Forum Replies Created
Do you still have that carved wooden box/table shown in charliedeeredsilverope11.jpg? Or was it a borrowed/hired prop, or something otherwise no longer there? Because I wouldn’t mind seeing some new sets that used it.
Also, it seems a bit odd to see the dungeon in the archives. I still think of that location as in your “new” house in Wales but you have been there for a few years now.
You still have unreleased sets from the Great Northern Sweden Expedition?
One thing I still have to consciously think about avoiding is the “big head, small feet” distortion when the model is standing. If I’m standing 10 feet – OK, OK, 300 cm – away, then my camera is 300 cm from the models head and 340 cm from her feet. The standard fix, of course, is for the photographer (me) to crouch or sit and so make the distances from the camera to the model’s head, feet, and waist more nearly equal. Plus backing up (if I can).
Coming in from a Nikon crop-sensor point of view…
First, let me add my thanks to Hywel for the tech notes and tutorials, and for including EXIF data in the photos he uploads.
Second, “Distance.” When photographing a model, I try to keep a good distance away and let the zoom focal lengths fall where they will. It helps that I seem to be naturally immune to the “creep closer, zoom wider” syndrome that Hywel mentions in the focal-length tutorial. If anything, my impulse is to do the opposite, whenever I have room to back up.
It turns out that most (90%+) of my shots are 35mm or longer – which on a Nikon DX (crop sensor) is “equivalent” to 52mm on a full-frame camera. The shots that are wider I don’t worry about; usually I’ll have had a good reason for it. E.g. I’m standing on a chair looking down at model lying on the floor.
One place a photographer might want to use a wider focal length is for a shot that takes in the entire room, with the model occupying a relatively small part of the frame. Or if the room has two or three models.
My current three-lens kit is a 35mm f/1.8 prime, a 50mm f/1.8 prime, and a 24-120mm f/4 zoom. Multiply by Nikon’s 1.5 DX crop factor to get the full-frame equivalent focal lengths. I use the primes when I need to deal with ambient light, and the zoom when I need to deal with an improvised studio.
As for deliberate distortion, my inclination is with the fashion photographers who take distortion in the opposite direction, using extreme telephoto lenses to get a very “flattened” view of the model.
This sounds to me like a specific example of a more-general phenomena: People who are only marginally familiar with a given genre will have inaccurate or outdated ideas about the genre’s conventions and stereotypes. Or they’ll confuse closely related genres with each other and lump subgenres together.
So someone with only a vague understanding of “Mystery fiction” might wonder why Miss Marple doesn’t down shots of cheap whiskey like Sam Spade, or why Sam Spade doesn’t smoke a pipe like Sherlock Holmes. Or someone with only a vague understanding of comic books and cartoons might be shocked by not-for-children things like Omaha the Cat Dancer or Japanese hentai anime.
Or someone with only a vague understanding of bondage & fetish photography might expect the captives to suffer more nudity and less cushioning than they actually do.
- This reply was modified 3 months, 3 weeks ago by Sablesword.
Thank you. I’m sorry that ‘swords and magic’ isn’t your thing, but fantasy and science fiction is what I do. So all my stories will have either (a) magic, or (b) science and technology that does not exist today. Even my alternate-history stories have psionics and psionic devices in them.
It’s modeled off of the draft notices that men had been receiving for decades in the 20th century (in the US). And yes, it does bear a variety of interpretations, with the ones most people jump to being darker than the one I intend. What I’m imagining is a world where the response to receiving one of these is more typically “drat” (without even an exclamation point) rather than “Oh my god I cannot believe that this is happening to meeee!”
Or even, as you say, excitement at being called up.
But the general note I’m trying to strike is that it’s all bland and bureaucratic, happened to millions of women before, nothing to get hysterical about. That it’s accepted, even by the draftees themselves, as an ordinary part of everyday life. Resistance and escapes are a fringe minority, and one not all that well thought of by the majority.
I could also say the very-RE dress looks amazing but would be better with shoes, however, I’ve lost this arguement before…
And I’m someone who would like to make sure that you’d lose it again 🙂 🙂 🙂
As for “steel bondage vs stringwork,” if I have a preference it’s for leather cuffs and belts. (As long as the cuffs don’t look [UKism] rubbish [/UKism]) But I have a stronger preference for variety, and I do like seeing RE use the elegant, expensive steel restraints that I can’t really afford myself. Just not all the time.
A steel-bondage series I’d like to see is for “Nude in Metal” to be revisited as “Scantily Clad in Metal.” The models would wear skimpy clothing that left 60-90% of the skin bare, or perhaps something that vaguely resembled a “Slavegirl Leia” outfit. That would add some color – one of my gripes about the original NiM series was the lack of color with the images being all black, white, gray, and fleshtone. IOW: Dull.
Another change I’d like to see is more “hands in front” and less “hands behind” in the new “scantily clad in metal” sets, especially when the models are trying to perform chores when bound. A second gripe I had with the original sets was the way the models seemed to be pulling things out of their unfortunate implications as they (e.g.) set the table.
I’ll second that.
That first photo looks especially interesting: Wide-eyed and toe-tied.
I have to say that I wish you could have found a different captcha system, given that you need to use one; I find google’s captcha to be the most annoying of all those I’ve ever seen.
Yes, I’m one who would appreciate seeing some wide-angle behind the scenes shots. In fact, I may have asked you earlier about doing this.
Emotionally, I see strappados as “Strict and not at all fun, but still not as bad as reverse-prayer,” and hammerlocks as “Looks cool! And a nice balance between strict and comfortable.” Intellectually, I know that they’re both nastier than they look (or than they look to me), and that yes, I do have a disconnect between my intellectual understanding and my emotional reaction.
I’m not sure I can say why. Somehow it just looks like it ought to be an extremely stressful & painful position. It might be partly because I associate it with carpal tunnel syndrome; holding your hands/wrists bent like that (in front, rather than behind) is the common test for carpal tunnel.
And as I said, “Ariel Against the Light” is a beautiful set otherwise, and I would have rated it very highly if it had used one of the other behind-the-back ties.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by Sablesword.
“Ariel Against The Light” – beautiful set, only [wince]
I bought three padlocks at the beginning of the year, and was able to special-order them to not only be keyed-alike, but to use the same key as the half-dozen smaller padlocks I already had.
Sometimes it’s technically possible for a locksmith to rekey a set of padlocks so that they’re all keyed alike.
And even for gear with built-in locks it may be worth asking about.
I’m fine with asymmetric ties, but I’d like to have seen tied ankles, at least to the extent of a symbolic rope hobble. Even if it wasn’t necessary.
Funny, I have the opposite opinion. I find that dark backgrounds make light-skinned models look a bit pasty and cause dark-skinned models to fade into the background. Whereas light or white backgrounds make models of all complexions look good.
And now “The Proper Decorum” – same effect. I really want to love that set too, but seeing the reverse-prayer tie makes me wince.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by Sablesword.
The usual trick is to put ropes in a lingerie/delicates mesh wash bag to wash in the washing machine. I’ve done this myself with the nylon & polypropylene web-straps that I use. It keeps them from getting tangled up with themselves or with the mechanical bits in the machine.
None of Nikon’s current 24MP DX (crop) cameras have AA filters, and the D500 doesn’t either. So that’s a non-issue. In any case the pixel pitch of a 24MP DX would be the same as a 54MP full frame, or a medium format with, um, “lots.” 🙂
FWIW, a google search shows the Sony A7RII with a pixel pitch of 4.51 microns, the D500 with a pitch of 4.22 microns, and the D7200 with a pitch of 3.92 microns.
I thought I already posted on this, but yeah. If anything, my line for fantasy vs reality is even further back than Hywel’s.
That’s why I don’t like kinky fiction (in any medium) about celebrities or politicians, no matter what my opinion of the celebrity or politician being “sent up” might be. Not even if it’s a “No Celebrities Were Harmed” version.
I’ve been shooting at “f/8 and be there” with a Nikon D90 (crop sensor – “DX” in Nikon terminology). Partly because I was going for maximum sharpness, wanting photos for drawing references, and partly because the D90 has a base ISO of 200, which makes it tricky to go wider than f/8 with studio lights.
But in terms of good looking photos, there’s something to be said for putting the background out of focus. I’m not a fan of shallow depth of field where part of the model is in focus and the rest not. Even when it’s not as extreme as “eyelash in focus; eyeball out of focus.” A more common case that I’d just as soon avoid is the hogtie where the face is in focus and the feet not. Or vice versa. I’ve had this happen on occasion even with f/8 on DX. It’s not a bad effect, but it’s not necessarily my favorite, either.
De-emphasizing the backdrop by putting it slightly out of focus though… And when I’m doing “walking around” shots with ambient light (and a prime lens), it makes a virtue out of necessity, and since the backgrounds for such shots are usually more cluttered anyway, putting the background out of focus is more desirable anyway.
What has me thinking about this more, right now, is that I rented (I’m in the US, so chattels get “rented” while people get “hired”) a Nikon D7100, because I’m thinking of upgrading my D90. The D7100 has a base ISO of 100 instead of 200, so I turned up the power on my studio lights to compensate – but I did think about dropping from f/8 to f/5.6, instead.
If you’re in the middle of a photoshoot, and you want a shallower depth of field for a few shots, do you normally stop and turn down the power on your studio lights to compensate for the increased aperture? Bump up the ISO to compensate to avoid mucking with the studio light settings? I expect that if you’re shooting outdoors with sunlight, you’ll increase the shutter speed – right?
Two quick thoughts:
1. I think in front of the bay window and in front of the bookcase are two of my favorite RE locations, along with the red oriental room.
2. Those clothespins look much more “ouchy” than the usual RE fare.May 12, 2016 at 06:26 in reply to: Forthcoming mini-flood of shallow depth of field Sony sets #26919
I appreciate the heads-up.
I suspect I’ll prefer the studio lighting style, but it will still be interesting to see what happens with available light.
Well, *I* am here for the barefoot bondage too. But I’m also here for stills, rather than video.
I’m still on Restrained Elegance, when I let my other paysite subscriptions lapse, because RE is so good a match to what I like, in so many ways. But video is not something I care very much for.
How expensive is it to shoot a stills set, compared to a video?
I’m glad you warned us ahead of time about the big “roadblock” of non-barefoot video coming down the line, and the reason for it.
Now that I’ve had a chance to watch the post-processing tutorial: Thumbs up.
It reminded me a bit of the “booking a fetish model” video, in that it mostly covered thing I’d had already figured out, or had blundered through in a non-standard way. But there were some good hints that I didn’t know. Also, I’m looking forward to part 2 because I haven’t figured out about “cloning” and retouching flaws.
Also, even though video is not usually my favorite form of tutorial, Hywel made it work for me. Maybe it’s because our minds work alike in some important ways. (The focal-lengths video also worked for me, whereas the booking-a-model video had me wishing for a text transcript. Sorry, Ariel, but my mind works more like Hywel’s than like yours…)
FWIW, the program I use for dealing with RAW (Nikon .nef) files is Raw Therapee, plus Fast Raw Viewer.
OK, the yearly membership options have gone live, and I’ve renewed. Thanks, Hywel.
I’ve download what I’ve missed over the past 12 days, and will have to take time to look them over.
[grumble] I’m looking forward to seeing this, but I’m in limbo right now. I am (or was) on yearly automatic renewal, and I made sure that my credit card info was updated – and then my bank “helpfully” declined the charge and informed me of “possible unauthorized activity.” I call and told them that the charge was authorized, but apparently the damage was already done.
Right now I’m waiting to see if it can be fixed from the Gametime end.