Posted by theda: 
Frankly, you all suck, but you suck for different reasons.

Feel better?

I do and thankyou,  now I can just quote you from now on.   My heart is beating faster reading this again.
I could not have said it better myself.

Posted by Paul Ferrara: 
That's 100%, right? ;-)

I won't argue with you but my pics do make it onto compcards, for agencies yet.  And a couple of months ago, this one made the cover of a real (not web) magazine.

I haven't done a scientific survey, but 80% seems like a conservative number for the amount of lifestyle images I see on comps and in ports.

Each market and agency has it's own look, so there may not be a national pattern.

Posted by Paul Ferrara: So what made you jump in here? You thought LowTek needed some support?

Nope. Just commenting on an image posted that claims it has good lighting.

Posted by Paul Ferrara:  I won't even ask you to explain that. 

Then I'll do it for free. There's no shape nor dimension. This matches the flat results from the Picture People, Sears, Wal*Mart, K-Mart, etc. photos. You have some  shadows in the image, but they're not doing anything other than being darker areas.

Even LifeTouch and Olan Mills manage to accomplish dimensional lighting, and they're pretty high volume and mass-market. In portraiture, that dimensionality is frequently the key lighting issue. (Expression and setting often being more important, but in different ways.)

Posted by Paul Ferrara: 
As for the lighting, I'd say it's pretty damned good so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Clearly.

Posted by Paul Ferrara:
And I'm not an artist,

Clearly. We don't have to disagree about this.

Posted by Paul Ferrara: Your idea that my pictures look alike is silly. The only common thread is that they're all taken in a studio. No one looking at this page could have reached that conclusion.

http://www.paulsportraits.com/fashion/f … orites.htm

The common thread is that they're taken in a studio ...
... against a seamless background (sometimes with a hot spot. [There are a couple that are against painted canvas/portrait backgrounds. Not particularly 'fashion', but it is different from the almost omnipresent pastel seamless.])
... with (mostly) cheezy poses of models staring into the lens
... with generally the same bland lighting.

I understand space limitations; my own typical shooting area is no larger than your 10x14 space. But saying the images on that page don''t look the same is silly.

Posted by Paul Ferrara:  And I just looked at your port and I only see a couple of images that have what I'd consider acceptable lighting. The rest are flat - that means no shadows. Yell if you want me to point them out to you.

Sure. I'm always interested in learning. Note, however, that I didn't post them as examples of good lighting or as good portraits; I posted them as reasonably decent photographs--which is a somewhat different thing. Flat isn't inherently "bad"; it's merely "flat". If that look improves an image, it's appropriate. When it doesn't, it's inappropriate.

BTW, this is an open invitation to anyone: feel free to let me know about any of my images here that are weak, have makeup, styling, propping, background issues (the original thread topic)--or don't have "acceptable lighting".

Posted by Paul Ferrara: 
Has anyone noticed how many photographers choose really ugly backgrounds.  I won't mention any names but I saw a forum regular who did that not just once, but three times.  Geez.  One was the most horrible mottled baby blue you ever saw in your life.

Paul

I highly doubt that. I've seen ugly and that's one standard that changes by the milli-second.

Posted by Paul Ferrara: 
I've done some lifestyle.  Scroll about halfway down the page.  This model even got a job out of it.  I just don't do it often.  WTH do they change outfits?
Paul

This is a cute shot Paul. I like it. The painting on the exterior wall made a cool backdrop actually.

Posted by Kevin Connery: 
There's no shape nor dimension. ... You have some  shadows in the image, but they're not doing anything other than being darker areas.

Since when did you become the arbiter of good lighting?  You don't get properly placed shadows without also having dimensional lighting.  If you don't believe me, ask Monte.

As for your port, look at your first image - no shadows.  2nd image - eyes all the way to the left, leaning on her left arm.  7th image - no fill on her face.  8th image - Huh?  11th image - nose shadow is running over her lip. 13th image - you broad-lit her - eyes full right.  14th image - a K-Mart shot if there ever was one - where's the "demensionality" here?  17th image - flat lighting.

I think you should put all that knowledge you've accumulated into use.

Paul

Posted by Paul Ferrara: 
Since when did you become the arbiter of good lighting?  You don't get properly placed shadows without also having dimensional lighting.

Then, by your own definition; you don't have properly placed shadows, do you? Their faces look flat and dimensionless, even though one side is darker.

Posted by Paul Ferrara: 
As for your port, look at your first image - no shadows.  2nd image - eyes all the way to the left, leaning on her left arm.  7th image - no fill on her face.  8th image - Huh?  11th image - nose shadow is running over her lip. 13th image - you broad-lit her - eyes full right.  14th image - a K-Mart shot if there ever was one - where's the "demensionality" here?  17th image - flat lighting.

Thank you. Would anyone else care to comment? I'm particularly interested in other opinions on the images mentioned, but any review would be appreciated.

Posted by Paul Ferrara: 
Thanks.  Did you see the one similar to it where she's got her hand on the guy's butt?  I think I like that one better.  I really hate shooting outdoors though.

Paul

I prefer the one XA referenced.  It uses the background as a subject, but doesn't depend on 5th grade humor to make it work.  (Not that I have anything against 5th grade humor...I just usually prefer wit to gags.)

Posted by Brian Diaz: 

Posted by Paul Ferrara: 
Thanks.  Did you see the one similar to it where she's got her hand on the guy's butt?  I think I like that one better.  I really hate shooting outdoors though.

Paul

I prefer the one XA referenced.  It uses the background as a subject, but doesn't depend on 5th grade humor to make it work.  (Not that I have anything against 5th grade humor...I just usually prefer wit to gags.)

This one also filled the frame nicely and I feel like she is part of the painting more than in the butt shot. I like that her height seems right for the perspective in the painting.

Posted by Barone Studio: 
If you want an almost unlimited selection of backgrounds and have a large enough studio I recomend a product by Virtual Backgrounds called "The Scene Machine". It is not a green screne thing, it is an actual background projection system. So when you are composing the shot, you see the model infront of the actual background through the camera. It works great and as long as you have a slide, you have a background.
Had mine now for 3 years and have over 200 backgrounds. One of my best investments in equipment.

Michael

I purchased a Scene Machine which does everything that Michael stated.  It's comprised of a front projection unit, a LARGE black screen (to eliminate glare) and the actual LARGE projection screen itself.

I have to double check, but if I remember correctly the system is 10' wide by 8' tall. 

I also have extremely heavy duty POWERED tripod and digital photo preview system (I was offered $1,000 for the tripod alone).  Although the preview system is now pretty much outdated, the rest of the stuff is still very useful.  The system also includes portable stands and carrying cases.

If everything was sold brand new, the system would cost well over $20,000.  I am willing to sell the complete system for $3500 (plus shipping).

More about the system can be found at Virtualbackgrounds.net

Posted by Kevin Connery: 
Then, by your own definition; you don't have properly placed shadows, do you? Their faces look flat and dimensionless, even though one side is darker.

Okay, now I understand.  Shadows (that's the darker side of the face) give my pics a dimensionless look.  But your pics with no shadows have it.  How do you get it without shadows?  Well, you don't.  If you don't believe me, ask Monte.

Paul

Posted by XtremeArtists: 

Posted by Paul Ferrara: 
I've done some lifestyle.  Scroll about halfway down the page.  This model even got a job out of it.  I just don't do it often.  WTH do they change outfits?
Paul

This is a cute shot Paul. I like it. The painting on the exterior wall made a cool backdrop actually.

Paul, I love this shot. That's really cool. Very unique kind of image and without Photoshop.

Posted by Paul Ferrara
Shadows (that's the darker side of the face) give my pics a dimensionless look. But your pics with no shadows have it. How do you get it without shadows? Well, you don't. If you don't believe me, ask Monte.

I've spoken with Monte many times, but
A: I've actually listened to what he says
B: I've observed what he does
C: I don't take a first-approximation of what he says and does as the whole of his experience.

I also don't keep posting the phrase "If you don't believe me, ask Monte." in dozens of forums as if what someone else said proved anything about my abilities, either.  (Even the moderators at Zuga.net told you to back off, remember?)

Nevertheless, I'll try to make it easy enough for you to follow:

Imagine a flat wall, lit with one light off to the side. One side will be light, and it will gradually get darker. Is that dimensional? No, it's merely darker on one side. Do shadows automatically give shape and dimension? No; sometimes they just add darker areas to a photograph. In your example, the left side of the child's face was darker--but it didn't create any shaping.  (Next time you talk to Monte, ask him how he lights dark skin. It's nothing like the examples you show here or on your website.)

Trying to turn the discussion to the shadows in my images is silly. You posted an image implying it demonstrated good lighting ("And here's one of the newer ones. See that lighting?"). Whether my images are horrible or not has nothing to do with the sample you claimed was good.

Or did I misunderstand? You posted it in response to negative comments about your earlier online work, so I assumed it was supposed to show you've improved. If you'd actually meant to show that your lighting skills had not improved since the earlier example, I misunderstood, and shouldn't have disagreed: this example is on par with the older examples.

Read Area291's post on 07-20-05 9:09 AM or even mine, where I invited  you to review my work: " I didn't post them as examples of good lighting or as good portraits; I posted them as reasonably decent photographs".

You posted yours implying it was an example of good lighting.

That said, I repeat my invitation for anyone to comment on any or all the images in my portfolio here, realizing that they aren't intended to look like the "portraits" taken in a shopping mall. (Thanks, Makayla!)

Posted by SayCheeZ!: 
More about the system can be found at virtualbackgrounds.net

I checked out their site and it looks very cool.  Very pricey though, especially at $20K.

Paul

Posted by baby_saidie: 
I don't know much about lighting but I think it's something you really got to play around with in order find the perfect one. ( I think that made sence). Plus some photographers that suck in that area are probably still trying to get the hang of it.

You can play around with it or do the math. Lighting is all physics, after all. I prefer to mix theory and experimentation, but I know my best results almost always come from doing what my light meter says to do. Almost.

Posted by Paul Ferrara: 
I checked out their site and it looks very cool.  Very pricey though, especially at $20K.
Paul

The basic system costs much less (around $9,000 for a brand new unit the last time that I checked).  The basic system includes a small (portrait size) projection screen and the front projection unit, but that's about all. 

Just like buying a car you can add on a bunch of accessories and packages.  By the time you purchase the average system for studio use, it's bumped up to $14 grand or more.  The unit that I own is the largest one available, and includes all of the bells and whistles.