Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
Thread started 09 Aug 2017 (Wednesday) 23:21
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Studio shoot again!

 
icor1031
Senior Member
880 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 227
Joined Jan 2015
Post edited over 1 year ago by icor1031. (4 edits in all)
     
Aug 09, 2017 23:21 |  #1

1 - apparently my hair light didn't fire... near shoulder is pushed forward; this is because I heavily cropped the image, her hand would have shown why this was needed. Lighting kind of flat, but not as bad as #2.
2 - too flat. legs too dark (can't fix legs; room too small.)
4 - eyes a little big, framed too tight.
5 - hand/arm placement doesn't make sense.
7 - (this one especially) fingers seem tightened and too close together.
8 - arm placement with facial expression / head direction is incongruent.

And the dress isn't great.

Other comments?

IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/lP2MrZR.jpg
IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/K7VBgNO.jpg
IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/Gp8ulQ2.jpg
IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/6sCi4nJ.jpg
IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/c08zhJU.jpg
IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/QoGWGI7.jpg
IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/v6gWNjw.jpg
IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/j00mDSY.jpg

(2) Canon 6D || Zeiss Sonnar 135/2 || Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 || Sigma 85/1.4 ART || Helios 44-2 58/2 || Sigma 50/1.4 Art || Canon 24/2.8 || Rokinon 14/2.8 || (2) Eg-S Focusing Screen
Ideal Portraits (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
texkam
"Just let me be a stupid photographer."
Avatar
1,306 posts
Likes: 572
Joined Mar 2012
Location: By The Lake in Big D
     
Aug 09, 2017 23:31 |  #2

You need a bigger light source. Big, soft light.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
icor1031
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
880 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 227
Joined Jan 2015
Post edited over 1 year ago by icor1031.
     
Aug 09, 2017 23:32 |  #3

2 - too flat. legs too dark (can't fix legs; room too small.)

...

texkam wrote in post #18423741 (external link)
You need a bigger light source. Big, soft light.


(2) Canon 6D || Zeiss Sonnar 135/2 || Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 || Sigma 85/1.4 ART || Helios 44-2 58/2 || Sigma 50/1.4 Art || Canon 24/2.8 || Rokinon 14/2.8 || (2) Eg-S Focusing Screen
Ideal Portraits (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ramon-uk
Senior Member
634 posts
Gallery: 43 photos
Likes: 163
Joined Mar 2006
     
Aug 10, 2017 05:36 |  #4

I think the 4th one is a definite winner.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,064 posts
Gallery: 1514 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9804
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Aug 10, 2017 09:39 |  #5

For your light size and harshness, I think #3 and #8 are the two that have the most potential.

Nothing wrong with hard light, you just have to have poses and context and expression that work with it.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
icor1031
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
880 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 227
Joined Jan 2015
Post edited over 1 year ago by icor1031. (2 edits in all)
     
Aug 10, 2017 09:44 |  #6

MalVeauX wrote in post #18423953 (external link)
For your light size and harshness, I think #3 and #8 are the two that have the most potential.

Nothing wrong with hard light, you just have to have poses and context and expression that work with it.

Very best,

I agree :) (except for the incongruent pose of #8)

Although I'm surprised 1 is considered harsh, I believe I had my large (45"?) umbrella on, and it was close.
Same for #2, though #2 looks harsh because the hair light got her cheeks


(2) Canon 6D || Zeiss Sonnar 135/2 || Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 || Sigma 85/1.4 ART || Helios 44-2 58/2 || Sigma 50/1.4 Art || Canon 24/2.8 || Rokinon 14/2.8 || (2) Eg-S Focusing Screen
Ideal Portraits (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,064 posts
Gallery: 1514 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9804
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Aug 10, 2017 09:47 |  #7

icor1031 wrote in post #18423956 (external link)
I agree :)

Although I'm surprised 1 is considered harsh, I believe I had my large (45"?) umbrella on, and it was close.
Same for #2, though #2 looks harsh because the hair light got her cheeks

Nothing negative about it, but they're all showing hard light. Note the spectral highlights on #1 on her fingers and prominences on face. How close was your 45" modifier? I'd try and get that thing within 3 feet. It may also be the fabric/material, not diffusing the light very well, as there seems to be a hot spot, and you can see it feather out around the edges. What umbrella is this?

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
icor1031
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
880 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 227
Joined Jan 2015
     
Aug 10, 2017 09:49 |  #8

MalVeauX wrote in post #18423959 (external link)
Nothing negative about it, but they're all showing hard light. Note the spectral highlights on #1 on her fingers and prominences on face. How close was your 45" modifier? I'd try and get that thing within 3 feet. It may also be the fabric/material, not diffusing the light very well, as there seems to be a hot spot, and you can see it feather out around the edges. What umbrella is this?

Very best,

I think it was within 3ft.. My room is small

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …Convertible_Umb​rella.html (external link)


(2) Canon 6D || Zeiss Sonnar 135/2 || Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 || Sigma 85/1.4 ART || Helios 44-2 58/2 || Sigma 50/1.4 Art || Canon 24/2.8 || Rokinon 14/2.8 || (2) Eg-S Focusing Screen
Ideal Portraits (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Qbx
Goldmember
3,907 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 403
Joined Dec 2010
     
Aug 10, 2017 11:09 |  #9

Ramon-uk wrote in post #18423847 (external link)
I think the 4th one is a definite winner.

Maybe, but look carefully at her eyes. Her left pupil is much larger than her right. Is this due to lighting?


-- Image Editing OK --

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
17,977 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5269
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Aug 10, 2017 11:16 |  #10

Qbx wrote in post #18424016 (external link)
Her left pupil is much larger than her right. Is this due to lighting?

It may be natural. My pupils are slightly different sizes, not different enough that anyone but an optometrist would notice.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
9,335 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 2079
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited over 1 year ago by Left Handed Brisket.
     
Aug 10, 2017 11:19 |  #11

You can make a huge umbrella a hard light by not allowing the strobe to fill it up.

This could very likely be what is going on here. You can stop down the camera and point it at the light source to get a good idea of what it looks like.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1051
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
Post edited over 1 year ago by Alveric. (2 edits in all)
     
Aug 10, 2017 12:24 |  #12
bannedPermanent ban

I don't find the light hard, much less 'harsh'. The shadow edge is close to what one would get with a booty dish. If there is any 'problem' with the lighting, I think the fill is a wee bit too high in some (#2 & 4).

The lighting patterns are OK, they might just need a wee bit of tuning so that the nose shadow doesn't extend too much and into the eye (as in the last one).

Yes, getting the light closer will give you that over-hyped soft light whose absence is sending some into convulsions and fits of frustration, but do note that the light will also fall off faster.

On the other hand, this subject has more 'texture' in her skin (forehead) than the one in your other thread, thus, if you want to use 'hard' light, I'd go for a Paramount pattern here, or even open loop. Just avoid raking the light or those imperfections will shew. Another point to be mindful of when working with hard(er) light is that it's more specular, and you need to remind your subjects to wipe off the natural skin oil or use make-up (though not a lot of that).

Yea, #4 is a winner here.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
icor1031
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
880 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 227
Joined Jan 2015
     
Aug 10, 2017 13:05 |  #13

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18424024 (external link)
You can make a huge umbrella a hard light by not allowing the strobe to fill it up.

This could very likely be what is going on here. You can stop down the camera and point it at the light source to get a good idea of what it looks like.


I've done that, it looked like it was filled. I have to check again.


(2) Canon 6D || Zeiss Sonnar 135/2 || Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 || Sigma 85/1.4 ART || Helios 44-2 58/2 || Sigma 50/1.4 Art || Canon 24/2.8 || Rokinon 14/2.8 || (2) Eg-S Focusing Screen
Ideal Portraits (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Qbx
Goldmember
3,907 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 403
Joined Dec 2010
     
Aug 10, 2017 13:15 |  #14

OhLook wrote in post #18424023 (external link)
It may be natural. My pupils are slightly different sizes, not different enough that anyone but an optometrist would notice.

Well whatever the cause, she would look much better if both pupils were not so dilated. A pre-flash would probably help, then we'd see more of her irises which are a lovely blue.


-- Image Editing OK --

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paintedlotus
Senior Member
Avatar
375 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 290
Joined May 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Post edited over 1 year ago by paintedlotus. (4 edits in all)
     
Aug 10, 2017 13:17 |  #15

Part of what a larger light source would help with is lighting your subject more evenly (as opposed to just "softly"), because right now you have super hard highlights fading to super dark shadows. It looks less like an intentional contrast choice and more like you're shooting with a light source that is just either too small or too far away from the model or too far off to the side or at too high of a setting, or all of the above. It's ok to power down your light just a tad when you move it close to your subject, or change your aperture. Parts of her face look overexposed in several shots, if not all of them.

Another thing I notice is the jarring color difference between her face/hands and arms/legs - that and the overexposure is the very first thing I noticed. This can be corrected in post.

Also, it's best to keep the hands away from the head unless the person REALLY knows what they're doing and can pose well. Granted this girl's hands aren't terrible, but they aren't helping. For most people hands are very naughty - turning into claws or barbie fingers especially, or in one case almost looking like they are kind of smashing the side of her face and distorting her cheek - and can easily ruin an otherwise nice shot.



Website (external link)

beauty, fashion, model tests, portraits

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,530 views & 3 likes for this thread
Studio shoot again!
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
1008 guests, 368 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.