Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/04/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] IMG: Studio fashion
From: kcarney1 at (Ken Carney)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:13:54 -0500
References: <> <> <>

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.


-----Original Message-----
From: at
[ at] On Behalf Of Geoff
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


On 12 April 2013 02:43, Mark Rabiner <mark at> 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
> 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> 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!
> >>
> >> <>
> >
> > 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:
> > <>
> > <
> ation?c
> > lick=news>
> > vogue
> > harpers bazaar
> > etc.
> >
> > definitely enjoying your sharing these exercises.
> >
> > Regards,
> > George Lottermoser
> > george at
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See for more information
> --
> Mark William Rabiner
> Photography
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information

Leica Users Group.
See for more information

Replies: Reply from hopsternew at (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] IMG: Studio fashion)
Reply from richard at (Richard Man) ([Leica] IMG: Studio fashion)
In reply to: Message from imagist3 at (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] IMG: Studio fashion)
Message from mark at (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] IMG: Studio fashion)
Message from hopsternew at (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] IMG: Studio fashion)