Well, I finally bit the bullet and picked up a set of colour-correcting gels
for my strobes. The first couple of shots I've taken sound promising, but
there are just too many masks around tonight for me to get a good shot of
real skin.
Just wondering how many shooters out there prefer gels, reflectors or
umbrellas for perfect portraits?
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:30:38 +0000, Dudley Hanks wrote:
> Well, I finally bit the bullet and picked up a set of colour-correcting
> gels for my strobes. The first couple of shots I've taken sound
> promising, but there are just too many masks around tonight for me to
> get a good shot of real skin.
>
> Just wondering how many shooters out there prefer gels, reflectors or
> umbrellas for perfect portraits?
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
I would say that lighting is only one of many factors in
portrait photography. While it is important, I would not consider it
prime.
To impress me, a portrait must bring out something inside the
shell of a person we normally see from the outside.
A portrait may show what the photographer sees, but someone
else who may know the subject in a different context may well visulize
a far different image.
Many years ago I worked for a photo studio. We turned out
good work and never would the boss allow second rate work. That said
there was little or no of what I would consider trully geat portraits.
For examples of some of what I would consider great work,
check out the work of Karsh. Often some of his best work was done
with nothing more than the artist inside him and minimal equipment. My
favort is the Churchill photo.
<sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsusqe5tlqjnqucj03arovtk9b7r6ass1tt@4ax.com...
[...]
> ...there was little or no of what I would consider trully geat portraits.
> For examples of some of what I would consider great work,
> check out the work of Karsh. Often some of his best work was done
> with nothing more than the artist inside him and minimal equipment. My
> favort is the Churchill photo.
Sorry, but for me, Karsh represents the very worst in "people
picture" pretentiousness. His cloying, ordinary, often clichéd,
often defective (as with Khrushchev in a parka, sweating...)
"portraits" reveal little about their subjects (after all, what
photograph really can do that...?). Karsh photos just give
me the "willies" and cause me to cringe...
--DR
"Neil Ellwood" <cral.elllwood@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:CcKdnfBKct6gz3DXnZ2dnUVZ8hRi4p2d@bt.com...
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:30:38 +0000, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>> Well, I finally bit the bullet and picked up a set of colour-correcting
>> gels for my strobes. The first couple of shots I've taken sound
>> promising, but there are just too many masks around tonight for me to
>> get a good shot of real skin.
>>
>> Just wondering how many shooters out there prefer gels, reflectors or
>> umbrellas for perfect portraits?
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>
> I never thought about those - I use a camera.
>
>
>
> --
> Neil
> Reverse 'r and a' Delete 'l'
<sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsusqe5tlqjnqucj03arovtk9b7r6ass1tt@4ax.com...
> I would say that lighting is only one of many factors in
> portrait photography. While it is important, I would not consider it
> prime.
>
> To impress me, a portrait must bring out something inside the
> shell of a person we normally see from the outside.
>
> A portrait may show what the photographer sees, but someone
> else who may know the subject in a different context may well visulize
> a far different image.
>
> Many years ago I worked for a photo studio. We turned out
> good work and never would the boss allow second rate work. That said
> there was little or no of what I would consider trully geat portraits.
> For examples of some of what I would consider great work,
> check out the work of Karsh. Often some of his best work was done
> with nothing more than the artist inside him and minimal equipment. My
> favort is the Churchill photo.
I once saw a bridal portrait that was taken in a parkade. All that was used
for lighting was an overhead can light.
I don't remember the name of the photographer, but I do remember it was
spectacular...
Lighting is what I'm presently studying.
Most of the shots I took in younger days were existing light, or taken at
large public events where (at most) an on-camera flash was used.
Thus, I'm interested in what equipment / techniques has served others well.
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hck3h9$1ql$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> <sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> newsusqe5tlqjnqucj03arovtk9b7r6ass1tt@4ax.com...
>
> [...]
>> ...there was little or no of what I would consider trully geat portraits.
>> For examples of some of what I would consider great work,
>> check out the work of Karsh. Often some of his best work was done
>> with nothing more than the artist inside him and minimal equipment. My
>> favort is the Churchill photo.
>
> Sorry, but for me, Karsh represents the very worst in "people
> picture" pretentiousness. His cloying, ordinary, often clichéd,
> often defective (as with Khrushchev in a parka, sweating...)
> "portraits" reveal little about their subjects (after all, what
> photograph really can do that...?). Karsh photos just give
> me the "willies" and cause me to cringe...
> --DR
>
>
>
I'm a big fan of Fuzzy Duenkel. He works with a lot of seniors, and much of
his time is spent at the client's home, in the garage.
He opens up the big door, and instantly has access to an assortment of props
that are near and dear to the subject.
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:SKkHm.50163$Db2.41450@edtnps83...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:hck3h9$1ql$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> <sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> newsusqe5tlqjnqucj03arovtk9b7r6ass1tt@4ax.com...
>> [...]
>>> ...there was little or no of what I would consider trully geat portraits.
>>> For examples of some of what I would consider great work,
>>> check out the work of Karsh. Often some of his best work was done
>>> with nothing more than the artist inside him and minimal equipment. My
>>> favort is the Churchill photo.
>> Sorry, but for me, Karsh represents the very worst in "people
>> picture" pretentiousness. His cloying, ordinary, often clichéd,
>> often defective (as with Khrushchev in a parka, sweating...)
>> "portraits" reveal little about their subjects (after all, what
>> photograph really can do that...?). Karsh photos just give
>> me the "willies" and cause me to cringe...
>> --DR
> I'm a big fan of Fuzzy Duenkel. He works with a lot of seniors, and much of his time is spent at the client's home, in the
> garage.
>
> He opens up the big door, and instantly has access to an assortment of props that are near and dear to the subject.
>
> He's done some really interesting work.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Not bad..., but look at Harvey Ferdschneider (who can make
skin tone look absolutely beautiful in his B&W prints!). Some
samples are here -- http://www.editionq.com/ImagesE-K.html.
Also here is a collection of rather good work using male subjects,
beginning at http://www.editionq.com/default.asp. Included are
Richard Avedon, Lyn Bianchi, Margaret Bourk-White, Marsha
Burns, Paul Cadmus, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Imogen Cunningham,
Robert Doisneau, Greg Gorman, Robert John Guttman, Michael
Kenna, Stephan Lupino, Sally Mann, Robert Mapplethorpe,
Ralph Eugene Meatyard, Tom Millea, Robert Miller, Eadweard
Muybridge, Erwin Olaf, Ernestine Ruben, Arthur Tress, Edward
Weston, Minor White, Gary Winogrand. This list does not include
a rather unique "people photographer", Les Krims, though...;-)
Since this show was very specific, it did not include many other
fine "people" photographers - nor could it include every fine
photographer within its narrow category.
--DR
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hcl3o7$osb$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
> news:SKkHm.50163$Db2.41450@edtnps83...
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hck3h9$1ql$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> <sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> newsusqe5tlqjnqucj03arovtk9b7r6ass1tt@4ax.com...
>
>>> [...]
>>>> ...there was little or no of what I would consider trully geat
>>>> portraits.
>>>> For examples of some of what I would consider great work,
>>>> check out the work of Karsh. Often some of his best work was done
>>>> with nothing more than the artist inside him and minimal equipment. My
>>>> favort is the Churchill photo.
>
>>> Sorry, but for me, Karsh represents the very worst in "people
>>> picture" pretentiousness. His cloying, ordinary, often clichéd,
>>> often defective (as with Khrushchev in a parka, sweating...)
>>> "portraits" reveal little about their subjects (after all, what
>>> photograph really can do that...?). Karsh photos just give
>>> me the "willies" and cause me to cringe...
>>> --DR
>
>> I'm a big fan of Fuzzy Duenkel. He works with a lot of seniors, and much
>> of his time is spent at the client's home, in the garage.
>>
>> He opens up the big door, and instantly has access to an assortment of
>> props that are near and dear to the subject.
>>
>> He's done some really interesting work.
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>
> Not bad..., but look at Harvey Ferdschneider (who can make
> skin tone look absolutely beautiful in his B&W prints!). Some
> samples are here -- http://www.editionq.com/ImagesE-K.html.
> Also here is a collection of rather good work using male subjects,
> beginning at http://www.editionq.com/default.asp. Included are
> Richard Avedon, Lyn Bianchi, Margaret Bourk-White, Marsha
> Burns, Paul Cadmus, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Imogen Cunningham,
> Robert Doisneau, Greg Gorman, Robert John Guttman, Michael
> Kenna, Stephan Lupino, Sally Mann, Robert Mapplethorpe,
> Ralph Eugene Meatyard, Tom Millea, Robert Miller, Eadweard
> Muybridge, Erwin Olaf, Ernestine Ruben, Arthur Tress, Edward
> Weston, Minor White, Gary Winogrand. This list does not include
> a rather unique "people photographer", Les Krims, though...;-)
> Since this show was very specific, it did not include many other
> fine "people" photographers - nor could it include every fine
> photographer within its narrow category.
> --DR
>
>
* Dudley Hanks wrote :
> Well, I finally bit the bullet and picked up a set of colour-correcting gels
> for my strobes. The first couple of shots I've taken sound promising, but
> there are just too many masks around tonight for me to get a good shot of
> real skin.
>
> Just wondering how many shooters out there prefer gels, reflectors or
> umbrellas for perfect portraits?
I'm not a portrait photographer, and will never take a perfect
photo, but I do use flash and colour correcting gels. Mainly to
balance flash light with ambient light. You may have seen it
already, but this is a good page on the topic:
Colour Correcting Gels 
usqe5tlqjnqucj03arovtk9b7r6ass1tt@4ax.com...
Linear Mode
