Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Critique or questions as you like.

My good friend is returning to her work as a Fantasy Art Model. These involve various types of scenarios. She has worked with some of the greats like Mexico's Pop Eye Wong. I have done the photographic work ups so the cartooning and painterly works can be created by artists in their studios.

I'm not sure but this latest activity has something to do with the Rock Star of Heavy Metal fame Alice Copper. It usually takes months before I see any results. Who knows, these could turn into a poster, serial cartoon set or the cover of Heavy Metal Magazine.

I include two other outcomes of art work from our crazy activities doing these sort of things.

The photograph shown is Nicole in an outfit she created for this session. She found the kiddy ball that I had recently picked up at the grocery store, when I saw it I figured it would fit in nicely to some future shoot.

For this photo shoot I used a standard 9 foot black seamless, the Sony Mirrorless body set to ISO 100, Leica 28mmR f2.8 lens at f11 1/2, 1/100 second shutter speed. Norman power bases D 2000 set to 800 watt seconds, three heads, two heads in 42" Larson Soft Boxes set evenly to either side of Nicole. Up at roof height (12') was a Norman head, 10 inch bowl, metal disk to create rim light and a 3 stop (.9) neutral density gel along with black cine foil to control the back light from above.

Post processing applying an adjusted CURVE in Photoshop to manage the image range (compression) and shadow expansion. Color management of warm tones in the mid to upper range with a slight suppression of the warm colors in the shadows.

Fantasy Models are vary rarely 'nude', but the painters and cartoon artist take liberties like in the old style of pin up artist. In fact, these are the modern up dated versions of the old Pin Up Styling.

Nicole, "POW"!

(Download)

Pop Eye Wong, Nicole Halloween.

(Download)

Berin Uriegas for Heavy Metal Magazine.

(Download)

stevesf

The lighting works well for her black on black boots and top. Thanks

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Funny woman, Nicole, she is so much fun to work with!

dat2ra Loc: Sacramento

+++

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Three stars, Thanks.

JoeJoe

As Critique is requested IMHO

Love your model choice …. Not a great fan of the lighting from above and slightly behind as the image is very much dull /flat in terms of colour which for a fantasy model I would expect rich more vibrant colours similar to the cartoon books they derive from Wonder Woman in this case....The bright hair light also draws your attention being the only hot spot and this is totally fighting against the rest of the image, is this your primary focus as it is the brightest part of the image and not the face which you would expect then the light just disappears throughout the rest of the image.... Did you use a light meter... If you look in the models eyes there is catchlight which would indicate you have allowed ambient light at the front to dictate the shoot as an additional main light or fill which combined with your settings didn't or couldn't cope with the settings in camera at the distance it was. The Fall off is a little to far as you can make out the background and creases and undulations in your backdrop from overhead lighting... As the model is a fuller figured woman the pose or the choice by the photographer to hold the ball shows the models bat wings which in terms of showing a model at her best doesn't work IMHO and is the opposite of asking a model to hold her arms into her body which causes weightlifters arm.... Both are situations to be generally avoided....

I'm not trained in critique but this is my opinion based on doing a few studio shoots

Joe

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

And I don't quite knowhow to respond to your critique. There is the technical part that everyone on here loves to jump on. So you put,

"Did you use a light meter... If you look in the models eyes there is catchlight which would indicate you have allowed ambient light at the front to dictate the shoot as an additional main light or fill which combined with your settings didn't or couldn't cope with the settings in camera at the distance it was."

So, to answer your request for clarity on these two points...
The Minolta Flash Meter IV allowed me to set the exposing shutter speed so that the yellow of the hair was enhanced (saturation increase) by adjusting the shutter speed.

Regarding the modeling lights, that ambient light in the studio, I did wind the volume up past the classic 'bedroom eyes' because she is in the roll of an aggressive female so bedroom eyes for her pupilation would not be a correct setting for the pupils of the eyes (we adjust the modeling lights/ambient light in the studio to control pupilation).

May I respectful direct your attention to this statement from my post as to the technical selection of information:
"Norman power bases D 2000 set to 800 watt seconds, three heads, two heads in 42" Larson Soft Boxes set evenly to either side of Nicole".

Here you are speaking about ambient light on the front of the subject as if that is the main illumination, when in fact I think it is clear that the two 42" Larson Soft boxes to either side forward of Nicole are providing the main illumination, some 2/3 of the 800 watt seconds from the Norman D 200 power base.

True, there are the modeling lights that are creating the catch lights in her eyes, but these ambient lights are there for only that purpose (of course the shutter speed if utilizing the 'yellow' of the quartz lamps to enhance the saturation of her blond hair). In addition if you called fowl on the two catch lights you would be correct in that there is but one sun in our sky and that this is not really done in the style of film-noir, yes, you got me, perhaps more attention to the detail of one catch light for one sun would be appropriate.

I think I will leave this as is. Here is a suggestion about the structure of your critique. Perhaps you could in future structure you critique writing out from one large lumped togeather paragraph, it is difficult to read and follow all the information in your single paragraph comment.

Thanks for taking your time and offering your observations. Have the Happy Holidays that are upon us!

For everyone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0rjw_yPPqY&feature=youtu.be

JoeJoe

Sorry Timmers for my opinion


The reason I picked up on the ambient is..

1... A main light is the major source of light within an image and that appears to be your hair light and rear lights... to prove this look on the floor at the way shadows are cast.... That is how I was / still taught from a master of light and Rotolight ambassador .. These tell a different story to what you paint and are now defending....

I would question if your 42" soft boxes did fire or if they did in what direction and what lack of power... certainly not the models direction.... and if they did then they were severely under powered as to not cast a shadow which the rear lights did...

You use the term (saturation increase) ….. Where is the saturation in blown out hair??

I notice you avoid the models pose and body line opinion that is a direct consequence of a photographers instruction to utilise a prop and hold it a certain way??....

The more I look the more I see basic faults from poor lighting IMHO and the OP not really understanding the medium being used... But like I said I'm not a critic and only offer my own opinion

Regards
Joe

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Here are the first two parts from your input and so I will stay with these.
"1... A main light is the major source of light within an image and that appears to be your hair light and rear lights... to prove this look on the floor at the way shadows are cast.... That is how I was / still taught from a master of light and Rotolight ambassador .. These tell a different story to what you paint and are now defending....

I would question if your 42" soft boxes did fire or if they did in what direction and what lack of power... certainly not the models direction.... and if they did then they were severely under powered as to not cast a shadow which the rear lights did..."

The second part is perhaps the easiest to work on first. The flash heads are plugged into a Norman power base, there are three locations on a D2000 power base, the single post in front, then there are two sets of ports on the top of the box, one set of two posts and the other is the cluster set of four posts that are the 400WS and 800WS outlet cluster that one selects the 400 or 800 Watt output by a leaver. Into this set of four cluster is where the three heads were plugged in. If there were a failure of the cluster then no heads would fire. If one of the heads or two did not fire then while shooting a simple 'chimping' would reveal that failure.

I have used Norman power bases for some 35 years, except for an odd occurrence I have NEVER had a Norma head fail to fire. This is the American top of the line flash system only matched by Speed-O-Tron out of Chicago and having used both I can say this is NEVER junky gear and is reliable beyond compare so the flash failing is not really a question.

Also, the two floor heads were located in the Larson Soft Box. Because this is an advanced portraiture forum I think it safe to make this rather strange and foreign statement for photographers and the general dumb down internet and no-nothing world of lighting. There are all manner of diffused lighting attachments for lights, both hot and flash. I have taken to use that English name 'brolly' to put these attachments into this nitch. They all fit nicely in that category. BUT, there is a piece of lighting equipment that was introduced back in the distant past by a renegade named Larson, it is the single only true Soft Box in existence. Be warned, Larson Enterprises make a lot of crap today because like most of the world of photography there is no deep understanding of what Larson created nor how to use this tool.

The Larson Soft Box is modeled to mimic and takes advantage of the 60 degree, or sacred pyramidal design. To put it simply, the energy vortex of the pyramid design allows the photographer to actual focus light with the true soft box. I refuse to explain all this to people anymore because they think it is some how voodoo or some esoteric mobo-jumbo. It is not and I use it all the time with the Larson Soft Boxes in my studio.

For this set up the soft boxes have been adjusted to produce saturation of color while delivering a shard edged light. It could be adjusted for extreme softness, focus light passed through bottles (transparent/translucent glass/plastic that is focused on surface in the set up, while selecting the subjects distance for a soft sensual de-focused light.

In response to the first part of the statement that is given allow me to direct everyone's attention an age old concept of photography. Lets quote your originating statement as this will lead to a clearer understand for many who read all of this: " A main light is the major source of light within an image and that appears to be your hair light and rear lights... to prove this look on the floor at the way shadows are cast.." This is well stated and observed. Perhaps this is all too obvious to make sense because we are in a lighting studio and not some other location.

Allow me to take you back into the past for basic photo 101. It is 1901, your a guy taking pictures of your girlfriend in her bathing suit with your Kodak snap shot camera. You get the results back are disappointed and you go to the local camera club and get a 'knowledgeable' older guy aside and ask what your doing wrong? Ok, its mid 1960, same scenario. The 1990's, same. And now today late two thousand teens. Times change and the same question about your girlfriend outside in the sun wearing a bathing suit. The answer is, don't use FLAT FRONTAL LIGHT!

Find a clean uncluttered background, put the sun behind the subject and shade the lens and take the photo. Much better, more dramatic light! Great photo!

Now look at the Nicole photo. The overhead set high light is the sun at about 10AM or 3PM. I reduced the lights up put by slapping three stops of neutral density in a clear gel, the bowl in narrow, the light is vary narrow and directional. Why it is that old guy Sun!

Nice even frontal light, two 42" Larson Soft Boxes set to have some 'clarity' for detail but maximum saturation. This is the back lite sun shot that is near imposable to get outside but easily in the studio. And because we are on the subject, remember that part of the old saw, a simple uncluttered surrounding/background? The simple 9 foot paper backdrop. Why black? Because of the shadow. Shadows are black, or at least dark. If I used a lighter paper backdrop I would begin to fight the issue of internal contrast. By using the black background paper I can only have shadows with in shadows. How black is black any ways. But, with light spilling out onto the black background paper to the rear the paper has a lighter black and the shadow cast in front says to us this scene is backlite. It is much more dramatic.

Here is one last point of departure. If I get a smoke machine and place the smoke low to the ground, coming up the legs, staying in the back vary dense, but still beginning to swirl around from behind, then I would have the excellent film noir look. Now you know how to do film noir in the studio, well one way!

JoeJoe

Quote 1
when in fact I think it is clear that the two 42" Larson Soft boxes to either side forward of Nicole are providing the main illumination

Quote 2
Now look at the Nicole photo. The overhead set high light is the sun at about 10AM or 3PM. I reduced the lights up put by slapping three stops of neutral density in a clear gel, the bowl in narrow, the light is vary narrow and directional. Why it is that old guy Sun!

And this has just proven without a doubt my assumption that the OP doesn't understand the medium in which he shoots... Either you are Side-lighting as you stated in your first explanation or you are back-lighting from this adjusted explanation based on my observations...

Sorry Timmers but you need to stick to one or the other.... It cant be both...

You use a ND Gel.9 now your stating 3 stops of light on the rear lights … please make your mind up .9 is not 3 stops of light as we all know.

If your trying to copy 10 or 3 lighting with some direction then I would say it failed miserably in the FACT that it is not directional apart from the direction of the shadows being thrust forward which in turn leads to Dull and flat lighting apart from the top of the head which is too hot and has lost detail in the hair.. (We use rim or hair light just enough to separate from the background not to blow out the details)....

I'll leave it here for you to have the last word but do apologise at having semi hijacked your image to prove a point.....

Have a great Xmas

Regards
Joe

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

I give up, you obviously see something and think something that I just simply don't understand. You get to be Mr. Photography, I will just keep making photographs and leave my work for others to enjoy or not. I'm tired of wasting time trying to explain what is apparent and obviously clearly there to be seen. I'm done.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Now, for everyone who gives a care, expert JoeJoe states that .9 is not 3 stops of density. Here from the web: https://www.adorama.com/kkwf4nd90.html?discontinued=t
"3 Stop Neutral Density #96, ND 0.90"
The abbreviated '.9' is 3 stops of Neutral Density. .9 is the log value for that 3 stop value.

If you desire a more definitive source then consult The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, the section entitled Wratten Guide in that reference source.

Where Joejoe gets his information I have no clue, but this small item he is totally and completely misinformed.

As I said, I just can't go on with a discussion in which the person seems to have no basic skills in his craft or in simple English.


In addition, neutral density is NOT a filter, these units function to attenuate light, not filter it. Other neutral density attenuators are items such as the Gray Scale/density scales used with the old Kodak Separation Guide and the Kodak Gray Card. A Kodak Gray Card has a value of .80 + or - .01ND. Great for exposure and poor as a white balance device.

JoeJoe

And finally the true Timmers emerges..... Straight on the attack or defence but it did take a deliberate error to coax him out to what we see in another section where he doesn't accept critique on any images …. And just to summarise .. When someone asks for critique they don't really mean it ….. That's why I prefer not to get involved in it.... ;-)

Thanks Timmers …

"POW"

Joe

DickC Loc: NE Washington state

Very nice photos, thanks for sharing!!

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Thank Dick, that is a mighty fine kitty in your avatar!