Hywel

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 425 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Chloe's Bohemian Rhapsody #28766

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Glad you enjoyed it!

    in reply to: Unseen Archives of Various Models #28653

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    As you say, the Classic Restrained Elegance cart contains the first 15 years of the site. Since the site is now 19 years old, that leaves 4 years of material (and growing) not on the Classic Restrained Elegance cart. But they are available! They are on the eStore here:
    https://estore.surfnetcorp.com/store/elegancestudios/index.cfm

    Some of those sets are coming around in archives, on the same sort of schedule as they usually do, which is that I start bringing them back a year or two after they finish their run as new sets on the members’ area. All of them will come back into the members’ archive eventually if you stay a member.

    In the meantime you can purchase these “lost treasures” any time you like from the eStore. They are 50% off for the next couple of days in celebration of our birthday, in fact.

    Best regards,

    Hywel Phillips

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by  Hywel.
    in reply to: Unseen Archives of Various Models #28651

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Hi,

    There’s a lot of Ariel because it’s her site too. We’re married, and we make the site together. She’s on every location trip, because we run the site together. She’s the creative force behind a lot of the films we shoot together. So I won’t “look into the matter” – there’s a lot of Ariel here because it’s her site as much as mine, and has been for over a decade.

    There are archives of Tillie and Penny Lee up today as it happens and there will be more of other models through the month.

    Best regards,

    Hywel Phillips

    in reply to: New Update Schedule – Best Wishes #28649

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Thank you!

    Fingers crossed, it all seems to be going well so far.

    Stay safe,

    Cheers, Hywel

    in reply to: Who is the model? #28648

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Hi,

    Bonnie is a model I didn’t work with personally, photographer Iain T shot what looks like just a single test set with her a decade or more ago:

    http://secure.surfnetcorp.com/acbuilds1/showprod.cfm?&DID=23&CATID=3&ObjectGroup_ID=270

    Mimi was a part-time model/student I shot in the very early days, again I think it might have been a test shoot, I can only see one set from the shoot:

    http://secure.surfnetcorp.com/acbuilds1/showprod.cfm?&DID=23&CATID=3&ObjectGroup_ID=97

    So it looks like you probably have all the we ever shot with those models.

    Cheers, Hywel

    in reply to: New Mac Pro – Improved Work Flow? #28632

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Ahh, the new MacPro is too expensive for me to consider for the moment. With the UK pound exchange rate the way it is, it’s just completely unaffordable, and I’m not sure the performance gains over my current set-up of two iMacs would justify the cost.

    Furthermore the latest version of MacOS finally and conclusively breaks some software on which I (still) rely- Aperture and the “old way” of handling REDcode RAW video files.

    I’ve moved away from Aperture for most things but still find it by far the most efficient tool for the final retouch pass. And I’m sure there is a new way of handling REDcode files, but I really like the way the current workflow decouples editing and grading.

    And MacOS Catalina is buggy as hell by most accounts, too. Ariel’s new laptop runs it I think and it keeps spewing random crap when she tries to print anything on the shared printer which has just worked for about a dozen different Macs over the years and now suddenly breaks.

    So I’m not going to update my computing and especially my MacOS until I’m forced to.

    Cheers, Hywel

    in reply to: March 2020 Previews #28563

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    HI CD,

    Glad you like the look of them!

    ADDENDUM…

    I’ve finally revamped by webmaster preview page to do something more sensible with videos, in advance of the 1st April changeover in update schedule. (Reminder: we are moving to one update every two days, with at least one update in three being video and at least one update in three being stills).

    So here are some previews of March’s videos, I will be putting the video updates in the what’s new postings from now on.




    Videos returning in the archives:












    • This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by  Hywel.
    in reply to: Natalia Forrest's latest set… #28366

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Glad you enjoyed them!

    in reply to: Model Request – Porchia Watson #28293

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Hi,

    I’d love to! We did talk about a shoot a couple of years ago but we’re at opposite sides of the country and it never worked out. I’m just putting together a list of who to shoot in the autumn so I’ll drop her a line and see if we can sort it out.

    Cheers, Hywel

    in reply to: August 2019 previews #28218

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Hi,

    Because we haven’t processed them all yet! We work a couple of months ahead in order to ensure that we never miss an update (have never missed one in 18 years) and while I do drop sets we just shot into the queue sooner, mostly it’s prohibitive to do because of the time it takes to process each set.

    It takes longer to process the RAW files, colour correct, skin smooth, retouch, edit and polish each photoset than it does to shoot it. (Typically a set takes an hour to shoot and two or more to edit).

    So there are a couple of sets from the Wycombe shoot this month, dropped in as “exceptional” ones processed before they would normally come up in the sequence. There will be four more in September, a similar number in October, then ramping up as they fit into our regular processing sequence more naturally for the sets we’re processing now (just finishing November and starting December).

    Cheers, Hywel

    in reply to: Color Calibaration #28110

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    You should offer condolences, yes! (And you probably should at least get a colour-checker. It’s very useful to know where you are starting from)

    🙂

    Lightroom has been made bearable by use of a hardware control surface (Loupedeck+). I use it to do the colour grade/RAW processing step on Sony photos because Aperture has got a bit unreliable there in later versions of MacOS. I still use (and love) Phocus for the Hasselblad shots. For both, I export to intermediate huge 16-bit Prophoto TIFFs.

    Photoshop is only used as a droplet to run Imagenomic portraiture in batch on those TIFFs.

    Then I import back into Aperture, which currently still handles the TIFFs OK. I do keywords, retouch, and a few other things in Aperture. I prefer Aperture’s vignette, LR seems very crude on that, and Aperture’s skin smoothing and retouching tools are way better.

    Then I batch export JPEGs from Aperture.

    It’s workable for now. Capture One is a viable LR alternative for the first step, but I find its default rendition ugly for people shots (C1’d default rendition is great for landscape though, I use it for all my landscape shots). Loupedeck is better set up for LR than C1 for the moment, too.

    I dread the day I have to move away from Aperture for retouch and skin smoothing. I’ve tested a dozen alternatives in the last few months and none of the skin retouch tools are as subtle or as efficient and controllable as the Aperture ones. I *really* don’t want to have to do it in Photoshop, but that’s my fallback if all else fails.

    Cheers, Hywel.

    in reply to: Color Calibaration #28101

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    I need to get a new set-up actually.

    I used to use a DataSpyder to calibrate my screen and eyeball it from that, then periodically check it by looking at some of my images on random devices (friend’s windows PCs, laptops, phones, etc.)

    But the workflow got pretty crappy and the thing is so old that I don’t think it runs with modern versions of MacOS. I’ve been coasting on the basis that my Mac monitors don’t seem to drift all that much, and the Hasselblad in particular has very good colour stability

    So I should invest a new system, especially as I’ve just switched to using Lightroom and Photoshop for the raw conversion and skin smoothing steps for Sony files, and Lightroom’s colour treatment is WAAAAAY funkier on skin tones than Hasselblad’s or Apple’s. So I might need to make some custom profiles. I’m looking at the ColorMunki stuff based around a ColorChecker Passport.

    If you go that route, please could you post and let us know your experiences?

    Cheers, Hywel

    in reply to: Penny Lee GOS #28060

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    It’s 200 miles through some of the worst traffic in the country- try to do it on a Monday morning and you’d be lucky to arrive before sunset. So what it generally means is Penny getting up a 3 in the morning or something to do the drive, which isn’t particularly safe or conducive to her looking her best.

    So why try to make sure we at least book her for a couple of days – doing it there and back in the day is not feasible. And explains why we’ve mostly shot with her on location trips in recent years.

    Cheers, Hywel

    in reply to: Penny Lee GOS #28058

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Yes it has been a while since we worked with Penny – we did a week-long shoot with her some time ago and we’ve nearly got through the updates, so I should book her again soon. We live on opposite sides of the country now so it’s a bit of long haul to get her over here, but hopefully we can figure something out over the summer.

    I’ve also wound down the Game of Slaves updates, having finished the arcs on the few parallel stories I’d planned. Did people enjoy it? Should we do another round of Game of Slaves shoots?

    Cheers, Hywel


    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Hi,

    All the music in our videos comes from:

    https://www.audionetwork.com

    I don’t have the FCP-X project on this computer I’m afraid so I’m not sure exactly what the track was but you can probably put the lyrics into Audio Network to track it down.

    Cheers, Hywel

    in reply to: Camera where Weight a Problem #27991

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    To be honest I’ve always just shoved everything in my cabin bag and hoped they don’t check the weight. I do tend to offload everything else into my pockets (phone, kindle, headphones, etc.) so that the cabin baggage is clearly just a camera case

    What I will say is that I’ve tried various bridge or small camera combos over the years and none of them have ever really lived up to the promises. The image quality always takes too much of a knock for me. They always end up getting left at home after one or two unsatisfactory outings.

    Nowadays I always just go with my primary A7 R II or III and economise on the lens choice according to what weight limits you have. I find even the relatively cheap and cheerful Sony 24-240 mm superzoom, paired with the high resolution of the A7RII, gives significantly better results over a wide focal length range without being over-heavy.

    This is the combination I ended up using a lot of the time for mountain photography, where weight is also at a premium especially when lugging a tent up a mountain as well as camera and tripod.

    780 g lens + 625 g camera (probably plus battery) = pretty much OK for a 5 kg weight limit.

    Or the 24-105mm f/4 which is a shade lighter, and probably better optically. (I very much wanted the longer focal lengths for mountains myself).

    If you need to get even lighter and don’t need the extreme focal lengths (eg for more street photography) most mount systems will do you a pancake lens; the Sony/Samyang 35mm f/2.8 options come in around 120g (Sony) or 85g (Samyang). I’ve got the Samyang and it works just fine- cheap and cheerful and about the lightest option there is. The Sony 28mm f/2 which is my choice for really lightweight situations is only 200g and is a really cracking lens, especially for the price.

    If A doesn’t like Sony, there are similar options for Canon/Nikon/etc of course.

    So my advice is use your regular camera body and get a lightweight lens for the occasion. Or take the opportunity to get a lightweight spare body if your main camera is a hulking great pro dSLR- a 6D Mark II is only 765 g. A 80D or second-hand 70D is even lighter, and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is a great option for regular shooting at only 645g for a 28-90ish equivalent.

    An RX10 IV is 1095 g and honestly I don’t think the weight saving on these sorts of cameras is worth taking the hit on smaller sensor.

    The only reason I’d maybe change my mind is if I were primarily going to be shooting wildlife, in which case the reach of a 600mm equivalent lens is hard to beat.

    But even in that case I’d be very tempted by a Sony 100-400mm lens plus the 35mm Samyang or 28mm Sony f/2 for everything else out and about. Total weight 2.3 kg including battery, which again should be doable in a 5 kg allowance.

    There are just so many more ways to make a flexible shooting kit. I often take the 24-240mm plus one specialist lens- say a 12mm fisheye or 14mm f/2.8 for astrophotography as on a trip to Norway last year.

    So I’d say standard SLR/CSC body, one lens for general use, one lens for whatever specialist subject you think you are most likely to be shooting.

    Cheers, Hywel

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 6 months ago by  Hywel.
    in reply to: August 2018 previews #27935

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    I think she’s retired, sorry! Would have loved to have shot with her again though.

    in reply to: Cinefoil (aka Blackwrap) #27885

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    I use it as a light shaper, mostly to stop light falling on bits of the scene I don’t want to. It’s basically like flexible, reshapable barn doors. Actually I just ran out, I should buy another roll- the last one lasted me at least a decade. I like that it is possible to attach it to almost any light fitting with a bit of bending and pushing or at most a clothes-peg or a bit of gaffer tape.

    You can also cut holes in it and put it over the front a hard light to cast interesting shadows, that’s not really my lighting style but it works well with something like a Fresnel spotlight or a reflector on a flash head if you want to have some streaks of light across a background or something. (You need to be a bit careful of heat buildup with continuous tungsten lights but it is fine for LED and flash).

    Cheers, Hywel

    in reply to: ChloeToy DungeonCandlelight #27872

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Hi,

    That’s a very popular set, I’m putting it back up for you tomorrow.

    Sorry I didn’t reply sooner, Ariel and I were away on vacation for the last couple of weeks.

    Cheers, Hywel

    in reply to: April 2018 previews #27798

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Hi Sablesword!

    I still have the table, I’ll bring it downstairs and use it in some forthcoming shoots.

    I know what you mean about the dungeon. When I did me “expired at least two years ago” check for the archives it was a shock to see stuff already coming up that we shot in the new house. Four years in May, time flies!

    Cheers, Hywel

    in reply to: March 2018 Previews #27776

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    I DO! Some of the sets of Pling got misfiled. I did a general backups-and-organisation of my older stuff and found a folder of unprocessed sets, mostly stuff which needed some serious repair work due to technical cockups. There’s another four or five to come, and a handful of other really old sets which never got processed for similar reasons.

    🙂

    Hywel

    in reply to: Focal Lengths and Zoom Lenses #27771

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Shot 07049 – 38 mm full length, not particularly tilted up or down, flat on lighting as you say.
    Not as flattering as I’d maybe like in an ideal world- it’s not the most flattering on her thighs,
    but conversely she’s not posing either, it’s a test/behind the scenes shot. In an ideal world I’d
    have moved backwards and shot on my face 85mm focal length, but as you know in the dungeon
    there’s walls and doors and so forth in the way, so sometimes one compromises.

    Shot 07074 – 24 mm full length. There’s definitely some distortion to my eyes in that shot, her bum
    looks a bit big, her legs a bit short. It’s on the borderlines of what I’d consider acceptable myself, but
    there’s no absolute criterion I’m afraid. 07079 has definitely got big head small feet distortion going on,
    and is only borderline acceptable for my personal tastes. I probably left them in because:

    A) the whole set is quite stylised with the blue lighting etc. so isn’t meant to have a particularly natural or
    neutral rendition.

    B) I tend to accept more distortion with the dungeon because of the physical constraints of the space.

    C) It wasn’t bad enough for me to throw the photo away at first glance, and I learned years ago that
    being over-selective on photos for full photosets can end up short-changing customers who are
    place different emphasis on what’s OK and what’s not. When I did an experiment a very long time
    ago with a full set of 36 images (from a roll of slide film) and with just the 20 or so I’d selected.
    pretty much everybody preferred seeing all 36 images, even if some were to my eyes less than optimal.
    That even applied to focus being in places which I don’t like – if I’ve accidentally focussed on fingernails
    where I was aiming for eyes or cuffs, I leave the shot in because the fingernail fans might love it beyond
    all others in the set. So I only throw stuff away if there’s a gross error – nothing sharp, or nothing on the girl
    or the bondage sharp, or excessive camera shake, flash didn’t fire, gross over or under exposure etc..

    D) There’s a sense in which I guess I intend my photos to be seen as sets, rather than as
    individual shots too, so I’ll keep stuff in if it tells a story or is the only shot of a certain angle or
    style in the set (eg the only landscape shot or the only closeup of something).

    E) By the looks of it, later on in the set I’ve decided to embrace it and go for weird angles,
    probably emboldened by standing in places I don’t usually stand in in the dungeon. For example
    DSC07151 has big old head small feet distortion made deliberately more stylised by the cock-eyed
    composition. I personally accept the distortions more easily in that sort of shot than in a
    “normally composed” shot which looks like it is trying to be more lifestyley/naturalistic. I may
    even have decided “oh, I can shoot from inside the dungeon with this lens, I wonder how that
    looks?” (My memory is in no way up to recalling what I was actually thinking BTW, so this
    is all pure post-hoc figuring out the process by reverse engineering looking at the shots I took).

    F) If I need to keep the number of photos in the set up and I’ve cocked up and need to
    keep as many shots as possible (doubt it was the case here).

    G) It was a mistake – I was doing exactly what I warn people about using a zoom at its
    widest setting, and I should have removed the shots but didn’t for some reason. I do tend
    to process and leave shots in and learn my lessons for the next set, rather than be too
    cruel on culling a set with errors. See C) and recall that none of this actually goes through my
    mind in a cold blooded way when I shoot- I evolved the “focal lengths from hell” rule through
    trial and error, making mistakes and figuring out ways to avoid making them without noticing
    in future, like only using prime lenses and never going below 35mm if I could possibly help it!

    Sensibilities are different I guess when aiming for single shots, especially if the shots are to be
    submitted to individual comment or judging. I guess because we all recognise that photographs can
    have whacky distortion, everybody is probably different in what sorts of distortion they find
    aesthetically pleasing and what sorts or what amounts they dislike? I’ve not thought about
    it particularly deeply before, beyond my own rule of thumb which I sometimes break when
    I feel like it or the physical situation seems to call for it.

    So I’d rather guess that there isn’t any rule which can guide you, beyond the general
    rules of thumb. Shoot for oneself and if it doesn’t bother you well why should one care
    what other people think about it, really? One can learn technique from others of course,
    and emulate artistic works we like and find out how they were created, but technique
    segues into artistic choice pretty quickly when you start digging deeper.

    I’ve been very lucky that my personal bondage artistic vision appeals to enough people that I can
    make a living from it, but I didn’t start doing it to appeal to others. (Parenthetically,
    it looks like my landcape photography does not appeal to others enough for me to
    make a living from it, at least not with my (utter lack of) salesmanship and woeful
    marketing ability,

    It’s nice when it does appeal to others but I don’t really care when it doesn’t.
    I’m going to keep doing landscape photography for my own pleasure, like I have been
    since I was a teenager.

    The sort of photos that do the rounds at local photography club competitions
    usually send me right to sleep. There’s nothing wrong with them. The judges are
    usually all very correct and nit—picking and to my personal tastes utterly fail
    to spot a work of art with an ability to provoke an emotional response in me.
    But maybe they get the same thrill from a well-turned macro shot of a screw
    focus stacked to get a completely sharp photo of something completely boring
    that I get from a mountain sunset or a girl in barefoot bondage. I dunno. It seems
    to appeal to plenty of people, and if they are having fun, fantastic! I’m probably just projecting
    my hatred of competitions in general and hatred of closed group art competitions in particular.

    I don’t mean to diss photography groups, they’re just not my thing. I managed a single
    meeting of the local Welshpool group. I was more patient in my younger days when Kate
    dragged me to a few in the early days at Paul’s group in Reading, back in 2001 or something like that,
    but she lasted a lot longer there than I did.

    Cheers, Hywel

    in reply to: Focal Lengths and Zoom Lenses #27769

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Posting for tfandrew:

    Thank you both for replying, but I regret, Hywel, your responses did not take me very far. My apologies if I was not clear enough.

    I appreciate the point that “distortion” is reduced if the distance between the parts of the model is small as a proportion of the overall distance to the camera. It was a point I raised in the original post and I am grateful for the confirmation. I can understand general theories of geometry, optics and perspective. My problem is that I have disabilities that include a severe visual impairment. I was hoping for help with the things I can’t work out with the general theories: what do fully sighted people actually see when you look at the pictures.

    I think I can see deliberate “distortion” when it gets extreme, as you mention in foot fetish shots, or in pictures like this:-

    Ariel and Tillie

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I didn’t think there was anything like that in “The White Stocking Dungeon Blues”.

    My problem is where there is more subtle “distortion”. How, if at all, can someone like me make use of the good and avoid the bad. Without going to extremes, some people like to lengthen a leg or enlarge some other part of the model’s body. Conversely, some observers seem sensitive to perceived distortion. I was once asked to produce shots I admired for a local photography group. One of the shots I offered was one of Hywel’s (pre-bondage) of a model sitting on a chair. The group leader immediately dismissed it, saying the legs and feet were distorted large. I hadn’t been aware of this and the incident was somewhat upsetting. I know I will never see things as fully sighted people do but I hope it will help to look at examples in real pictures and to hear what fully sighted people see and think.

    I therefore hoped someone would offer comments on the set of “The White Stocking Dungeon Blues”. I did not want to comment on pictures in my original post because my whole point was that I distrusted my eyesight. Hywel, are you saying there is no visible distortion in the set? My first thought was that DSC07049 was one of Sablesword’s “whole room” shots and the background may be distorted but Rachelle is standing sufficiently upright that no part of her body is significantly closer than any other and the lighting is sufficiently straight on to her to tend to flatten her face. But there are later shots – with shorter focal lengths – where she is pushing part of her body towards the camera (DSC07074 to DSC07078). These are the sort of shots I would avoid based on the tutorial advice I described in my original post. Should I be seeing anything out of proportion? Do others see it? If so, do others like it?

    Thank you and hoping things are more clear now.

    (End of tfandrew post)

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 3 months ago by  Hywel.
    in reply to: Focal Lengths and Zoom Lenses #27764

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Yes, totally! My knees tell me about the need to keep doing this when I’ve done several shoot days in a row, but there’s just no getting around the fact that shooting from waist height causes less geometrical distortion and therefore looks better, most of the time. Knee height looks good too (it makes people look heroic, and Hollywood uses it all the time for that reason).

    Annoyingly, the photographer on-the-floor distortion (bigger feet, smaller head) looks quite nice as long as it isn’t too overdone, which is a literal pain in the neck to shoot. But does nice things to long legs 🙂

    One other time I reach for the 28 mm lens is shooting overhead stuff, where the length of my arms may be the limiting factor. This produces something of the big head small feet distortion, but also I think tends to make the model look big-eyed and anime-waif-like, so usually works for BDSM. Love shooting in spaces where it is possible to get proper overhead shots with an 85mm lens, but there aren’t many of them around!

    The other main time I reach for 28 mm is shooting video on a handheld gimbal. Much though I’d like to be able to use a 55mm lens, it’s just too hard to get the framing right when grabbing unrehearsed shots of a moving model with a lens that tight and get focus something like right too. The 28mm gives more forgiving depth of field and wider field of view whilst allowing one to get close enough to produce some separation from the background (a bit from boken, but more from parallax as the camera moves).

    Interesting discussion chaps, thanks. Have decided on next shoot to practice using the funkier focal lengths in my lens case for 20 shots at the end of each set, to see what I can come up with using stuff like a 14mm f/2.8, 300 mm f/5.6 catadioptric or 180mm macro lens.

    Cheers, Hywel

    in reply to: Focal Lengths and Zoom Lenses #27759

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Hi,

    As with all photographic “rules”, the “no wider than 35mm on full frame” rule is just a pointer to pay attention. The critical part is not actually the focal length of the lens. It is where you are standing.

    RULE REFRAMED: If her nose is significantly closer to the camera than her eyes are, as a fraction of the distance from camera to subject, it’s going to produce perspective, geometrical distortion which risks appearing unflattering. (The same effect can produce really ugly looking photos of other parts of the body, too.)

    So generally it looks bad having some parts of the model’s body significantly closer to the camera than other parts by accident. If she’s deliberately reaching out to camera that’s a different matter- sometimes you’ll want to exaggerate that for effect, but even then I find a 35mm lens produces a more natural-seeming effect.

    My “avoid the focal lengths from hell” rule is a rule of thumb derived from that based on observation of what combination of factors most commonly leads photographers on tutorials to provoke this distortion: zooming out and walking in.

    As Sablesword says, if you’re shooting the entire room with the model relatively small in the frame, a wider angle lens will not only be fine, but very possibly be required in smaller UK shooting spaces.

    Think about the geometric effect of standing close to the model, especially in cases where parts of the model’s body are significantly closer to the camera than other parts. This produces the “big foot tiny head” distortion effect one can see in some foot fetish photos- giant feet filling the frame, with a tiny head much smaller in pixels on the image than the feet, because the camera was 30 cm from the feet, the model was on a sofa, and her head was about 180 cm away from the camera- six times as far as the feet. So naturally the feet look big in frame, the head comparatively tiny.

    In my experience, this effect is not very disruptive to the viewer because it is obvious. The brain fills in “oh, feet are close, head is far”. Therefore it’s not unflattering, because we recognise what has caused it. Get down there and shoot it on a 14 mm lens and it’ll look kinda funky, but not like the model is misshapen.

    Shoot an ordinary head-and-shoulders portrait with a 14 mm lens. Now you’re standing so close to the model that the tip of her nose is significantly closer to camera than her eyes are- and if it is a 3/4 shot, her eyes will be significantly different distances from the camera. One eye will look bigger than the other, the nose will seem oddly protuberant, ears will recede and look small. Again, with a 14mm lens (on full frame) the effect will be sufficiently exaggerated that most viewers will probably spot “aha, it’s a distorting lens, not an ugly model”.

    Shoot it on a 24 or 28 mm lens though and the result is naturalistic enough for the eye not to notice, and for most viewers to just think the model doesn’t look very good. In longer shots it can make thighs look fat, bodies look uneven, invoke asymmetry, appear to lengthen noses and just generally make the model wince when she sees the photos afterwards.

    Back off to a full-length shot and the effect is diminished, because the model’s nose is no longer significantly closer to the camera. Remember: significant difference between distance to eyes and nose, as a fraction of the distance from camera to subject. Nose is maybe 5 cm in front of eyes. If shot from 30 cm away this is a big difference (1 part in 6), if shot from 2 m away this is trivial (1 part in 40) and from 4 m away negligible (1 part in 80). That’s why a model small in the frame with a 28 mm lens looks fine- you are standing in the same place you’d be standing to shoot a head-and-shoulders shot with a 50 mm lens.

    It’s actually nothing to do with the lens. This geometrical distortion is purely an effect of perspective, of where you are standing. Standing in the same place, you see the exact same view. A 24 mm lens will fit a wider slice of that view onto the camera sensor than a 50 mm lens will, but the perspective effect will be identical- zoom in to the 24mm image to match the field of view of the 50 mm lens, and the views will be (*nearly) identical, if you were standing in the same place.

    (* Nearly identical, because there are other sources of distortion, from the lens optics, which will likely be more severe from the 24 mm lens).

    So the reason for choosing a 35 mm lens is that it allows you to shoot full-length shots in a average size room whilst forcing you to standing far enough away from the model to avoid excessive perspective distortion. When I have a big enough space, I like to shoot everything on an 85mm lens, because IMO it’s the most flattering- it makes me stand far away to get the compositions I like.

    But you can definitely use lenses like 28mm, 24mm so long as you are conscious of the need to remain far away from the model. One needs to resist the temptation to step in to get a tighter shot- that’s when one really needs to change focal length instead.

    Hope that helps?

    Cheers, Hywel

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 3 months ago by  Hywel.
    • This reply was modified 6 years, 3 months ago by  Hywel.
    • This reply was modified 6 years, 3 months ago by  Hywel.
    in reply to: Bondage Gear #27755

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    I can recommend top-to-bottom, the ones I have have lasted a good 15 years so far, they are tough and really comfortable. They also size them more for girls than for large men, if that is a consideration- I’ve found a lot of products online tend to be too large, and Fetters in particular traditionally catered more to the gay male market and therefore everything was very chunky and too large for RE models.

    Gags and blindfolds I will have to defer to Ariel’s expertise on, although the blackout contact lenses worked pretty well.

    Cheers, Hywel

    in reply to: Oriental Studies #27700

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    I am happy to modify my language in response to changes in acceptable usage, generally. I don’t want to be an arse or insulting to anyone.

    But I’m not going to do so when a term is perfectly acceptable in polite usage where I live, but is going out of fashion in acceptable usage in another place where I don’t 🙂

    Cheers, Hywel

    in reply to: Un-renewable R.E Account #27699

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Hi,

    I think I’ve replied directly via Email to the first question, but in case I haven’t… your forum membership is independent of your website members’ area membership. You can stay and post and read stuff here on the forum regardless of whether you are current an RE member or not. The usernames are independent.

    Unfortunately, there’s no new material of Belle- she retired about 10 years ago!

    Cheers, Hywel Phillips

    in reply to: the true debates #27698

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Thank you, glad you are enjoying them!

    in reply to: Photo Set ID's #27696

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    The AL sets were shot for me by Alexander Lightspear in Sibera (under my direction of course, and I do all the post-production too).

    There’s no plan to go back and assign RE or AL numbers to older sets.

    It’s actually my filing system for sets straight from shoots, which I’ve been using since about 2013. I finally got a bit confused with my old filing system names for sets on the members’ area, so decided to switch to using my previously-private filing system ID’s for sets as they go up on the site.

    It was done originally to make it easy for me to keep track of sets as they were shot, in chronological order. That’s the most relevant thing for my backups and processing.

    Videos have a reference number as well, starting VID. Silk Soles sets start with SS. Old sets unprocessed at the time I made the switchover were given an OLD reference number. Customs have CUS reference, Femme Domme Monologues an FDM reference, bastinado a BAST reference, etc.

    The digits are not unique- there will be an RE0234_set and an AL0234_set and a VID0234_video, and these will be unrelated.

    Indeed, it is possible that somewhere I might have made a cock-up and have sets with the same initial ID: it’s possible that I got the file name wrong on location and failed to spot it or fix it before the sets got into the processing/backup/off-site backup pipeline.

    But the whole set name with RE_number_model_setdescription will definitely be unique.

    The longer file names might actually be causing some problems with the site voting scripts- we’re investigating this at the moment. Fix one problem, create another… 🙂

    Cheers, Hywel

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 4 months ago by  Hywel.
Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 425 total)