VOGUE + RED

[M.Paul El-Darwish]

I grabbed a small section of the Bruce Weber shot that shows him holding his doggie, RED and a Rollie.
The beard hair is not sharp but I note a lot of compression artifacts around edges. Anyone know what this shot of Bruce was shot on?

 

[Nathaniel Kramer]

no paul I did not shoot JLO.. FYI, keeping lashes sharp is about DOF, not shutter speed.. Perhaps you thought I implied that I handheld the Epic at 1/60th? I do not usually ..... but im sure i could... not much different than shooting a long range rifle, provided you have the strength.. FYI, the vertical stills pulled from horizontal look wonderful printed in the lookbook...
I would not call shooting tests for models high end fashion work... but its great for meeting girls! I could get into a whole other argument with you about your strobe point, but again you are not accurate.. In the early 90's high end strobes were already punching flash durations well over 1/500th of a second, so shutter speed was not a factor if ambient studio light was dark.. You could freeze chicks jumping wit a shutter of 1 second if you had a good strobe.. If you wanted a freeze frame WITH motion blur ( sounds contradictory) , you pumped up the ambient and shot at around 1/30th... Check out my cover for New York Magazine and you will see what im talking about.. Used the same technique for a Reebok ad as well..
In any event, lets just agree to disagree. wishing you success with your new venture
Lets just agree to disagree... FYI, its Nathaniel, not Nate...
peace and good luck with your new venture

 

[M.Paul El-Darwish]

Paul, No, I have never shot Jlo...I s that you think I impiied i would hand hold my epic at 1/60th - that is not so.. I was speaking about hand holding an slr, 6x7, 4x4 adn any of the medium format film cams..Back in the early 90's when shooting a lot od studio strobe, our shutter was never faster than 1/60th as the flash duration of high end strobes were already pushing 1/500 so as long as ambient room light was dark, you could have shot at 1 second, or if we wanted to capture stroboscopic motion blur, as I did for the cover of New York Magazine (on my site) we shot at 1/30th --
shooting tests for young models is not exactly what I would call high end fashion or advert work.... But hey, lets just agree to disagree... FYI, its Nathaniel, not Nate.. Best of luck to you in your new venture.
Peace

Sorry for the confusion. Here's a link out to an old hassy pic - hand held, strobe (plus 250W modeling lamp). I hope this link works.
temp access> UserID = zephyrnoid and Password = contrejour
http://www.winkflash.com/photo/photozoom.aspx?m=485174749&ic=10168479
No grading, photoshop or any sharpening of this scan from 2-1/4 Fuji Velvia slide at all.
CLICK > "Save Full Size" >>> to your desktop and open it please.
Look past the eyelashes. You can see the veins in the eyeballs of this then 'retired' cover model for Grazia, Vogue etc.
I have some actual Grazia covers of her but too faded to matter now
Sorry for the error Nathaniel and of course we can gracefully disagree like gents.
Then I notice another error in your language. what to do. Sharp lashes are partly to do with DOF but mostly to do with accurate focus.
That's part of the reason it's hard to pull a razor sharp image out of a movie sequence. for stills, you can zero in on the target precisely but when you rely on DOF as much as we do in film, there's only ONE point of sharpness and then you pray DOF will cover the rest. Since the eye is seeing 60fps the apparent resolution of the target of focus is quite acceptable. It's when you pull one frame out of 60 that you have eliminated your cover if that makes any sense? anyway. gotta go and work like a dog C-ya

 

[Koray Birand]

Rookie ??? I think you should be careful and do your research before calling someone rookie..

 

[Jarred Land]

play nice kids..

 

[Nathaniel Kramer]

Koray, I dont know if the gentlemen called me a rookie or you a rookie or perhaps the both of us.. I think I may have started snapping before you, back in the days when we only had kodak ektachrome, fujichrome and kodachrome - there was no photoshop - retouching was done by hand with an airbrush and was reserved for covers and adverts -raw did not exist- but clearly you are a very accomplished fotog and the farthest thing from a rookie...
He is probably just jealous that we get to work with beautiful women ..

 

[Nathaniel Kramer]

Jim, with all due respect, Koray is right... shooting an insert cover is very different than shooting the magazine cover. It is not editorial. Its a promotion done by the magazine on behalf of an advertiser who is paying for the pages..I love my epic.. I shoot fashion stills and motion with it, and yes, I use the frame grab a lot. Would I shoot it for use on a billboard? I am not sure - Clients probably will want more resolution mp- but if it can hold up on the silver screen why not a billboard. Motion picture is actually much more forgiving than stills because with motion the human eye does not have the time to notice imperfections - with stills, we have all the time in the world to study the photo and find flaws if they exist....But shooting motion with my epic is pure joy. I wont give her a name as some do here - i think thats going way too far and kind of queer and nerdy. But i will refer to 1241 as a she. And just like my boat, she sucks me dry of money, but she gives so much pleasure back to me!

 

[M.Paul El-Darwish]

Koray, I dont know if the gentlemen called me a rookie or you a rookie or perhaps the both of us.. I think I may have started snapping before you, back in the days when we only had kodak ektachrome, fujichrome and kodachrome - there was no photoshop - retouching was done by hand with an airbrush and was reserved for covers and adverts -raw did not exist- but clearly you are a very accomplished fotog and the farthest thing from a rookie...
He is probably just jealous that we get to work with beautiful women ..

C'mone guys, I wasn't referring to anyone specific in my jab, just that when people get their tech flat out wrong it's out obligation to correct each other. I do applogize but hey. i have bucket loads of 35mm-2-1/4 and some 4x5 of beautiful women having shot fashion for two years solid out of the 35 total (18 full time as a pro) I'm 55 as of nov7 2011 and come from a long line of photographers so sorry to seem like i was being uncharitable. no offense intended. Shooting beautiful still of beautiful women is nothing but pulling the razor sharp stills out of a video stream where one discrete image is captures at 1/60th of a second is a big deal. I do recall Jannard saying something about pulling the grab from a separate stream or something. Anyway. to be clear, the fast shutter speed is most critical if ambient can influence the zone VI - Zone IX details.... but you knew that already right? 'cause your shot of beautiful cover girls are better than mine

 

[M.Paul El-Darwish]

BTW. Is there any feedback from the person that actually shot the Vogue cover, at all? does anyone know the technical specifics of that shot?

 

[Patrick Grossien]

just updated the print sheets for 8K

I thought I'll make this for the non-print related redusers here. and it's always nice for having as a quick check sheet. hope you guys can put this to good use.

on special request: print out version

 

[Patrick Grossien]

just updated the print sheets for 8K

I thought I'll make this for the non-print related redusers here. and it's always nice for having as a quick check sheet. hope you guys can put this to good use.

print out version

One important thing to note on print sizes for huge posters, billboards, etc.:

The DPI count can be lower for images that generally have a larger viewing distance. 150 dpi is pretty often standard for billboards. Some online poster print services accept even below 100dpi even for smaller posters. Talk to the people producing the prints if you're unsure about how much DPI to use.

To put this into perspective, let's compare all this to movie screens:
The theoretical pixel density from a 4K image being used for projection is something like 5.2 ppi for a 20m / 65' 7'' screen and logically around 10.4 ppi for 10m / 32' 9'' screens. With 5 or 10 DPI in a magazine you couldn't read or see a thing. Of course projection and print is a different beast, but this might make for a good explanation how important viewing distance is for pixel / dot density.

I might just make a chart some day soon with ppi/dpi in relation to viewing distance.

 

[Patrick Grossien]

PS. if a moderator drops by, could you please update the sticky with both URLS as used above? Thanks guys!

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?75335-RED-DSMC-PRINT-SIZES