|
|
|
|
Home > TME Community > Features > Art of Lighting > Kristina - Head on Hand - February 5, 2009
TME Community
Kristina - Head on Hand - February 5, 2009
Started February 5, 2009 @ 3:22pm by Kel
|
Post Message |
Kel
Administrator
Posts: 246 |
|
|
| Kristina - Head on Hand - February 5, 2009 | February 5, 2009 @ 3:22pm | In this Art of Lighting tutorial Bryan Allen walks you through a studio portrait shoot. Bryan discusses how working with a clip file can seed the conceptual process, help you in communicating art direction to stylists and make up artists, and dramatically improve your ability to pose models during the shoot. Bryan specifically diagrams his lighting set up and shows you how to achieve an in studio portrait with a high key background combined with a soft, broad, beauty key light.
Click here to view the video.
"There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer." ~Ansel Adams | My Blog |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Wes
Posts: 8,976 |
|
|
| February 5, 2009 @ 4:23pm | Good to have you back, Bryan. I knew you would return. Patience has its rewards. Again your suggestions of a go by (?) is great to remember. Coming up with original ideas is really difficult so getting inspiration from another photo is the way to go. I like the video format, for sure, and really learn a lot by your final image of the lighting setup. It looks so simple until I try. I hope Usha will take a look since she is so into her lighting and gets so excited about it. She and I both need another lesson on using the light meter if it could be inserted into one of your tutorials.
Thanks a lot for a great tutorial.
Wes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Bryan Allen
Posts: 145 |
|
|
| February 5, 2009 @ 5:33pm | | Hey Wes. Thanks for the feedback and suggestion on the light meter lesson. Craig and I just discussed this a few weeks ago. You should start to see some content posted under the Foundation Concepts feature that address just this sort of thing. I have a whole list of these to cover and one of the first is basic use of a light meter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
James
Posts: 107 |
|
|
| February 5, 2009 @ 8:53pm | Bryan,
Thanks for this video. It hasn't occurred to me to collect "clips" of other's work. I look at various artists regularly (including TME), but I've not actually collected it. I see how that takes it a step further. Again, thanks.
-James
Only once have I been made mute. It was when a man asked me, "Who are you?"
- K. Gibran |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Colby McLemore
Posts: 3 |
|
|
| Great content | February 5, 2009 @ 10:13pm | Great to hear you sharing more. Great work. I've just recently been getting a feel of how to use clips during a shoot so I've been trying to use this to help inspire and converse with the model.
-Colby McLemore |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Usha
Posts: 1,545 |
|
|
| February 6, 2009 @ 7:54am | Hi Bryan,
Thanks for an informative video. I enjoyed it and will study it carefully mutlple times.
One of the points I find hard to follow is the technical aspects of different lights being two stops or one stop above or below something. I know what that means. I don;t know how to go about acheiving it. Perhaps you could talk about that in a later episode?
Thanks again Bryan.
Usha - PPY
http://www.ushavedula.com
http://ushav.posterous.com/ |
|
|
|
Last Edit: February 6, 2009 @ 7:55am by Guest | |
|
|
|
| |
Flo
Posts: 17,452 |
|
|
| February 6, 2009 @ 8:07am |
Quote ()
Hi Bryan,
Thanks for an informative video. I enjoyed it and will study it carefully mutlple times.
One of the points I find hard to follow is the technical aspects of different lights being two stops or one stop above or below something. I know what that means. I don;t know how to go about acheiving it. Perhaps you could talk about that in a later episode?
Thanks again Bryan.
|
|
Usha, thanks for asking this question. If you double the distance of the light from the subject, or cut the light output by half, is this the same as reducing the light one stop?
Now to watch the video, lol.
Edit: OK, I've watched the video now. I enjoyed it very much. My question above still stands.
Another question: you said exposure was f/4 on the model's face, but f/11 on the background. Does this mean that you metered at f/11 (camera) on the background and adjusted the lights to produce a totally white background? And then you metered the face at f/4 to get a stop or so less light on her face than on the background?
Or do light meters that are separate from a camera also have f/stops? If you use a separate light meter, do you stand with it in the camera position, rather than moving closer to the background?
Gee, I hope my questions are clear. I'm confusing myself, so will stop.
Flo - PPY
"May we live in peace without weeping. May our joy outline the lives we touch without ceasing. And may our love fill the world, angel wings beating." aziza
http://photos.tonebytone.com |
|
|
|
Last Edit: February 6, 2009 @ 8:31am by Flo | |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| February 6, 2009 @ 9:17am | Usha/Flo,
Light meters will display aperture values. You will have to memorize the f/stop scale to translate that in a stop below/above. Depending on your camera and settings, the camera's aperture will go in 1/2 or 1/3rds.
The full-stop scale is 1.4/2/2.8/4/5.6/8/11/16/22/32
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-stop)
So you do meter at the background (incident metering, not reflective) for f/11 and then at the model for f/4 and based on the scale above the background is 3 stops above the key light at the model's face.
Usually you set the first light to suite your needs, then decide how many stops under/over the other light should be, translate that into the aperture your light meter needs to read and adjust the intensity of that second light until it does.
When you hear people refer to lighting ratios, it is another way of saying the fill and kicker lights are a certain number of stops above/below the key light.
This scenario (3 stops over) would have been a 1:8 ratio.
(1 stop = 1:2 ratio, 1 1/2 stop = 1:3 ratio, 2 stop = 1:4 ratio, 3 stops = 1:8 ratio)
Most portrait situations call for 1:2 or 1:3 as it's most pleasing in terms of creating depth but not jarring contrast. The high key background, is a lot more extreme, hence the 1:8 ratio.
Jan |
|
|
|
Last Edit: February 6, 2009 @ 9:26am by Guest | |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| February 6, 2009 @ 9:21am | Thanks Bryan for a nice lighting video. Video is a better format than text...
One thing I've turned on on the clipping is to use my iPod Touch (or iPhone for some). It allows me to take all my clippings, as well as my portfolio books with me whenever I go on a shoot, or to just flip around during my commute on the bus when I brainstorm new concepts.
Online pictures are easy to copy onto the iPod. And for magazine clippings I bought a basic Canon scanner for $50 to scan those in. Then I organize them into sets for lighting, pose, make-up, male fashion, female fashion, female glamour, etc.
Lots of pictures even on the 8GB model. And the UI is pretty easy, and the picture quality good enough.
Jan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Bryan Allen
Posts: 145 |
|
|
| February 6, 2009 @ 9:59am | Hey Usha and Flo. Thanks for checking out the video and posing the questions you've asked. I am sorry about the confusion. Let me try to clear it up a bit.
One of the advantages of working with studio strobes is that you can control the quantity of both the light falling on the primary subject AND on the background INDEPENDENTLY. You do not have to depend on the natural or available background light in the scene. You can create and control it. So that's what's going on here and why I am referencing two aperture readings.
So let's walk through the process. First, I am making a purely CREATIVE decision to work at f/4 on my primary subject. This is because I want a shallow depth of field. No difference in making this decision than you would in any shooting situation. Once I've made that decision, I set the camera to manual and set the aperture to f/4, the shutter speed to something at or below 1/200s (they maximum synch speed of the camera - more on that later), and and a low ISO (200 in my case) because there is minimal noise at those low ISOs. OK, now I can really set the camera aside and go about configuring the lights to achieve both the desired look and EXPOSURE. This is where the light meter comes in. I'm not talking about your camera's light meter but a handheld incident light meter.
After locating my main/key light where I want it for the QUALITY of light I'm going for (broad and soft in this case with a butterfly/beauty pattern on the model's face) I must adjust the output to achieve the QUANTITY of light that I need. So using a light meter, I measure the light output from the key light that falls on the face of the model and adjust it until I read f/4 at ISO 200 (which matches the manual camera settings). This will guarantee the proper exposure on the model's face.
Now I turn my attention to the background which is a completely INDEPENDENT decision and the QUANTITY of light can be more or less, relatively speaking, than the exposure I've dialed in for the subject depending on the look I want to achieve. In this case, using the clip file as a "go-by" we know we want a high-key/bright background that would read much brighter, relatively speaking, than the exposure on the face of the model. I know from experience that a meter reading on a white surface of a stop and a half or so is usually enough to blow the background out, relative to the subject, and produce a clean white background in camera. So that would require me to get enough light output on the background to read between f/5.6 and f/8 right. Well in this case I really wanted to both blow the background out to pure white and have enough light bouncing off of the background and reflecting on the back of the model to start to wrap that bright light around the face and hair a bit. So I had to push the background lights even harder, probably to f/11 (3 stops higher than f/4) to achieve that effect.
OK, let's stop there. At this point I'm ready to pick up the camera and shoot. We made often need to do some fine tuning (and did in this case) but this get's us really close to the final image. Does that make sense? Hope this helps.
For reference, here's a full stop aperture scale:
f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32
Also for reference let me say a little about synch speed. What is it and why? Synch speed is simply the maximum shutter speed that your camera can handle with strobes. But why? To understand why you have to understand a little bit about how shutters physically work. You can think of them as two curtains covering a large bay window both pulled to one side at first. For slow shutter speeds, the first curtain is opened and pulled across exposing the entire window and then the second curtain is pulled across to the other side completely hiding the window again. The amount of light coming through is determined by how long the entire window is exposed. Simple enough right.
For fast shutter speeds, the physics is a little different. To achieve these fast shutter speeds, the first curtain is opened and begins moving to the other side, but BEFORE it gets to the other side, the other curtain starts following it. Thus the window is partially blocked and the FULL window is never exposed. This is why if you shoot above the synch speed you will see a black bar on your image, that's simply the second curtain blocking part of the image.
So the synch speed is simply the miximum shutter speed where the entire sensor is exposed before the second curtain starts to move. The first curtain gets to the other side, the strobe fires, and the second curtain closes behind.
So there you have it.
One more little tidbit. So how do on camera flashes manage to shoot at higher speeds (high speed synch). Well what they are doing is actually firing multiple times as the opening between the two curtains moves across the image. Too fast for the eye to see but pretty fancy stuff huh. Studio strobes simply can't do that (yet).
OK that should be enough to chew on for now |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Bryan Allen
Posts: 145 |
|
|
| February 6, 2009 @ 10:06am | Hey Jan. Great suggestion on digitizing your clip files. I actually do exactly the same thing now too. I have had all of my books scanned and routinely scan my clippings now too. The iPhone is a great tool for this purpose. Relatively inexpensive, portable, and the UI is awesome. The ability to pinch/zoom and see details on makeup, etc. is great for working with stylists and make up artists.
One more little tip I'll throw out there. Many of the major fashion and beauty magazines now have photo-spreads on line and often if I run across a spread I really like, I will check out the web site to see if there are digital versions on line already. Then I just make a digital clip from the get go. |
|
|
|
Last Edit: February 6, 2009 @ 10:06am by Bryan Allen | |
|
|
|
| |
JohnC
Posts: 763 |
|
|
| February 6, 2009 @ 10:46am |
Quote (Flo)
Usha, thanks for asking this question. If you double the distance of the light from the subject, or cut the light output by half, is this the same as reducing the light one stop?
------
Or do light meters that are separate from a camera also have f/stops? If you use a separate light meter, do you stand with it in the camera position, rather than moving closer to the background? |
|
Doubling the distance from the light to the subject will give approximately 1/4 the light (2 stops). This is based on the inverse square law (which really pertains to point-source lights, so I say approximately).
To visualize this, think about shining a light onto a wall with an imaginary rectangle light beam. That beam will fill a rectangle. If you move back twice the distance that beam will now fill four rectangles, not two. The light beam expands both horizontally and vertically when you move it back.
As Jan mentioned, you usually use an incident light meter for flash. With an incident meter you put the meter where your subject is. That way you can take a reading at the subject face (it should read F/4 in this particular case) and then take another reading at the background (which should read F/11 here).
My question for Bryan is what type of flash are you using for the main light that you can get down to f/4 at ISO 200? I usually have to dial my power all the way down, add some neutral density filters on the light, and maybe some extra diffusion material to get the light as close as I want.
Thanks!
John
John Cornicello
Seattle, wa
http://www.johncornicello.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
JohnC
Posts: 763 |
|
|
| February 6, 2009 @ 10:52am | Forgot to add that, yes, cutting the light power in half should reduce the output 1-stop. If the meter read f/8 at full power, it should read F/5.6 at half power.
A flash with variable output power is important, in my opinion. Moving the light changes the quality of the light. Moving a light back makes it smaller in relation to the subject. That in turn makes it a little harder and also flattens out the scene because the light spreads more and give more illumination to the background. When the light is in closer it falls off faster (the background goes dark more quickly).
I think of setting up a light as being very similar to selecting a lens. You set your camera to subject distance for the perspective you want--you set the light to subject distance for the light quality/style you want. Then you select the lens focal length to get the desired framing--then you set the power level on the light to give the desired exposure.
John
John Cornicello
Seattle, wa
http://www.johncornicello.com |
|
|
|
Last Edit: February 6, 2009 @ 10:52am by JohnC | |
|
|
|
| |
Bryan Allen
Posts: 145 |
|
|
| February 6, 2009 @ 11:20am |
Quote (JohnC)
[quote=1703]
My question for Bryan is what type of flash are you using for the main light that you can get down to f/4 at ISO 200? I usually have to dial my power all the way down, add some neutral density filters on the light, and maybe some extra diffusion material to get the light as close as I want.
|
|
Hey John, I use Alien Bees and this was probably an AB400 or 800. I also had a large soft box with a diffusion layer inside as well. To get f/4 at this working distance, I do have to dial the output down quite a bit of course but I've not had any issues getting there are the output being consistent with the ABs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
JohnC
Posts: 763 |
|
|
| February 6, 2009 @ 11:41am | Thanks, Bryan.
I'm not too worried about the color consistency. I've testes a few studio flashes and they're all pretty consistent. My results are at http://cornicello.blogspot.com/2009...01/comparing-monolight-strobes.html
They all get a little bluer as you power down. But that is easily fixed (and not so worrisome if working in black & white).
I need to update the tests using softboxes to measure the minimum power settings.
Thanks!
John Cornicello
Seattle, wa
http://www.johncornicello.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Flo
Posts: 17,452 |
|
|
| February 6, 2009 @ 1:29pm | Thanks, so much, Bryan and John. You two are a fountain of info!
I 'think' I understand most of what the 2 of you have explained. John, I did not remember about the inverse square - area, when moving lights, lol. As soon as I read your explanation, I thought - duh - I knew that.
Another question: If I don't want to spend the money on a separate light meter - all the good ones seem to be rather expensive - will the camera's light meter do the job? Just remove it from the tripod and move around with it.
Oh yes, there are 2 kinds of light meters - incident and "?" (having a senior moment here!). One of them you hold up against the subject with its dome pointed toward the light source. It reads the amount of light that falls on the subject, rather than the amount of light that the subject is reflecting.
So how would each of these meters work in a studio situation? IOW, which is best for studio work?
Flo - PPY
"May we live in peace without weeping. May our joy outline the lives we touch without ceasing. And may our love fill the world, angel wings beating." aziza
http://photos.tonebytone.com |
|
|
|
Last Edit: February 6, 2009 @ 1:30pm by Flo | |
|
|
|
| |
JohnC
Posts: 763 |
|
|
| February 6, 2009 @ 3:05pm | The camera meter doesn't know from flash. It only works in "reflective" mode, reading what it sees through the lens. Working in the studio with flash your camera meter is pretty much worthless.
Incident is the type of meter you hold at the subject and point towards the light. It reads the light falling on the subject. Reflective meters are held at camera position and read the light reflecting off the subject. Reflective meters can be swayed by the tones in the subject. So if you read a bright subject with a reflective meter (including the one in your camera) you need to open up your exposure. With an incident meter you can use the reading from the meter or even close down your exposure a little bit to control the highlights. Hope that isn't even more confusing.
Incident is the usual meter type for studio work.
John Cornicello
Seattle, wa
http://www.johncornicello.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| February 6, 2009 @ 3:23pm | John is right.
I think waht Flo was wondering about is if you took the camera over to the subject or background, turned it around to point it at the lights, could you use the camera's meter? Since an incidence meter is effectively the same sensor just pointing from the subject to the light rather than the other way around.
The problem is triggering the flash and making the meter understand it. The light meter waits for the flash and then reads just that split second. The camera isn't that intelligent, because the camera meter wouldn't decompose the ambient and the flash component of the light for the duration of your metering.
Also, an incidence meter has a pretty broad angle that it can measure with. On the camera the lens restricts which light the sensor can see. You could overcome that with a wide angle lens, but it's unneeded complexity.
That's why it won't work.
Jan
|
|
|
|
Last Edit: February 6, 2009 @ 4:17pm by Guest | |
|
|
|
| |
Al Hannigan
Posts: 20 |
|
|
| February 7, 2009 @ 12:11pm | First let me say it's been quite a few years since I used studio flash regularly, so maybe technology has greatly changed. If so, excuse my ignorance.
Whenever I used studio flash I always used a flash meter to establish my readings. I was never able to get accurate info from my standard incident meter with flash.
Also, when using an incident meter I did not point it towards the light, but towards the camera itself. The idea was to have the light strike my meter in the same way it was striking the subject. I preferred the Sekonic with changeable domes, but the rounded one usually was my standard. Thus, if light was coming from one side, I'd get that effect on my meter. It would also pickup any fill light that was affecting my shadow areas.
Now for sync info ... I understand completely the focal plane shutter, but don't some digital cameras use electronic shutters? My understanding of these is the sensor is turned on and off to establish shutter speed. When using flash, an electronic shutter wouldn't have the curtain issues of a focal plane shutter.
Do all DSLR's have focal plane shutters, or do some have electronic shutters?
Guess I need to catch up on more technology advancements than I realized.
Al |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| February 7, 2009 @ 12:54pm | Al,
I'm not sure as to the difference between flash and incidence? My guess is that flash meter refers to an incidence meter that is designed to distinguish between flash and ambient and even compute the contribution? If so, I think we all mean flash meters here, but just weren't as specific. In my case I use a Sekonic 758 with the retractable dome.
Regarding direction of meter - what I typically do (with no claim to authority on the subject) - I meter with the dome retracted facing the light to meter each light individually. To be complete one can then extend the dome at the end and point it to the camera to take a composite reading, though most of the time I'm close enough and then make finer adjustments after having taken a test shot. The point of facing the meter to the flash with a retracted dome is get individual readings without having to turn the other flashes off. A bit of laziness I guess. You are correct, that depending on flash orientation and shape/type of surface this may overstate the amount of light the camera will pick up.
Not an expert on shutters, but my understanding is that among Canon and Nikon only one Nikon model has an electronic shutter, but that a focal plane leaf shutter is the most common design. In either case though you would most likely use the camera's meter only by pressing the shutter half-way, so shutter design may not come into play. In fact I think the camera's meter very much acts like your standard incidence meter rather than a flash meter in your terminology, and you would face just those issues you eluded to.
Jan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Flo
Posts: 17,452 |
|
|
| February 7, 2009 @ 1:17pm | Thanks, John and Jan.
The last time I was out shooting (with my camera's reflective light meter), there was snow all over the place. So I set the EV to +0.3. This turned out to be just the right amount so the snow stayed close to white. I came home with many images, most of which were very successful--from the exposure standpoint.
In the studio, when the strobes and lightboxes are all turned on, I think the camera's meter would deliver a successful exposure. Nikon has worked hard to develop a meter that 'recognizes' when a surface is lighter, white or much more reflective than a normal scene/subject.
So seems to me that with a digital camera such as my Nikon D300, just taking a few shots, looking at the histograms and adjusting the lights accordingly would be similar to when studio photographers used to use Polaroids to get quick feedback on exposures.
Studio lights do not have fractions of seconds of being on, like camera flashes do.
Trying to use the camera's meter as an incident light meter wouldn't work very well, I'm pretty sure.
Flo
Flo - PPY
"May we live in peace without weeping. May our joy outline the lives we touch without ceasing. And may our love fill the world, angel wings beating." aziza
http://photos.tonebytone.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Bryan Allen
Posts: 145 |
|
|
| February 7, 2009 @ 5:11pm | Hey Everyone. Thanks for all of the input on the topic of meters, strobe exposure, shutter technology, etc. This thread has gone a bit all over the place and may be getting a bit confusing. I'm going to refrain from adding to the mix at this point and instead promise to complete a few Foundation Concept pieces on meters and basic strobe setup. I'll try to get something published in the next week or two.
That said, Flo, I'd strongly encourage you to invest in a light meter eventually if you are going to work with strobes. I know you're in the Spring Location People I workshop and we'll clear a ton of this up for you then. We'll have meters on hand for you to use and I'm sure you'll come away with a new found appreciation for them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Flo
Posts: 17,452 |
|
|
| February 7, 2009 @ 8:37pm | Thanks, Bryan. I too have come to the conclusion that I'd better just wait until May, lol. 
Flo
Flo - PPY
"May we live in peace without weeping. May our joy outline the lives we touch without ceasing. And may our love fill the world, angel wings beating." aziza
http://photos.tonebytone.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
April
Posts: 2,580 |
|
|
| February 9, 2009 @ 7:24pm | Oh, I do enjoy the video format for this feature of the forum! It makes it so much easier -- as a newbie to lighting -- to envision the aim and understand what happens as you develop the setup. Thank you for your instruction.
One question about clip files...
I remember collecting them years back in graphic design school as a starting point, and your video has inspired me to do so again.
But another thing I remember is that re-creating from a clip can infringe on copyright issues if the original and reproduced can be recognized as similar. Do you know if that's still true under current (US) copyright laws?
April (PPY)
Photos on Flickr
Just the other day (a photoblog)
"Seeing something you never saw before, that was always there but you were blind to it."—AG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| February 9, 2009 @ 7:39pm | Never take legal advice from a non-lawyer.
Here my personal non-legal opinion:
Generally if you do it for personal use it's no problem. If you were to use it commercially it's tougher. If you use it in your portfolio to pitch to agencies, not advisable.
But it's a degree of similarity. I recall an example of someone who got great publicity in a contest only to be called upon having duplicated someone else down to the last detail of crop, shadow, light. Didn't help his PR situation.
But if you take the general idea and use it as a starting point to build and iterate upon you should generally be fine.
Jan
|
|
|
|
Last Edit: February 9, 2009 @ 7:41pm by Guest | |
|
|
|
| |
Bryan Allen
Posts: 145 |
|
|
| February 9, 2009 @ 9:33pm | Great question April. First, let me say that I am definitely not a legal expert. I would refer you to The Professional Photographer's Legal Handbook by Nancy E. Wolff as a good reference. Here is a link to a preview of that book which is worth checking out. Look to around page 70 or so.
That said, I believe I mentioned in this piece that this was a "fun shoot" and that the images were not to be used commercially. Thus I felt comfortable trying to closely recreate the clipped image that the model selected. I would really ONLY do this if I'm trying to learn or practice on my own or in a case like this where it's just for fun for both parties. I believe all of that would fall under fair use.
Again, my recommendation is really to use the clipping process to seed your subconscious mind with images that re-enforce your own creative vision and then trust your mind to work the magic of drawing on those thousands of mental images filed away in the crevices of your brain and mix them with your own lifetime of ideas and images to come up with a creative vision in the moment.
In terms of the other aspect of clip file use that I spoke of, I think it is fine and acceptable to use clip files to foster communication and generate ideas as a springboard.
I would never suggest recreating an image and claiming the concept as your own or doing so for commercial purposed even more so.
The book I reference above also addresses the concept of "go-by"s or comps where a client or agency has used stock or other images to produce a creative concept which they expect you to realize in the image you ultimately produce.
The AoL episode that just went up would be more typical of the practical use of a clip file for me. Check it out here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
April
Posts: 2,580 |
|
|
| February 10, 2009 @ 5:36pm | Thanks very much for the clarification, Bryan, and for the reference to Nancy Wolff's The Professional Photographer's Legal Handbook. Though the link didn't work for me, I did find it on Amazon *and* in our local library.
I was also taken with the drag-and-drop lighting diagram/application you used in the video.
Thanks again.
April (PPY)
Photos on Flickr
Just the other day (a photoblog)
"Seeing something you never saw before, that was always there but you were blind to it."—AG |
|
|
|
Last Edit: February 10, 2009 @ 5:38pm by April | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assignment
Community Assignment #53
Picture Window
Due Date: September 16, 2011 |
Have you heard about the Backyard Shots Photography Guide "Street Portraiture with CraigTanner"?
|
|
