# Fencing



## Alpha (Jun 24, 2008)

...and why it pays to have a good makeup artist. The shoot was a collaboration with one other photographer, 5 models, a makeup artist who also did hair, and a wardrobe stylist. Lighting came from a 600w/s strobe about 10ft in the air at camera right shooting through a double-baffled 34x44 softbox, a 320 w/s strobe at camera left about 6 ft up shooting through a double baffled 24x30, and a Sunpak 544 unmodified at the rear for rim-lighting. I'm just editing them now. I'll post more as I finish. Any questions, comments, and input is welcome.


----------



## Alpha (Jun 24, 2008)




----------



## Alpha (Jun 24, 2008)




----------



## zendianah (Jun 24, 2008)

i really like these! The lighting is well done. Great job Max.. !


----------



## tirediron (Jun 25, 2008)

Very well done1


----------



## Overread (Jun 25, 2008)

Another saying very nice work there - the first has a really great angle and feel to it.
I also don't know if its compression and web posting, but something in the face of the second shot looks plasticky to me. That is about my only niggle - great lighting work!


----------



## Alpha (Jun 25, 2008)

Her face was just ever so slightly out of focus, and the god-damned lab scanned them as jpg! When I said less than 20mb, I didn't mean 350kb! The sharpening and smoothing I did of her face turned a little plastic. I'll most likely give the shot another go as soon as I can find time.


----------



## Battou (Jun 25, 2008)

Alpha said:


> ...and the god-damned lab scanned them as jpg! When I said less than 20mb, I didn't mean 350kb!...



I'm sorry but if you want it done right you gotta do it your self type thing.


----------



## Alpha (Jun 25, 2008)

Battou said:


> I'm sorry but if you want it done right you gotta do it your self type thing.



Usually do. Have you never read any of my posts?

Anyway...we'll see what they have to say when they call in the tab on this month's bill.


----------



## Battou (Jun 25, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Usually do. Have you never read any of my posts?
> 
> Anyway...we'll see what they have to say when they call in the tab on this month's bill.



That's why I said it  I'm cought off guard you'd let someone else do it.


----------



## Alpha (Jun 25, 2008)

Well one of the benefits of being on good terms with a pro lab is that you can deny payment when they screw up. I can't even print these. I asked for tiffs at least a few mb's that I can retouch at 100% without too much trouble. I got 350kb jpegs that chunk up on me. Hoo ra. Thank god I only need web-sized copies by this afternoon. But on the other hand I'm gonna have to retouch them all again once I get better scans.


----------



## NJMAN (Jun 25, 2008)

Once again, great lighting!  The hair/rim light is perfect in #1 and #3.


----------



## Alpha (Jun 25, 2008)




----------



## zendianah (Jun 25, 2008)

my mentor rocks


----------



## Alpha (Jun 25, 2008)

zendianah said:


> my mentor rocks



:hug::


----------



## craig (Jun 27, 2008)

On point! Creative idea and excellent job by the whole team. Except for the lab of course.

)'(


----------



## Alpha (Jun 28, 2008)

Turned out to be a bit of a false alarm. They had the high-res tiffs on file, so I didn't have to have them all re-scanned. I'll be touching up the better quality shots this weekend.


----------



## returnofa5i (Jul 6, 2008)

The black behind the subjects isn't back enough. maybe bump the contrast


----------



## Alpha (Jul 7, 2008)

returnofa5i said:


> The black behind the subjects isn't back enough. maybe bump the contrast



I beg to differ. Check the Lab color info palette. Most have an L value of 2 in the background, which is actually darker than nearly any printer can print. Two of them have L values pushing 7 or 8 maximum, which is only marginally brighter than pure black for a printer, which around 5.


----------



## returnofa5i (Jul 7, 2008)

Alpha said:


> I beg to differ. Check the Lab color info palette. Most have an L value of 2 in the background, which is actually darker than nearly any printer can print. Two of them have L values pushing 7 or 8 maximum, which is only marginally brighter than pure black for a printer, which around 5.



then how come i can see lighter and darker crap in the background? It just seems to me that the background should be a consistent black, not a splotchy black.

I tried my best to remove the splotches. Your profile doesn't say okay or not okay to edit so if its not okay just let me know and I'll remove it.


there still is a couple of splotches but i got rid of the big ones that look like covered up windows behind her.


----------



## Tyjax (Jul 7, 2008)

You sir are my new hero. Few people in studio work have what I consider my "idea" or aesthetic in lighting. Bingo! I can not yet achieve this high ratio of very pleasing images or even accomplishing what I see in my head. But by god someday...


----------



## Alpha (Jul 7, 2008)

returnofa5i said:


> profile doesn't say okay or not okay to edit so if its not okay just let me know and I'll remove it.



Then you should err on the side of caution and not do it.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 7, 2008)

In fact, let me take this opportunity to explain why I don't want anyone editing my photos.

Let's start with numbers. Anything smaller than an L value of 5 is pure black on a printer. The splotches you see have an L value of 4, and the areas you think are pure black have an L value of 2. First, 2 is not pure black in this color gamut. 0 is. As far as any printer is concerned, <5 is pure black. So these splotches you see are the difference between pure black and so black that they can't even actually be printed. 

But let's talk about what this image is. It's a web-sized jpg that you just edited. Aside from the fact that you shouldn't even waste your time editing a 72dpi jpg, you didn't even edit it in the color space I did. More importantly, why shouldn't I care? Because nobody is looking at a 72dpi jpg proof on a computer screen under a loupe. When the models take their 300dpi 9x12's to costco or wherever to have them printed, do you think, given what I said in the previous paragraph, that their printer will resolve that difference? And why are they printing them anyway? To put in their book, where the background will be black as night. And what really matters? Their book matters.

But let's talk about the edit you did. With your apparently supreme visual acuity, did you not notice that you royally ****ed up my highlights? And why did you **** up my highlights? Over a splotch. A splotch that you should have painted. And why didn't you paint it? Because you didn't know better. Because that trigger finger on your mouse went straight for the curves dialog and unnecessarily applied an effect to the entire image. You heard a heart murmur and did open-heart surgery with a sledge hammer when you could have written a script. 

And why did you do that? Because this is the internet and who cares, right? Who the hell am I? What's it matter if you don't edit it correctly? It matters because if I didn't say anything, there'd be a photo with ****ed up highlights and my name on it floating around the web.

But I digress. Why be so incorrigible? You made your point. I disagreed. That should have been the end of the story. But instead you went back and edited the shot. And for what? So you could say, "look how this can be improved." Look indeed.


----------



## Callahan Photography (Jul 7, 2008)

sweet concept.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 7, 2008)

Callahan Photography said:


> sweet concept.



Thanks, but I can hardly take credit for the concept. It was actually the makeup artist who arranged the setting, and of course the wardrobe stylist had creative control when it came to the outfits.


----------



## Tyjax (Jul 7, 2008)

Alpha, can I just say that to "hear" you rant is a real pleasure? LOL I wish I could go off like that... Too much mouse and not enough man I guess.  Bravo... Score one for artistic integrity. Love your technical knowledge too... too bad I have to spend time learning about the technology that earns my expensive camera's...


----------



## Alpha (Jul 7, 2008)

Tyjax said:


> Alpha, can I just say that to "hear" you rant is a real pleasure? LOL I wish I could go off like that... Too much mouse and not enough man I guess.  Bravo... Score one for artistic integrity. Love your technical knowledge too... too bad I have to spend time learning about the technology that earns my expensive camera's...



Thanks for the vote of confidence, though there are others on the board who know just as much, if not more than I do. We'll see how much of a pleasure it is when I spend a week in the brig (read: get banned) for "[engaging] in any inflammatory, fight-inducing behavior." :roll:


----------



## returnofa5i (Jul 7, 2008)

Alpha said:


> In fact, let me take this opportunity to explain why I don't want anyone editing my photos.
> 
> Let's start with numbers. Anything smaller than an L value of 5 is pure black on a printer. The splotches you see have an L value of 4, and the areas you think are pure black have an L value of 2. First, 2 is not pure black in this color gamut. 0 is. As far as any printer is concerned, <5 is pure black. So these splotches you see are the difference between pure black and so black that they can't even actually be printed.
> 
> ...



 I just did a print and yes you can see the blocked out windows.  Obviously when ur measuring your black you are not measuring from the blacked out windows (or w/e they are.) I was just pointing something out to you, that would improve your photo. But if you can't take the helpful critique, then don't post here.  YOu didn't label whether or not I could edit so yes it was fine for me to do so. And I respected you and removed it since you didn't like it. An edit is just an example and no i did not "F*** up" ur hi lights


----------



## lostprophet (Jul 7, 2008)

returnofa5i said:


> wow ur an a**. I just did a print and yes you can see the blocked out windows.  Obviously when ur measuring your black you are not measuring from the blacked out windows (or w/e the f*** they are.) I was just pointing something out to you, that would improve your photo. But if you can't take the helpful critique, then don't post here.  YOu didn't label whether or not I could edit so yes it was fine for me to do so. And I respected you and removed it since you didn't like it. An edit is just an example and no i did not "F*** up" ur hi lights
> __________________
> not really a TPF Noob, if any of you remember a5i736



guess you didn't learn a thing after the last time you were banned for bad language


----------



## returnofa5i (Jul 7, 2008)

lostprophet said:


> guess you didn't learn a thing after the last time you were banned for bad language



Ur right , my apologies. Thanks for reminding me.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 7, 2008)

returnofa5i said:


> wow ur an a**. I just did a print and yes you can see the blocked out windows.  Obviously when ur measuring your black you are not measuring from the blacked out windows (or w/e the f*** they are.) I was just pointing something out to you, that would improve your photo. But if you can't take the helpful critique, then don't post here.  YOu didn't label whether or not I could edit so yes it was fine for me to do so. And I respected you and removed it since you didn't like it. An edit is just an example and no i did not "F*** up" ur hi lights



You know what your problem is? You come in here trying to call me out on a rookie mistake without even understanding what you're looking at. It's a 72dpi jpeg _proof_. I do a quick edit of a few photos from the shoot and post them up here. Of course they aren't going to be perfectly processed. I even said that I'd have to go through and do a proper edit and retouch of the high-res files.

Now, I'll grant you that in some of the proofs, the background is splotchy in places. As I noted above, that's a given. But not in the photo you edited, where the shadow differences are negligibly small. Now when you said the background wasn't black enough, I went and checked my final edits, where it is. I should have been checking the proofs. So I'm sorry for the confusion about that.

Now about the editing. The Ok/Not Ok to Edit system came about primarily for the OK to edit part. Because by default, you're not permitted by law to edit and repost without someone's explicit permission. Having "not ok to edit" below my name doesn't make it any more wrong for you do so. 

Really, though. I have no problem with you commenting that the retouch is not pristine in a low resolution proof, however obvious that is. But you dug your own grave when you posted that edit. Posting an edit says, "this is how I think the photo should look." And if you think the photo should have ghastly blown-out highlights dead-center in frame, well then I'm afraid you were just asking for me to ignore your words of wisdom.


----------



## Arch (Jul 7, 2008)

Im seeing too much bad language here... try and clean it up a bit guys including Alpha. To be honest yes we knew A5i had 'come 'back'.. but why on earth anyone who is banned would think they can resurface and continue in the same vien is beyond me.

As not to hijack the thread, i will add i like the images the lighting is good, sometimes the black gloves get a bit lost but the images still work all the same.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 7, 2008)

Arch said:


> Im seeing too much bad language here... try and clean it up a bit guys including Alpha.



Noted.



> As not to hijack the thread, i will add i like the images the lighting is good, sometimes the black gloves get a bit lost but the images still work all the same.



Thanks.


----------



## returnofa5i (Jul 7, 2008)

Arch said:


> Im seeing too much bad language here... try and clean it up a bit guys including Alpha. To be honest yes we knew A5i had 'come 'back'.. but why on earth anyone who is banned would think they can resurface and continue in the same vien is beyond me.
> 
> As not to hijack the thread, i will add i like the images the lighting is good, sometimes the black gloves get a bit lost but the images still work all the same.



again i apologize.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 7, 2008)

Great lighting and beautiful models.  Outstanding work.





Alpha said:


> In fact, let me take this opportunity to explain why I don't want anyone editing my photos.


 Serve and volley.  Well played Alpha.


----------



## Tyjax (Jul 7, 2008)

Ahhh... Durn... I was too involved in the goodness. Now I notice the gloves... hmm. Dont think its a deal killer after all. More of the "persian rug" syndrome.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 7, 2008)

Tyjax said:


> Ahhh... Durn... I was too involved in the goodness. Now I notice the gloves... hmm. Dont think its a deal killer after all. More of the "persian rug" syndrome.



Well, with my brand-spankin'-new pure black backgrounds, they'll be sure to stick out like sore thumbs!

[still in disbelief that I didn't get banned for saying]



[/"you ****ed up my highlights"]


----------



## Tyjax (Jul 7, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Well, with my brand-spankin'-new pure black backgrounds, they'll be sure to stick out like sore thumbs!
> 
> [still in disbelief that I didn't get banned for saying]
> 
> ...




Way to fly under the radar porkchop! lol Bring it up again why doncha?


----------



## Alpha (Jul 7, 2008)

Tyjax said:


> Way to fly under the radar porkchop! lol Bring it up again why doncha?



Ha. Stick around a while longer you'll see it's impossible for me to be under the radar. The mods practically bug my phone.


----------



## terri (Jul 8, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Ha. Stick around a while longer you'll see it's impossible for me to be under the radar. The mods practically bug my phone.


Oh, come now. We might read all your PM's, but we'd never bug your phone. That would be unjust. 

So paranoid. :mrgreen:


----------



## mmcduffie1 (Jul 8, 2008)

Nice shots. I like the lighting. The blonde scares me though


----------

