Nikki

[PhotosbyChuck]

Originally Posted by rolandogomez

First, the hair, on my monitor, looks like you "dodged" a part of the image and I can really see it on this Apple Cinema display.

Thanks for commenting on that. After I adjusted my own monitor, I can definitely see what you're talking about. I see the same effect on her upper right arm. Interestingly (only to me perhaps), I see it best at an angle to the monitor rather than straight on...no idea why.

[ARTFORMS]

Originally Posted by rolandogomez

Jim,

Nice shot. Like the pose, it forms a great imaginary diagonal that starts from the lower right of the image to the upper left. Your use of lighting is great, whether it's yours or not, regardless of the brand. As I've said before, it's the photographer that makes the difference and since folks are talking analogies, even a horse can get you from point A to point B, though I'm from Texas, I still prefer my truck--for the record, we have ranches in South Texas so I've ridden horses and feel qualified to make that statement (grin)

Now, if I were a photo editor, which I've done over the years, here's a critique. First, the hair, on my monitor, looks like you "dodged" a part of the image and I can really see it on this Apple Cinema display. Again, the pose, skin tone all draw a great effect in the image overall. But at closer look, I don't like (on her lower right) how the stomach appears next to her right hand (viewer left). I don't like that the fingers are cropped, this is a glamour image, not fashion. The bikini strings over her buried left hand could have been avoided if she'd placed her hand over them, showing the full hand on the side.

Now as a photo editor, could I live with that, yeah sure, give you a B+ (no pun intended) but I'd also tell you now go make it better. In my recent blog post I talk about how Susan Sontag once told Annie Leibovitz, “You’re good, but you could be better.” Same applies here.

Now since that statement was taken out of context, here's the full post, http://www.rolandogomez.net/wordpress/?p=57.

On another note, I'll take a gas stove, as I love to cook, over an electric stove, it's all about control (grin) just like there is a reason a cook uses aluminum over copper and copper over cast iron and cast iron over teflon coated aluminum. Oh, and I have two convection ovens, they are electric but my stove is gas. (grin)

All the best, rg sends!

(My kitchen w/Playboy Playmate Holley Dorrough making brownies, notice it's a non-stick pan)

When I first saw this image on the back of my camera, I noticed that the light from the ring flash did not fully light her hair other than the top portion where you can see the highlight. Her hair is really auburn in color but not much of that shows. Nikki chose this image and another one very similar to it, so I might need to take a closer look to see if the crop is much different in reference to her hand and fingers. Yes this is a glamour image and I felt as though the lighting worked out ok for this situation. I might wonder how the same shot would look if it were done with a single soft box over top of the subject but am pleased with what I got overall.
I am from the Buckeye state, currently first ranked team in college football.
Although I don't have much need to ride horses these days and don't remember doing this, but I do have a picture of myself at the age of 2 on the back of a horse. I like Silverado's, but prefer my two cars. One is practical with 40 mpg and the other is not, but it will go from 0 to 60 quicker than a Mustang, GT. (Not the horse) Don't know about comparing camera equipment to cooking but I like certain foods cooked over a flame, preferably a grill.

Thanks for the constructive critique.

Jim

[rolandogomez]

Funny, I drive a Sliverado, 4-wheel drive in fact. And I love cooking over mesquite wood in my grill (grin). My real point of my post was to give you a photo editor's critique while also reinforcing that anyone with talent can get from point A to point B with similar tools.

When it comes to photography, since so many analogies were mentioned, it's true that while the brand of the camera and lights don't normally make a photographer who he or she is, the right tool for the right job can get you there more accurately and efficiently--it's all about how you want to work to comfortably and consistently obtain/maintain your own style.

I just posted a nude to an old post by grsphoto, funny, Glenn's photo is similar to mine, he shot his in 2005, mine in 2007, and somehow we came up with similar lighting and concepts. Not sure how his was lit, but mine was shot outside at midnight in Chapel Hill and lit by the security light under the eave of the house.

Now I was able to shoot that photo when "I saw" that image at that time (midnight) with that light (light bulb) because I was shooting with the Canon 85mm F/1.2 (prime lens) and my shot was at F/1.2.

Could I have shot it with my Canon 70-200 IS USM L lens at F/2.8 (non-prime)? Sure, but the 70-200 is heavier (even with the IS compensation), harder for the camera to focus in the darkness at F/2.8 (sometimes impossible in those conditions at that aperture) and my ISO would have to go from ISO 400 to ISO 1600 (think noise here) for identical exposure equivalents. Not to mention at my old age looking throught the viewfinder at night at F/2.8 verses F/1.2 makes it harder to "see" what I'm looking for, in this case, that pose and that crop--it also makes it harder for the camera "to see for focusing purposes" as the camera's sensor suffers like the human eye when there is now only 1/8th of the light coming at F/2.8 than F/1.2 (Inverse Square Law). Again, both lenses are Canon, the camera and the lights would not change--it is the tools that "can" make the difference.

All the best, and thanks for sharing your work and helping create this dialogue, this is what forums are for. Thanks for being a part of the G1 family and community too, rg sends!

( original post with image I'm discussing is in a member's only area)
http://www.glamour1.com/forums/nudes...you-hadnt.html

[PhotosbyChuck]

Originally Posted by rolandogomez

...it also makes it harder for the camera "to see for focusing purposes" as the camera's sensor suffers like the human eye when there is now only 1/8th of the light coming at F/2.8 than F/1.2 (Inverse Square Law).

f/1.2 is a little more than 2 stops (2.333 to 2.5) from f/2.8, so the light at f/2.8 is a little less than 1/4 of the light seen at f/1.2. Still, a big difference in checking focus!

The inverse square law describes light falloff as the distance between the light source and subject change -- light is not falling off in this case -- the amount of light striking the center of the front element is the same in both cases, more of it is being stopped by a smaller aperture ratio in the case of f/2.8.

[rolandogomez]

Hmmm, from F/1.2 next is F/1.4, then F/1.8, then F/2.8, so 3-F/stops difference, that is from F/1.2 to F/1.4 you lose 50-percent of the light, then another 50-percent of that light (now 25-percent from the original) from F/1.4 to F/1.8 then another 50-percent of that light at the next stop, thus 12.5% of the light, or roughly (rounded off, 1/8 of the light from F/1.2). While the Inverse Square Law applies to many things and apertures on lens are based on ratios, the easiest way to remember the Inverse Square Law is on your lens.

I have a page on this in my new book. Let me explain it this way, if your light is 4-feet from your subject, regardless of the F/stop, how far back would you move your subject to reduce the light "one" F/stop (without changing the aperture on the lens)? Real simple, the light now has to be 5-feet, 6-inches. And if you wanted to reduce the light another F/stop, then you'd move your light so it would be 8-feet from the subject.

On the other hand, if you wanted to gain the equivalent of one-F/stop, starting back at the 4-foot mark, you'd place your light so it's 2-feet, 8-inches from the subject.

Ever wonder why we have 2.8 instead of three, or 5.6 instead of six or five? The Inverse Square Law is not a "photography" law that pertains to just light fall off, it's physics and it even applies to acoustics.

As it states in the Wiki, "In physics, an inverse-square law is any physical law stating that some physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity." There is more here at Wikipedia.

While Wiki states, "Photographers and theatrical lighting professionals use the inverse-square law to determine optimal location of the light source for proper illumination of the subject," your aperture scale is a good reference for this, though most new lenses no longer have an aperture ring on the outside of the lens...oh well, just my two centavos worth and thanks for being a part of the G1 family and community. All the best, rg sends!

[ARTFORMS]

Originally Posted by rolandogomez

Hmmm, from F/1.2 next is F/1.4, then F/1.8, then F/2.8, so 3-F/stops difference, that is from F/1.2 to F/1.4 you lose 50-percent of the light, then another 50-percent of that light (now 25-percent from the original) from F/1.4 to F/1.8 then another 50-percent of that light at the next stop, thus 12.5% of the light, or roughly (rounded off, 1/8 of the light from F/1.2). While the Inverse Square Law applies to many things and apertures on lens are based on ratios, the easiest way to remember the Inverse Square Law is on your lens.

I have a page on this in my new book. Let me explain it this way, if your light is 4-feet from your subject, regardless of the F/stop, how far back would you move your subject to reduce the light "one" F/stop (without changing the aperture on the lens)? Real simple, the light now has to be 5-feet, 6-inches. And if you wanted to reduce the light another F/stop, then you'd move your light so it would be 8-feet from the subject.

On the other hand, if you wanted to gain the equivalent of one-F/stop, starting back at the 4-foot mark, you'd place your light so it's 2-feet, 8-inches from the subject.

Ever wonder why we have 2.8 instead of three, or 5.6 instead of six or five? The Inverse Square Law is not a "photography" law that pertains to just light fall off, it's physics and it even applies to acoustics.

As it states in the Wiki, "In physics, an inverse-square law is any physical law stating that some physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity." There is more here at Wikipedia.

While Wiki states, "Photographers and theatrical lighting professionals use the inverse-square law to determine optimal location of the light source for proper illumination of the subject," your aperture scale is a good reference for this, though most new lenses no longer have an aperture ring on the outside of the lens...oh well, just my two centavos worth and thanks for being a part of the G1 family and community. All the best, rg sends!

That is some very cool information. Who says there aren't any facts when it comes to photography?

[PhotosbyChuck]

Originally Posted by rolandogomez

Hmmm, from F/1.2 next is F/1.4, then F/1.8, then F/2.8, so 3-F/stops difference, that is from F/1.2 to F/1.4 you lose 50-percent of the light, then another 50-percent of that light (now 25-percent from the original) from F/1.4 to F/1.8 then another 50-percent of that light at the next stop, thus 12.5% of the light, or roughly (rounded off, 1/8 of the light from F/1.2). While the Inverse Square Law applies to many things and apertures on lens are based on ratios, the easiest way to remember the Inverse Square Law is on your lens.

1.2 to 1.4 is not a full stop. 1 to 1.4 is a full stop. Usually cameras with half stops go 1, 1.2, 1.4 whereas cameras with third stops go 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4. That's why I said it's roughly 2 and 1/3 stops, not 3.

Originally Posted by rolandogomez

I have a page on this in my new book. Let me explain it this way, if your light is 4-feet from your subject, regardless of the F/stop, how far back would you move your subject to reduce the light "one" F/stop (without changing the aperture on the lens)? Real simple, the light now has to be 5-feet, 6-inches. And if you wanted to reduce the light another F/stop, then you'd move your light so it would be 8-feet from the subject.

On the other hand, if you wanted to gain the equivalent of one-F/stop, starting back at the 4-foot mark, you'd place your light so it's 2-feet, 8-inches from the subject.

I agree with this definition -- it's the same as I explained or intended to -- inverse square law is a formula based on distance.

Originally Posted by rolandogomez

Ever wonder why we have 2.8 instead of three, or 5.6 instead of six or five? The Inverse Square Law is not a "photography" law that pertains to just light fall off, it's physics and it even applies to acoustics.

An f-stop is simply focal length / aperture diameter. Since the application is photography, we're interested in the light that is being allowed through the aperture. A property of this calculation is that light is halved or doubled each time the ratio increases or decreases by a factor of the square root of 2. That's why the f-stops are numbered the way they are ... it really doesn't have anything to do with the inverse square law. Both are just rules for chaging the light striking the sensor (or film plane). F-Stop controls light by changing the ratio of the aperture to the focal length and the inverse square law tells us how far to move a light to get the same effect.

[Olli]

Wow Jim. 47 posts! Talk about starting a thread.

I like your shot of Nikki. It has lots of impact. A few nits as others have pointed out, but overall a great shot.

Re: Nikki 

[ARTFORMS]

Originally Posted by Olli

Wow Jim. 47 posts! Talk about starting a thread.

I like your shot of Nikki. It has lots of impact. A few nits as others have pointed out, but overall a great shot.

Hi Olli, I see you got to shoot with Nikki too. That's cool.