A success story! (nudity warning) [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Ash

28-Aug-2007, 02:42

WARNING - This does contain nudity so don't view at work!

So my beautiful girlfriend is over.

I've got my darkroom sorted (finally!). The Beseler CB-7 is set up for 4x5 and 6x6, my new LPL 6700 for 35mm.

I've got a few cameras in my room begging to be used.

So the Korona 4x5 with the Dagor 180mm is sat waiting to be used properly. My mother's 1DmkII and studio lights are gathering dust. I want to use 'proper' Ilford film rather than all that Ortho 4x5!

I need a portfolio sorted by Wednesday and MJ offers to let me take some photo's if I'd like to.

We're playing around, but to use the studio flash, I wasn't sure how to meter - I use the 1DmkII as a ££££ light meter, then set up the Korona to take one photo.

This really was to test whether the Dagor-in-shutter would work properly with a flash. I think I set it to 1/15 at f/32ish after all.

So playing around with the digital, we got this photo - I thought you all might enjoy the humour ;)

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/NR0K1703a.jpg

With the camera set up with fp4 we got this -

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/miahead.jpg

Full version here:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/miafull.jpg

Thats a very rough neg and VERY rough prints. Rushed to say the least, literally quick development, quick printing without test strip or filtering or dodging or burning. The contrast should be a lot higher, but of course a near-100 year old Dagor would have low contrast. I've not leveled the scans yet either. :eek:

All in all I quite enjoyed using 4x5 for portraiture... I can't wait to take more!

Ben R

28-Aug-2007, 06:43

I must be getting old, looks underage :-)

MIke Sherck

28-Aug-2007, 06:44

Have you considered using filtered window light as your main light source, and a white card (a sheet of matt board works well,) as fill? Artificial lighting always seems so harsh to me.

Mike

Ash

28-Aug-2007, 07:09

Ben, she's young like me, but not underage! :)

Mike, do you think that the lighting is too harsh even on the film shot? The digital is of course very harsh.

David A. Goldfarb

28-Aug-2007, 07:28

A hard light can work, if you set it up right. Try placing the light higher and put more distance between her and the background. The print could also use more contrast.

Ben R

28-Aug-2007, 07:33

Ash, I'm 27, that's why it's scaring me so much that not only are 18 year olds almost 10 years younger than me, they look it as well! :-) Sorry, been having a 'I'm not young anymore' crisis ever since my birthday!

Ash

28-Aug-2007, 07:58

Thanks for your crit and advice David. I had the light as high as it would go, facing at the ceiling, so I would have diffused and less directed light when I took the film photo. Unfortunately my room is pretty dark and MJ had to sit with her back almost against the wall to get in the frame as I'd wanted and that caused a harsh shadow behind.

Ben, it's more scary at my age when 10 year olds are trying to look 20! :eek:

David A. Goldfarb

28-Aug-2007, 08:11

You can usually get a higher angle in a small space by putting the light closer to the subject. Don't be afraid to have the light stand and fixture just outside the frame.

I think that beginners with studio lighting often don't realize how close you can put the light to the subject. Also, the closer the light, the softer the effect.

Ash

28-Aug-2007, 08:15

Well I definitely am a beginner when it comes to using studio lights - it's the fourth time I've ever taken them out the box to use.

I do have a few photography books and magazines that show lighting setups, so I'll need to remember to look through them before the next time I use the lights :)

Peter Lewin

28-Aug-2007, 08:56

Ash: You use the plural (lights) implying that you can do more than a single light set-up. I confess that I'm distracted by the shadow behind your model (I could say that I was distracted by your girlfriend and didn't notice the shadow, but I'm trying to be serious, rather than lascivious...) Anyway, if you have a second light, you can try bouncing it off the back wall (at lower intensity than your main light) to eliminate the shadow. If you have only one light, someone else suggested using white board as a fill reflector. Another poster suggested moving the light closer to your model, which would work if you are using a softbox, but may be very uncomfortable for the model if you are using bare studio flash (its a harsh light to fire straight at someone from close range) - in that case you could try using white board as a reflector, so the strobe fires at the board, and the reflected, more diffused light strikes your girlfriend. Yet another approach, in absence of a softbox, is to string up a sheet inbetween the light and the model as a diffuser. Loads of options, keep us abreast (oh, what a horrid pun!) of your progress!

GhoSStrider

28-Aug-2007, 08:58

Ash,

I'm with the others in thinking that the shadows are a little distracting, but I understand the circumstances you were shooting in. I've run into the same thing, but have devised a way to deal with it a little bit.

I don't know if you have other rooms available, but a white sheet works great as a backdrop. If there are some larger rooms available in your house, you might try shooting there with some more distance between the subject and the backdrop.

These are some shots done with stupidly simple equipment:

http://www.pbase.com/copcarss/image/58163008.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/copcarss/image/58163017.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/copcarss/image/58163022.jpg

All shot with a combination of indirect window light, and some ceiling bounced flash and a Canon D60 w/ an EF 24-85mm (sorry...didn't have any LF examples handy). I simply used a couple squeeze clamps to hold up a white sheet a few feet behind the subject.

I'm not a great portrait photographer by any stretch of the imagination, but I like these, and my friends did, too (it's their son). Just an idea.

Ash

28-Aug-2007, 09:06

Thanks for the advice Peter, Chris. Definitely ideas for me to keep in mind.

I was using just one light, but a second was available albeit too difficult to set up in this circumstance.

I'm still in need of a backdrop. As term-time begins I'll possibly be in contact with an old friend who is at uni - she told me the store there sells huge rolls of paper which apparently works well as portable backdrops, cheap too. Once I have that then I'll be able to use more than the only bare wall in the house!

Ben R

28-Aug-2007, 09:44

Don't know what lights you have Ash but a one light setup with a bit of diffusion should enable you to get great lighting in such a small room. Do you have a softbox or a photographic umbrella? With either of these, position it quite far back (not as soft lighting but it will have the room to wrap around the subject) and light from above and slightly to the side for a classic 'rembrandt' type of lighting. If you make sure that there is a white wall on the other side then that should give plenty fill, failing that a white sheet will do fine if you rig it up on the wall or on a cupboard, etc.

Of course if you don't have any diffusers then bounce the light off the ceiling and have her sitting on white rather than blue bedlinen, that will give very soft and even light and fill for the shadows underneath.

The thing is that nude photography in particular is far more 'still life' than 'portrait' in that you are using carefully worked lighting to create the shadows which accentuate form and tonality. You can do it with one light and a reflector but it will take a bit more working around rather than the 3 light setup that I would want to use (main/fill/rim) with softboxes that can be flagged.
Not that I have any experience with nude photography, my wife said no, must have been the time I took a pic of her naked prosterior while asleep at 17mm (35mm) and posted it up as her screensaver, you can make even the best looking nude girls into something horrible if you try hard enough! ;-)

The most important thing when considering this type of photography is to ask 'what am I taking this photo for, what am I trying to say with it?'. Taking photos of your GF in the nud is fun and good for a laugh, but if you want to make art out of it then you have to decide whether you are taking a portrait, celebrating the female form, bringing out the inner person divest of outside distractions, etc, etc. Once you have that in mind you can work with the poses and the lighting to achieve what you have in mind, to express what you want to say with the photos. Although the first pic has potential, the 2nd looks like a snapshot and not a very flattering one at that.

sparq

28-Aug-2007, 09:57

Ash, I believe you see soooo many suggestions here because everyone wants to see more pictures of your beautiful model! :D

Pete Watkins

28-Aug-2007, 10:58

Ash,
I'm shocked, does your Mum know what you're getting up to?
Well, I'm really just jealous. I dunno how you manage to pull 'em. All I really want to say is it looks too much like a studio shot and secondly it lacks contrast.
If you don't have that Durst 35mm enlarger off me when I can drive I'm gonna tell your Mum.
Pete.

Joseph O'Neil

28-Aug-2007, 11:00

I must be getting old, looks underage :-)

Which one - the camera or the lens. I think one is younger than the other.

:)

Ash

28-Aug-2007, 11:12

Joseph...Heh, I think the age gap is just about right (for the camera/lens, and for me and MJ :D )

Pete, I will gladly take the enlarger off your hands, my thanks again for your offer :)
Hmm...I'm not sure my mum WANTS to know! The shot is very low contrast, I just CAN'T seem to get it any stronger, it might be the chemicals, it might be me.

I'm getting harsh contrast with the LPL, just not with the Beseler. Strange since the lamp is brighter, and I'm using Ilford multigrade filters (the small square ones).

I'm going to try again later. If I can't get a higher contrast I'll just leave the neg as a very satisfactory test shot until MJ comes around next ;)

Glenn Thoreson

28-Aug-2007, 11:44

Oops! The photobucket page comes up with a tag that says "this image or video has violated our terms of use", or something. In other words, it don't work no more. Phooey! :(

Ash

28-Aug-2007, 11:57

Wow really? Someone must have reported it.

At least you can still see the other two pics :)

Ben R

28-Aug-2007, 12:11

there were more?

Ash

28-Aug-2007, 12:43

Ben,

The full head/torso shot was linked. That link is now removed at the source.

I've more digitals but I can't post them :)

GhoSStrider

28-Aug-2007, 14:09

I've more digitals but I can't post them :)

It must be the shame of using such an inferior format, right? :p

Ash

28-Aug-2007, 14:17

Hell yea, ;)

Bruce Watson

28-Aug-2007, 14:34

Ash, Ash, Ash. What are we going to do with you boy? You talked her out of her clothes and she's stroking your... Korona?

Ash, I gotta tell ya, there are things you can do with a naked and beautiful woman that are more fun than photography! Frank Petronio will dispute that I'm sure. ;) But trust me on this.

MIke Sherck

28-Aug-2007, 14:55

Ben, she's young like me, but not underage! :)

Mike, do you think that the lighting is too harsh even on the film shot? The digital is of course very harsh.

Yeah, for me, anyway. Even printed better, that oval shadow against the wall contrasted with her head and hair just reaches out and pokes me in the eye -- and not in a good way! ;) On the other hand, you should see some of my early 4x5 portraits. Ugh, awful! Ash will get better quickly, I'm sure.

Mike

Ash

28-Aug-2007, 17:30

Mike, everyone, MJ has had great fun reading your responses. I'm grateful for your input.

I realised the biggest problem with that shadow is that it's on the wrong side to look natural. She's looking up at me as I took the photo, so looking away from the light. The second negative (of the two for the same portrait) has MJ looking in the other direction, which appears a lot more comfortable, even with the distracting shadow.

It's 1:30am and I've only just finished in the darkroom; I need to be up tomorrow to be out the house with a portfolio for this Foundation Degree. Wish me luck in my interview at noon!

Turner Reich

28-Aug-2007, 21:13

Very nice, I have new screen saver now, want to see it? Just kidding, do it on film with some soft window light though some linen. I would love to see what you come up with. By the way you are lucky to be young so enjoy your youths.

CantikFotos

29-Aug-2007, 02:39

do it on film......

Sounds very uncomfortable. :D

Corey

Joseph O'Neil

29-Aug-2007, 05:01

I'm getting harsh contrast with the LPL, just not with the Beseler. Strange since the lamp is brighter, and I'm using Ilford multigrade filters (the small square ones).

-snip-
I've gone through a few different enlargers over the year and i remember that when I went form my old B&J diffusion head 4x5 enlarger to my Omega D series enlarger, that had a condenser head, I found that a lot of my old negatives, which I had developed to be a bit contrastry to match the diffusion enlarger, came out to harsh for my liking.

My solution was to go to a local glass & mirror company, and I had them make me a small sheet of frosted (one side) glass, and i had them make it the same size as an Ilford mulitgrade filter - but the larger size.

I placed the glass in the filter drawer, frosted side up (limited reflection & glare that way) and the diffusion effect of the frosted glass did the trick for me. I do not know if you can do the same thing with your current enlarger, but the piece of glass only cost me a couple of dollars at the time, and it's worth a try if you can.

Another thing to consider, and something I always do (when possible) is I always shoot two sheets of the same subject, but I develop them different. I do my first run what I consider "normal" then the second sheet I always either push or pull development, depending on what I want, either half or a full stop. Sometimes it's more guesswork that science, but I find when printing - for me at least - it works out good. I use a variety of papers you see, and some papers match different than others do to the same negative.

From an art point of view too, some photographs seem to work better when the print is too contrasty or too soft. I did myself a print years ago of trees overhanging a creek on the old family farm, and the way the print comes out, you would almost think it was an ortho print, but it works that way (at least for me) better than what would be a technically correct print.

so experiment, and have fun. If I were your age again and had a girlfriend like you, I would do lots and lots and lots of film and shots, over and over and over again. On ething you young guys tend to forget is how much practice you need until you get it right.

:)

(yeah, I'll go crawl back into my hole now....)

Ben R

29-Aug-2007, 06:00

Problem with lots of shooting like this (when it's you're girlfriend/wife) is that you tend to lose concentration half way through and spend time investing in another type of hobby...

BrianShaw

29-Aug-2007, 07:17

Problem with lots of shooting like this (when it's you're girlfriend/wife) is that you tend to lose concentration half way through and spend time investing in another type of hobby...

LOL... my "other hobbies" are starting 4th Grade and Pre-school this morning!

Ash

29-Aug-2007, 08:41

LOL Brian!!

Ben, I managed to keep my concentration for a whole .....session. :D

Joseph, very useful thoughts. My thanks :)

Corey, :D

Turner, it's on the list. :)

Joseph O'Neil

29-Aug-2007, 10:23

Ben, I managed to keep my concentration for a whole .....session. :D

-snip-

For what it is worth, one last warning from the voice of experience - when and if you loose your concentration in these sort of situations, that's you discover how girlfriends soon become wives. :)

Ash

29-Aug-2007, 10:53

Don't worry, in this situation loss of concentration has a 99% efficacy, coupled with another 90-odd% for the pill. :)

vann webb

29-Aug-2007, 11:27

Great image. Trying to figure out whether we are supposed to lust over the camera or the girl. (Camera addict in rehab here):D

Ash

29-Aug-2007, 11:30

Vann: The camera, cos there's only one MJ and she's mine :D

GhoSStrider

29-Aug-2007, 11:47

Vann: The camera, cos there's only one MJ and she's mine :D

You know, after growing up in Chicago, I can only think of one person when I see the initials "MJ." All I can say is that (real) retirement has done wonders for Michael Jordan. I don't think I've ever seen MJ looking so good! :D :p

C. D. Keth

29-Aug-2007, 15:26

Very nice. Could you link to the other shots in another way? I can't seem to get them.

Ash

29-Aug-2007, 15:31

Ben R

29-Aug-2007, 16:02

Probably for the best, the uneven tilt of the shoulders on a flat on shot made one of the breasts look noticeably smaller than the other, not something flattering to a girl. Next time I want to see even breasts in your work young man! ;-)

BrianShaw

29-Aug-2007, 17:41

Don't worry ... 90-odd% for the pill. :)

90-odd% = about 97% according to the literature. Contact me offline, Ash, and I'll send you a picture of my little "3-percenter". :eek: We love him more than had he been planned, but... :o

Ron McElroy

29-Aug-2007, 18:05

Vann: The camera, cos there's only one MJ and she's mine :D

Since I know you are a photographer and the pretty girl is MJ, does this mean you are secretly Spiderman?

John Kasaian

29-Aug-2007, 21:14

Nice, Ash!

C. D. Keth

29-Aug-2007, 21:27

Christopher, the other shot was removed, it contained breasts so Photobucket deemed it against their policies and removed it. I've decided that fate would be best for now :)

I'll be sure to post more photo's once I have the opportunity to shoot more of MJ.

No worries. I just thought I was missing out on something. Enjoy the darkroom. I want one myself but won't be able to ahve one for a long time. I live in LA and will be renting for the forseeable future. I figure it's motivation to get an 8x10 and start contact printing in the bathroom.

Ash

30-Aug-2007, 01:06

Ben, fair point - it was the first and only thing MJ noticed about the shot. I was concentrating more on the low contrast look from the super-old lens, and the shadow in the backdrop!

Brian, LOL! Two means of protection should be enough to stop my lil swimmers becoming lil menaces :D

Ron, I have on occasion been dressed in a Spider-Man outfit for promotional days at the local comic shop. (It just gets better and better doesn't it!)

Thanks John :)

Chris, do whatever you can! I've been waiting a year now for this darkroom. Two years since using a college facility. You'll love it when you have the access to chemicals on your fingers!

Duane Polcou

30-Aug-2007, 01:19

Arrrgh!! Amateurs.:)

Ben R

30-Aug-2007, 03:10

Don't know Duane, I think I would prefer real girls rather than the hardened, tough and very plasticated versions... :-)

Jim Jones

30-Aug-2007, 04:05

Don't know Duane, I think I would prefer real girls rather than the hardened, tough and very plasticated versions... :-)

I agree. Ash did it better, and with two very nice subjects.

Ash

30-Aug-2007, 09:22

Thankyou Ben and Jim!!

MJ is next to me and found great humour in your posts. Moreso in Duanes, I daren't repeat her words :)

Duane Polcou

30-Aug-2007, 10:15

Hardened, tough, and plasticated? Thats an opinion.
I get paid to shoot models, you don't. That's a fact.

Ben R

30-Aug-2007, 10:38

I was commenting on the models not your photography matey, no need to take it personally.

Duane Polcou

30-Aug-2007, 10:53

One of those models is my girlfriend. Took it personally.

Jorge Gasteazoro

30-Aug-2007, 11:09

One of those models is my girlfriend. Took it personally.

Then it would be nice if you posted some of your personal work to show Ash what can be done once you get more practice. Your tear sheet looks.....hmmm, how can I say this without being unkind..... well like an ad for a mens magazine.... This in itself is not bad, but I don't think is what Ash and his girlfriend are aiming for.

Plus I think it was a bit of a cheap shot from you the "arrghh, amateurs" comment you made. Ash is just learning, and I think he did damn good. Besides not all amateurs suck, here are a couple of mine.

Duane Polcou

30-Aug-2007, 11:10

Duane Polcou

30-Aug-2007, 11:19

Jorge....My comment was not meant to be a cheap shot, although in retrospect it probably looked like one. Saying my pics look like they are from a men's magazine is not unkind..they are from men's magazines.

Jorge Gasteazoro

30-Aug-2007, 11:25

I should have realized that by saying "Arrgh, amateurs" that Ash's girlfriend may have taken offense. That was insensitive of me; I by no means meant to insinuate anything negative about her. She's very cute (maybe next time some black latex, dark mascara and hard fresnel spot with a straw gel, but I digress). I meant in a toungue in cheek way that when amateur photographers photograph their (sometimes) attractive girlfriends in bad lighting, I cringe.

You miss my point, did you take perfectly lighted shots, had a make up artist and had all kinds of gels, gobos, screens, etc for a studio shot when you first started? I am willing to bet you did not.

As to the black latex, mascara etc, I think this is what prompted Ben's comment. I can't speak for him, but I think like me he likes somewhat more "natural" shots where the model does not look "enhanced" (even if they are not). It is all a matter of personal style.

Jorge Gasteazoro

30-Aug-2007, 11:27

Saying my pics look like they are from a men's magazine is not unkind..they are from men's magazines.

Ahh...see, there you go, I think many of us would like to see your personal work where you are not constrained by the "job" as it were. Maybe this would also be a good learning tip for Ash. Show us something where you are having fun, not getting a pay check.. :)

Duane Polcou

30-Aug-2007, 11:40

did you take perfectly lighted shots, had a make up artist and had all kinds of gels, gobos, screens, etc for a studio shot when you first started? I can't speak for him, but I think like me he likes somewhat more "natural" shots where the model does not look "enhanced" (even if they are not). It is all a matter of personal style.

Of course I didn't. I used a Smith Victor 500 W/S photoflood shot through a sheet. Mercilessly unpredictable color temperature. Used to use old Scotch Chrome 1000T, the only way I could hand-hold and get a decent shutter speed. The edge definition was still soft and the grain was like sandpaper.

It is definitely a matter of personal style and PREFERENCE. On some glamour model/photographer websites people rave about what I do. Here, I'm a cheesy pornographer. :o)

Ash and friend, if you read this, I apologize again if I offended you. Go to eBay, get Peter Gowland's Glamour Photography Handbook, see the light.

Ben R

30-Aug-2007, 11:45

Must Nude photography be glamour? (serious question).

Duane Polcou

30-Aug-2007, 11:48

Show us something where you are having fun, not getting a pay check.. :)

Photographing centerfolds is my idea of fun.

Jorge, you pictures are gorgeous. You're hardly and amateur.

Ash

30-Aug-2007, 12:18

I'd like to ask you guys to not fight over this.

My reason for posting was that I successfully developed and printed a 4x5 neg taken in my bedroom, printed in my darkroom.

I think Peter Gowland's stuff is good as glamour, but sometimes OTT - that's his style.

I'm developing my style, and I am having fun on the way.

The print was printed in a way to reflect early 50's portraits. Low contrast etc.

MJ has been offended, considering you have criticised her over Glam/'Adult' models.

I daren't have commented on your pictures before now Duane, as I am young, and I don't hold my tongue. I do take offense in your tone. We are at very different stages, and I hope that I continue along my own path, never straying close to yours! :)

Duane Polcou

30-Aug-2007, 12:40

Ash -
I am an egotistical New Jersey wise ass prick. I just thought I was being sort of funny. Like I said, insensitive comment, you both took offense, I apologize, and it wouldn't be a full day in Duane's World if I didn't piss someone off.

Ted Harris

30-Aug-2007, 13:31

"Go to eBay, get Peter Gowland's Glamour Photography Handbook, see the light."

One thing to remember is that Peter Gowland cut his teeth on other types of photography before he found his glamour niche. By the time he did, he was a seasoned professional. I consider Peter a close friend and one of the great tragedies is that more people are not familiar with his non-glamour work. My point is that his glamour work is aas good as it is because he can make it look however he wants it to look. Interestingly, personally, he is proudest of his portrait work and some of his animal work.

naturephoto1

30-Aug-2007, 13:40

From my dealings with Peter on the telephone, he is very humble, very open and honest, very giving, very considerate, and a really nice person. He set the standard for Glamor photography. I will have to do more investigation of much of his other work and will have to review his website more carefully. Of course, he designed or was responsible for the design of much of the equipment that he sells because it was not available.

Rich

Ash

30-Aug-2007, 13:41

Jorge Gasteazoro

30-Aug-2007, 13:44

Thank you Duane. I don't want to highjack Ash's thread, but since we are in the glamour subject. My objection to it, is that it seems stuck in the 70's-80's era. I see very little glamour work that is not somewhat crass (IMO, not a criticism of your work Duane). I particularly did not enjoy doing the nudes, I found I am not good at it and that I have no original ideas to contribuite. I certainly do not want to do the trite nude with black background "fine art" shot. The environmental nudes where somewhat nerve wracking. I was lucky that my model is European and had no problem whatsoever on taking her clothes off in public, heck I was more nervous than she was...LOL.

but I digress, I realize that the purpose of a mens magazine shot is to entice and arouse, but does it have to be so cheesy? Personally I find nothing more erotic than a well done shot where the model is showcasing her body in a more natural manner, without all the make up, garter belts, etc.... sometimes less is more, and I think this applies very well to glamour photo.

Ash,

We are not fighting...you are pretty new in this forum but I think you will know when I am "fighting". Since Duane is a professional glamour photographer I woud like to see what his point of view is about the way he takes shots and why he takes them as he does. He is certainly welcome to tell me he does not want to discuss it and there would be no hard feelings.

Duane Polcou

30-Aug-2007, 14:12

Just one more post. Ash and MJ, you have no idea how sorry I am that I offended you.
Looking at my post with new eyes it appeared judgemental, mean spirited, and directed specifically at the two of you. It was not. Having spent years learning (and struggling) with lighting, there is a distinct trend in this country towards images of models where lighting doen not even matter anymore. I see magazine covers photographed with on camera flash. I see published images of models that are unflattering, I think intentionally so. So when I see a "nude" post I get riled for no good reason other than it is a subject quite close to me, and I left a knee jerk reactionary message without even digesting the spirit of your post which was one of excitement and learning, and I was petty and immature.

Jorge: Cheesiness sells magazines and DVD's. If the cover of a Cinemax DVD was a sepia shot of a girl in repose on a sand dune, no one would buy it. I like 80's glamour photography; it's kind of soft and yes, cheesy and ultra fun to shoot.

Ben R

30-Aug-2007, 15:12

(We're having a bit of drama in the bedroom right now...He deleted my game save from my favourite game!)

(wail) I feel so OLD! ;-)

C. D. Keth

30-Aug-2007, 15:15

MJ Here!

I've enjoyed reading your comments! I've always has a VERY low self esteem so it's been nice to get some compliments!(From people other than Ash!)

(We're having a bit of drama in the bedroom right now...He deleted my game save from my favourite game!)

This is the first time i've ever let anyone photograph me properly. Sure i had the few family shots and the "YOU WILL HAVE YOUR PHOTO TAKEN!!" but never wanted to do it or actually done it by choice!

My sister is a photographer so there was a bit of jealously:"YOU let HIM photograph you?!"

I'm a textiles fashion student so it's handy to have a photographer as a boyfriend!(He's already told my tutor that he's tagging along to the fashion shows!)

Anyways, thank you for helping Ash with all your tips and tricks, and thanks for your kind comments (Well some kind ones!)

Hi! I only have one bit of advice. Don't let Duane (or anyone else) get to you. His job is to take the most made-up models imaginable and make a particular stylization of real life. Women aren't like that and you shouldn't even make the comparison. I certainly understand the self-esteem problem, I'm very shy and self-conscious myself. You're a very pretty girl and you should hold yourself tall and be proud.

Duane et al: perhaps this should go to its own thread? There's quite a departure from Ash's "see what I did" post.

Greg Lockrey

30-Aug-2007, 15:49

Ash, I'm 27, Sorry, been having a 'I'm not young anymore' crisis ever since my birthday!

Wait till your'e 60.:eek:

alec4444

30-Aug-2007, 16:37

C. D. Keth

30-Aug-2007, 17:51

A digital shot on the cover of a LF forum book? Blasphemous? Perhaps, but I like the irony.

David A. Goldfarb

30-Aug-2007, 17:59

Ya know, Ash, I've been thinking about that phenomenal digital shot for a while now....and I'm wondering if it should be the cover shot for our LF book. Talk about bringing popularity back into large format photography!!! :)

Frank P - whaddaya think?

--A

Yeah, but then you'll be competing with this one--

http://www.esquire.com/cover-detail?year=2004&month=10

I mean, would you buy the book with the 4x5" Korona on the cover or the magazine with the Deardorff V8?

Dean Cookson

30-Aug-2007, 18:11

(wail) I feel so OLD! ;-)

Hey, I'm 38 and you can bet there'd be some bedroom drama if my wife deleted my save game file from my PSP...

otzi

30-Aug-2007, 19:21

Ash and Co. You may find these two links helpfull.

http://www.bron.ch/bc_pd_lg_es_en/index.php
http://www.glamour1.com/forums/view.php?pg=phototips The articles listed on the left.

alec4444

30-Aug-2007, 19:58

Yeah, but then you'll be competing with this one--

http://www.esquire.com/cover-detail?year=2004&month=10

I mean, would you buy the book with the 4x5" Korona on the cover or the magazine with the Deardorff V8?

The Korona for sure. But then again I work for Condé and have little respect for Esquire... or the Hearst Corp. for that matter. :D

--A

Ben R

31-Aug-2007, 01:16

Wait till your'e 60.:eek:

Last time I was seriously gaming was with the original Quake back in '98. Since then I lost my youth and innocence to 2 years in the army (combat included), marrige, moving country 3 times, my mother passing away after a prolonged and horrible illness and finally becoming a father! I just wish I was care free enough to still be interested in games!

That said, for a little girl like this I'm not sure I mind the loss of the gaming as long as other bedroom activities are still unabated!

http://www.studio-beni.net/carmelli.jpg

The only kid photography I will agree to doing!

Ash

31-Aug-2007, 04:02

RE: Cover shot. There is actually a much more entertaining shot, I'll have to ask MJ if she minds me posting it - I'm over hers at the moment, but I'll be sure to post this evening once I return home. There is some irony I agree... I can't remember how many MP on a 1DmkII though... maybe it's just high enough? :D

Everyone:
I'm amazed at the responses, praise, criticism, and suggestions from all of you. It's helped to boost my own confidence a little further, and I hope that once MJ returns from work she can read all these words too :)

My thanks to everyone.

Randy H

31-Aug-2007, 14:17

It's 1:30am and I've only just finished in the darkroom; I need to be up tomorrow to be out the house with a portfolio for this Foundation Degree. Wish me luck in my interview at noon!

Seems everyone forgot this part. Soooo, how did it go???

And.. for all the heat and crap, These pics are too cool. Damn good lookin' camera. MJ ain't too bad either, I guess.:rolleyes: I've also seen your pics on myspace. All lookin pretty good. I gotta give you credit for keeping your cool. I would have lost it about mid-second-page of replies, and told them all to go square to hell. Are these posted there as well? About the bathroom/darkroom. Do you use the back tank for rinse? I guess the commode would make a good archival wash. And if the pics came out "crappy", you could blame it on the "equipment".

The link for glamour1 has some good info for the lighting setups. But posing and pics? How many different ways can you photograph a dog lifting its leg and peeing on the fence? I personally never did care for the "glamour" nudes, or the "artistic" nudes. Still porn. Even growing up, I never (in my entire life) bought any nudey mags. I mean, WHY??? Like staring in the meat-market window, hungry and broke.

Looking at all your pics, you seem to enjoy "candid" portraiture. As stated elsewhere, I still like the fist attempt of Rich. Has that "Clockwork Orange" thing goin on. Pick Mr Galli's brain. A lot. I see some similarities in the style of shooting you seem to be after.

(MJ... Ash's pic of him titled as "spidey C..." Really?? :eek: )

Anyways, how'd the interview go?

Ash

31-Aug-2007, 15:27

Randy! Glad you found this thread :)

Yes, that's me in the costume. Heh.

Nope, these pics aren't on my myspace. I'm waiting until I can be bothered to scan the recent prints (of rich for example) and make a blog for them. So in effect the MJ shots are exclusives to LFPF ;)

The interview went fine. I'm on the course. I have a mini-project to complete "over the summer" (lol) for my first lesson in October.
Although I have been accepted, I still need to sort out the funding/loan and 'ucas' application to be fully on the Higher Education system; the hard part is done, I'm on the course, now I have to get all the paperwork sorted!

Randy H

31-Aug-2007, 16:04

Not really bad contrast for fp4/dagor/flash/digi-camera meter combination. The digi camera does have an asa setting on it, yes? Actually just looks like you could have used a wider aperture. Not necessarily slower shot, what with the strobe. (strobe was used, right?) Take the camera and film combo out to the garden. And I guess you could take MJ with you too, if she insists :rolleyes: When I saw the second pic, my first thought was "Lady Godiva". Her looks and long hair would make some good "nature" shots. Even with clothes on.

Congrats on the school thing. (maybe some of the fine, generous, accomplished, generous, munificent, kind-hearted upstanding artists that read this could find it in their hearts to help a young, eager, starving artist attain his life-long goal of becoming a highly respected artist. *hint hint*):D