Portraits with new lighting set up

[StormDriven]

So i purchased a beginners lighting studio from ebay, has 2 umbrellas and a background light with constant 6400k bullbs. Here are the results. Let me know what you think. Any lighting pointers would be appreciated.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3401/3414892176_082cc80494_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3581/3413808510_eb900ee427_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3653/3412979891_67d5905b97_o.jpg

[tonydee]

#1s works the best as presented. It's a bit too bright on the chest area... distracts from her face. If the intended audience are music lovers, they may want the guitar in focus... I know I find it distracting not being able to see the brand. The smile does look a little forced though. #2 suffers from an even bigger expanse of over-bright chest, and the selective colour doesn't do it for me. #3 has the most natural expression, but it's just hard to look at a head at that angle... I'd vote for a 90 degree clockwise rotation (from our viewing perspective, not hers ;-)). That may make it the pick. Bit dark, but I like that. The arm squashing out as it rests on the guitar raises thoughts of broken bones... could be adjusted in post-processing. Good to have her middle and third fingers not reach past the strings. Cheers, Tony

[StormDriven]

I definately need some pointers on how to keep multiple objects in focus. I use the AF points, but can usually only get 2-3 to lock in at a time. Secondly, the camera always wants to use flash, even when the model is flooded with light. (was trying to just use the portrait setting) i dont get it. I did notice the arm, but of course that was after the fact, and my pp skills arent quite there yet to straighten it out. I still developing the photographers eye so i can pick up on things when looking through the viewfinder and not trying to fix it after the fact.

[tonydee]

Re focus... the core thing is the depth of field, which is determined by your sensor size, how close you are to the subject, the focal length of the lens you're using, and the aperture size you're using. If you want more in focus... step back further and use a longer focal length, and/or use a smaller aperture (which will force you to use a slower shutter speed and/or higher ISO). To get a feel for all that, type a few of the combinations of settings you've shot with into the Depth of Field calculator at http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html and see what it tells you. A good thing to know about is the hyperfocal length... that's the distance where you can focus to have everything from half that distance to infinity resaonably sharp.

If you either leave in the EXIF data when uploading pictures to POTN, or copy and paste it into the text of your post, then we can see if they are obviously suboptimal for the shot. The EXIF data contains the focal length, shutter speed, ISO, camera type and mode etc., and can be displayed in Canon Photo Pro and most other editing software... even some operating system's "[Image] properties" dialogue boxes from their directory/folder explorer/navigator software.

Re camera wanting to use flash... that's weird. Maybe your idea of flooded is different from its :-). Cameras are much less adaptable to lower lighting than the human eye. Still, check your exposure metering mode: evaluative metering is good for most purposes. Also, use ISO200 or even 400 if you have to, though they'll introduce more noise than 100.

I don't know much about the automatic modes - portrait or otherwise - so can't offer much insight, but I think there's a "no flash" mode? I'd just use that if I were you, or shoot in "P" (which lets you save RAW, then you can set the picture to Portrait mode in Canon Photo Pro later if you want whatever combination of sharpness, contrast, noise reduction, saturation etc. that boils down to).

Re fixing the arm, it's not something I'm particularly good at either. I'd probably use lightzone and try to clone from another part of the arm that's at the right angle, but unfortunately it doesn't let me rotate the image area being cloned which does make it more hit and miss. With GIMP, I found it hard. I have CS4, but don't know how to use it properly yet. Better let someone more experienced show us how... :-).

Cheers, Tony