The cats-eye bokeh screams tilt/swing to me, but it's also possible that he's just shot wide-open on a lens that vignettes a little and then cropped the image, which will bias the direction of the cats eyes. There's a post above stating the lenses used and they have no movements.
I think there's also some careful choice of colour balance in his scanning - in many of the shots I see nasty green shadows, which probably goes with the pastel nature of the highlights and the way he's overexposed by what looks like a couple of stops.
Mark, thank you a great deal. I'm going to try this. I've been over exp only 1 stop but sometimes not backlit. So you think I should place the incident dome at the face and have it face the camera?
Originally Posted by markbarendt
I've used Richards and I felt they are by far the best I've ever used but now with my darkroom built and a jobo ATL2300 I keep it in house.
Thank you again.
That picture is interesting tiber, that is very close to the style I'm trying to get at here.
Keith, I did not bracket this as it was more of a snapshop but I did indeed use avg. metering which I use to use quite often before I've begun turning to my hand-held almost all the time now.
Originally Posted by keithwms
Perk, thank you for this, this seems to fit exactly what a lot of folk here at stating.
I'm going to run with this in the next few days and see. Today I shot my first 4x5 film. Having issues with the polaroid back but I'm working on it.
It's all fun.
Thank you all.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I don't think you have to back-light, but much of what Jose does, is. It's the same idea as using a hair light behind the subject in studio.
Originally Posted by dwdmguy
When taking an "incident" reading with any meter the dome should almost always face the camera position. The exceptions I know of are rare and involve side lighting in studio.
The sun, in a back-lit scene, is not the primary light source for the subject, typically it is the sky behind the camera. With an SLR, rather than use an incident meter I'll set up for the shot then spin 180, meter the blue sky and then set my exposure from there, normal or plus.
I am keeping my personal stuff at home. For weddings and "mainstream" portrait work though, I decided that I did not want to do any processing or printing. Farming this work out was one of the most profitable choices I have made in photography.
Originally Posted by dwdmguy
Last edited by markbarendt; 10-20-2009 at 09:11 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
There is no way he's getting the focus/bokeh effects he's getting with strictly the lenses listed. No way, José...maybe a 50mm 1.2 or an 85mm 1.2/1.4 -- but not a 2.8 lens.
And they're too sharp overall for a Lensbaby, also.
It's post-production digital. That's not a bad thing in itself (the images are striking) but it's not analog.
When you eyeball his work very closely there does seem to be undeniable evidence of post-processing ?digital tweaking (observe the fall of the oddball shadows and conspicuous absence of skin flaws), and as Colin observes, it's quite impressive, individual work but it's probably not analog. Selective, shallow focus and asymmetric alignment is nothing new in analog: this is a common technique with wedding photographers shooting with the Hasselblad FlexBody (503CX locally) and emerging employment by the digital brigade using T/S optics. That said, he still has a lot of skill in timing, arrangement and post-processing/printing and it is quite engaging overall.
.::Gary Rowan Higgins
One beautiful image is worth
a thousand hours of therapy.
"It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government
to save the environment."
Thanks Gary - let me emphasize I'm not tearing down his work whatsoever, not one bit.
I don't think there is any question that a lens baby was utilized. The multi element lens baby of the newer generations can easily produce the areas of sharpness and clarity in his images. I also think some comments are correct that there may have been some degree of hybrid post production going on, although that is only a possibility. For sure over exposure combined with strong back lighting and some type of fill has been employed whether by reflector or flash. The bottom line is that he did not have much time to work in several of the images so I doubt he used any type of camera with swings, tilts or any quality perspective control quality lens. Looks just like lens baby to me and discriminately used.