STICKY:  How to photograph a high school Senior

LisaJH wrote in post #13527217
Yep! Natural light! I did use a white reflector on some of the back lit shots.

Here are a few more...



85L on the first 2, and 70-200L II on the third.

You rock. Cool comp on that last one.

Lisa you need to share some techniques about the nAtural light shooting. Like how do you get nice exposure on the face unless you using a reflector close by. Some tops on pp would be great.

bobbyz wrote in post #13527965
Lisa you need to share some techniques about the nAtural light shooting. Like how do you get nice exposure on the face unless you using a reflector close by. Some tops on pp would be great.

My guess would be layer masks with curves and exposure adjustments.

Edit: also time of day, shooting in light shade, etc

charro callado wrote in post #13527974
My guess would be layer masks with curves and exposure adjustments.

It has to be pp as even with reflector I have problems getting things right. I wish she can help with some of her tips for this kind of shooting.

guys i have to say it is more PP than the reflector..

but as i always have stated:

Ways to take a photograph has been beaten over and over, and there are only so many ways to light up a subject and all iterations have been exhausted. So it leaves innovations in Post processing, Compositions, and the ART of photography lays with the Artist him or her self.. (the jaw dropping photo created in the artist mind is conceived way before the actual lighting set up is done and the execution of the conceived photo is the easy part.. then the post processing becomes the signature of each Artist.)"

so with most they probably wont give away the PP methods because it is their signature..

LisaJH wrote in post #13525883
My senior girl from tonight...loved her! SO easy to photograph and had an amazing smile. These were shot with a variety of lenses (16-35L, 50, 85L, 70-200L II) and natural light. I have more (and will be putting up more) on my FB page and eventually my blog when I finish them up.

Love these....and the one in the second set wit the framing.

Quick question though, why didn't you try an find a giant glass jar to stick her in with gumballs because we all know you are so jealous of people who do that.

phamster wrote in post #13528039
guys i have to say it is more PP than the reflector..

but as i always have stated:

Ways to take a photograph has been beaten over and over, and there are only so many ways to light up a subject and all iterations have been exhausted. So it leaves innovations in Post processing, Compositions, and the ART of photography lays with the Artist him or her self.. (the jaw dropping photo created in the artist mind is conceived way before the actual lighting set up is done and the execution of the conceived photo is the easy part.. then the post processing becomes the signature of each Artist.)"

so with most they probably wont give away the PP methods because it is their signature..

100% agree.

Once you learn how to light, post processing is the trick. And it has gone very artistic in the last few years. Much like what lisa has posted. Really nice work. You should see what some of the PPA portait guys/gals are starting to do. Crazy good post processing skills all though i think many are going way overboard with the skin.....much too smooth for my taste

Ha! Tiffany...I totally brought I giant glass vase full of candy canes but she refused to get naked and jump in...not sure why? :P

I do give tips and hints as to my PP'ing here and there, but Phamster is correct in that I'm (and most photographers I'd imagine) not going to post step by step instructions as to how I get these photos. It is a combination of good lighting and post processing though; I'll say that much.

bobbyz wrote in post #13527991
It has to be pp as even with reflector I have problems getting things right. I wish she can help with some of her tips for this kind of shooting.

I'm sure it is. Lisa has some of the most consummate "natural-looking" processing techniques I've ever seen.

When I shoot a scene that is pushing the dynamic range of my sensor, I try the best I can to split the difference in an attempt to save information. Once I get the image into photoshop, I can mask out areas that are underexposed (like the subject in the example below) and apply various adjustments: curves, levels, exposure, color balance...whatever it takes. It can be time consuming but that's somewhat of an appropriate tradeoff for not dealing with on location lighting.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Its not that much of a secret guys/gals. Really depends on How much time and effort you want to put into it for that look. Here is a video i found with a quick search on You tube. Lot of it depends on the software you want to buy and how artistic you want to get. I like lisas look a lot. I also like Phams a lot as well as what tiff does. Everybody is different so find something thats gonna work for you and try to develop different looks that you can use that are fast. Time is money I think if your going to go that direction there are many ways to go.

We are a 2 team show so with 22 weddings on the books and developing a family/senior portrait business, we dont have as much time as others to do this. I have been comtemplating nick ware for a while now. Good stuff.

Take a look at this. Impressive and the guy uses nic software. about a $400.00 invstement to get the package. Then its all layering and masking.

http://www.youtube.com …d0ko_rzII&featu​re=related

I always wonder what some of my photos could look like with the right processing. Thanks for the link Mike. Pretty impressive indeed.

umphotography wrote in post #13528196
Its not that much of a secret guys/gals. Really depends on How much time and effort you want to put into it for that look.

Quite true. Out here on the east coast the senior portrait business is almost nonexistent compared to the midwest - I've found that people here are not going to dish out a couple hundred bucks unless the photos have a very trendy commercial look. What that means for my shooting style is that I will generally go for only 3 or 4 photos from a session, which allows me to spend upwards of an hour per photo working it on the back end (which for me is in Photoshop). Half if not more of that time is spent on skin retouching, which is really appreciated when the client orders a large print of just a head shot

Photoshop is what separates photographers. Its not what comes off the camera anymore. While lighting is so important to get a good starting point, Photoshop is where the real work is done. Don't let anyone kid you. Go to any Professional photography print competition and you will not see any single image that has not been radically changed with photoshop from what came off the camera.

I wasn't asking step by step directions. Sorry if I came as asking for the secret sauce. My point was mainly when someone says natural light only (to me stressing that part) you think how they do that. Maybe they should say natural light with heavy dose of pp. I don't mind pp but somehow mentioning only natural light part some how doesn't clearly show what else is involved. This is how to thread not to show pretty pictures alone IMHO. Phamster use to show setup behind the scene shots and I think we all learn a lot from them. Maybe just an example shot of before pp and after pp will help. Another thing that helps is telling how much time involved in that pp. Just a rough idea. Then folks like me who are rookies in pp can see what is involved.

Mike I will look at that link you provided.

J Kyle - thanks for the example shot. That helps clarify things a lot.