Critique requested

Greyhound Rick

Hello everyone,

Im experimenting with some off camera flash and this one was shot tonight with a 3 light set up.

My daughter, Valerie, had no make up on and was not thrilled about posing for this, but I wanted to shoot her anyway just to get your help with the lighting.

IMO, the lighting is OK, but I think the hair light is too harsh, there is too much shadow on left side (camera right) and theres not enough backlight on her right side (camera left).

If you wouldnt mind can you please tell me what adjustments you would make to this and suggestions on how to do so?

I have an SB-800 shooting thru an umbrella camera left, a background strobe, a hair light strobe and a reflector camera right.

All speedlights were set to TTL and I did not snoot the hair light. I just zoomed in to 105mm.

Thanks. Im new to this so Ive got a LONG way to go. Criticism is very well received so dont worry about being harsh. I dont mind AT ALL!!

my best,

Rick




thanks very much for taking the time to help me with this!

rick

clemensphoto's

I'm no expert , but overall it looks good. The lighting on the right side (her left) looks a little harsh though.

Swartzy

Hi. First off...having and using a light meter for this type of shooting will provide you with a staring point. The right side is too "hot", meaning the exposure is a bit too much for conducive light modeling.

Here's the gig: Too often, we set up lights thinking we can "nail" the shot. A little light camera right, a little light up above, a little light camera left. Lets talk reality for a moment (please forgive this long post but someone has to address these issues):

First off: From the very inception of a shoot is called "Post processing". Think about this for a moment. Does the individual take a shower before they are to have their photo taken? Do they apply make up? Do they fix their hair? Do they brush their teeth? In essence, that is the very start of "Post Proceessing". Forget the idiotic idea of "getting it right in camera" nonsense for now.

Now, you as the photographer, have a job to do...create an image to "enhance" the beginning work that they have worked very hard at achieving...hair, eyes, makeup, etc. You need to light them, pose them, angle them, portray them in the best manner that they look....INCREDIBLE.

It's not about light ratios, nor about how pretty they are. Your job is simply to make them look wonderful regardless of what is there. How do we do that as photographers? First, we look at the overall facial features...nose, eyes (one larger than the other for instance), cheek bones, lips, teeth...see where I'm going? One side of the face may be more appealing than the other. Do we want short lighting, loop lighting, broad lighting, Rembrant lighting? We need to determine what looks best for those features...often times it may take taking many frames to figure it out but in all reality, it is our responsibilty. So...let's have at it.

Here, in this photo we have a few things that could be improved upon: #1..almost square shoulders....here's a rule of thumb: if they have 2 of anything...never let them be the same. #2: Expression....make it believeable..not "canned" as this on looks...a real, genuine smile...not and "almost smile". #3: The hair is almost a porkipine (sp?)......youzers...fix it. #4....fix that skin and blemishes...forget about what was there....make her BEAUTIFUL!....APPEALING...MARVOLOUS.....you get the idea..you don't have to go over the top...just make her look great. We deal in the world of "optimal"....we are not PJ shooters for some newspaper. People want portraits that make them out to be awesome...that's our job. Post processing starts at the time of the shoot...all the way to the final image after enhancements.

I also realize this is a first attempt and as you do more...the better your ability will become. I don't mean to be harsh....just wanted to share thoughts in real application. I could post numerous examples but don't think that would be of much aid......study lighting...posing and overall post processing tecniques. This shot isn't "bad' at all..especially for beginning the gig.....I want to encourage you to continue studying and experimenting as that's how we learn...doing...do do do do ...reading is great for concepts...but most importantly......experiment in "real" application...try stuff..get high, get low, get wide, get tight....TRY STUFF. That will be your greatest teacher.

Good luck...sincerely,

Swartzy

Greyhound Rick

thank you clemensphoto's and Swartzy!

clemensphoto's---yes, I will turn down the hair light (camera right) as to not be so harsh. Great idea!

Swartzy---First off, I appreciate your candidness and in no way feel you are being harsh. I asked for input and thats what you are giving me and the only way Im going to get better is to listen to people like you and do what you say!! So...many thanks and I hope you will continue to be direct!!

I will:

1. Not have her shoulders square
2. Get a genuine smile
3. Have her do her make-up and hair for the next shot. I guess I shouldnt have made her do this tonight as she was not ready for a portrait but i was very anxious to test my set up.

I will try again tomorrow and PLEASE let me know what you think!

many thanks and my best,

Rick

bahandi

lol...
i don't come out of hiding too much on here as i really don't have much input to give, but Swartzy, did you even read what the poster was asking?

lol... those WERE great comments and critique, but I don't think he was asking critique per se, but observations of his lighting.

anyway, from a total novice, overall, except that one hotspot on her headband, the picture seems to be well exposed.

ps. Your daughter is beautiful without makeup and with a 'fake' smile on.

Scott_Quier

As Swartzy has already pointed out, this image fails as a portrait. But, that's not what you were into when you posted the image. It's a lighthing test shot. My comments address it as such:

You have a good example of short lighthing going here. I think your reflector is just about perfectly placed - the shadows on the left side of her nose are, to my eye, just about the perfect density. If you're worried about the shadow on her neck, you might try another relfect down and in front to fill from underneath - I've not tried that but it might work.

The hair light needs to be dialed down a full stop or two. Position change: eleveate it more and move it further around behind your daughter.

Your main light looks very good to me, both position and power - I might lower it a touch to pull the shadow from the nose up a little bit off her lip.

I also agree with bahandi - your daughter is gorgeous - very photogenic. I don't think make-up will have dramatic impact on her beauty, but it'll be interesting to see.

zoomer

Pretty close.
As others mentioned the light from the rear right is to strong and should be from higher up or more from the rear for a hair light.
Other than that the lighting is pretty good.

Swartzy

i don't come out of hiding too much on here as i really don't have much input to give, but Swartzy, did you even read what the poster was asking?

lol... those WERE great comments and critique, but I don't think he was asking critique per se, but observations of his lighting.

Heheh....sorry......I sometimes get wound up after looking at so many posts that I was addressing a much larger audience....it just happened to fall in this thread.

Yea, the question really is about the light and am aware your daughter was not quite ready or willing for this. The overall light is good....the left side is obviously too hot. When using a reflector think of the way the light is bouncing...and how soft or harsh when considering placement. Something to try: place the reflector close to her left side (camera right) equal in height to the umbrella camera left. Your key light looks great so all that's necessary is the "fill" side adjustment.

Again, sorry for the rant as it ended here......but should be useful as you start making portraits.

Greyhound Rick

Thank you Scott, zoomer and Swartzy for your comments. I appreciate all of them and will use your expertise to do better!!

Im going to make some adjustments and re-take the portrait and would welcome some further critque!!

Scott, other than the changes that Swartzy mentioned as you referred to in your post, how can I get this portrait out of the "failure" catagory? Do you think with those changes mentioned and having Valerie put some make up on and fixing her hair would get me there (or at least closer?).

Thanks for your help and honestly. I have VERY thick skin so dont worry about telling me like it is. I know thats the only way Im going to improve!

my best and hope to hear from you soon!

Rick

Scott_Quier

Greyhound Rick wrote:

Thank you Scott, zoomer and Swartzy for your comments. I appreciate all of them and will use your expertise to do better!!

Im going to make some adjustments and re-take the portrait and would welcome some further critque!!

Scott, other than the changes that Swartzy mentioned as you referred to in your post, how can I get this portrait out of the "failure" catagory? Do you think with those changes mentioned and having Valerie put some make up on and fixing her hair would get me there (or at least closer?).

Thanks for your help and honestly. I have VERY thick skin so dont worry about telling me like it is. I know thats the only way Im going to improve!

my best and hope to hear from you soon!

Rick

My understanding/sense is that portraits come in two basic "flavors" and, somethings, a mixture of the two.

The first, or more "traditional" is intended to show the subject(s) in the best light possible - much as outlined by Swartzy. For example, with ladies (of any age) - after approprriate makeup has been applied, hair coifed, clothes slected and arranged to hang on her body correctly, etc. Guys are much the same, save for the makup and even that's been changing of late.

The second flavor doesn't care so much about putting the best face on things but is more interested in depicting some aspect of the life of the subject. In this case, the hair, clothes, etc are what they are. The portrait stands on the strength of personality that shines through.

The image in post #1 falls in neither of these categories. As you alluded to in your description, tt is not particularly flattering as your daughter did not have time to prepare and, in fact, protested some at having the picture made. As an aside, I'm surprised you are still breathing:D On the flip side, this image really shows nothing about her character, personality, or her life.

By way of example, here's a self-portrait I made a short while ago. Is it flattering? Not in the least. It exposes an aspect of my home life. Me, watching TV (see the remote?) and the DW working a cross-stitch project. Her dog on the couch next to her, and we're close enough to engage in conversation should the impulse grab us, as it quite often does.


Another I took about 10 days ago of a young man wanting to break into the local theater scene. He contracted with me for some headshots (he wanted only B&W on a very light background). He came to my studio properly prepared and groomed, energetic, interested - all those things a photographer loves in a model/subject. I would like to think a bit of his personality comes through as well - he's all class. He's well mannered, well educated, with good sense of humor, a good head on his shoulders, and a good spirit and value set.


Are these optimal? Heavens no! But I do believe them to be successful to their intended purpose.

I HTH and that I've answered your question(s).

Greyhound Rick

Thanks Scott. Im going to get back to work on this after my REAL job today and hope that I can post something in the next day or two. I also am very thankful for your attention and help. I hope I can repay you someday.

my best,

Rick

Scott_Quier

Greyhound Rick wrote:

Thanks Scott. Im going to get back to work on this after my REAL job today and hope that I can post something in the next day or two. I also am very thankful for your attention and help. I hope I can repay you someday.

my best,

Rick

The only repayment I need is for you to pay it forward. When you encounter someone with a question to which you know the answer - share.

I look forward to seeing what you do.

Greyhound Rick

Heres another attempt with Valerie and also one with Valerie and Natalie. Please let me know if you think these are better and ways to improve. I value you input VERY much and appreciate it as well.

My best to all,

Rick



Valerie








Valerie and Natalie

Swartzy

Hey Rick! Nice lighting all around. Pretty smiles too The light camera right (see hair) is just a tiny bit hot but not anything that is a distraction...it may be more of a personal prefference at this juncture. Lighting is one of those things to where you show 10 people and they'll all have different opinions as to "what you should have done" kind of thing. As you look at many studio examples here and elsewhere you'll see that some like high key, low key, or a mix of 8 lights, each focused and flagged on particular parts of the subject and background.

Keep going and messing around as working with lighting is so fun! Good job!

Scott_Quier

WOW - such a difference!!! These are soooo much better than the first go around it's like night and day.

I have to disagree with Swartzy about the light to camera right - I think it's just about spot-on. It might have benefited from being a larger/softer light source but WOW!

The only real nit I see is in the second image. With the key on camera left you have broad lighting on Valerie (whose face is more round than long) and short lighting on Natalie (whose face is more long than round). Given the shape of their faces (and, don't get me wrong, they are both gorgeous ladies), if you had reversed their postions you would have had more flattering light on both of them.

Greyhound Rick

Swartzy wrote:

Hey Rick! Nice lighting all around. Pretty smiles too The light camera right (see hair) is just a tiny bit hot but not anything that is a distraction...it may be more of a personal prefference at this juncture. Lighting is one of those things to where you show 10 people and they'll all have different opinions as to "what you should have done" kind of thing. As you look at many studio examples here and elsewhere you'll see that some like high key, low key, or a mix of 8 lights, each focused and flagged on particular parts of the subject and background.

Keep going and messing around as working with lighting is so fun! Good job!

Thanks Swartzy. I appreciate it very much. Yeah, Ive got to get the hair light turned down. I dont know why I like it so hot, but youre right, its a bit much! I also think I need to get more light in the subjects eyes too.

Im going to keep trying to get this down, but after shooting racing greyhounds for a while this is a whole new ball game for me! Lots of fun, especially with people like you helping me!

thank you!!

Rick

Greyhound Rick

Scott_Quier wrote:

WOW - such a difference!!! These are soooo much better than the first go around it's like night and day.

I have to disagree with Swartzy about the light to camera right - I think it's just about spot-on. It might have benefited from being a larger/softer light source but WOW!

The only real nit I see is in the second image. With the key on camera left you have broad lighting on Valerie (whose face is more round than long) and short lighting on Natalie (whose face is more long than round). Given the shape of their faces (and, don't get me wrong, they are both gorgeous ladies), if you had reversed their postions you would have had more flattering light on both of them.

Thank you Scott! Im glad you like the rim light. I guess its all personal preference and I kinda like it on the hot side. Maybe I'll just leave it as is. I see exactly what you are talking about regarding them switching positions. Great idea!

I'll keep working at this and see what I can come up with and like I mentioned before, with experts like yourself helping me it sure is nice because I have no clue what Im doing!

Thanks for helping this noob and I always look forward to hearing from you!! Ive learned one thing for sure.....this aint like shooting greyhound racing!!!!

take care,

Rick

ChatKat

Measuring light
Rick,

Two of my favorite dgrinners are giving your good advice. I think the light is a bit hot too.

Are you using the histogram at all? That would be helpful to determine the exposure. I am not a Nikon person, but, the white balance in the first made the headband grey so the color is off a bit - not hugely noticible, but key to watch for as well. Light ratios are important too, but getting the basics down are first.

Greyhound Rick

ChatKat wrote:

Rick,

Two of my favorite dgrinners are giving your good advice. I think the light is a bit hot too.

Are you using the histogram at all? That would be helpful to determine the exposure. I am not a Nikon person, but, the white balance in the first made the headband grey so the color is off a bit - not hugely noticible, but key to watch for as well. Light ratios are important too, but getting the basics down are first.

Thank you Kathy!!

I dont use the histogram much, I do look at it, but I think most of my settings and PP come from just eyeballing the image and judging from that what looks right.

Will start looking at the histogram more often....thanks!!

I always use Auto WB and should start fine tuning that a bit per your observations on the colors being off a bit.

thanks again Kathy. Im lucky to have you folks help me!

take care,

Rick

Scott_Quier

ChatKat wrote:

Rick,

Two of my favorite dgrinners are giving your good advice. I think the light is a bit hot too.

Are you using the histogram at all? That would be helpful to determine the exposure. I am not a Nikon person, but, the white balance in the first made the headband grey so the color is off a bit - not hugely noticible, but key to watch for as well. Light ratios are important too, but getting the basics down are first.

Kathy has made a couple of good points here.

1. Use the histogram, both when making the exposure and when doing your PP. Doing so can save you so much trouble.

2. WB - auto WB may or may not be reliable - usually not. What works well is some sort of known standard. There is a recent DGrin thread (here) dealing with such tools. Take a look - some good information to be had there.

Greyhound Rick

Scott_Quier wrote:

Kathy has made a couple of good points here.

1. Use the histogram, both when making the exposure and when doing your PP. Doing so can save you so much trouble.

2. WB - auto WB may or may not be reliable - usually not. What works well is some sort of known standard. There is a recent DGrin thread (here) dealing with such tools. Take a look - some good information to be had there.

thank you Scott!

Do you use unsharp mask much with your images? I understand that you have to be careful with it as not to sharpen too much, especially with portraits, but I would really like to know your view when it comes to UM.

thanks Scott. A real pleasure to hear from you!

Rick

Scott_Quier

Greyhound Rick wrote:

thank you Scott!

Do you use unsharp mask much with your images? I understand that you have to be careful with it as not to sharpen too much, especially with portraits, but I would really like to know your view when it comes to UM.

thanks Scott. A real pleasure to hear from you!

Rick

I sharpen every image. The anti-alias filter that is in the lightpath of your camera (between your lens and the sensor) purposely blurs your image - it's the manufacturer's intent to do this. This filter helps to limit the occurance of moire patterns in photos that include straight lines (man-made objects). The sharpening is needed to couter-act that.

I usually use a mixture of USM and Fade Unsharp Mask to limit the USM to the luminosity. May I suggest you acquire a book, Scott Kelby's 7-Point System for Adobe Photoshop CS3, 978-0-321-50192-9. SK covers his sharpening technique on pages 12 - 17. Lots of other great information in tha book as well.

Greyhound Rick

Thanks Scott!

I dont use Photoshop any longer. I just use Capture NX and adjust exposure, straighten, crop and UM. Ive got a lot to learn in PP, but I really like NX for Nikon as I believe its RAW converter is the best of the PP programs.

As always, thanks for the tips!

my best,

rick