Please, tell me if I'm doing it right.

Just bought some lighting from MPEX here in Columbus Oh, got it out to play with it a little bit. From what I've read around here, I pulled some basic info on about where to start.

The following are with a Westcott 43'' umbrella (bounced), and a Lumopro LP120, all sitting on a Interfit 8.5 light stand. Lighting was 45 degrees out from subject, and 45 up from head of subject.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Looks great! Maybe a teensy bit overexposed on the red channel (where the kerchief goes pinkish right at the top of the head). Might want to work in a reflector on the camera right.
Also if your getting shutter speeds all the way up to 1/200 at ISO 200 I would go ahead and shoot at ISO 100 at 1/100 this will give you better image quality overall.

In complete contradiction with Digital_zen I would keep your shutter speed at 1/200 (this kills the ambient light), change your ISO to 100 (less noise) and use a smaller aperture.

I would also consider a reflector camera right and possibly bringing the light source down a wee bit so you get some bigger catchlights in the subjects eyes.

CeeJayCee wrote in post #9149465
In complete contradiction with Digital_zen I would keep your shutter speed at 1/200 (this kills the ambient light), change your ISO to 100 (less noise) and use a smaller aperture.

I would also consider a reflector camera right and possibly bringing the light source down a wee bit so you get some bigger catchlights in the subjects eyes.

That`s some great info I`m new to this and find this type of info to be very valuable. Thanks.

Based on the histograms, the exposures look OK.
Based on the shadow under her Nose the light is about in the proper position.
Based on the way the shadows are filled and the back of her Tee shirt, it appears that she was near a wall or something else that was bouncing some light back.

There is some contradictory advise here regarding exposure with flash.
Remember A) there are three ways to control exposure with a digital camera 1)ISO setting, 2) aperture, 3) shutter speed. B) With ambient light all three can be used. C) With Flash, whether Speedlite or studio strobe Shutter speed has no impact on exposure.

Also, remember that noise in the shadow areas is caused by the signal to noise ratio. Under exposure has more impact on noise in an image than ISO setting. i.e. an image shot at ISO 1600 that is properly exposed will have less noise in the shadows than an under exposed image shot at ISO 100 when both are brought into proper exposure range in post processing.

If that sounds wrong to you do a simple test. Take something white, a paper towel, and something black. Make sure both have texture. The put them on the ground or whatever and make a series of images at ISO 100 ranging from well under-exposed (histogram crammed to the left) to over exposed (histogram crammed to the right). Then do the same at ISO 1600. Bring all the images into your selected software and look at them. Adjust them to "proper exposure" and look at the shadow areas.

Back to your images, you may want to fiddle with them in post a bit to get the skin just right, but overall these look well exposed.

The edges of the shadows look a bit sharp. How far was the umbrella from the subject. Generally, for portraits the closer the better. that's one reason I like shoot throughs. With a bounce umbrella you are restricted by the shaft protruding toward the subject. which means, even if the shaft is right at the edge of the frame the umbrella (light source) is the length of the shaft away.

Digital_zen wrote in post #9149174
Looks great! Maybe a teensy bit overexposed on the red channel (where the kerchief goes pinkish right at the top of the head). Might want to work in a reflector on the camera right.
Also if your getting shutter speeds all the way up to 1/200 at ISO 200 I would go ahead and shoot at ISO 100 at 1/100 this will give you better image quality overall.

Changing the shutter speed will have very little effect on the flash exposure,,in this case probably none what so ever..

There isn't a lot of difference in exposure between these images and dropping the exposure back to 100 ISO from 200 ISO will only lead to under exposure unless you open your lens up one stop..

CeeJay, your advice actually only counters mine in that you would maintain the SS, drop the ISO and stop down at the lens instead, which will give 1 1/3 to 2 stops underexposure to what he has now, which might be too underexposed.
As previously stated the red channel is blown, they could stand to be exposed at another 1/2-maybe as much as 1 stop under. The slower shutter speed would help bring in a little ambient, lowering the contrast in the shadows a bit.

dmward wrote in post #9150264
Based on the histograms, the exposures look OK.
Based on the shadow under her Nose the light is about in the proper position.
Based on the way the shadows are filled and the back of her Tee shirt, it appears that she was near a wall or something else that was bouncing some light back.

There is some contradictory advise here regarding exposure with flash.
Remember A) there are three ways to control exposure with a digital camera 1)ISO setting, 2) aperture, 3) shutter speed. B) With ambient light all three can be used. C) With Flash, whether Speedlite or studio strobe Shutter speed has no impact on exposure.

Also, remember that noise in the shadow areas is caused by the signal to noise ratio. Under exposure has more impact on noise in an image than ISO setting. i.e. an image shot at ISO 1600 that is properly exposed will have less noise in the shadows than an under exposed image shot at ISO 100 when both are brought into proper exposure range in post processing.

If that sounds wrong to you do a simple test. Take something white, a paper towel, and something black. Make sure both have texture. The put them on the ground or whatever and make a series of images at ISO 100 ranging from well under-exposed (histogram crammed to the left) to over exposed (histogram crammed to the right). Then do the same at ISO 1600. Bring all the images into your selected software and look at them. Adjust them to "proper exposure" and look at the shadow areas.

Back to your images, you may want to fiddle with them in post a bit to get the skin just right, but overall these look well exposed.

The edges of the shadows look a bit sharp. How far was the umbrella from the subject. Generally, for portraits the closer the better. that's one reason I like shoot throughs. With a bounce umbrella you are restricted by the shaft protruding toward the subject. which means, even if the shaft is right at the edge of the frame the umbrella (light source) is the length of the shaft away.

Thats a whole lot of information. All good! I appreciate it.

The light was 45degrees out from her, and 45degrees up from her face.

The umbrella was 3ft from her, and it is convertible to a shoot through.

The backwall was 4ft from her, and the nearest object to her right 3ft is deep stained cabinets.

When you say the shadows look sharp, I dont understand what you mean by that.

Based on my setting so far, you suggest keeping the shutter where im at, change the fstop in to the 7-8 range and dropping the ISO to 100?

Digital_zen wrote in post #9151740
CeeJay, your advice actually only counters mine in that you would maintain the SS, drop the ISO and stop down at the lens instead, which will give 1 1/3 to 2 stops underexposure to what he has now, which might be too underexposed.

Sorry, by smaller aperture I meant smaller f-stop value (like f4 instead of f11) not actual smaller aperture. I keep forgetting to express that clearer. The only reason I meant use a smaller f-value and larger aperture size was to get a shallower depth of field so that there is more separation from the background.

CeeJayCee wrote in post #9163828
Sorry, by smaller aperture I meant smaller f-stop value (like f4 instead of f11) not actual smaller aperture. I keep forgetting to express that clearer. The only reason I meant use a smaller f-value and larger aperture size was to get a shallower depth of field so that there is more separation from the background.

Understandable with shallower depth of field. In doing this wouldnt you brighten your result? I looked at my images posted on another monitor and noticed the reds were a little blown.

So using f4 and ISO 100 with a shutter speed of 200, would you still power the lights 1/1?

CliffordPhotography wrote in post #9188833
So using f4 and ISO 100 with a shutter speed of 200, would you still power the lights 1/1?

This depends on so many factors: the size of the light source, the distance from the light to the subject, etc, etc.

Basically, start with those settings with the strobes on half power and vary the power up or down to suit. If it's still too bright adjust the aperture accordingly.