is a fad just like the Internet is a fad. People who are afraid of Photoshop and don't like retouching. Hell, there are still people that think retouching is "cheating".

But there's no right answer. Different strokes for different folks. And I sure as hell don't have all the answers. That said, I for one am still seeking ways to reproduce grain better than the current methods I use now. I absorb and digest as much knowledge regarding post-processing as possible.

Here's another image. I didn't try to replicate any particular film stock or anything so I'm sure it falls short of traditional grain effects. I simply applied several techniques to generate grain in this look. It's sharper than most of the older film images but that's because I like my images sharper:


Cheers

Charles Lucima

[JonathanBenoit]

I think this is a style that most photographers on this forum would stay away from. If it works for you, go for it.
If you are going to try to replicate film, why not shoot film?
This most recent shot's shadows and highlights are clipped. I'm sure you did this on purpose, I'm just not sure why. Technical image quality of a photograph is understood across the board for having certain qualities.
I've seen images with textures layered over the image before. It was interesting at first, but a photographer can't hide behind it. It has also been grossly overused by amateurs, much like HDR.

just my opinion

[cyeh01]

I understand that most people on this board aren't shooting beauty/editorial/high fashion so they don't have a good gauge on what that market wants. It's totally understandable coming from an architecture/landscape/still life point of view as you have in your portfolio. That's my opinion though.

There isn't much else that I need from film. Easier to shoot digital and maintain all the benefits of digital and just reverse engineer grain the few times I need it rather than shoot film and try to reverse engineer convenience and workflow Also clients expect a lot more now that there's digital ya know?

[KevinA]

This is not my personal experience - my car is 12 years old, and I am investing in pro kit.

I know a professional photographer, who's work I do not admire, who uses a low-res DSLR for landscape, who has a BMW which he bought new.

...being diplomatic, sometime I think I should say:

"Such talent and skill - if you can sell crap like that, why do you not give up trying to take photographs; and join my marketing department"

After years of spending on kit, Sinar Hasselblad Canon and much more and driving old cars, I decided that a new BMW would make a nice change. If sometimes you don't put what you want out of life over buying yet more kit, then what exactly is the point in working flat out. I've had more fun out of driving the BMW than decades of new kit has given me. I take more holidays to instead of more gear. And here's a thing I just bought a 550d for a specific task, I like it so much the so called pro cameras are the backup to the cheapo throw away.
Buying new kit would not earn me one penny more. If what you have works spend on yourself or family.

Kevin.

[imagetone]

If at all possible try/hire/borrow before you buy and see if you like it and how the other differences in shooting speed, file size, higher iso performance, moire etc affect you.

Tony May

[Dick Roadnight]

After years of spending on kit, Sinar Hasselblad Canon and much more and driving old cars, I decided that a new BMW would make a nice change.
Kevin.

I hope that the money you spent on Pro kit helped you to earn the money to buy the BMW... I am 61, and I have no plans to upgrade the kit I am buying now.

[photobyleighton]

Beauty & Fashion photography is all about selling an impossible reality. Very few clients are willing to use images of "real" people in their ads. Your selling the sizzle. I just think the debate is a circular argument that only photographers care about. I've never had a model or client ask for the photos to be un-processed. They want body parts slimmed, smoothed, rounded, straightened etc...the list goes on. There is a good way to solved your objection to Photoshop...shoot for yourself.

The gear argument is also circular...really? it's older than the contents of most gear bags. I still use very old bodies that i've paired with newer glass. The old bodies can still out-resolve the best lenses on the market. The only reason I have a newer body is for the resolution. Some client require very large base files. when I compare the image files from my 20D & 5D MK2...i'm hard pressed to see a huge difference in IQ. Half the time when I use it, the thing is set to sRAW. I personally don't need 20+ MB files for the majority of my work. 8 to 10MB suits me just fine and clients can't tell. I've shot Mamiya's, Hasseys etc. And ya they all have qualities I admire. The average Joe looking at your images can't tell. We are harder on ourselves I think!