Tim,
Thanks. I looked up Lon Chaney photos and some are a bit scary. I was trying to copy an image in my book "Hollywood Portraits". I'm still a hot light newbie, I'm usually more into natural light with some modification.
Bill
Originally Posted by lenser
It's the disturbing light position. Hurrell almost always used hot lights, usually spots from overhead and into the face (as well as fill and kickers) for glamor while nearly all of the great horror films and many of the stills and portraits of those actors were lit from below which hugely distorts the features (like the weird shadows on the flair of her nose) and looks terribly threatening and grotesque. Not saying that you did anything out of place if that was your intent, but it is anything but glamorous. That's a good book, by the way, but there are also quite a few tremendous books on Hurrell's work and another terrific one on several of the great portrait shooters in Hollywood...John Kobal's "Art of the Great Hollywood Portrait Photographers".
"One of the greatest necessities in America is to discover creative solitude." Carl Sandburg
I presume we all will get to see out of camera images at same time as camera itself?
Untill then Photoshop blur mask layer and selective sharpening is all that potential camera buyers will get to see?
8x10 ccd will cost about cruise ship price to manufacture by Sony, Phillips and likes. I think we all LF protographers should be putting our beach side villa's and Ferraris on the market
The blur is a natural lens effect in the photos. Sharpening is added.
There is currently no "out of the camera" look, I'm still working on making an out of the camera look. Editing the sample photos gives me an idea of what the goal should be and where to set the exposure levels and curves. The out of the sensor image is a flat file that needs processing.
When the camera is more ready I will have full size less processed images.
The price of the camera won't be cheap, but it will be as affordable as possible. I don't expect many sales but there should be a few. It is a CMOS instead of CCD.
Bill
I presume we all will get to see out of camera images at same time as camera itself?
Untill then Photoshop blur mask layer and selective sharpening is all that potential camera buyers will get to see?
8x10 ccd will cost about cruise ship price to manufacture by Sony, Phillips and likes. I think we all LF protographers should be putting our beach side villa's and Ferraris on the market
Well, Bill. World largest CMOS sensor is 202x205mm:
http://www.canon.com/technology/appr...cial/cmos.html
So, I think, you either present scan from your Guinness book certificate
Or moderators should probaly review nature of commercial postings of digital images from unknown origin
I do not think that unknown origin or fantasy cameras are approved by forum rules discussed in this recent thread:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...f-large-format
Here's clarification of current rules:
For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film. We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras).
From:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...rules_faq_item
I need to see that section in the forum rules. Reference, please?
It seems to me that a few people in various threads where this new camera is mentioned have gotten themselves all worked up simply because Bill has a secret he wishes to keep and disclose when it's ripe, and they can't stand not knowing, not because he's violating any "rules".
I, for one, like seeing what he's doing, and am willing to wait until he's ready to talk about it.
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Large format: http://flickr.com/michaeldarnton
Mostly 35mm: http://flickr.com/mdarnton
You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
I think you've really missed the "Hollywood Glamour Lighting" effect on this one. The direction of the key light on the face should never come from below the tip of the nose, unless you are going for the "Halloween Glamour lighting" effect.
See: The Five Basic Portrait Lighting Setups
I tried again to take photos in the Hollywood style. I got a longer lens, 21 inches, but I used a $60 Bausch & Lomb Extra Rapid Symmetrical lens, which was about 250mm, too wide for close up but I like the look. The 21 inch lens is too large for my IR blocking filter.
Model: Corrie J
Camera: LargeSense LS911 Pre Production Camera
Large format digital camera (single shot sensor, size bigger than 8x10 inch)
Bausch & Lomb Extra Rapid Symmetrical 8x10 (about 250mm focal lenth)
Photo Taken: Sept. 11, 2014 Santa Clara, CA, USA
Copyright LargeSense LLC
http://largesense.com
All rights reserved
I've been spending the last few weeks looking at old Vogue stuff, Beaton, Steichen, etc., then some Hollywood pix, and you see light coming in from what we'd consider "too low" quite often. We may not like it now, but they definitely did it. Maybe not Hurrell specifically, but it certainly was something they did--Beaton, quite often.
The picture under discussion is a bit busy for my taste, though.
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Large format: http://flickr.com/michaeldarnton
Mostly 35mm: http://flickr.com/mdarnton
You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
Thanks for the comment. Yes, I had the lights setup for another pose and then I got her into this pose and didn't notice that my key was aimed from bellow in the new odd angle. I'll take some more photos in a month or two.
Bill
I already checked with one moderator before and he thought the postings were ok. If the moderators want to discuss my postings I'm eager to discuss with them.
Bill
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks