JSouthworth wrote:
In my recent shoot I used two film cameras, a Canon EOS RT and a Canon EOS 5. Neither was completely satisfactory, the RT would only focus on the model's necklace and other contrasting areas, so while I was able to use AF throughout, I was constantly re-framing and switching the AF on and off, whereas the 5 would focus very quickly but on any one of 5 focus points when in automatic mode (the eye control focus system in this camera doesn't work well).

With the 5 you can select a focus point but to do this for every single shot would be too time consuming. I may try disabling all the focus points except for the central one next time. I like the RT because of the uninterrupted view of the subject it gives you, an advantage when using flash. An EOS 1N RS would be better though.

You should just ask a beauty photographer what to when, in describing technique, you're fumbling in the dark and no, rushing to the internet to learn about beauty photography is not really learning about beauty photography, but it's your pose when you're fumbling in the dark. Your summary of a focus puller is better applied to your own camera misadventures. Model directs you to click "can't find the button" you say. . .

JSouthworth wrote:
In my recent shoot I used two film cameras, a Canon EOS RT and a Canon EOS 5. Neither was completely satisfactory, the RT would only focus on the model's necklace and other contrasting areas, so while I was able to use AF throughout, I was constantly re-framing and switching the AF on and off, whereas the 5 would focus very quickly but on any one of 5 focus points when in automatic mode (the eye control focus system in this camera doesn't work well).

With the 5 you can select a focus point but to do this for every single shot would be too time consuming. I may try disabling all the focus points except for the central one next time. I like the RT because of the uninterrupted view of the subject it gives you, an advantage when using flash. An EOS 1N RS would be better though.

Thanks for the laugh Southy!
Seriously though, get yourself some training. You'll kick yourself for not doing it sooner.

JSouthworth wrote:
If you like the Holga, check out the Lomography BelAir 6 X 12;

https://microsites.lomography.com/belair/cameras/

Oh dear.
You're either so dense that you completely missed the inference behind the reference to a Holga in the context it was made, or you're yet again deliberately attempting to steer the thread off topic so that you can pontificate at length on a subject you mistakenly think you understand.
Please stop.

P R E S T O N wrote:

Oh dear.
You're either so dense that you completely missed the inference behind the reference to a Holga in the context it was made, or you're yet again deliberately attempting to steer the thread off topic so that you can pontificate at length on a subject you mistakenly think you understand.
Please stop.

Don't waste your time trying to convince me that you have any interest in photography.

LA StarShooter wrote:
You should just ask a beauty photographer what to when, in describing technique, you're fumbling in the dark and no, rushing to the internet to learn about beauty photography is not really learning about beauty photography, but it's your pose when you're fumbling in the dark. Your summary of a focus puller is better applied to your own camera misadventures. Model directs you to click "can't find the button" you say. . .

A beauty photographer, wow. I've heard of glamour photography, figure photography, nude photography and art nude photography. If you mean a commercial portrait photographer, I don't regard that type of work as very challenging or very interesting.

JSouthworth wrote:
Don't waste your time trying to convince me that you have any interest in photography.

Oh don't worry. I have no doubt whatsoever that such an endeavour would be both unnecessary and pointless, hence I haven't nor will I.

I (and, it seems, others) seek only to persuade you to refrain from posting inane drivel in places it doesn't belong or is not welcome.

Once again, but with emphasis, please stop.

P R E S T O N wrote:

Oh don't worry. I have no doubt whatsoever that such an endeavour would be both unnecessary and pointless, hence I haven't nor will I.

I (and, it seems, others) seek only to persuade you to refrain from posting inane drivel in places it doesn't belong or is not welcome.

Once again, but with emphasis, please stop.

Go on, make me laugh.

JSouthworth wrote:
A beauty photographer, wow. I've heard of glamour photography, figure photography, nude photography and art nude photography. If you mean a commercial portrait photographer, I don't regard that type of work as very challenging or very interesting.

There are many things in this world that you have not heard of.

And probably for the best you not have interest or attempt either Beauty or Commercial Portrait (two different things), lest you starve to death.

Both (related) fields require actual skill and training, not just the ability to work a search engine.

JSouthworth wrote:
A beauty photographer, wow. I've heard of glamour photography, figure photography, nude photography and art nude photography. If you mean a commercial portrait photographer, I don't regard that type of work as very challenging or very interesting.

This is possibly the most absurd remark you have made yet.  You don't regard portrait photography as very challenging or interesting? Have you ever looked at the work of Karsh? Or my late friend Arnold Newman to name just two? You don't see in their work amazing challenges met with skill and artistry? Do you feel that you could do as well? You may not find portraiture personally interesting, and looking at your page I can see you don't do it, and that is fine. All genres don't have to interest everyone. But to fail to see the challenges involved suggests that you have little or no knowledge of the subject. That being the case, it might be wise not to makes comments about the art form.

Studio NSFW wrote:
There are many things in this world that you have not heard of.

And probably for the best you not have interest or attempt either Beauty or Commercial Portrait (two different things), lest you starve to death.

Both (related) fields require actual skill and training, not just the ability to work a search engine.

Commercial portrait photography usually involves headshots. Any idiot can do headshots. Well maybe that's a slight exaggeration but full length pictures are more demanding, especially in a small space if you want to have even lighting of the figure.

I have some gear for portrait photography, umbrellas and snoots and softboxes. I quite often pick up things which I don't use.

Weldphoto wrote:
This is possibly the most absurd remark you have made yet.  You don't regard portrait photography as very challenging or interesting? Have you ever looked at the work of Karsh? Or my late friend Arnold Newman to name just two? You don't see in their work amazing challenges met with skill and artistry? Do you feel that you could do as well? You may not find portraiture personally interesting, and looking at your page I can see you don't do it, and that is fine. All genres don't have to interest everyone. But to fail to see the challenges involved suggests that you have little or no knowledge of the subject. That being the case, it might be wise not to makes comments about the art form.

Karsh is one name I'm familiar with. Portrait photography seems to follow fashions, a style becomes popular for a while and then is overtaken by something else.

JSouthworth wrote:

... but full length pictures are more demanding, especially in a small space if you want to have even lighting of the figure.

Evidently so in your case. But, once again, get yourself some training - you'll kick yourself for not doing it sooner.

JSouthworth wrote:
Commercial portrait photography usually involves headshots. Any idiot can do headshots. Well maybe that's a slight exaggeration but full length pictures are more demanding, especially in a small space if you want to have even lighting of the figure.

I have some gear for portrait photography, umbrellas and snoots and softboxes. I quite often pick up things which I don't use.

1. Why do you think “Even lighting” is desirable to capture the human form? 

2. What you own has nothing to do with ability to use it.

Any idiot can use a search engine.

JSouthworth wrote:
. Any idiot can do headshots. Well maybe that's a slight exaggeration but full length pictures are more demanding, especially in a small space if you want to have even lighting of the figure.

I have some gear for portrait photography, umbrellas and snoots and softboxes. I quite often pick up things which I don't use.

So you think ".. Any idiot can do headshots" may be an exaggeration? How transparently disingenuous. If you DID believe it was an exaggeration, a NORMAL person would have edited the offending phrase out. You left it in - WHY? Is it because you think your stream of consciousness is somehow valuable for the world to know, or that you didn't really want to disavow it?

"I quite often pick up things which I don't use."

Have you told your therapist?

JSouthworth wrote:
I have some gear for portrait photography, umbrellas and snoots and softboxes. I quite often pick up things which I don't use.

Focuspuller wrote:
Have you told your therapist?

Do you have a handkerchief to go with that snoot?

Studio NSFW wrote:
1. Why do you think “Even lighting” is desirable to capture the human form?

By even lighting, I mean an equal distribution of light over the whole figure, this can be quite difficult to achieve in a standing pose with artificial lighting indoors, especially if you don't have a great deal of space. Whether this is desirable in an artistic sense is of course a personal judgement.

I've been reading an old book from 1963, Camera in Hawaii by Peter Gowland in which he discusses studio technique at some length. Gowland recommends the use of soft lighting for portraits to avoid unwanted emphasis on skin texture in the areas between the highlights and shadows, which he achieved using umbrella reflectors.

Apparent the reason the Hollywood studio photographers used the 10 X 8 format and hard spotlighting for their portraits of movies stars was that the big negatives could be retouched to eliminate this unwanted detail.

JSouthworth wrote:

By even lighting, I mean an equal distribution of light over the whole figure, this can be quite difficult to achieve in a standing pose with artificial lighting indoors, especially if you don't have a great deal of space. Whether this is desirable in an artistic sense is of course a personal judgement.

I've been reading an old book from 1963, Camera in Hawaii by Peter Gowland in which he discusses studio technique at some length. Gowland recommends the use of soft lighting for portraits to avoid unwanted emphasis on skin texture in the areas between the highlights and shadows, which he achieved using umbrella reflectors.

Apparent the reason the Hollywood studio photographers used the 10 X 8 format and hard spotlighting for their portraits of movies stars was that the big negatives could be retouched to eliminate this unwanted detail.

Once again, get yourself some training. You'll kick yourself for not doing it sooner.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Yes, and I often use soft boxes and dishes for the same reason.  Maybe superstitious but I don’t like opening umbrellas indoors, and they have a lot of spill compared to a dish or softbox with a grid.

My point in that question is this: as you are more working on figure, “Even” lighting, minimizing shadows through a low light ratio also eliminates definition of shape, form  and curve. Rather than worrying about “evenness” (by which I think you mean a 1:1 light ratio) going to 5:1 or more and letting the shadows do their thing would yield less “clinical” results. 

I would put you to that it is not difficult to get “even” light in a small space if that is what you are actually trying to accomplish. 

While negatives can be retouched, the ability to retouch would just be one advantage to using the 8x10 negative file. Since they would be destined for a lot of reproduction generations, starting with a large negative as a master copy also meant that generation loss (the bagaboo of all analog formats) was was less impactful, and reproduction could be made with contact printing methods rather that projection methods for better quality control and simple mechanical reproduction.

You refer to 1:1 and 5:1 lighting ratios, the ratios between the illumination of the highlight and shadow areas, either can produce good results but what I mean by even lighting is to have all parts of the figure, from head to foot equally illuminated in a standing pose, which can be problematic in a confined space where you don't have room to use large softboxes or umbrella reflectors, What you can do is use white walls as reflectors and have multiple flash units at different heights, or you can hang fluorescent battens vertically on the walls, in either case taking care to shade the camera to avoid flare. Then you can take meter readings at different heights from the floor and make adjustments as required.

Using fluorescent battens in this way in a fairly small space (I use a room which is about 8 ft wide) you can obtain high lighting ratios with cross lighting because the lights are so close to the subject.

The lighting technique used by the Hollywood studio photographers typically involved aiming multiple spotlights directly at the subject from several directions, the photography would be done in the studio during breaks in filming.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Sorry, I thought the topic was effectiveness of phase  detect vs contrast detect autofocus.  I wasn’t aware that those were options to Gowland or Yeager….I thought they had to use their eyes on the ground glass, probably with a loupe or magnifier.

While it’s not as fast, I personally find manual focus to be more reliable for critical sharpness, particularly in studio. Whatever kind of autofocus my olde Canon 5DS has is pretty darn good for event and location work, but I’m not shooting sporting events or hummingbirds in flight.

In studio, now that I’m mirrorless, manual focus that kicks into 100% magnification if I touch the focus ring (or manually switch it on for a technical camera) is equivalent of a loupe and using the big LCD on the back like a ground glass seems to be the most consistently reliable. The focus peaking color mask is pretty useful on a technical camera but I will still flip over to auto magnification for the critical focus.    Phase One autofocus has improved from fucking terrible (on the 645DF) all the way up to marginally acceptable (on the XF modified with the HAP2 system).  Hasselblad is about the same as the XF with their contrast detection with the 50cfvii , and my one evaluation of the newer phase detection on the X2D certainly didn’t make an impression that it was appreciably faster or more accurate than the earlier style…but I didn’t give it much of a test, about the third time it racked the lens out and back while seeking, (thereby being SLOWER then manual focus), I shut the AF off and went back to the manual focus as described above.  Going to manual focus, for me, just eliminates a potential point of error- I’ll try it again with the CFV100 once it arrives but if it remains “Marginally acceptable” in the studio I’ll just shrug my shoulder as my current work flow will still work.

But I’m not religous, if I’m just out and about taking snapshots, I’ll flip the AF on and use the touch screen to hit the focus point and the results are pretty reliable.

Autofocus will usually be faster and sometimes more accurate but you sacrifice some control over the end result. If your camera has numerous focusing detectors then you don't always know exactly what the camera has focused on or have the ability to control what it focuses on, unless you start messing around with the controls to select focus points, in which case you lose the speed advantage. But the Canon EOS 5 and EOS 50E film cameras are generally quite reliable performers in AF. I don't use the eye control features of these cameras.

Peter Gowland and Bunny Yeager didn't have the benefits of modern (or even 1990s) microelectronics technology but Gowland was certainly an innovator technically, he designed the Gowlandflex large format twin lens reflex camera, about 600 of which were made in successive versions.

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Gowlandflex