Photographing Beauty in the Studio with the X-Pro1

I think that this is the problem with trying to evaluate cameras today so much of the look is in the post processing.

I`m sure these have been given a light touch by contemporary standards but its still an awful lot more than some would contemplate.

One persons light touch is another`s heavy post processing.
 
Michael Markey said:
I think that this is the problem with trying to evaluate cameras today so much of the look is in the post processing.

I`m sure these have been given a light touch by contemporary standards but its still an awful lot more than some would contemplate.

One persons light touch is another`s heavy post processing.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree with that statement too much. I don't quite see how one can evaluate a cameras files if they've had any processing done at all.

Having said that purely about evaluating a cameras images I'd say - Nate, nice shots. I'd personally expect to find any commercial photographer putting every shot that goes to a client through some form of post processing and some clients adore a highly processed look* ( perhaps they equate it with high end advertising?) However, here at RFF you will perhaps find more photographers who dislike any noticeable processing - the nature of this site seems to attract a more traditional photographer (did I just type that, here, on RFF. Time to go)

* A general point rather than a point regarding the images you've linked to.
 
Hi Simon

I freely admit that I wouldn`t know where half those tools are yet alone how to use them.
Partly ignorance but mostly because I like to see my stuff without any PP apart from exposure adjustment.
I don`t much have a view on what others do in that regard though.
Just a perception issue.
Oh and Nate ...nice shots
 
Hi Michael,

For a professional photographer who uses both PS and LR I probably shouldn't admit, especially on this forum, that I manage to ignore the majority of tools and gizmos in both sets of software. It's very easy to get bogged down in them, though I do have a client currently who is pushing me toward some fairly heavily processed images...its fun to play around and see what can be done but if they push much farther they'll need to go to another photographer or simply someone who really knows what they're doing!

Pass on a "hi" to Bob and the rest of the chaps up there, rarely see anyone but you on here these days.
 
Michael Markey said:
I think that this is the problem with trying to evaluate cameras today so much of the look is in the post processing.

I`m sure these have been given a light touch by contemporary standards but its still an awful lot more than some would contemplate.

One persons light touch is another`s heavy post processing.
Click to expand...

Totally valid point.

For my own personal tastes, I've always enjoyed good retouching and interesting light, which is why I gravitated towards the commercial side of photography. With that said, I have seen many images from photographers before post-processing that were borderline awful that came to life with really good retouching, and that side of retouching really bothers me.

I obsess over light, and work really hard to get the image as close as I can to where I want it in camera, so when someone looks at an image and concentrates solely on the fact that there was some retouching, it completely discounts the effort that went into the hair, makeup, models, concept, and shaping of the light to bring it all together. I'm a purist in the sense of getting it right in camera, I just have a personal preference to take it to the next level with post :)

I don't expect my work to be to everyone's taste, and I am more than comfortable with that, but there are some (not referring to you) who don't realize how much work still goes into a retouched image before it reaches that stage of the process. I get that the final product is the one judged, but for this style of images, had I posted them SOOC with stray hairs and blemishes and what not, they would have felt incomplete.

Tomorrow (hopefully) I will be posting more 'portrait' based shots, without the beauty retouching, as part of my experience working with this camera in studio. Maybe that post will please some of the more purist folk here at RFF, but then again, maybe not :)
 
Margu said:
i can assure you that no lighting can make a human skin look like that. plus look at all the shadows transitions and they're badly artifact-ed

the images are very good conceptually and models look great but the heavy PP with obvious signs of artifacts in all the shadows are distracting

that also means the RAW files from fuji are actually no good for heavy PP work. i suspect the fuji .RAF is not really a raw file in a true sense of the word. its a highly processed and compressed raw file that is no better than a jpg. all the shots in the image above lack that sense of depth and tonality that one gets with lots of RAW data, they seem heavily worked jpg files.
Click to expand...

You don't think that web jpeg compression has anything to do with that?

(BTW, those "artifacts" weren't distracting to me at all. In fact, I had to go back and look for them, and I only noticed it in the bottom left of the first photo.)
 
Nathan Elson said:
Come on Margu, you having a bad day or something bud?

Like 'regularchickens' said, if you actually read the blog post I shot the photos to answer the question that I've received countless times from other photographers, which was whether or not I thought the X-Pro1 could be used as a 'working photographers' main camera. It was an exercise for fun, and being that I used the X-Pro1 to shoot it, this seems like a logical place to post the results. Maybe un-bunch those panties a little.

In regards to the post processing, yes, the images are definitley retouched, but maybe not as much as people assume. It's true, the models did not have absolutely perfect skin, but it's a beauty shot, not a practice in realism, which is made pretty obvious by the heavy makeup and crazy light :)

Here is a full resolution JPG, straight out of the camera (I shot RAW + JPG). I haven't done a thing other than take it off the card and upload it to the server.

http://www.nathanelson.com/samples/DSCF0423.JPG

Aside from some contrast adjustments, clarity, a little cloning and healing brush, there isn't much in terms of PP. I prefer to trust in the Godly power of light, not the Godly power of photoshop.

Glad I could create some discussion :) Part 2 of this test will likely be launching tomorrow. I'll update ya'll when the times comes.

Cheers
-Nate
Click to expand...

what does perfect skin look like in a photograph?

if you mean perfect skin by fashion magazine standards then those standards clearly object and reject patchy, artifacted transition between shadows and highlights.

my simple objection, if i can be frank, was that first of all the PP was too heavy and secondly it was done "imperfectly", which makes the point of heavy PP useless.



and i'm afraid that the camera jpg that you posted actually looks far better than your PP version of its RAW file. in other words the photos that you posted might actually go against the reputation of xpro-1 as a fashion camera...

a photographer is not an impressionist painter or an abstract painter who does stuff randomly for an effect, photography cannot escape its realism because its based on reality.
 
Margu my friend, it's apparent that you've got some venting that needs to be done, so you do what you gotta do.

As for the "artifacted transitions", that has a lot to do with jpg compression for web. It happens, my apologies that this unfortunate result of web viewing has bothered you so. I also never do anything 'randomly', I plan the outcome of my photos.

I'm going to continue to do what I do (which btw, involves shooting for various magazines, as they think my standards are just peachy) and you can go about photographing trees (it's the only post I could find of yours) and we shall both be merry.

I hope your day gets better.

Cheers
 
Nice work Nathan!! BTW I shoot 99% film but do enjoy the creative use of PP digital files. After reading this thread I don't think the rff members have attacked with the exception of one.
 
Margu said:
what does perfect skin look like in a photograph?

if you mean perfect skin by fashion magazine standards then those standards clearly object and reject patchy, artifacted transition between shadows and highlights.

my simple objection, if i can be frank, was that first of all the PP was too heavy and secondly it was done "imperfectly", which makes the point of heavy PP useless.



and i'm afraid that the camera jpg that you posted actually looks far better than your PP version of its RAW file. in other words the photos that you posted might actually go against the reputation of xpro-1 as a fashion camera...

a photographer is not an impressionist painter or an abstract painter who does stuff randomly for an effect, photography cannot escape its realism because its based on reality.
Click to expand...

Really? Just as well Man Ray isn't alive to hear this, he'd be devastated. Of course there are plenty of modern surrealist and impressionist photographers who probably need this spelled out for them, poor sods - wasting their time and they don't even realise.
 
ray*j*gun said:
Nice work Nathan!! BTW I shoot 99% film but do enjoy the creative use of PP digital files. After reading this thread I don't think the rff members have attacked with the exception of one.
Click to expand...

Thanks Raymond!

I agree. I'm totally open to people's opinions and never expect everyone to agree with mine, so with the exception of one fella in an apparent bad mood, I didn't feel attacked at all, so it's all good.
 
Side me with Margu on this as I don't see any personal insults, only constructive criticism of Nathan's work and approach.

If we aren't judgmental then we have no judgement.

And not everything needs to be supported or approved. A little negativity, competitiveness, criticism is how people get inspired to move forward, do better, work harder, etc.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be civil and need to avoid associating criticism over photographic choices with criticism of the person, but I fail to see any insults here. Anyone working as a photographer or who taken an art class surely must have thicker skin than to take insult over clear, thoughtful observations.

I could criticize people's reading comprehension skills....
 
I think if you've made it in the professional world a little criticism on a web forum should barely affect you... I mean the toughest criticism I've ever had in my life has been from superiors/clients. That will make you shake in your boots. Someone aggressively attacking/criticizing you online is laughable.

I like your work; something tells me your clients like your work. I think people are taking your post out of context essentially saying you are advertising for Fuji fan boys are envious/fan boy of some other make.

People asked, you delivered.

It seems that APS-C sensor cameras are highly capable and since the Fuji has the work PRO in its name, its natural to wonder how it does in a PROfessional setting i.e. in a studio with lights, a concept, models, makeup, and postprocessing that is in line with the original concept. I mean it looks like a fashion shoot or an advertisement. Obviously not my cup of tea, but it looks more than professionally done, and better than anything I could produce with any camera without much learning and experimentation.
 
Margu said:
a photographer is not an impressionist painter or an abstract painter who does stuff randomly for an effect, photography cannot escape its realism because its based on reality.
Click to expand...

I can assure you painters don't do things "randomly for effect".

The only kind of genre of photography that is obliged to carry the burden of representative truth is photojournalism, and any half decent photojournalist will tell you photography is very bad at even doing that.
 
nongfuspring said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but generally isn't it the case that DR is a balancing act with pixel density? FF cameras tend to have better DR since they don't demand so many megapixels proportional to surface area than smaller formats. i.e.
Click to expand...

The only fact is the analog signal to noise ratio obtained when the shutter is open. The noise level determines the ability to measure signal from darkest regions in the frame. The sensor full-well capacity determines the ability to measure the brightest regions.

Pixel size and pixel density can affect full-well capacity and the read-noise floor. At the same time advances in sensor technology have overcome the limitations of previous sensor designs.

f you look at DR vs ISO plots in my earlier post for a variety of cameras you will see that pixel density is not the prime determinant for DR.
 
Fact: No amount of post-processing manipulation can increase the dynamic range of a single image. A singe images can be manipulated to display all the DR that was present during the analog exposure of the sensor. But it is physically impossible to add information content after the data is recorded. Anyone who develops a method to increase dynamic range, signal-to-noise ratio or another inherent aspect of the information content in a single measurement after it is recorded will become wealthy overnight.

Separately, until Margu shows empirical evidence to support his accusations and speculation regarding RAW files, I view his comments as irresponsible and misleading. I will promptly apoligize if Margu, or anyone else, can point me towards a data-driven, quantitive source that specifically details how Fuji modifies the raw data to deceive their customers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom