Shooting the perfect model shot

[vanhookvintage]

Hi Guys,

Good tips. I've got the meter set on center-weighted (not Spot). But, I see in the manual, there's a setting called 3D Color Matrix, which I've always ignored, but it seems like it might be the way to go for shooting models "1,005-pixel RGB sensor.... particularly effective when the frame is dominated by bright.... or dark colors.."). I just don't understand why my shadow areas lack detail unless I post-process them. But if I meter on the shadows, then everything else is overexposed. I'm hoping that new meter setting will help.

Rich I like the black background, too. But, yeah, I think a little flash might help it pop. I've been playing with that and I've yet to find a "system". I think a remote flash would help, but I don't have one for my camera.

I've also learned that I can set an auto exposure lock so I can meter on a darker area, re-compose the shot, then trip the shutter. The lock is really handy when using a tripod a remote shutter release.

So, all I have to do is decal the mirrors on my Tameo F1 2000 and and I'll post a "Completed". I still have my crude first light box, but I have some decent background paper for it now. I hope to be able to post some decent photos. We'll see.

Cheers,
Greg

[monkfish]

Don't know if it was intentional or not, but the one thing I'd have changed is to zoom more/get closer/crop to get rid of some of the vast black expanses. (But I'm thinking you left it there just for an example?)

Greg - this is also a good example of what he meant by the exposure mode. Had he gone full frame exposure mode, the black would have "fooled" the sensor and the shot would have been overexposed. Pretty sure Rich would have used center or center-weighted on this. That way the exposure is measured on the info from the car and the black surrounds is discarded for measuring.

Thanks Seabee - you are right, the image was shot "center weighted" due to all the black....and yeah I should have cropped out a lot of the black...but it was posted late and I couldn't be bothered as it was just an example

Hi Guys,
I just don't understand why my shadow areas lack detail unless I post-process them. But if I meter on the shadows, then everything else is overexposed. I'm hoping that new meter setting will help.

Rich I like the black background, too. But, yeah, I think a little flash might help it pop. I've been playing with that and I've yet to find a "system". I think a remote flash would help, but I don't have one for my camera.

I've also learned that I can set an auto exposure lock so I can meter on a darker area, re-compose the shot, then trip the shutter. The lock is really handy when using a tripod a remote shutter release.

Greg, try metering on an area of contrast - rather than a solely light or dark area.

This will help the camera balance it's colour, and you should find that the exposure is then better across the image.

If you target a light area only, the camera doesn't have a comparison to judge the levels of dark and vice versa. Go for an area with with high contrast ( black and white is best. It may not even be on the model....but close by in the same light ( try the face of a domino or something similar )

So try and use an area of contrast so the camera can meter a happy medium - often you will use the lock ( half trigger) to focus and meter one area, then take another by moving the camera... especially when an area is darker or lighter and you want that detail and depth.

That's a really handy technique you are using - but images will always need some processing to finish them off.

I'm going to grab a few more shots with a few different techniques in them, to see what you think

Rich

[plastiksurgeon]

SHADOWS TOO DARK

Really no need to place so much importance on metering the correct exposure and "nailing it" scientifically. Simply take a reading, and put it in the center of a succession of five or six images, 1/2 stop apart, and you can choose later which is "perfect". As a double bonus, having the extra varied exposures will allow you to even blend parts of several of those "bracketed" exposures together in post, to make a more perfect image.

The key to opening those dark shadows is certainly not a different exposure, or a different way to measure it. If you change exposure to open those shadows, you will affect the entire image globally, even the areas that are properly exposed already, changing those for the worse.

...The answer lies in a better balance of light between your dark shadows and your bright highlights. The camera cannot record the range of detail from light-to-dark as our human eyes are capable of, so you need to bring the range of light-to-dark values in your image closer together. In other words, less light on the brighter areas, ...OR, more light in the shadowed darker areas. Much easier than cranking back the main light, ...is to supplement the shadows with a little extra light to balance off that wide range of light-to-dark. The answer is more light directed at the shadows without changing the light on the overall subject. Use pieces, large and small of foamcore board from an art supply store (perfect) or little mirrors, or anything reflective, use your sunglasses if you have too, but find something in the room that bounces reflected light, (chrome toaster reflects) and position it near the subject, just off camera, at the right 'tilt" so that light from the main light source above bounces in to open the shadows in a small controlled area determined by the size of the reflector device. This way, you are adding light only to the dark shadows, ...inside those wheels, under wings, and so on, all the while NOT adding light to the already properly exposed areas of the image. Shiny gold matt board from a frame shop will reflect a much warmer light than a white or neutral reflector, while a satin gold board will reflect the same warm color but much less fill light. Chop one up in a variety of sizes and shapes and you'll be amazed how you can bounce a little light right into that black, deep rear wheel.....

I guarantee the results, it is all basic physics.

Best,

Steve Mohlenkamp

[monkfish]

SHADOWS TOO DARK

...The answer lies in a better balance of light between your dark shadows and your bright highlights. The camera cannot record the range of detail from light-to-dark as our human eyes are capable of, so you need to bring the range of light-to-dark values in your image closer together. In other words, less light on the brighter areas,

Hey Steve - I wasn't going to quote it all, but i agree with you in part, but not in others - you see there is no real answer.

For instance, in my opinion, if you bring the light levels closer together to bring shadows out but hold back highlights, you end up with a very flat, tonally vacant image void of contrast and "life"

This just goes to show how personal photography can be and how none of the techniques we talk about are incorrect...it's really a matter of preference and finding a style that you like in an image - and that take practise and the knowledge of a variety of techniques.

Talking of which - here is an example;

I have taken two images of the same car, under the same lighting conditions and used both a short and long depth of field as examples.

Why? Well some folks have mentioned that they feel if a car is completely in focus, it looks more life-like, while others like the levels that a short depth of field provides.

Which do you like?

LONG Depth of Field ( Small Aperature )



SHORT Depth of Field ( Large Aperature )

[SteveNoble]

I like the first picture where the whole car is in focus the best..

[indycals]

Hey Steve - I wasn't going to quote it all, but i agree with you in part, but not in others - you see there is no real answer.

Steve knows what he is talking about. You can ignore his advice but that's like turning down financial advice from Warren Buffet.

For instance, in my opinion, if you bring the light levels closer together to bring shadows out but hold back highlights, you end up with a very flat, tonally vacant image void of contrast and "life"

That is not what Steve is saying. Just look at his photos - they show exactly what is capable with the methods he is GENEROUSLY offering up.

This just goes to show how personal photography can be and how none of the techniques we talk about are incorrect...it's really a matter of preference and finding a style that you like in an image - and that take practise and the knowledge of a variety of techniques.

Finding a personal style is not exempt from the rules of camera physics. Steve has been telling you how to work with those rules for effective lighting that highlights the lines of your car without producing flat images

Talking of which - here is an example;

I have taken two images of the same car, under the same lighting conditions and used both a short and long depth of field as examples.

Why? Well some folks have mentioned that they feel if a car is completely in focus, it looks more life-like, while others like the levels that a short depth of field provides.

Which do you like?

LONG Depth of Field ( Small Aperature )



SHORT Depth of Field ( Large Aperature )



I find the first one has too much depth of field and the second one doesn't have enough. The background should not have so much focus in the first shot and the right rear tire should not be so out of focus in the second. The background also has way too much light on it and is more distracting than anything.

[indycals]

Now this shot works! Yes it is contrary to what I said about the background in my previous post, but in this case the background helps tell a story. The lighting is well balanced and the reflection is well done. This shot violates many rules (too much depth of field, subject too small), but it does it in a way that works. That's the neat thing about photography rules. They can all be broken to make a great image!

[vanhookvintage]

I like the longer focal length, too. I try not to get either end of the car out of focus, if I can help it. Just my preference, I guess.

Still working on technique. My Nikon D70 has depth-of-field preview, but when it's really stopped down, it's very hard to see how things are focused in the viewfinder, and the screen on the back of the camera only shows the shot after it's taken.

And, I discovered my meter wasn't set on "Spot", which is how I've always shot, even with my old Nikon F. The D70 was set on that "3D Color Matrix" metering, which apparently is not appropriate for most photography, because my shadows and blacks were always featureless. I changed to Spot, and it's all better. Learned something new - again!

I've been focused (no pun intended) so much on building during my spare time, that I haven't spent much time on photography, but hopefully my next "Completed Project" will be presented decently thanks to this forum.

Cheers,
Greg

[f1m]

One instance where I think depth of field is really important is taking photos at a model show.

For example, two of my shots at Penn Con.

http://www.ipmsusa3.org/gallery/v/event ... 3.jpg.html

and

http://www.ipmsusa3.org/gallery/v/event ... 3.jpg.html

I'd rather have the model be slightly soft than to have the background clutter. What I really need is a faster lens, I think, so I can stop it down a little to get a bit more depth, but not too much. Those two were taken with a 50mm f1.4, but I think an f1.2 would be better - but really expensive...

Eric

[monkfish]

Good opinions here..I like it.

Now this shot works! Yes it is contrary to what I said about the background in my previous post...

Sorry Indy, but to contradict yourself in successive posts only shows my point about there being no real answer is valid.

Photography may have "physical rules" that help the photographer control a shot and produce different effects and images, but surely the end result and the creativity that is put into a photo is what this is all about ?

And as a keen creative photographer yourself, you know that what looks good to your eye and what style you prefer to shoot in, but that vision and style may not have the same appeal to the next person.

Isn't photography about how a photographer can manipulate those rules to achieve a spectacular result ?

I thought the idea behind this topic isn't about what is right and wrong...there is no right or wrong. It is about exploring opinions in what could be called an impossible task;

Is there such a thing as the perfect model shot ??

Steve knows what he is talking about. You can ignore his advice but that's like turning down financial advice from Warren Buffet.

Warren Buffet? Who is that ? Sounds like a Home-cooked Rabbit's dinner to me...

Joking aside - I never said he didn't Indy. I just don't hold that same opinion as Steve from my experience and photos I have taken in the past. Again this proves that my point about there being no real answer as valid.

Steve has also passed positive comment on some of my images in the past, and I have also attempted to emulate his style and technique, but with limited success. What I have done though is taken some elements of Steve's technique that he has passed on in previous posts on the forum and used them to help develop my own style :



None of my images are perfect...far from it, but I sure would like to learn more about photography and how to better my images in the future.

One instance where I think depth of field is really important is taking photos at a model show.

I agree Eric. There are situations where Depth of Field is more appropriate than not, and vice-versa.

Personally, I prefer shots with a shorter depth of field, because of the way it focuses a views attention to a specific area of the image.

For instance, your first shot isolates the subject from the clutter of the background like you say.

Of course, in my two posted images above, it's not that well set up, but it wasn't supposed to be, as the idea was to get an opinion on two extremes of specific photographic effect.

I like the longer focal length, too. I try not to get either end of the car out of focus, if I can help it. Just my preference, I guess.

Greg - you've got it mate.

And, I discovered my meter wasn't set on "Spot", which is how I've always shot, even with my old Nikon F. The D70 was set on that "3D Color Matrix" metering, which apparently is not appropriate for most photography, because my shadows and blacks were always featureless. I changed to Spot, and it's all better. Learned something new - again!

Greg, from what I have experienced, it's all about experimenting and finding what works for you, so game on! I'll look forward to seeing those shots!

Rules...pah! It's all about breaking rules

I've got a few more sample to get some more opinion...I'll post them up as soon as i can. It's really interesting to know about other peoples opinions and styles on photographing models, as there are so many ways to do it.

The creative arts are such a chuckle sometimes!

Cheers guys
Rich