Some input please

why would you want to stop it down? sharpness and dof, is why I do. I think it's the norm to have the entire head in sharp focus on a studio type portrait.

nope, not the entire head. only the first 1/4 front of the face for head shot such as that. from the ears and back it should start to fall out of focus.

When everything is too focus, it looks flat. One of the rules in excellent photograhy is to show depth.

And with the kit lens on a 350D you would have to come up to within 5 feet of the subject at 55mm, f5.6 to get down to a 6 inch DOF. It can be very difficult to control your DOF under those conditions.

Hmmm, first suggestion (as others have mentioned) is definately the backdrop - blonde girls dont usually look too good against white backdrops unless you're shooting full or 3/4 length. Either a darker plain backdrop or a basic set if you've got the space will make the shot look less bleached. Throw a bit of light on the background either with a third light or a reflector to create some seperation.

The grainy look from the high-ISO is the only other obvious fault. I usually shoot portaits anywhere from f2 to f8 so you'll really need a lens that can give you that. In a controlled environment with studio lights you shouldn't have to touch the ISO. If for some reason your lights are the weak link then moving them a little closer to the subject can brighten the shot (although it might lessen the diffusion when using brollies), 1/2 the distance = 2 fstops.

Shadow-wise I think it's pretty well set-up for your subject's face type although the light could always be softer. Either a translucent shoot-through brolly or ideally a softbox would help out with that. If you're not looking to invest any more money then try a thin scrim on the key light for a bit of extra softness.

I know i'm changing your shot now but her hair is really acting as a reflector - thick, densly-packed and almost white. If you shoot that model again then try getting her to do something different with it as it could really help the texture.

Just out of interest what was the original background? manipulating that would have probobly got you better results than cutting it out.

I'm being a bit over-the-top with the criticism since you asked for it, but it's not a bad shot - definately show us what you can do with the new lens and maybe a basic plain background (find out where they sell fabric near you - you can get 3x2 cuts to use as backdrops in all colours & textures for a couple of quid each)

Just a few ideas.
First, I think you came up with a great photo, there are things you could do better, but actually was pretty good.

A few things:
I prefer using a low asa to minimize noise. Your camera supports 100 which is excellent. You should use this if at all possible.

I prefere a quality background, usually a "motled green" which goes with almost everything, especially blondes!

I see nothing wrong with the lens, that really depends on the room, lights, etc. Just needs to be 'clean' with the picture well framed.

I would have used one main light, then one smaller reflector. This works well for most protraits. I dispise flash, especially with subjects where I can control the lighting.

Rememeber, you wan to take the best picture possible so there will be minimal editing.

If you plan to do a lot of portraits, I highly suggest reading up on Marty Zucker (or someone similar), if you want to make a living at this, try one of the seminars or trips, well worth it. He will help you save years of frustration.
http://www.montezucker​.com/

Hope that helped. Look forward to seeing more from you.

Many many thanks to all,
Its interesting to see so many different points of view. The lighting to be honest couldn't have gone any closer to the subject, it was throwing out rather a lot of heat as it was. The room was my lounge, of which space is very limited and the background was the wallpaper and a not so well placed dado rail passing horizontal to the subjects head. The dof was a little high and didnt blur the background enough. I was really just trying out the new lighting kit, so to improve the pic I decided to remove the background completely, maybe I could have filled it with a colour rather than white. If at all possible I would always prefer to shoot at the lowest iso, of which would be 100, but to be honest I was pleasantly suprised how good the 1600 turned out to be, especially comparing it to a film speed of 1600. I cant wait to get the new lens, and I will definetely have to get a backdrop, and maybe I'll post my next attempt on here for some more constructive criticism. Looking at some of the photography on these boards is inspiring, I'm sure my efforts can only improve as I go on. Once again many thanks to all who has given me input, and some new idea's.

Steve

With reduced noise in PS cs2 a little improvement maybe

You really need more light. ISO1600 is unacceptable for portraits, and the kit lens isn't that hot either.

Shooting at F1.8 isn't a good solution, for a number of reasons:
1) That lens doesn't focus accurately, so you might not have your subject properly focused.
2) The depth of field is tiny.
3) It's only an average lens at best.

I would suggest getting at least one strobe, there are links to good brands in the sticky thread in this forum. A higher quality lens would also be a good investment.

Hi Mate,

Yeah, the second looks a little better.

You mentioned a tungsten kit. Are you using it at the highest power you can (with respect to ratios etc).?

Oh, and watch oversharpening. It can have bad effects on her eyelashes for example.

Rob

I echo what Tim's said about 1SO1600 being unacceptable for potraits - leaving aside the lens for a minute, if its taking this sort of ISO to get enough light even with the aperture wide open, I cannot imagine how dim your lights are. I use often my 500w strobes on their lowest output, shoot in f8+ at ISO100 and still get over-exposed frames.

Obviously I don't know how much time/money you want to commit to this but I'd suggest replacing whatever you have now with at least two strobes (mixing flash with continuous light isn't a good idea). 3 would be even better and would alow you to handle pretty much anything and 4+ is not really neccesary for single portraits as long as you have a good reflector on hand to make up for the 'fourth' when needed. You really should be able to control everything in your studio so if a certain piece of equipment is limiting you, replace it.

As far as I'm concerned the 50mm f1.8 is fine for portraits. It's not amazing quality but it's cheap and will give solid results compared to the kit lens. You'll rarely be able to shoot at 1.8 though (dof, softness e.t.c.) which is why I suggested the better lights as the most important thing.

I'm still trying to figure out what "light kit" is only bright enough for ISO1600 @ f7.1, I can shoot f/11 @ ISO100 with a single B400.

-moore

Lighting used is the Interfit tungsten 3200 (Patterson I believe), this has two lights, both 500W one reflected through a silver brolly and the other reflected through a white brolly. The meter readings were taken with the sekonic L358 with incident cone. I was really suprised myself when taking the readings.
There is no adjustment to output on this lighting kit. Exposure appeared to be spot on. The main lamp (silver brolly) was about 4 - 5 ft from the subject the fill in with the white brolly was a little further to give 1 stop less exposure than the main light.