The iPhone lens is great for capturing the moment and immediately sending the pictures to family and friend or to display a shot up to 8x10. My fixed lenses on the iPhone are 0.5, 1 and 2. The pictures are really pretty exceptional given the limits. If I want to capture animals, birds or insects closeups, or photo stack, or focus tightly or, shoot in snow, or pick up a wide dynamic range or capture a portrait with bokeh or take the stars, etc., etc., it’s hard to beat an 850 with an appropriate lens. The tiny lens on an iPhone simply doesn’t compare, despite the advertisements. The physics of light transmission are not suspended just because Apple says so.

I prefer to travel light. I use a Pacsafe bag with the reinforced strap and fabric. I typically use a FF equivalent of a 24-120 mounted as a walk around with a prime 20 mm 1.8. I take a tabletop or gorilla tripod, an extra battery, additional cards, a cleaning pen, along with a few other cleaning supplies and a charger that I keep in my suitcase. Read the Rick Steve’s website section on safety that goes over scams and theft protection, it’s really good. So far my camera and gear has always traveled back home with me. Have fun, travel is a great experience.

I have friends who work as models, photographers and post processing computer whizzes for a major manufacturer that does tons of magazine and electronic media advertising. For years now, I’m continually amazed that a great photographer can turn something plain, simple into a work of beauty. I’m also amazed that excellent post processing can turn a boring photo into something gripping. What part does each play in your photography: subject, image, post-processing? What percentage to create your best outputs?

FYI, the business heads have given their emphasis. There are a dozen models plus, 2 1/2 full time photographers and 10-13 post processing gurus. Each one says they’re most important.

Thank you all. I will look at the floor plans today when back in the current office and make some personal contacts. Photography presents a challenge for us because we are not big enough to have a dedicated photographer and are simply too busy taking care of the sick and maimed in our community to routinely take photos ourselves. I appreciate all the insights. Most of the books and articles on medical photographic documentation are antiquated, from lighting to capture to storage. I appreciate all the input.

Thank you all. Very helpful. It will take me a bit to digest it all. I was not familiar with Frankfort Horizontal, or the advantages of flash over fixed light.

I have never shot in a studio. I am setting up a new office and will want to take serial photos of patients’ facial contours to compare before and after results of surgical interventions. I do some cosmetics but mainly reconstruction surgeries fixing traumatic injuries or other’s less desirable outcomes. The pictures are taken by medical assistants so simplicity and reproducibility are keys. With the advent of LED studio lights, I wanted to mount LED studio lights that can be turned on with a switch, paint a wall with background paint and place foot positions on the floor so that the patient can easily turn to the appropriate angles. Currently, we use a portable ring light with a fabric background in an exam room.

My questions: what lights would you use and at what angle from the center would you place them? Would you place any lighting on the ceiling? Or, would you just continue with a ring light on a moveable stand?

These are some great images. BTW, Olivia is already an experienced Playboy model.

The David was originally placed above a piazza in Florence, then moved inside a few years later. When you look at the David in person in Florence, it is spectacular. I don’t believe marble formed by Michelangelo can be adequately reproduced with plaster or fiberglass. Even in person the perspective is odd with David though. The toes, the hands etc. are too long. However, from the perspective of looking up from the Piazza to the exact spot it was created for, the statue reportedly takes on an appearance that shows a perfectly formed lithe, powerful adolescent looking towards the horizon. Michelangelo was amazing in his ability to create perfection from marble by manipulating perspective.

Nice work with the model and lighting.

Whether or not Manet used photography is a matter of debate in the art world. None of his photographs exist if he did. But Manet did something very unusual in several pieces, including Olympia. Manet used frontal lighting, a technique introduced with photography. It creates an intimacy with the subject, darkening the background and pushing shadows to the edges. We are very used to the perspective, but then within the art world it was absolutely unique to Manet. That level of intimacy, including the model staring towards the onlooker, caused quite a scandal. I believe the French “establishment” artists labeled the beautiful piece as indecent. They refused to allow it shown at the official Salon.