Nude

[life_in_sepia]

Otto, constructive criticism is, of course, welcome. I didn't perceive the first comments as constructive.

They have since taken a positive turn -- thank you.

Your point about insulting someone is well taken. My apology to Jac.

As for my lighting, I use outdoor shaded northern light, for most of my pics. I like it, and I don't agree that it is "clinical." Regrets to those who don't.

Ed

[Leigh]

Ed,

I think your lighting works very well.

It's not studio lighting, but it's not meant to be.

- Leigh

[life_in_sepia]

Thank you, Leigh.

One more point, Otto. You say that you don't think that the light is considered or controlled (and I assume you are referring to my pictures). Are you practiced at shooting portraits or nudes in wet plate? Just curious. As you may know, the lighting issues presented are unique (except to dags), given (1) the limit to UV light range, (2) generally a much narrower effective range of exposure, and (3) and an effective ASA of about .25. The options presented are A LOT of continuous UV bulb exposure usually placed very close to the subject, A LOT of UV flash also placed very close to the subject, or outdoor lighting whether direct or shaded. The first two options tend to be too dramatic (the highlights tend to be very bright and the shadows tend to fall off very quickly) for my tastes and, more importantly, certainly hugely limit compositions (hard to get beyond head and shoulders). And I generally don't like outdoor direct light (though Craig Tuffin and Joni Sternbach have been making great images in direct light. So I've opted for outdoor shaded light. If you have suggestions for how I can improve upon my lighting under these conditions, I'm all ears (I use a bounce infrequently). I appreciate your provocation to make improvements to my images -- always welcome.

Ed

[Otto Seaman]

Ed I understand the limitations compared to conventional film photography. I think many of your images would work well on regular film too so that is a compliment on the composition, subject and light. I really don't think your open shade is clinical but that Jac guy did have a point with his April 12 post referencing another photograph made by someone else that was indeed "clinical" and a fair comment IMHO. I was more reacting to your defensiveness and put down of Jac for making a criticism at all. I do not know the history, perhaps he has some axe to grind that goes deeper?

In any event, working at your level of sophistication, shouldn't these sort of Photo 101 critiques be taken lightly?

[life_in_sepia]

My plates are my life's passion. So, no I don't take criticism lightly. And the people making the criticism shouldn't either.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...]put down of Jac for making a criticism at all. I do not know the history, perhaps he has some axe to grind that goes deeper?

Gentlemen, I have no axe to grind.

[Leigh]

Gentlemen, I have no axe to grind.

Nor apparently any useful suggestions or relevant information.

- Leigh

[AuditorOne]

Hmm, I thought his point was well made and the accompanying image was a great example. Correct me if I'm wrong but he seems to be suggesting that some of the images presented here as nudes would benefit from a different lighting scheme. Worth considering anyway.

[Leigh]

Hmm, I thought his point was well made and the accompanying image was a great example.

What image? He hasn't posted any image here.

- Leigh

[StoneNYC]

What I don't see is any suggestions, how do you suggest someone with an available ASA of 0.25 yes POINT 25 take a photo of a person when the sensitivity is limited to UV light and not regular strobe light that doesn't produce as much UV as the sun would.

So I don't find the criticism helpful. I also like the images and think the image that was shown as "good" lighting kind if sucks, it's uneven, harsh, and has been photoshopped....

My only suggestion is a question... You know the UV bulbs at college parties from the 60's? Would surrounding your subject with those work? I'm not familiar with their direct potency of true UV, but I would think creating some kind of UV reflector could work? If you wanted more "controlled" lighting.

But again not sure of the true UV strength of those florescent UV bulbs.