[Leica] IMG: Studio fashion

[richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man)]

Ken, that 85 should be shot at 1.2 :-)
On Apr 11, 2013 6:14 PM, "Ken Carney" <kcarney1 at cox.net> wrote:

> I had to take some mugshots the other night and took a Canon 85mm lens I
> hadn't had a chance to try out.  Light was a bounced Canon strobe with the
> Gary Fong diffuser.  I thought well, f/2.8 ought to be OK - how wrong.
> Fortunately, Alien Skin has a glamor filter.  I had never noticed how many
> thousands of little facial hairs a woman has, or how you can see tiny
> fissures in the makeup.  I'm pretty sure I would have been killed or worse
> if I had printed them "as is".   I am by no means a portrait photographer -
> sometimes if the subject has a really bad zit I will get rid of it, but
> these required some heavy lifting.
>
> Ken
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org
> [mailto:lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Geoff
> Hopkinson
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:28 PM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] IMG: Studio fashion
>
> Hi Mark. Thanks for looking and commenting. This is not intended to be
> natural portraiture of course. More aspiring to magazine cover. Those are
> retouched down to individual pores as I'm sure that you know.
> Courtney's skin is excellent in fact, though skin texture is a routine part
> of my developing in any case..
>
>
> *If you want to take more interesting pictures, stand in front of more
> interesting stuff* -- Joe McNally
>
> Cheers
> Geoff
> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman
>
>
> On 12 April 2013 02:43, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree with George that portraiture has taken a big turn for the
> > NATURAL in this day and age of Facebook and iPhones.
> > I do notice on Hoppys page this is the most un natural shot on it.
> > Many of them have a lot of life and spontaneity. This shot to me
> > appears to be an experiment in face fuzz technology. Wow! A huge
> > mistake as far as I go. But you still have the original file.
> > If this gal really did have really bad skin I'd pull back not shooting
> > a very tight head shot of her and do a head and shoulders. Waist up even.
> > I've called those head shots over the decades and the checks didn't
> > bounce and clients came back for more.
> > And just individually take off a few of the more obvious blemishes on
> > her face or some very subtle smoothing of some scarring if there
> > really was any.
> > My own personal rule in doing ton of head shots for models, singers,
> > actors you name it... Insurance guys is to just pull back. Don't to a
> > very tight headshot they are seldom necessary.  When I used on cameras
> > diffusion those shots are a literal wash out as well as methophical. I
> > just cant shot those shots to anybody they just seem like they were
> > not done by a commercial photography but a portrait guy at a shopping
> > mall. And ruined a lot of otherwise nice shoots as the diffusion was
> > on the lens and there was no way of undoing it. A color problem I'd be
> > able to fix in Photoshop. But hits is lost and just plain tacky looking
> information.
> > Now a days its not done with glass filters on the lens so you still
> > have the original sharp file with all information intact.
> >
> > The other day I was a looking at a page of opera singers and what
> > would ten years ago had been a page of rather stiff heavily retouched
> > stilled controlled shots were much more natural. Natural light.
> > Outdoors even. Not quite sitting at a Starbucks but close.
> > We get great shots of ourselves with our Iphones for our facebook or
> > whatever or our friends do of us. I'd hate to have to compete with
> > that now.
> > I did a headshot of a magic guy a year or more ago and I did it on a
> > park bench on Riverside Drive. A very successful shoot.
> >
> > When you give them a waist up shot as a head shot other people will
> > sometimes just take the head out and put that in print. But it appears
> > very small. The size of a finger print half the time. So retouched
> > perfection was never needed.
> >
> >
> > On 4/10/13 11:35 PM, "Lottermoser George" <imagist3 at mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Apr 9, 2013, at 7:01 AM, Geoff Hopkinson wrote:
> > >
> > >> First look from a new shoot at home with a new model today.
> > >> M9 &Summilux 50 ASPH
> > >> Sorry Ted I used 3 twinkie lights!
> > >>
> > >> <http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/149597285>
> > >
> > > this pose seems too unnatural for me.
> > > might work if there were another figure (or even part of a figure)
> > > which
> > she
> > > seems to be interacting with.
> > >
> > > the "current look"
> > > which I'm seeing in the publications coming to the twenty somethings
> > > in my household seem to striving for "natural"
> > > even when a surreal sort of natural.
> > > including such as:
> > > <http://www.freepeople.com/>
> > > <
> > http://www.elle.com/news/fashion-accessories/luv-aj-baublebar-collabor
> > ation?c
> > > lick=news>
> > > vogue
> > > harpers bazaar
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > definitely enjoying your sharing these exercises.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > George Lottermoser
> > > george at imagist.com
> > > http://www.imagist.com
> > > http://www.imagist.com/blog
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Leica Users Group.
> > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark William Rabiner
> > Photography
> > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>