What's all involved in a set...

[rolandogomez]

Some folks have asked, what does it take to do a commercial/editorial shoot. Well it varies, depending on the subject, the intent and use of the image. Here is an image that will not be used from a shoot for an advertisement that will appear, starting in Sept. 2008, as a full-page ad in Playboy, Maxim, Sports Illustrated (including the next SI Swimwear issue) amongst other uses. Again, this an image not being used. Model is March 2006 Playboy Playmate Monica Leigh.

And here are some outtakes from the shoot itself, one of the few times I had to use a tripod, more on that when the ad comes out and I'll explain why then. The model was photographed in four changes for the Brand Manager and Art Director to decide on what would be the final wardrobe. Nine Hensel lights were used, three soft boxes, one Chimera Octa57 box and five 7-inch reflectors outfitted with various degrees of grids. Cinefoil was used to direct the light in some of the reflectors and one of the softboxes.

The set(s), we did two sets, were built the day before and lit the day before. We started around noon, right after I flew in, finished around 9:00 p.m. We used a "stand-in" model the day before to get it all right. We had "call" the next day at 7:00 a.m. and shot till 4:30 p.m. As I shot an assistant would take my Lexar digital cards and load them up on a large computer and measure everything and I'd recompose and shoot.

In my new book, which comes out in Sept. with the subject on posing (Amherst Medi) all three dress changes, plus a fourth change, of the images will be included and the reasons why along with the final advertisement and how it all had to fit which will also explain the use of the tripod.

On the lights, the client and advertising agency wanted certain things critically lit. One light, the large Chimera Strip box, is actually the "Window" behind the sheer white curtain behind the model. There as another small strip in front of the curtain rod to light the curtains, though subtle for just enough detail while still staying dark.

Technical Details: Camera, Canon 5D, Canon 70-200L IS USM, set at 130mm, F/5 at ISO 100, 1/40th Shutter-Speed, White Balance 6000K, RAW setting, Lexar Digital cards, Hensel lighting, total of 9 lights, one modified with Chimera Octa57, another, Chimera Large Strip, 7-inch reflectors with grids for accent lights, Rosco Cinefoil.

Another light, the main light, was a Chimera Oct57 at 7-foot width, to light the model, which also gives a great catchlight that can be seen in the print version, not so much the web version. There was another medium Chimera strip just to the left of the Octa57 for filling the model's right side. One 7-inch reflector with a 20-degree grid to light the top of the table, as the wood goes real dark and needs extra light. Another 7-reflector with a 10-degree grid to light the front of the table's edge for more detail.

Another 7-reflector with a 20-degree grid for the purse and hand/arm area as an accent light. The same for her hair on the viewer's right and another on the left. I hope you like this, thanks, rg sends!

[Arbib]

WOW...
As a hobbiest with a mere 2 lights a few BG materials...I am amased by the tools needed to have absolute control...

this is a very informative look at a working photographers "Office"....Thanks..

[r_fredrick_smith]

A simple analogy to making all this attention to detail more understandable is to image that you were an artist creating a painting of what RG is showing here as a photograph. You would then be creating every little bit what you see. You would likely spend intense effort on the wood of the table, the eyes of the subject, how the light caressed the hair, how the tones blended on the fabric. No piece of the canvas would escape your intense inspection, thought and creative effort. So when one advances into the rarefied realm of the professional photographer, should we expect less than what we would expect from a artist or painter?

Now, every photo does not have to be shot this way. We could naturally correct many problems in post and add elements if needed. But when working on a budget, with a deadline, one does best to get it right in the camera.

Cheers,
rfs

[RSStory]

Originally Posted by r_fredrick_smith

But when working on a budget, with a deadline, one does best to get it right in the camera.

Cheers,
rfs

Forget budgets and deadlines and any other reason. We should all be shooting to get it as right as possible in camera ALL the time. Retouching is expensive, thats why they hire proessional photographers to take these shots. You have to understand not only how to do something you have to understand why you are doing it and what effect it will have on the final image.

Yes, we can get really good at photoshop and fix or add or whatever to an image. But in the real world of commercial photography they want it right in the camera. Or, at least as right as possible. Photoshop is a tool, not a crutch for a broken image.

Scott

[RSStory]

Great post RG. Cant wait to see the ad.

[r_fredrick_smith]

Originally Posted by RSStory

Forget budgets and deadlines and any other reason. We should all be shooting to get it as right as possible in camera. Retouching is expensive, thats why they hire professional photographers to take these shots. You have to understand not only how to do something you have to understand why you are doing it and what effect it will have on the final image.

Yes, we can get really good at photoshop and fix or add or whatever to an image. But in the real world of commercial photography they want it right in the camera. Or, at least as right as possible. Photoshop is a tool, not a crutch for a broken image.

Scott

I disagree with you completely on this one. First, I believe you bypassed the main point I was trying to make, which was that making a top notch photo required great attention to all the little details. I too maintain that one should get it right in the camera when possible.

But in the real world, it is not always possible --- and that is where I disagree with your somewhat arbitrary statement. Many of us do not have $25000 in lighting equipment and are not likely to. That means, that often, other means must be used. I advocate doing the best job you can in the camera with the budget and equipment you have. Then if the photo needs to be taken to a higher level, Photoshop is a good solid artistic alternative. Photoshop is just like any other photographic tool. It plays a part in the process. Far too many try to push it aside and cast dispersions on those that use it. But it is a primary photographic tool.

I have dealt with major corporations all over the world during the last 35 years and I've found one thing to be true. They don't care about the details of how you solve their problem and deliver what they need. They care about you delivering it on time, within budget and meeting the project specifications.

When it comes to photography, I'm personally in favor of getting it right in the camera. But I've seen times and situations where that was not possible. Photoshop came in to save the day.

Your statement, "But in the real world of commercial photography they want it right in the camera" is just flatly not true. I've dealt with that real world for a long time and I know its not true from personal experience. Some of the largest corporations in the world use Photoshop to enhance and/or complete their photos for their intended use (I would even say the majority do).

The primary reason that professionals are hired is because they can deliver a image to the art department that meets their specifications and can then be manipulated for their use by whatever tools they choose. They expect the budget to be met and the timeline to be honored. In fact, having worked for some of these companies, I've been on the receiving end of specifications that spell out what they want and tell what Photoshop work they plan and how I should shoot to make it easier for them to do their work. Often this has even involved providing a number of different "pieces" of the ultimate image.

Now the above does not mean that I still don't try to get it right in the camera. It just means that I understand that this will not always be fully possible. I work with the equipment I have available to do the job the best I can.

Anyway --- rather than get into a long discussion about this, I'd be interested to hear RG's remarks about what I've said above. We now know your position and mine, but we haven't heard from him yet about this nuance of the topic, and since he's a working pro at high level in this profession, I'd like to hear his comments before escalating this discussion any further.

Cheers,
rfs

[RSStory]

Originally Posted by r_fredrick_smith

I disagree with you completely on this one. First, I believe you bypassed the main point I was trying to make, which was that making a top notch photo required great attention to all the little details. I too maintain that one should get it right in the camera when possible.

But in the real world, it is not always possible --- and that is where I disagree with your somewhat arbitrary statement. Many of us do not have $25000 in lighting equipment and are not likely to. That means, that often, other means must be used. I advocate doing the best job you can in the camera with the budget and equipment you have. Then if the photo needs to be taken to a higher level, Photoshop is a good solid artistic alternative. Photoshop is just like any other photographic tool. It plays a part in the process. Far too many try to push it aside and cast dispersions on those that use it. But it is a primary photographic tool.

I have dealt with major corporations all over the world during the last 35 years and I've found one thing to be true. They don't care about the details of how you solve their problem and deliver what they need. They care about you delivering it on time, within budget and meeting the project specifications.

When it comes to photography, I'm personally in favor of getting it right in the camera. But I've seen times and situations where that was not possible. Photoshop came in to save the day.

Your statement, "But in the real world of commercial photography they want it right in the camera" is just flatly not true. I've dealt with that real world for a long time and I know its not true from personal experience. Some of the largest corporations in the world use Photoshop to enhance and/or complete their photos for their intended use (I would even say the majority do).

The primary reason that professionals are hired is because they can deliver a image to the art department that meets their specifications and can then be manipulated for their use by whatever tools they choose. They expect the budget to be met and the timeline to be honored. In fact, having worked for some of these companies, I've been on the receiving end of specifications that spell out what they want and tell what Photoshop work they plan and how I should shoot to make it easier for them to do their work. Often this has even involved providing a number of different "pieces" of the ultimate image.

Now the above does not mean that I still don't try to get it right in the camera. It just means that I understand that this will not always be fully possible. I work with the equipment I have available to do the job the best I can.

Anyway --- rather than get into a long discussion about this, I'd be interested to hear RG's remarks about what I've said above. We now know your position and mine, but we haven't heard from him yet about this nuance of the topic, and since he's a working pro at high level in this profession, I'd like to hear his comments before escalating this discussion any further.

Cheers,
rfs

Apparently you DONT know my position... I believe my statement was get it as right as possible in camera, and that PS is a tool not a crutch. What too many people do is take a mediocre image and try to fix it in post. Or they see a detail when they are shooting and rather then fixing it there they say "I can fix that in post" I can do alot in PS, the fact is when it comes to a model, if a plastic surgeon could fix a flaw in them I can do it in photoshop. That doesnt mean I want to do it and that doesnt mean that I am gonna shoot a model for a client with a bunch of flaws and then tell the AD "dont worry I can fix that in post" It doesnt mean I am gonna take an image with bad lighting or soft focus or any # of other things and Say to this client "Dont worry, That can be photoshopped.

There are always going to be times when you cant do something in camera or when the client wants to something to an image as you stated. Thats fine and they knew that going in. But bad technical skill in camera does not and will not make for a repeat customer, when they now have to spend money in retouching that could have been done in camera. That is my point.

35 years in the business doesnt mean you are right. Just like me shooting for 28 years ( I bought my first manual camera when I was 12) doesnt mean I am right. And anyone that says you shouldnt get it right in camera when you can is just plain wrong....

Scott

[rolandogomez]

I understand both posts from both moderators. Let me just say this, I always shoot to get it all done in the camera first, post production is always secondary. In this shoot, the reason I used a tripod and the reason the lens was set at 130mm, was because the size of the head as well as the top of the head to the curtain rod had to be specific. When you see the final ad, you'll know why, that curtain rod plays a major role in this image, seriously. Thanks, rg sends!

[RSStory]

Originally Posted by rolandogomez

I understand both posts from both moderators. Let me just say this, I always shoot to get it all done in the camera first, post production is always secondary. In this shoot, the reason I used a tripod and the reason the lens was set at 130mm, was because the size of the head as well as the top of the head to the curtain rod had to be specific. When you see the final ad, you'll know why, that curtain rod plays a major role in this image, seriously. Thanks, rg sends!

I remember a story you told in chicago at a workshop about a shoot you did in Atlanta maybe? A former playboy person's studio maybe. Something about a bed that had reflections from the lights and you had to round up black cards to knock them down... The # 29 comes to mind but that may very well be wrong... That is a good example of getting it right in camera. Those reflections could have been fixed in post but you took the time and got it right in camera, or at least as right as you could. That is my point. Too many people would have dealt with it in post if they noticed it at all during the shoot. Or they wouldnt have know how to deal with it in camera. Thus why I said you have to how and why you are doing something.

Scott

[go1982team]

Thanks for the great photos of what is need... can anyone post pictures of their home photography equipment?