Tamsin - CC please.

I took these portraits of two friends (in a small studio) yesterday. Constructive criticism gratefully accepted.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Rembrandt lighting in #1.
I guess it's a flash shot in both cases.
The flash is too hot in #1, giving hot spot on her hand.
Lighting should be from further away to avoid hot spots.
In #2 the lighting is too flat. Typical of Landscape oriented flash portraits.
Lighting is too contrasty in both.
Very nice pose in #1 - also nice pose and nice composition in #2.
Good color balance in both.

General recommendation for the future:
Try to get lighting either further back or with better diffusion. These were too hot and too contrasty. Note the too dark shadow under the chin in #2. Note also the too hot hand and wrist in #1 and the too dark shadows in the face. Beauty shots and shots of small children should have softer lighting with less contrast.

Two lights give better control over contrast and the 3-dimensionality.

The thing that's really catching my eye in #1 is there really looks like there's something odd going on with the focus that I just can't put my finger on. The teeth look really sharp as does her hair, but the eyes look like they were soft and you tried to correct with sharpening. The model's cheeks are a tad bit over-processed ("Portrait Professional" by any chance?). And the nose is way too soft (IMHO). I can't really tell if it was just a really shallow DOF that was slightly off or if there was an actual focus issue here. It's not really bad, but to me it is distracting.

The second shot isn't nearly as bad in regards to this and beyond Robert's comments the only thing I would add is that I don't really care for the pose. Her expression...umm...loo​ks like she's watchin' the cat use the litter box or something. Not trying to be rude, but hopefully you get my point.

Peace,
Jim

Robert_Lay wrote in post #5481658
Rembrandt lighting in #1.
I guess it's a flash shot in both cases.
The flash is too hot in #1, giving hot spot on her hand.
Lighting should be from further away to avoid hot spots.
In #2 the lighting is too flat. Typical of Landscape oriented flash portraits.
Lighting is too contrasty in both.
Very nice pose in #1 - also nice pose and nice composition in #2.
Good color balance in both.

General recommendation for the future:
Try to get lighting either further back or with better diffusion. These were too hot and too contrasty. Note the too dark shadow under the chin in #2. Note also the too hot hand and wrist in #1 and the too dark shadows in the face. Beauty shots and shots of small children should have softer lighting with less contrast.

Two lights give better control over contrast and the 3-dimensionality.

Many thanks for you help Bob. Could I please just clarify some points?
What is Rembrandt lighting?

These were indeed flash pictures, taken with a shoot-through umbrella. You say that the lighting is too harsh, and yet you say that I should get the lighting further away - I was under the impression that the closer the lighting is, the softer it is. Is that not the case? Or is the hot hand the result of having the light too close? Should the light have been closer to the lens axis, and should I have used a reflector?

In picture 2, you say the lighting is too flat, but wasn't the problem with No 1 that the lighting was too contrasty? And why is this typical of landscape portraits?

Sorry for all the additional questions, but thanks for your help.

Walczak Photo wrote in post #5482738
The thing that's really catching my eye in #1 is there really looks like there's something odd going on with the focus that I just can't put my finger on. The teeth look really sharp as does her hair, but the eyes look like they were soft and you tried to correct with sharpening. The model's cheeks are a tad bit over-processed ("Portrait Professional" by any chance?). And the nose is way too soft (IMHO). I can't really tell if it was just a really shallow DOF that was slightly off or if there was an actual focus issue here. It's not really bad, but to me it is distracting.

The second shot isn't nearly as bad in regards to this and beyond Robert's comments the only thing I would add is that I don't really care for the pose. Her expression...umm...loo​ks like she's watchin' the cat use the litter box or something. Not trying to be rude, but hopefully you get my point.

Peace,
Jim

Thanks for you comments Jim. I was interested in your remarks about the focusing - here is the original file (jpg converted from RAW) with absolutely no sharpening or other PP. Does this do anything to your original comments?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Yes, I'd say the issues I'm seeing in the original post (the first image you posted) are a result of pp. Compared with the shot you just posted, that first shot really looks over-processed to me. -In my opinion- this model doesn't really have a bad complexion at all. If it were me...and I'm certainly no expert here, I would go back to the original file there (that second one you posted) and do some manual blemish and "imperfection" removal with the clone and/or patch tool (the 2 bumps there just to the right of her nose, a little around the chin, etc). I would do a little selective sharpening to her eyes (via a seperate layer so you can soften the edges of the sharpening) and then just a little over all sharpening to the whole image. You could also probably address a few of the contrast issues with the model's hand that Robert mentioned with a little creative use of the dodge/burn tool...just be careful as it's real easy to over-do. For that matter, the issue with the hand...you might even be able to fix that with just a slight color and/or saturation adjustment (again isolating the hand to a separate layer). To me the issue there isn't so much one of contrast specifically as much as the color of the skin in her hand really stands out against the color of her face.

I could certainly be wrong here, but to me now that I see "the original" it really looks like that first shot was ran thru a program such as "Portrait Professional" and the adjustments (especially "blemish removal") were simply too much. I think doing some basic manual adjustments instead would serve this image much better. I really think with better pp, this would be a very nice shot.

BTW...to address one of the questions you had for Robert, you are correct in that the further you move the light away from the subject, the harsher it tends to get (and the closer, the softer). That said, I think the issue here wasn't so much a matter of the distance of the light to the subject as much as a matter of just using a little more "finesse" with the lighting. Clearly I wasn't there and I didn't see how you shot this (and your images don't seem to contain any EXIF data) so I could be quite wrong here, but I almost get the impression that the contrast issue may have been more a matter of the power level of the flash as apposed to the distance to the subject. A full power "pop" from the flash with a smaller aperture versus a lower powered pop and a wider aperture, while they will both give you a correct "exposure" tend to create very different looks with the light (IMHO at least). In other words, using a lower power level on the flash and a wider aperture on the camera might have made a difference...but again since I don't know exactly how you did this, I could be very wrong. It's also possible that simply using a softbox instead of an umbrella may have made a difference too or even just using a larger umbrella...a lot of it is really subjective depending on the conditions of the shoot.

That said, to me the contrast of this image really doesn't look all that bad to me...again my biggest issue is more with the processing of that first post than anything.

Anyways, I hope this helps!
Peace,
Jim

Lighting and lighting control are excellent in both images, especially the 2nd.

#1. the lighting, pose and comp work for me.

#2. Awesome studio lighting technique, focus, and exposure. The pose you've chosen is commonly used mistakingly with many portraits and is called "the foot-ball-shoulders pose" (so called for obvious reasons). Your model is beautiful but her expression illudes to a lack of self confidence.

Both shots are keepers.

Here's my edit. Trying to even out the image without the overprocessed look.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Roy Mathers wrote in post #5483609
Many thanks for you help Bob. Could I please just clarify some points?
What is Rembrandt lighting?

Rembrandt is noted for a lighting recipe in portraits that has the light coming from above and to one side of the face such that the shadows fall diagonally across the face. This produces a shadow from the tip of the nose that projects downward and to one side at 45 degrees. It also produces a triangular shaped bright area on the far side cheek bone.

There are discussions of this lighting that can be found by Googling on Rembrandt lighting.

No - the closer the lighting is the more contrasty and harsh it is. Yes, the hot hand is directly due to the light being too close. I will not comment on where the light should be in relation to the lens axis - that's very dependant upon which light source you are speaking about and what you are trying to do with the light.

Flat lighting is light that is directly into the face as opposed to above or to one side. Flat lighting is usefull in weaker intensities for lightening or softening deep shadows. For example, if only one light is used, it will generally produce shadows too deep for portraits - so, you can apply a small amount of flat lighting or "fill" lighting from directly in front of the face to soften those shadows. The reason it is typical of landscape oriented portraits is that an on-camera flash looks right into the face in landscape orientation. With portrait orientation the on-camera flash must be on one side or the other - right?

All of that is explained in my tutorial.
*************Studio Portrait Lighting**************​*
Tutorial on Studio Portrait Lighting Using Two Lights, with Emphasis on Rembrandt Lighting:
http://www.zaffora.com​/W9DMK/PortraitLightin​g.htm
or the downloadable PDF version at:
http://www.zaffora.com​/W9DMK/PortraitLightin​g.pdf

Walczak Photo wrote in post #5485874
Yes, I'd say the issues I'm seeing in the original post (the first image you posted) are a result of pp. Compared with the shot you just posted, that first shot really looks over-processed to me. -In my opinion- this model doesn't really have a bad complexion at all. If it were me...and I'm certainly no expert here, I would go back to the original file there (that second one you posted) and do some manual blemish and "imperfection" removal with the clone and/or patch tool (the 2 bumps there just to the right of her nose, a little around the chin, etc). I would do a little selective sharpening to her eyes (via a seperate layer so you can soften the edges of the sharpening) and then just a little over all sharpening to the whole image. You could also probably address a few of the contrast issues with the model's hand that Robert mentioned with a little creative use of the dodge/burn tool...just be careful as it's real easy to over-do. For that matter, the issue with the hand...you might even be able to fix that with just a slight color and/or saturation adjustment (again isolating the hand to a separate layer). To me the issue there isn't so much one of contrast specifically as much as the color of the skin in her hand really stands out against the color of her face.

I could certainly be wrong here, but to me now that I see "the original" it really looks like that first shot was ran thru a program such as "Portrait Professional" and the adjustments (especially "blemish removal") were simply too much. I think doing some basic manual adjustments instead would serve this image much better. I really think with better pp, this would be a very nice shot.

BTW...to address one of the questions you had for Robert, you are correct in that the further you move the light away from the subject, the harsher it tends to get (and the closer, the softer). That said, I think the issue here wasn't so much a matter of the distance of the light to the subject as much as a matter of just using a little more "finesse" with the lighting. Clearly I wasn't there and I didn't see how you shot this (and your images don't seem to contain any EXIF data) so I could be quite wrong here, but I almost get the impression that the contrast issue may have been more a matter of the power level of the flash as apposed to the distance to the subject. A full power "pop" from the flash with a smaller aperture versus a lower powered pop and a wider aperture, while they will both give you a correct "exposure" tend to create very different looks with the light (IMHO at least). In other words, using a lower power level on the flash and a wider aperture on the camera might have made a difference...but again since I don't know exactly how you did this, I could be very wrong. It's also possible that simply using a softbox instead of an umbrella may have made a difference too or even just using a larger umbrella...a lot of it is really subjective depending on the conditions of the shoot.

That said, to me the contrast of this image really doesn't look all that bad to me...again my biggest issue is more with the processing of that first post than anything.

Anyways, I hope this helps!
Peace,
Jim

Thanks Jim for taking the time for this comprehensive reply. What you say makes an awful lot of sense. I didn't use Portrait Professional for the PP - it was just me being clumsy I suppose, but I shall certainly follow your advice about adjusting the tone on the hand and also the sharpening technique you advocate. I shall probably try a softbox next time.

Your comment about the aperture makes sense also. I used f/8 but, on reflection, I perhaps should have used f/5.6 or f/4 and had the light further away.

Right, I'm away now to fix the picture as per your advice (and keep the skin treatment to just the healing brush).

Thanks again for your time and advice.

LeuceDeuce wrote in post #5486097
Here's my edit. Trying to even out the image without the overprocessed look.

Thanks for your edit LeuceDeuce - what exactly did you do?

Thank you for your full reply Robert. I think I didn't make it clear when I said it was a flash shot that I meant a studio flash on a stand. The lighting was, therefore, essentially the same in both pictures.

There is one thing I'm still confused about. I've always understood that the closer the light source is, the softer it is, and the further away it is, the harsher (and Jim corroborates this above) - but you say that this isn't the case?

Thanks for your help - and I'm off to look at your tutorial (for which, thanks for the link)

Roy Mathers wrote in post #5487088
Thanks for your edit LeuceDeuce - what exactly did you do?

1. Duplicate background layer.
2. Noiseware set to Portrait default on the copy.
3. Set the opacity of the copy to about 30% (enough to soften, but not destroy skin texture).
4. Add layer mask to hide everything but her skin (no hair, eyes, lips, teeth, etc...)
5. Apply hiraloam (high radius, low amount) USM to the background layer with settings of: radius 30, amount 15%, threshold 0 (the sharpening would affect everything but the skin).
6. Flatten.
7. Duplicate background layer.
8. Apply Image using Green Channel in Darken blend mode to copy (the green channel is your friend when bringing detail to people).
9. Set blend mode of copy to Luminance.
10. Drop the opacity to 25%.
11. Flatten.
12. Duplicate background layer.
13. Apply Image using Green Channel in Darken blend mode to copy.
14. Set blend mode of copy to Luminance.
15. Drop the opacity to 25%.
16. Mask the copy layer to apply the darkened area to the hand only.
17. Flatten.
18. Spot healing on the blemishes. Where I wasn't sure if it was a mole or a blemish I didn't obliterate it, but I did soften it.
19. Save.

You could touch up her teeth a bit if you wanted too, but she's got good teeth as it is and I didn't think it was required.
Another optional is to clean up the fly away hair.

Wow! Thanks. That's another technique for me to try!

midnitejam wrote in post #5486012
Lighting and lighting control are excellent in both images, especially the 2nd.

#1. There's too much detail in her complexion for my tastes. But the lighting, pose and comp work for me.

#2. Awesome studio lighting technique, focus, and exposure. The pose you've chosen is commonly used mistakingly with many portraits and is called "the foot-ball-shoulders pose" (so called for obvious reasons). Your model is beautiful but her expression illudes to a lack of self confidence.

Both shots are keepers.

Thanks for your complimentary remarks midnitejam. When you say there's too much detail in her complexion, did you mean in my original post (the one that had been PP'd) or my subsequent unprocessed one? And did you mean Picture 1 or 2 (or both). I'm sorry there are more questions, but I'm interested in your opinion.