 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Photo Technique / People Photography / February 2005Dark-skinned subject
I've been shooting for a long time, but suddenly I find myself facing an unfamiliar situation, and I could use some advice. I happen to live in a part of the country that has very few black people. Lots of Latinos and Polynesians, but very few black. I have been booked to shoot a wedding at which the groom is a very dark-skinned African. (No, he's not African-American. He's from Ghana.) And I'm told he has very dark skin. Same presumably goes for his family. The bride will be wearing white, which means the range between her dress and the groom's skin tone could be pretty significant. I will be using Nikon 8008 and/or N90 cameras, in program mode, with flash. I generally shoot Portra, with a rated ISO of 160, but I set the camera for 100. So what's the best course of action? Wash out the whites to get the dark skin tones? Keep the whites and risk losing the groom's face? Just let the computer decide for me? Any wisdom from someone who's handled this kind of shoot would be greatly appreciated. > I've been shooting for a long time, but suddenly I find myself facing > an unfamiliar situation, and I could use some advice. I happen to live in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > let the computer decide for me? Any wisdom from someone who's handled > this kind of shoot would be greatly appreciated. This post sounds very familiar,...like once a year. Almost seems troll like. In any event my feeling is if you have to ask maybe someone better qualified should be shooting the wedding. Dark people get the same exposure to look normal as light people. At the most open up 1/2 stop if your insecure. After all the man is not a living shadow.  SignatureLOL. > I've been shooting for a long time, but suddenly I find myself facing > an unfamiliar situation, and I could use some advice. I happen to live in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > let the computer decide for me? Any wisdom from someone who's handled > this kind of shoot would be greatly appreciated. Expose everything normally. Dark skin in white clothing is no different from pale skin in black clothing. The only difference I've ever noticed is that black skin tends to benefit from diffuse lighting, and pale skin tends to benefit from more directional sources. But you won't have much control over that outside a studio. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > Expose everything normally. Dark skin in white clothing is no different > from pale skin in black clothing. > The only difference I've ever noticed is that black skin tends to > benefit from diffuse lighting, and pale skin tends to benefit from more > directional sources. But you won't have much control over that outside > a studio. Hmmm. Ten responses, one of which actually answers the question. Thank you Mxsmanic. You are clearly a skilled photographer, an educated person, and a grown-up. A combination of attributes all the more valuable on Usenet because of its rarity. Incidentally, for anyone reading in due to interest in the original topic, a Google search (terms: photographing dark skin, IIRC) took me to a discussion group on a page used mostly by professional cinematographers. They seconded Mxsmanic's advice. And they did it without the childishness of all the posts here except his. The wedding, incidentally, went very well. I did decide to open the shutter an extra half-stop on some shots because not only the bride, but the groom as well, wore white. The rest of the Ghanians in attendance were all wearing either dark "Regis look" western clothing, or traditional garb that was a feast for the camera. I didn't worry about latitude at all with them. Finally, a word to everybody except Mxsmanic. The small but sincere photo studio I work for has been in business for a quarter of a century, and done thousands of weddings. (I'm the neophyte, with only about 250 under my belt.) And we've done every one of them in 35mm. In all that time, we have never spent a dime on any form of promotion or advertising other than business cards. Word of mouth keeps us hopping without it. I know that it's tough for you to believe that you don't know everything, or that your way of doing things isn't the only way. But it's so none the less. Put another way, excuse me if I don't really care how big your cameras are or how far you can piss with them. > Finally, a word to everybody except Mxsmanic. The small but sincere > photo studio I work for has been in business for a quarter of a century, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Put another way, excuse me if I don't really care how big your cameras > are or how far you can piss with them. Any way you cut it, 35mm weddings are amateurish. > > Finally, a word to everybody except Mxsmanic. The small but sincere > > photo studio I work for has been in business for a quarter of a century, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Any way you cut it, 35mm weddings are amateurish. And one would think if he had 250 weddings experience he would have known how to shoot "dark skin". SignatureIn my book its another pointless post from another nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better. -- LOL. > Incidentally, for anyone reading in due to interest in the original > topic, a Google search (terms: photographing dark skin, IIRC) took me to > a discussion group on a page used mostly by professional > cinematographers. They seconded Mxsmanic's advice. By way of explanation to others who might be interested, the reason for the lighting differences is that dark skin tends to reflect light only from localized points (so-called specular highlights), whereas light skin tends to reflect light over large areas. This being so, if you light dark skin with directional light sources, you get a lot of sharp "hot spots" on the skin surrounded by relative darkness. If you use diffuse light, you get large areas of gradually modulated light that show skin detail very well. For light skin, it's the other way around. Diffuse light will wash out white skin, obliterating detail. So you use directional sources instead to force shadows that can bring detail into relief. Exposure times in all cases remain the same. Yes, dark skin is dark, and light skin is light, but that's the way you want them to look in the finished photos, too, so you just expose normally and that's how they come out. If you have the luxury of shooting in a studio and you're mixing white and black skin in a shot, you may be able to separately light your subjects so that each receives the most flattering type of light for his or her skin tone. These ideas concern subjects with either very dark or very light skin. For subjects of intermediate complexion, you have more flexibility and you can light either way, depending on your preference. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > Hmmm. Ten responses, one of which actually answers the question. > Thank you Mxsmanic. You are clearly a skilled photographer, an > educated person, and a grown-up. WHATEVER. > Put another way, excuse me if I don't really care how big your cameras > are or how far you can piss with them. I think your just mad because the thread strayed from "your topic" welcome to usenet. SignatureIn my book its another pointless post from another nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better. -- LOL. > I've been shooting for a long time, but suddenly I find myself facing > an unfamiliar situation, and I could use some advice. I happen to live in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > let the computer decide for me? Any wisdom from someone who's handled > this kind of shoot would be greatly appreciated. Mmmm...35mm weddings. Learn photography and let someone else do the wedding. > Mmmm...35mm weddings. Some people are making money shooting weddings digitally, so shooting 35mm is probably overkill. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > Mmmm...35mm weddings. > > Some people are making money shooting weddings digitally, so shooting > 35mm is probably overkill. Unquestionably there are all levels that one can make money doing photo. The question becomes how much can one give the client and still make a decent profit, also perception of quality is important. Show people MF imagery beside 35mm and digital at an equal price and most I guarantee will choose the MF shots. At least they will with mine versus someone else's :-) If price is the sole consideration many would choose 35mm or digital especially if one is giving more prints from 35mm or the perception of more imagery as in the case of the digital scenario. A lot of photographers are actually charging more for the digital weddings than 35mm. In my case I have shot wedding this last year both as my own business doing MF weddings, and sub-contractually for another photographer whereby I shoot 35 mm or digital. I initially found it to be a handicap going back to 35 mm in that the other photographer requires me to frame the image for 3.5 x 5 proofs, this means I am using less than FF on the 35 mm. Try doing large 14+ person wedding party shots when you are subtracting 1/3 of the frame so to get everyone on a 3.5 x5 proof. Coupled with being required to use Kodak Gold 100 for those shots I tend to agree with Randall "in part". Digital is whole nother ball of wax which allows all kinds of less than qualified people to participate in wedding photography that really just don't belong. IMOP. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Show people MF > imagery beside 35mm and digital at an equal price and most I guarantee > will choose the MF shots. No doubt ... but digital wedding photographers take care not to do that. > A lot of photographers are actually charging more for the digital > weddings than 35mm. The wonders of media hype. > Digital is whole nother ball of > wax which allows all kinds of less than qualified people to participate > in wedding photography that really just don't belong. IMOP. This could be said of every technical change in photography that makes things easier. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > Digital is whole nother ball of > > wax which allows all kinds of less than qualified people to participate > > in wedding photography that really just don't belong. IMOP. > > This could be said of every technical change in photography that makes > things easier. Many of the things involved in film photo can be applied to digital capture, although there is IMOP a nominal amount of easier involved with digital (no loading film being the easiest part/changing asa). I find myself somewaht distracted in taking digital....making sure the exposures are spot on for reproduction. Because we are shooting fine jpeg not raw, one must have very accurate exposures with flash and ambient outdoors (Its like shooting blasted slides at the wedding not CN). I find the camera to be a lot less intuitive especially outdoors than film. Film is actually less critical even using 100 asa film. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> Mmmm...35mm weddings. > > Some people are making money shooting weddings digitally, so shooting > 35mm is probably overkill. 6MP is better for a wedding than any 35mm film I've used. Weddings aren't about resolution, they're about *smoothness*. Mostly I use *both*, myself -- mostly because I don't have a second digital body, and also because the TTL flash works much better with film than with digital (my S2 not supporting the newer flash automation scheme that handles that). SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/ > > I've been shooting for a long time, but suddenly I find myself facing > > an unfamiliar situation, and I could use some advice. I happen to live in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > let the computer decide for me? Any wisdom from someone who's handled > > this kind of shoot would be greatly appreciated. Cue the fossil... > Mmmm...35mm weddings. > > Learn photography and let someone else do the wedding. Right on time. Learn to work that 10D yet? Marc > I've been shooting for a long time, but suddenly I find myself facing > an unfamiliar situation, and I could use some advice. I happen to live in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > let the computer decide for me? Any wisdom from someone who's handled > this kind of shoot would be greatly appreciated. black skin tones reveal bad lighting much more than white skin does. A well exposed wedding photo should be able to show detail in both the white wedding dress and the black tux. go grab a catalog with shots of black purses and shoes, leather jackets. Do they screw up the exposure (would be evident in the surrounding details) do the models look blown out, does the background look fried compared to the shot with the white shoes? usually not. Mr Ainsworth..... I've tried to be nice,but I find your attitude to be a pain in the a.s.... Not everyone can afford somebody who shows up with a Hassie or a Bronica. Frankly, I'm tired of your "It's my way or the freakin highway ".attitude As I've said in the past,very few people ever enlarge a wedding photo past 8 by 10 or rarely 11 by 14. The few times someone told me in advance they wanted a big blow up, I brought a Mamiya Press or in the one case they wanted a 40 by 50...(yes, a 40 by 50 to go over the mantel...what nightmare that turned into!) I brought a 4 by 5 Speed Graphic and 10 holders with ISO 100 print film. Your attitude is that there is only one tool for weddings..the one YOU use...Look, if you use 120 format cameras at a wedding, your film and processing costs are about 3 times what 35mm costs. A lot of young couples simply can't afford that. If you had your way, it'd be a crime to shoot a wedding on 35mm. Instead of pissing about this guy shooting in 35mm,why don't you give him some useful advice? My advice would be to shoot some test shots and figure out how to bias the exposure or to shoot on manual and meter the flash using a flash meter.. > I've been shooting for a long time, but suddenly I find myself facing > an unfamiliar situation, and I could use some advice. I happen to live in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > let the computer decide for me? Any wisdom from someone who's handled > this kind of shoot would be greatly appreciated. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.