I found the book "lighting for nude photography" by Rod Ashford to be an excellent guide for the use of lighting. Each photograph in this book is accompanied by a layout drawing showing lights/cameras/filters/boxes used and their placement. There are also descriptions of film and camera settings for each photograph. Just thought it might be a good time to mention how useful I found this book. Rick -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu [mailto:owner-photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu] On Behalf Of Les Baldwin Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:07 PM To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: First portrait session (part deux) Hi Greg, Also I'd like to get further winded... I often will look at catalogs of fashion wear and try to figure out just how the photographer worked the lighting, camera angle, pose and focal length. I may or may not try to dupe it exactly (usually not) but picking apart each subtle nuance of the images are how I learned much of my photography. I try and look at the entire image to determine the time of day, size of the light modifiers used and the angle the sun or light source was at, during exposure. This to me is the most critical aspects to the image. If you can break it all down, you can then apply some or all of the images characteristics to your next shoot. Oddly enough many fashion style shots are done with the camera at the models hip or even knee level. Yes it shoots under the nose but for full length shots no one seem to care. Images created with less than half of the person showing are elevated toward the head and specifically the eyes. Now, in the shots you showed the eyes were bright and had great reflections in them. Those are good things, and you need to make sure that all of your images strive for that look. The eyes are often the first center a viewer will see when looking for the first time. It's natural. Eyes in shots with no highlights are perceived to be lifeless and even cold. I have often added or subtracted the highlights in portraits to make the image more visually pleasing. This has always been done even by painters. Often you will find that the right lighting for the face, is the exact wrong lighting for the eyes. This to me is where PS sings. I do use PS for touchups, small scar removal and occasionally for SFX. But I try my best to get all of the shot "in camera" as opposed to doing it later w/ PS. Also you can shoot with the idea of using one or more of PS's tools in a very specific manner. Lets say that the model wants to have the gray removed in her hair or highlights added without going to the chemical route, all of that can be done w/ PS. Portraits are not the actual way the subject looks, but often are better than they feel. Make-up, hairstyles, and clothing are not everyday items for most subjects, so you have to study these and help them to make the correct decisions to look there best. take care Les Baldwin
