WB and such

[potn_momma2]

C&C much appreciated
Also, it's a lot warmer in photoshop than when I post it on here...


339371

[Robert_Lay]

The lighting is a little flat and the image seems to be without detail in the highlights. As a result the 3-dimensionality and appearance of depth suffer.
In order to get the cross-lighting needed to make the facial contours more visible, it would be better to have the flash only to soften the shadows. Here it is the main light.

[howaboutnow]

I played..

[JustinLawrence]

Cute :)
Make sure you convert to sRGB before posting on the web.
I can see a warmer light (showing on left hand side of her face) I think the flash is overdone here, try reducing flash power next time and if youre just using flash as fill then consider using a CTO colour correction gel on your flash. Keep at it :)

[ScottKCooper]

Maybe PS out the smudge on the sleeve. I like the crop on version 2 cutting out the dolls legs - maybe PS out the tag on the doll too?

[potn_momma2]

Yes I agree whole heartedly with you all.
I'm using a 430ex with a sto fen at 45 degrees, high iso and not sure what the flash is set to.
I got so excited that I actually had a chance at taking a picture of her smiling and sitting still that I forgot all about the camera haha. You take it where you can get it I guess.
Convert to srbg hey? Hmm, will have to try that!
I'm hoping to get a 530 within the next few months so that I can play around with some off camera flash as well.
Bob how would you set that up?

[Robbierob]

she definitely has beautiful baby blues tho

[Bill Boehme]

According to the EXIF data, the color profile assigned to the image is the "camera profile" which could be a number of things and probably explains why the color seems "off" and the image looks just a bit flat. Since web browsers, even if color management enabled, don't know what your camera profile is, it treats the image as though there is no profile assigned to it. I took a quick look at how the image appears with different color spaces and suspect that the actual image profile might be AdobeRGB since it brightened the image considerably when I applied it. The composition is very nice and I think that you did a very good job in that respect -- with the caveat that I don't know enough about portrait photography to dare show any of my feeble attempts.

[potn_momma2]

She does she has gorgeous eyes! Just like her grandmother.
Hmm let me see, my camera says:
color space: sRBG
and i've got the wb shift at b3 g3/+-0
Should I change the color space to adobe rbg?
Also, I changed the WB because, for some reason if I have it set at 0, all my pictures come out very warm, regardless of what I have the flash set at.
I know I had the flash set too bright, and I suspect that is a big reason for the lack of definition.
Sigh, this lighting thing has got me boggled.

Edit to add: I just opened the photo is cs4 and noticed that it's not as bright and there is quite a bit more definition on her face (albeit not that much)...
http://i533.photobucket.com/albums/ee336/jb_174/color.jpg

[Robert_Lay]

She does she has gorgeous eyes! Just like her grandmother.
Hmm let me see, my camera says:
color space: sRBG
and i've got the wb shift at b3 g3/+-0
Should I change the color space to adobe rbg?
Also, I changed the WB because, for some reason if I have it set at 0, all my pictures come out very warm, regardless of what I have the flash set at.
I know I had the flash set too bright, and I suspect that is a big reason for the lack of definition.
Sigh, this lighting thing has got me boggled.

Edit to add: I just opened the photo is cs4 and noticed that it's not as bright and there is quite a bit more definition on her face (albeit not that much)...


I feel compelled to suggest (even though I don't claim to be that knowledgeable about color spaces) that if you want better consistency in what you are doing, you should have the camera set for sRGB and make sure that in CS4 the Preferences are set up with sRGB as your Working Space.

Perhaps some guru on color spaces can second that.

[Bill Boehme]

Hmm let me see, my camera says:
color space: sRBG
and i've got the wb shift at b3 g3/+-0
Should I change the color space to adobe rbg?
Also, I changed the WB because, for some reason if I have it set at 0, all my pictures come out very warm, regardless of what I have the flash set at.
I know I had the flash set too bright, and I suspect that is a big reason for the lack of definition.
Sigh, this lighting thing has got me boggled.


See Robert's post. In essence, if you do not know whether you should use AdobeRGB nor really understand color spaces and color management, then it is much better and safer to stick exclusively with sRGB for everything. For the most part sRGB is completely satisfactory. Unless you have a high $$$ printer with 8 or more ink colors and a high $$$ wide gamut monitor to show these colors, then it will be difficult to see much benefit with a large color space such as AdobeRGB.

I feel compelled to suggest (even though I don't claim to be that knowledgeable about color spaces) that if you want better consistency in what you are doing, you should have the camera set for sRGB and make sure that in CS4 the Preferences are set up with sRGB as your Working Space.

Perhaps some guru on color spaces can second that.

I have not officially had the title of "Color Management Guru" conferred upon me, but I feel sufficiently knowledgeable about the subject to say that I agree with your suggestion.

[Bill Boehme]

Hmm let me see, my camera says:
color space: sRBG

I took another look at the metadata and there are some things that are confusing because I have not encountered them before. You mentioned that you are using Photoshop CS4, but for some reason, the metadata identifies the application used to edit the file as QuickTime 7.5.5. Even though the camera says that the image profile is sRGB, somewhere during the editing process, the profile was discarded and is shown in the EXIF data as "uncalibrated" while the shooting data does show a profile of "Camera RGB Profile" (which is essentially the same as uncalibrated if not embedded in the file).

and i've got the wb shift at b3 g3/+-0 .....

Also, I changed the WB because, for some reason if I have it set at 0, all my pictures come out very warm, regardless of what I have the flash set at.

It appears that you are shooting JPG in Auto mode along with auto WB and the adjustment bias. If you are using the flash for fill lighting, but the primary lighting is incandescent, then you have a mixed lighting condition which will not be consistent throughout the image and probably very difficult, if not impossible, to completely fix using an overall WB correction factor. Also, under mixed lighting conditions, automatic white balance does not seem to consistently work well. Do you get better results with outdoor shots? Getting good lighting indoors is a difficult challenge.

I know I had the flash set too bright, and I suspect that is a big reason for the lack of definition.

I agree. It is probably the primary factor.

[potn_momma2]

Oy what a mess.
Yes I am using a trial version of cs4 on my mac (I have cs3 on my pc, but hate using the pc).
I am shooting in P, and jpg... I shot everything in RAW for a time but wound up with so many photos and a poor system for organizing them. Now that I have my mac organized, I should start shooting in raw again.
I do get much better results outdoors, but I suppose it is because it is generally *easier* than indoors. I am a total beginner just learning my way around lighting and such.
Thanks to everyone who is trying to help, I'm seeing that I have a lot to figure out before I should even pick up the camera or open photoshop haha.