Recent nudes from Slipjig's new camera

[slipjig]

Here are some nudes I shot last week. The model is about 50, so we're definitely in a different "space" here. I hope you enjoy them.

Abby, thanks for permission.

SlipJig

img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/messages/8/828.jpg

img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/messages/8/829.jpg

img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/messages/8/830.jpg

img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/messages/8/831.jpg

[slipjig]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, these images have been reduced by 80% so that I didn't use up too much bandwidth on the site. I hop you like them, and feedback is always welcome.
Regards
SJ

[Abby]

Hiya Slippy

Hey, nice pics, and she looks hot, 50 or not! I love the imagery, expecilly int he second one, with the shadow of the crucifix. Are they all natural light? Looks great. I think Elvaar will love these, he did a simialr thing (albeit with a younger model, Lux), a while back.

a

[slipjig]

Hi Abby,

Thanks for your comments. Yes, they are all shot in natural light, handheld with my new D100 and a Nikkor 35-70 F2.8 zoom. The only changes I made were a little tweak to the contrast. I also like the one with the crucifix, and will probably hang that in my next show. (I enter shows at local galleries just for kix) That happened quite by accident. We shot in her apartment, and as we relocated and started shooting, noticed the cross that was in the window was casting that shadow in just the right place. Worked out.

Thanks again for your support, and for letting me post them here.

SlipJig

[arsby]

Those nipples speak to me. They have personality.
And they are crinkly!
Thanks, Slipjig.

[slipjig]

Arsby,

I liked them, too! And they were hard from the beginning to the end of the shoot...

SJ

[arsby]

Slipjig,

I'd be hard from the beginning to end of the shoot, in close proximity to those hard nipples. Don't know how you do it. I know you'll say, "I'm a professional and it's work", but still...

I'll bet some of her other features have a lot of personality as well. The eyes and upper arms of older women speak to me as well. (The thighs of *all* women speak to me.)

Arsby

[slipjig]

Arsby,

I know it sounds funny, but I was concentrating so hard img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif on getting the shots right that I didn't put much thought into what I was shooting. Wierd, eh?

SJ

[slipjig]

Here are some more recent shots of a different model taken with my D100. This woman is about 25, slightly pregnant and pretty voluptuous. I'm sorry I had to throw in a sunburst across her face, but we agreed "no internet". I figure that by obscuring her face, it is essentially not her. Of course I have full releases for the images anyway, so it's not like I can get in any trouble about it.

I hope you enjoy them. More to come (pun intended)

img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/messages/8/1227.jpg
img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/messages/8/1228.jpg
img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/messages/8/1229.jpg
img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/messages/8/1230.jpg

SlipJig

[Abby]

They were good, tho hard to see much detail. What kidna lights did you use in these? Looks like at least one of them is direct, as in, undiffused? You might want to try diffusing all sources (unless you are trying for a specific look) - softer light is always more flattering.

The other thing that is worth trying is more oblique lighting. This is where you and the model face each other, maybe eight feet apart, and you have a light to the model's right, maybe five feet away. You take a picture (position A), and this is sidelight. It's ideal for showing curves, generally flattering. Get the model to move about in this light (move her hips in circles), and there'll be many lovely shadows from her tummy muscles. If you use a macro lens, you'll see the texture of the skin in lots of detail.

Front light (where the light and the camera are shooting from the same angle) will always make things look flat, and flat is generally boring). As soon as you introduce more 80 degrees angle between you, the light, and the model, you get interest.

img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/messages/8/1237.gif

You can accentuate this more by standing in position B, as I did in this pic of Charlie (below). You can see I am beginning to get lens flare (the washed out look) - this comes from light hitting my lens directly from the source (as opposed to hitting the subject, and bouncing back in the lens). This is generally bad, but you can get away with a bit of it.

img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/messages/8/1238.jpg

When you do this, edges become very pronounced - see in Charlie's pic, her tummy is almost the same colour as the wall, yet it is very clear where her tummy starts and the wall ends - the oblique light makes a highlight on all edges. I could have made this a lot better by keeping light off the wall behind her in this pic, but I forgot my barndoors.

Also, you get that "shiny" look that you see on the peak of her belly. No idea what that's called in the biz, but sometimes it's a good look. That happens when the light is at am extremely oblique angle.

I like the one of her with her back to the camera, tho the vase of flowers is a little trite, IMO. Same composition with no flowers would have been much more arresting, I think - and if the light was more to the side, than the front, it woulda looked better.

Anyway, you got a digital camera, and a model, and a place to shoot her, and some lights, that's all you need. Next time you shoot, try leaving the model and the light where they are, and YOU move in a circle around her, and look at the effects you get at the end of the session. Try going in a 180 degree arc around the model, from directly beside the light source, to the source pointing directly at you, with the model in the middle.

Post some samps!

a

[cass]

Hey Slippy,
Nice job. I want to start learning some of the finer details so I can put forward a respected opinion.
I do like your approach though Slippy. Some cool ideas.
Keep it up
Love Cass x

[slipjig]

Abby,

Thanks a TON for your detailed feedback. Great stuff that I will use in my next shoot with her, which is the middle of April or so. I have two themed shoots this month, and I'll add them to the mix...

A couple of things... The first image was natural light through a large window right behind me. The other two were shot using unfiltered 500W daylight bulbs in light pans - basically work lights. I have some makeshift filters for the lights, but the bulbs are so hot that I dare not use them. I am buying a set of Redheads next month. If you have any ideas about what to buy - I would certainly appreciate it!

Cass, your opinion as a consumer of the images is always welcome - you needn't wait to be more "technical". img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/wink.gif

Thanks again - more to come!

SJ

[Abby]

Hiya

"500w daylight" is a contradiction in terms, I think. If you look at the bulbs when the lamp is switched off, does the glass look blue, or clear? *curious*

Redheads are quite expensive (if you get the real deal, but even the copies are), and anyway not really ideal. Let me know your budget, but if it's over $300, you can afford to buy some flash gear, and that'd be a much better option. If you're worried about the complexity, don't be - it's dead easy to use, I can talk you thru a surefire way to shoot with flash gear right here.

Flash gear you can buy from $300 for a small kit, up to $9,000 (what I paid for my stuff, very high tech, powerful, reliable, and stuff). The main thing price affects is power (how much light they output), recycle time (cheaper ones will take longer to recycle, meaning more time between shots - if you're shooting a pee scene, this might be important to you, otherwise, not a big deal!).

Build quality is also an issue, but if you're strapped for cash, a cheap kit (two 300w heads, two brollies, two stands, synch cable) will see you right. You'll be able to shoot at f8 in a normal sized room, if the lights are close to the model.

Not sure what your plan is with the filters - is it to make them more like daylight, so the WB is correct? If so, set your camera's WB to "indoor" or "incandescent", and they will look fine (that's if the bulbs are NOT blue-coated?).

OTOH, If you're going for arty stuff (coloured light), you'll need to keep the gel at least 10 inches from the lamp itself (otherwise, it'll melt in minutes or even seconds) - that means you'll need a big sheet of gel - maybe three feet square. That's only about $5, but a pain to rig up.

a

[slipjig]

Hi Abby,

The bulbs are blue.

I was prepared to spend $700 USD on a set of three redheads with stands, barndoors and a hard case for the set. I figured that using a flash setup was too much of a hassle. If the light is steady, I can shoot a few test shots and know right away what it will look like. I envisioned having to use a light (peak) meter to guage flash units. Aren't redheads easier?

And what the heck is a "brollie"? Sorry to sound like a hick - but I have never heard the term.

img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

And thanks a bunch for all of your help!

SlipJig

[cass]

Brollie: umbrella
Love Cass
Mwoa!

[cass]

Thanks for the positive comments Slippy,

I love playing with the camera and Abby is always really supportive of me having a go.
I especially love playing with the flash at gigs and jam nights.
I have a really amazing musi friend who I took some pics of while he was playing.
Although they're a bit dodgy and fuzzy, I really like the effect the stage lights have on pictures. There's always a really amazing amber hue to everything
img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/messages/8/1239.jpg

[cass]

img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/messages/8/1240.jpg

[cass]

I like the one without the flash best

[Abby]

Hiya

For $700 you can buy a pretty good flash head kit. Advantages of flash over hot lights (ie, redheads):

heat - several 800w redheads will heat up any space, really fast, making the models sweat
electricity - redheads really chew through the power.
exposure - three redheads pointing at a model, but out of shot for a full-body framing (so, lights maybe four feet from the model), you'll be shooting f4 at 1/60th, ISO 200, with a tailwind. That is bad. Ideally, you'd wanna shoot at f8, 1/200th, ISO 200, and there is no way in hell you'll get that with three redheads. It looks like a lot of light to your eye, but to a camera, it's not much at all. What settings did you shoot those pics on, above?
colour balance - redheads use tungsten lamps, which compared to daylight, is a very yellow light. If you want to mix daylight and redheads, you need to colour correct the redheads (gel) - this can take up to half a stop of light off.
diffusion/heat issue - you'd rarely point a barefaced light at a model, cos the result is very harsh, and would blind the model! This means you need diffuse the light - bounce it off a wall, loosing three to four stops (when you don't have many stops to spare at all!), or use diffusion gel, a translucent plastic that you clamp in front of the light, again, loosing a few precious stops.

"Loosing stops" is always an issue with any light source, but flash gear is designed with this in mind, and has more power to use.

Advantages of flash over redheads:
You get to see exactly how the scene will look on film, with your own eyes... but if you're using a digital camera, you can look at the shot on the back of the camera, and see if it's correctly exposed. Flash heads have these things called "modelling lamps" in them, 150w or so, that can show you roughly how the flash light will fall on the model. These also assist the autofocus, which on some cameras needs a fair bit of light to work at a reasonable speed.

Best as I can tell, there is no reason to use hot lights over flash gear, especially if you have a digital camera - the only exception is if you want to record video stuff at the same time, or right after, you only need one set of lights... but those lights are not at all ideal for shooting stills.

Most shops will try to sell you a light meter with your flash kit, but don't let them talk you into it. You can tell a hell of a lot more by looking at the test shot you just took, and checking out the histrogram function.

I would very strongly recomend getting a two head flash kit, with two stands, and two brollies (white inside, black outside is fine). You can get a synch cable that goes from your camera to one of the units (they can tell eachother when they should go off, after that - they all have sensors on them), or you can get an inexpensive IR transmitter to set them off, or you can get a small "dumb" manual flash to go on your hot shoe to set off the flash heads.

Let me know if you have any specific questions, and remember, I can tell you an absolutely surefire way to be able to start taking pics with your flash head in about two minutes. Dead easy.

a

[slipjig]

Hiya Abby,

Thanks for everything!

What power rating and recycle time should I look for? I'm thinking three lights (main, secondary and back light) in a kit. What is your opinion of this set?

http://www.sell-it-on-the-net.com/on...studio_kit.htm

I appreciate your input - as specific as you are willing to give me. I have about $750 to spend, and I would take all of your recommendations into serious consideration.

Cheers

SlipJig

[Abby]

That kit looks ok. Here's another:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh2.sph/...ID=F436922BA70

(if the link does not work, try searching by Mfr Catalog # AK800K of B&H Catalog # PHSM2P800K). www.bhphotovideo.com is a great place to find stuff

A softbox the size of your kit is pretty useless, IMO. If you're going to use a softbox, it needs to be big, at least 24"x36", preferably bigger). Brollies will do everything you need.

If you wanted, you could get just two heads, three is probably un-necessary. I have six heads, and have never used them all at once, and these days only use one for a solo shoot, and two for a GG sometimes. So, you could go with one head, and still be really creative.

If you DID go with one head, spent $750 on it (and a stand), you can be a lot more creative. The limiting factor becomes aperture - you want to be able to control the DOF, and for the portraiture stuff you're doing, f8 is perhaps optimum. A 160WS head bounced into a brolly would NOT give you f8 - maybe f5.6, if she was really close to the brolly (ie, under two feet).

However. When you get a more powerful head - say, 800WS - you have a lot more power to use on things like bounce (bounce off a wall to get a huge, soft, directional light; hang up a white sheet, and point the light at the model through that - a 6' by 8' softbox - priceless!), while still maintaining that apreture of f8.

There are so many options, it's hard to know which way to go. If you want to force yourself to be creative, get one, powerful head. If you want easy st., get a three head combo.

Sorry to be so confusing. img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif Ask me some questions.

a

[slipjig]

Hi Abby

Thanks again!

How about if I picked up this kit
StudioMax II 2 Light 640 W/S Portrait Studio Kit - Includes: 2 AK320 320 W/S Monolights, Umbrellas, Light Stands, & Case

And a white/gold reflector disc

Or this one
Excalibur 960 W/S 2 Light Kit - Includes: 1 SP6400 - 640 W/S, 1 SP3200 - 320 W/S Monolight, Umbrellas, Light Stands, & Soft Case

Also adding the disc

I like the second one better - it has a more powerful main tube, with a smaller, but still pretty hefty 320 secondary.

Would it be better to have one super-powerful flash head - 800 watts - or two 400 watt heads? I would think that the two moderate heads would give you more flexibility, no?

One more thing - do these kits come with flash control units? I assume that I somehow sync with my hot shoe via cables. I know some are triggered optically.

You're the best

SJ

[slipjig]

Cass,

I liked the one without the flash, too.

Slippy

[Abby]

Hiya

I'd go with your second option there. What did you want the disc for? Generally, these are only used for bouncing sunlight onto your subject, not for bouncing flash light...?

Two 400w heads, vs one 800w head... hard to say, and I addressed this in my last post. Two heads is the easy way, but can be cliched. One head forces you to be more creative, and your shots will look better for it. I very rarely use two heads to shoot a single model these days - usually one head bounced or otherwise modified (brolly, softbox).

If you plan to build a kit from scratch, and you want future usefulness, I'd recommend buying a 800w head now. That way, in the future, when you can afford to buy more gear, you can buy another 800w head, and have a kickarse setup.

OTOH, if you bought two 400w heads now, when you upgrade later, those 400w heads will be piddly in the power dept, and almost useless. ('cept for neat things like hiding them behind a small prop - inside a lampshade, for example).

These kits will all come with a synch lead (if they don't you can by a 10' one for $5, make sure you get the correct polarity connectors, tho!), that's a thin cable that runs from your camera to on head. The other head fires as soon as it sees a flash (any flash)go off (usually, the one you trigger with a cable).

I fucking hate synch leads, refuse to use them - big trip hazard. My flash gear uses an IR trigger (yours might as well, in fact, worth asking), so I can mount a small IR trigger on my cam's hot shoe, and rigger lights from up to 30' away. Also seems to work around corners, and so on.

The only place IR triggers do not work is in direct sun (sunlight has a lot of IR in it, and confuses the signal). In direct sun, you often want fill flash, and in those instances, I use a cable trigger (and trip over it regularly).

Another way is to buy a cheapie flash that's "dumb" (no ETTL), stick it on your camera's hotshoe, set it to a low power, and your new gear will trigger off that. This can be cool cos you can use the small camera-mounted flash as some extra front fill or effect (such as a sparkle in a models' eye). These cheapie flashes you can buy for $30 or so, and you set the power on them manually.

For triggering purposes only, you can use the lowest power (the sensors on your monoblocks are quite sensitive), and point the flash directly up, or at your forehead, if you don't want that extra front fill. It's unlikely to affect your exposure that way.

Hit me with more questions!

a

[slipjig]

Hiya,

Lots of great information...

If I go for a 1000 watt monolight, it's $700 - $1200 with nothing. Add another $250 for the soft box, cord and stand and we are way beyond what I should be spending. I'm kinda stuck there, in that it seems if I buy enough power in one light, I'm out of my price range. Unless you've run across a cheap 750 watt head.

I'm thinking that the second kit that I mentioned may do the trick - a 640 and a 320 (as a secondary) with all the gear for $600 plus the cost of a case. I'd get a softbox eventually.

What about radio triggers? Do they have those, or am I absolutely relegated to a cord in sunlight?

Thanks a million for working with me on this.

SJ

[Abby]

Yup, see what you mean. That secnd kit might be the go.

Radio triggers are a great way to do it, but they are not so cheap, and I think in your situation, every cent you can find whould be spent on light power, not neat toys! img tag disable, use attachment mgr/system to add images to postshttp://www.abbywinters.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

a

[slipjig]

Awww, but AAAbbbbbyyyyy! I want the toyz.

Anyway, thanks so much for you help - all of it - so far. I'll let you know what transpires. I'm going to employ your lighting suggestions in my next shoot - poor equipment and all. With the light set I'm aiming at, I may have to bump up the ISO to 320 to shoot at f8. We'll see. I typically shoot from a tripod, so it may be less of an issue since I can drop my shutter speed a bit.

You're the best

SJ

[Abby]

oooops, I did not realise you might be using a tripod, I just kinda figured you were not! I very rarely use a tripod - last time was with Lizzie's fire twirling pics about a year ago, with shutter speeds like 2 seconds, and so on. I value moving around so much that I cannot bring myself to use a tripod.

However, for a trip we have planned soon, I'm gonna hire a 70-200mm f2.8L lens (mmmmm), with a view to buying one. As you know the rule of thumb is lens length = slowest shutter speed for hand held (ie, 70mm lens, 1/70th of a second hand held is ok, any slower, danger), so with a 20mm lens, I'll have to use a shutter speed of 1/200th hand held, and that might not be suitable in some situations, so I bought a monopod today).

Let me know when you buy the gear, and I'll give you the crash course in getting it to work. You will be amazed and impressed.

a

[slipjig]

Hi Abby,

Yeah, I use a tripod when I can, though it is incredibly limiting. One big reason for buying lights for me is to minimize my reliance on it.

My main lens is a Nikkor 35-70 f2.8, and my alternate is a Sigma 20mm f1.8, which I find I use for portraits a nearly all the time due to space limitations. Next up will be a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 , and that will complete the list for me.

Thanks for the rule on lenses and shutter speed. I had always used 1/60th as a bottom limit, but found that with the wide angle I could manage much lower speeds without shake. I have always wondered if there was a rule about depth of field as it relates to focal length and aperture. In other words, is there a calculation to figure out what the depth of field would be using a 50mm lens at f5.6? I shoot for an aperture of f8-f11 when shooting portraits, but I'd like to know exactly what I'm gaining.

Thanks for all of your help!

SlipJig

[slipjig]

Hi Abby,

Borrowsed some old pro lights with a soft box, etc... - samps are coming.

I am going to buy some lighting soon. Do the modern light sets still work off of a central power supply, or are they "standalone", and each have their own power supply built-in?

Cheers

SlipJig
(who really likes the results of the pro lighting)