How To Photograph Models

[finescalerr]

White seamless photo backdrop paper is available from B&H in New York: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

But for most photography, you don't have to spend that kind of money. Just pick up a roll of white sketch paper at an art store or at Michael's craft store. See the Sticky on photography for additional information about how to take pictures.

Russ

[marc_reusser]

I buy my seamless at the local photagraphy supply shop,...the type that caters to professional photographers.  I bought a small roll 3 years ago, and still have enough left to last me through the end of this one. The nice thing about the seamless is the surface quality, and the neutral white color.  The closest I have seen in normal papers would be a good quality white strathmore from an art store.

This reminds me that I need to go down there, as the photo store also carries "Neautral Grey" boards and sheet, and am thinking this might make an outstanding background to shoot white styrene on.....and most likely some of the finised models as well, when you dont want a white background.

[shropshire lad]

I buy my seamless at the local photagraphy supply shop,...the type that caters to professional photographers.  I bought a small roll 3 years ago, and still have enough left to last me through the end of this one. The nice thing about the seamless is the surface quality, and the neutral white color.  The closest I have seen in normal papers would be a good quality white strathmore from an art store.

This reminds me that I need to go down there, as the photo store also carries "Neautral Grey" boards and sheet, and am thinking this might make an outstanding background to shoot white styrene on.....and most likely some of the finised models as well, when you dont want a white background.

  " Finis(h)ed models" ?   Interesting concept , I've heard of it , but could you please explain what you mean by it .

  Many thanks ,

    Nick

[Andi Little]

As simple and elegant as that is, do you actually think may here will take the trouble to emulate it? -- Russ

Or even precede it!!! ......................



As can be seen a less organised and much less professional looking set-up. But pretty much the same thing using old vanity mirrors and judiciously placed magnifying lenses, bit of clean-ish cartridge paper for a background. Only concession to any kind of professionalism is both lamps are fitted with daylight balanced bulbs [fluorescents].
Posted really to give those folk this far down the food chain the notion that we can do nothing if not aspire - or perspire - or something!!

....................................................................................

[marc_reusser]

" Finis(h)ed models" ?   Interesting concept , I've heard of it , but could you please explain what you mean by it .

Many thanks ,

    Nick

I have no idea to explain such a concept to a person that has never witnessed such in his own endeavors.   Sort of a chicken or egg conundrum.   

[finescalerr]

Andi, your setup is far more organized and sophisticated than how I generally do things! Besides, the only thing that counts is what the camera sees.

Suggestion: Instead of mirrors, use foil reflectors or white cards to diffuse the light.

A white card is exactly what the term suggests. You could use styrene sheet, white foamcore, white cardboard, anything. The area requiring highlight determines the size of the card.

Make reflectors by crunching up aluminum foil, flattening it out again, and gluing it to a piece of cardboard. Sometimes you want the shiny side to reflect light; more often the dull side is preferable. Again, make various sizes.

Russ

[marc_reusser]

So Russ, this is an excerpt of some photo rules you once posted:

3. Use a 100mm lens or the equivalent zoom (e.g., 35-135, 70-200 at approximately the 100mm setting).
Shoot at f/22 or f/32 and take additional exposures +/- one and/or two stop(s) on either side of "correct".
On a digital camera, use "Aperture Priority" and shoot at the biggest f-stop number such as f/11 or f/8.

5. With the camera on the tripod, get as much of the model in the viewfinder as you can while still allowing a
little room around the image. Again, use a 100mm lens or the equivalent. A 35 or 50mm lens is inadequate.
With a digital camera, zoom the lens between three-quarters and all the way out (telephoto).

7. Use at least a 3 megapixel digital camera. Use the digital camera's finest setting (biggest file size).
Remember to set the digital camera's color balance for outdoor, incandescent, or fluorescent depending on the kind of lighting.

So my question is....what happens/do I do, if my lens is only 18-55mm....and I can't drop another $500 for a second lens at the moment?  Does it matter/help that I can shoot at 16+ MP. Should I simply shoot from further back and then crop in closer in post production?  (I can shoot up to f36.)

[marc_reusser]

Nother question;

.....Would there be a benefit to using a clear UV filter when shooting under flourescent lights?


M

[finescalerr]

Second question answer: If your camera shoots RAW, you don't need any filter at all because software can balance the color. Nor have I ever needed a UV filter under fluorescents. That's one great thing about digital cameras.

First question: Yes, shoot from farther back if you have a short lens. The closer you move toward the subject, the greater the distortion -- kind of a "fish eye" effect. That is minimized by backing off. The high resolution will let you crop the image and still end up with a good size.

Russ

[marc_reusser]

Thanks.

The RAW, and any correction is not a problem. Both in RAW and JPG, in all the different manual, and semi-manual modes, (as well as some of the presets), a can do pretty darn good WB and other correction and clearly see the corrected image on the screen, before shooting. It wil also allow me to bracket the WB.  I was curious what the effect purpose of the clear UV Filter was....and if there was any benefit to be gleened from it.

Being a complete photography dummy, I realized the lens mistake too late. My old digital camera that I had been using for 10 years apparently had a standard zoom/lens range of 24-85. On the new DSLR camera, I was focused on the body.....and even though most reviews said don't use/buy the "kit" lens (not that it is bad, simply that it is not the same level as the body)....but had to cut my costs, so I went with the kit one.....and thus only realizing later what the whole "lens mm" thing was about....so am now for the time stuck with an 18-55. (And I need to make it work, or my wife will kill me.)  The plus side of the debacle is that the lens work better for interior rooms/spaces (for work/busines website) than my last one did.

[Gordon Ferguson]

Out of interest what camera did you buy Marc ............... trying to convince my wife that I may need a new one and it would be sort of convenient to blame you  

[marc_reusser]

Gordon,

I bought the Sony A-57.

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/StoreSearch?storeId=10151&langId=-1&catalogId=10551&in_dim_search=&Ntk=&Ntx=&Nrt=&Nrr=&Nrk=&Nrm=&keyword=a+57

I was considering the A-65, but that had more than I was likely ever going to need, especially on the video end, which I do not use at all.

After reading reams of comparisons and reviews, in-store comparison, and now after a week of shooting IMO, and for my needs, it stands well above the Nikon and Cannon in the same price range; and the translucent mirror technology is fantastic (allows me to see the effect of setting changes I make, show instantly on the display screen, and in the view finder, before I take the shot.) The number of sensors, and the fact that it has a setting for reading/sensing "full frame" were definite selling points.

It fits and feels very comfortable in my hand (not so important for model shooting, but because it does it will make me use it for many other things.)

Also nice that the camera has in-body stabilization, (which also allows you to use older compatible lenses, and aftermarket lenses that do not have in-lens stabilization)

The handheld twilight shooting mode is a really cool feature, in which it will shoot 5 frames in rapid succession and stitch them together into one clear sharp image.

I could go on, and on, and have only just started to scratch the surface of what this thing can do, and has to offer.


I was also lucky today...after some more help/input from Russ, I went back to the store to check on the price of a second lens, and they gave me a discount that came out to be 50% off, on a 55-200mm lens, since I was buying it within two weeks of the camera purchase.

...so I should be well set to go for another 10 years.

[marc_reusser]

FWIW...I did PU transparent UV filters, as it will help protect the actual lense surface (and is easier to clean dust than the actual lens  ); and also hoods for the lenses to eliminate any cross light issues on the lens (which I often got on my old camera)

[TRAINS1941]

FWIW...I did PU transparent UV filters, as it will help protect the actual lense surface (and is easier to clean dust than the actual lens  ); and also hoods for the lenses to eliminate any cross light issues on the lens (which I often got on my old camera)

Marc your so right about protecting the lens.

I guess now that you have this new piece of artillery you'll be posting pictures of all the projects that you have started and finished.

Jerry

[Gordon Ferguson]

Thanks for the info Marc, think even blaming you would not be be enough to hide the cost ................... bit over of my anticipated spend.

I just need to convince my self that a fairly ordinary point and shoot job will do me as long as it lets me shoot in RAW format which current camera does not  ................. anyway it all sounds a bit complicated, may occasionally try to model complicated but I certainly don't understand it