Photography?

[viking1965]

Wonderboy,

All good and valid points....but I think you went about 1000 miles over the OP's head.

 

[alexmst]

Well I'm going to have to put my words into here. For the last poster, I'd rather do Medium Format than use that camera for something that large to work with.


To do good photography, I mean, really good, you're going to need experience, and use professional equipment. You can't be cheap when you want to do high quality. You get what you pay for, end of story.

Most CMOS or CCD sensors do not have a 35mm field of view. Therefor, a Field Length Multiplier exists, and older lenses have a higher focal length value when dealing with this because of the smaller field of view. Usually 1.5X the difference between a 35mm plane, and a digital sensor.

Most DSLR's have the focusing mechanism built into the camera. The AF-S Servo is great to constantly focus on a object while it is moving.

The lens is the most important piece of element of a camera. This is what focuses the light to a single point. Digital fanatics worry about pixels when pixels are just dots. It's how they're used which makes the difference.

I find you need a high quality DSLR to get good results due to chromatic noise on higher level ISO sensitives. Some of the noise, can be fine, or it can be coarse by measuring the deviation point.

So people out there, if you're going to do high contrast photography, be prepared to make a 32bit HDR image file because the latitude of digital only has around 8 stops, and most of that isn't even in the highlight part of the tonal range.

Photoshop takes years to master...

So first steps. Professional lighting, sync cord, know how to model your objects using lights.
Shoot RAW mode. RAW mode preserves detail and less artifacts occur than saving in JPEG, allows more control over processing in photoshop.

One of the best cameras that I've used was a Hassleblad Camera. It currently cost $35,000. Good Luck

You have very good points, a lot though depends on what type of photography one is doing and what the end use will be. If one is a part time photo hobbyist shooting nudes for a good time, and the end use will be 5x7 or 8x10 prints for personal use, you don't need a Hasselblad. A digital SLR with a zoom in the 35-135 range will get you decent shots for personal use. If you want to shoot 35mm film, I've taken great natural light nudes with my 1978 Nikon FM SLR and a 50mm kit lens, which you can find on Ebay for about U.S.$120-$175. Film does have a lot more latitude than digital - digital is like shooting slide film in that you need to nail the exposure.

If you were being paid to shoot nudes, sure a Hasselblad with digital back is probbaly one of the best setups you could want. I think though that as a happy amatuer doing this for fun, one can enjoy oneself more with a SLR. An entry level Nikon D40 with 18-55 kit lens (27mm-82mm in film speak) is about Can$ 500 at most photo retailers. If you are shooting a model in good light (outdoors or by large windows) you don't need super high ISO senitivities - ISO 100-800 is fine). The high ISO's are useful if shooting without flash indoors at a restaurant (ISO 3200-6400) or convention hall, reception hall, etc.

One good site to check out is photosig - you can search artsy nude pics (no porn) and often the posting photographer will post what camera and lens he used under the photo in the details section.

 

[Master Baiter]

Well I'm going to have to put my words into here. For the last poster, I'd rather do Medium Format than use that camera for something that large to work with.


To do good photography, I mean, really good, you're going to need experience, and use professional equipment. You can't be cheap when you want to do high quality. You get what you pay for, end of story.

Most CMOS or CCD sensors do not have a 35mm field of view. Therefor, a Field Length Multiplier exists, and older lenses have a higher focal length value when dealing with this because of the smaller field of view. Usually 1.5X the difference between a 35mm plane, and a digital sensor.

Most DSLR's have the focusing mechanism built into the camera. The AF-S Servo is great to constantly focus on a object while it is moving.

The lens is the most important piece of element of a camera. This is what focuses the light to a single point. Digital fanatics worry about pixels when pixels are just dots. It's how they're used which makes the difference.

I find you need a high quality DSLR to get good results due to chromatic noise on higher level ISO sensitives. Some of the noise, can be fine, or it can be coarse by measuring the deviation point.

So people out there, if you're going to do high contrast photography, be prepared to make a 32bit HDR image file because the latitude of digital only has around 8 stops, and most of that isn't even in the highlight part of the tonal range.

Photoshop takes years to master...

So first steps. Professional lighting, sync cord, know how to model your objects using lights.
Shoot RAW mode. RAW mode preserves detail and less artifacts occur than saving in JPEG, allows more control over processing in photoshop.

One of the best cameras that I've used was a Hassleblad Camera. It currently cost $35,000. Good Luck

Agreed. If I'm shooting something for a client that wants to blow up images quite large I will normally rent a PhaseOne rig or source out hi-res drum scans of 6x4.5 film (yes film isn't dead yet!). For most glam work, a digital SLR works well. My 1D MarkIII has a 1.3x cropped factor. My 5D MarkII is a full frame sensor. Chromatic aberration is controlled by the quality of the lens, not the sensor. You will get more CA with cheaper lenses. Buying pro level constant aperture lenses are a lot better in controlling this but it comes at a fat price tag.

Yes, more pixels is not always better and there is a mathematical reason for this but that starts to complicate things for this thread. But the crop factor of APS sized sensors would not affect the quality of lenses designed for full-frame or 35mm film cameras. If anything, you get a better sweet spot and because the central part of the lens is being utilized, you cut down on vignetting, pin cushioning and barrel distortion. Now the reverse is true ie. trying to use a lens designed for APS sized sensors on a full-frame sensor or film camera is asking for trouble.

If you're not doing this professionally and more as a hobby, any DSLR and a decent lens can work.

It is almost impossible to shoot an HDR image with a live model. If you're framing 3-5 images for HDR work, you're going to get ever slight movement and that will result in softening of the subject. If you're doing landscape with static scenery (pray it's not windy) then HDR is AWESOME!

 

[newguy27]

If you know the basics of your camera and how to use them and basic knowledge in lighting, by all means sign up for the nude workshop. It's usually a max of 3 photographers. The Studio204 is cheaper and Philip covers the basics of flash work so you'll get a recap. Then at the end it turns into a free-for-all shoot and you can pose etc your model how you like (artistically of course). Spectrum Studios is a little more advanced but you pay more.

ToughB is right. If you're getting into this to meet girls, you're going to get into a lot of trouble and fast. These girls know a creep/perv pretty quickly. You need to be very professional at all times and conduct yourself accordingly. If you're getting a woody in the middle of your shoot, you're not concentrating hard enough at taking your pics but fantasizing instead! I've done 8-12hr studio shoots and by the end of the day, most times I've managed to skip lunch and at the end, I'm mentally exhausted.

I've blown up pics with my 1D Mark III up to 30x40 and some odd 36x50 with good results. The blowups from my 5D Mark II is a bit sharper compared to the 1D at 30x40. Doesn't hurt to have 24/7 access to 60" wide printers.
Having good glass helps!

Thanks for the advice MB. I'll try studio204 first for a refresher and then spectrum for more advanced shoots. this should hold me over until the warmer weather comes back so i can shoot outside again!

 

[lamwi]

http://toronto.en.craigslist.ca/tor/pho/1032650469.html

 

[Powershot]

I'm in the same boat as you, I tried doing it on my own but I ended up taking classes at Sheridan. They're excellent teachers and I'm looking forward to the 2 day Photoshop class when I get back from Vegas next week. Just last week we practiced lighting.

Hehehe I think I might be in your class

Learning continuous lighting techniques is getting a little boring, I would love to learn strobist techniques and how to effectively use flash guns.

 

[JEFF247]

I too would like to be a better photographer. I own a Canon EOS Rebel Xsi. I often go to www.onemodelplace.com to look at different pics of HOT chicks. But it is amazing how they make HOT chicks look really bad. One girl, I know, is a gorgeous blonde, tall and thin. They make her look like she just put her hand in a light socket, dress her like crap and smear god knows what all over her face. My friends not the only one. There's plenty like this. I guess they got them believing it's art!!! Looks rediculous to me. I haven't told her that though!!!

 

[Powershot]

I too would like to be a better photographer. I own a Canon EOS Rebel Xsi. I often go to www.onemodelplace.com to look at different pics of HOT chicks. But it is amazing how they make HOT chicks look really bad. One girl, I know, is a gorgeous blonde, tall and thin. They make her look like she just put her hand in a light socket, dress her like crap and smear god knows what all over her face. My friends not the only one. There's plenty like this. I guess they got them believing it's art!!! Looks rediculous to me. I haven't told her that though!!!

Some "high fashion" photography can make models look pretty outlandish.