My SP - A day late and a dollar short

Scott_Quier

In Jeffreaux's SP thread, divamum told me that I had to post mine.

So here it is. Understand, these are not 100% satisfactory, they were taken to test the lighting on the set and to see how well I was able to protect the white seamless from spill - hence the darker right side (there's been no vignette applied to these).

1. This is pretty much the way I see myself, happy with an impish grin.


2. But, I'm afraid this is the way other' see me - with the readers


For those that care, these were taken ISO 100, f/11, 1/250 at 99mm with my EF 24-105 f/4L with only the two "subject" strobes firing.

Mistakes I see in thees?

• The model didn't use any make-up and he sure does need it. I didn't realize it until I looked at these, but I'm starting(?) to show the signs of age - I've got age spots and un-even skin tones all over the place? :cry
• Running a comb through the hair might have been a good idea. These were taken right after getting everything set up and I was running a little warm (hence the warm cast to the skin, but note the background is a neutral gray).
• The main light should have been elevated a bit more
• I might have dialed down the fill light (camera left) a bit more for a little more contrasty shadows, but these aren't bad.
• Short lighting might have been a little more flattering to the (short, fat, old) model than this broad lighting.

Oh, and before anyone says something about it, that bright spot above my left eye is a burn scar I during some training some 10 years ago.

And, just to show you how sharp this lens can be (yes, a coke bottle bottom is likely to be sharp at f/11, but this lens is sharp at f/5.6 as well) this is a 100% (800x800 pixel) crop:


The reason why this post is a week or 10 days after everyone else's is because I was in the middle of setting up this high-key, shoot on white studio set.


This set is built from three 4'x8' sheets of "white tile board", a roll of 9' seamless white, 4 AB800 strobes, and a couple of closet bi-fold doors. The bi-folds were painted white on the far side and black on the camera side. This allows them to pull double duty - gobo the strobes (as above) or to serve as either large light reflectors or light subtractors.

I got the idea from a series of posts on Zack Arias' site

As always, C&C is more than welcome!

Swartzy

Hey Scott.....it's you it's you! :D:D. Now, here's a suggestion.....and only a suggestion. The lighting is even, yes. The spill to the bg is good, especially since it's white to begin with..the gobos are doing well. I would purposely shift and model the light that would enhance your facial features. Try a short light set up. Yes, this works well for women but many times I've found it works great for a guy too....a matter of the proper ratio and light envelopement from the key. Try one with a key and reflector using the 2nd softbox at 1/4 power from beneath, CR. Also, possibly gel the bg and subdue the output.

Don't fret...I still have mine to do yet....if I can ever get back to the studio cause I'm not going outside... It's freeeezin out there.

Scott_Quier

Swartzy wrote:

Hey Scott.....it's you it's you! :D:D. Now, here's a suggestion.....and only a suggestion. The lighting is even, yes. The spill to the bg is good, especially since it's white to begin with..the gobos are doing well. I would purposely shift and model the light that would enhance your facial features. Try a short light set up. Yes, this works well for women but many times I've found it works great for a guy too....a matter of the proper ratio and light envelopement from the key. Try one with a key and reflector using the 2nd softbox at 1/4 power from beneath, CR. Also, possibly gel the bg and subdue the output.

Don't fret...I still have mine to do yet....if I can ever get back to the studio cause I'm not going outside... It's freeeezin out there.

The light's not even actually, it's a good 1:2 ratio. And I completely agree with you about the short lighting - see the last note in my list of "mistakes". But, I think I like your idea about a reflector and some light from beneath - thanks for that idea! I'll try that tomorrow (if the DW will let me out of the house - studio is not in my house) and see if something can be improved!

As for gelling the background - I don't have the materials right now and there are some other tricks I think I'm going to try in post (see about 1/2 down this page for a clue where I'm going).

sweet caroline

Scott, I'm so glad to see you here! Very sharp lens. I love your eyes. I'd say these are much better than my first attempt (also with no makeup or combing of hair).

The only constructive thing I have to add to your self critique is that the black undershirt doesn't work well under the lighter shirt. In person, it may not be noticeable, but it bugs me a little in the photo. I catch my husband doing this all the time. It appears the shirt is light blue, and you may have gotten away with a dark blue undershirt, but not black.

Caroline

Scott_Quier

sweet caroline wrote:

Scott, I'm so glad to see you here! Very sharp lens. I love your eyes. I'd say these are much better than my first attempt (also with no makeup or combing of hair).

The only constructive thing I have to add to your self critique is that the black undershirt doesn't work well under the lighter shirt. In person, it may not be noticeable, but it bugs me a little in the photo. I catch my husband doing this all the time. It appears the shirt is light blue, and you may have gotten away with a dark blue undershirt, but not black.

Caroline

Didn't you know that contrasting colors between the shirt and t-shirt were all the rage? You're right, the shirt it a light blue.

Actually, since I was at the tail end of setting up the set, I had the choice between the black and no t-shirt. I thought this would look a bit better. If you knew the black shirt was long-sleeved, and you can't see where the sleeve ends (bacause it ends under the cuff of the shirt-sleeve), would that influence your opinion of the dark t-shirt?

divamum

Yippeee! (See Heather? We were right - he's adorable too )

Scott_Quier wrote:

This is pretty much the way I see myself, happy with an impish grin.

I looked at the shots before reading your commentary, and my initial thought was, "These look just like he sounds!". Much more so than your avatar, in fact (nice picture though that is). These somehow manage to convey the mixture of extremely precise, formal-but-also-humourous personality that comes over in your posts (obviously, I can only go on those, but fwiw). I think they're great!

Visual details:

I'm not qualified to comment on the specifics of the lighting other than to say... can I have toys and space like that to play with too? Pretty please? ::starts drafting next year's Letter to Santa:: That looks like studio FUN!!! And it's certainly very clean, even light. Yum.

- I don't actually find the burn scar you mention distracting at all - to me it's the natural variation which makes a face waayyyy more interesting than the plasticated and over-perfect skin we've been media-inundated into accepting (as I've mentioned before, I do NOT like over-retouched skin. Some, sure, but the "perfection" of many of the images we've come to accept just makes everybody look like a vinyl doll and I don't terribly like it....)

- since you were going for a high key look, the black shirt is perhaps slightly out of place? The light blue is fine (although even lighter might be even better), but the black grabs my eye before your face simply because it's so high contrast.

- Certainly not a big deal (and you probably know this from your wedding work), but since you're clearly a detail-orientated person I'll mention it anyway: if you pull the shirt down HARD before shooting, and also perhaps around to the back slightly, the natural folds can be smoother and a little more controlled (applies to any male shoots. Similarly, sitting on the back flaps of a suit jacket to make sure that the back of the collar doesn't ride up. See the film "Broadcast News" for a hilarious exchange on that very subject!). Looks to me like you pulled the back of the shirt down after you sat down , but possibly not the front/sides so there's some extra material there that might be better repositioned out of sight.

If you revisit these, I'd love to see what shots are like of you leaning into the camera a little more (perhaps reverse the chair and lean on the back of it?) - let the personality come into the lens rather than letting the camera come to you, as it were.

Thanks for posting, Scott - I love getting a stronger sense of who everybody *is* and I think these shots give us a glimpse into the "real life" you more than others you've posted of yourself. thumb

mpaulie

Did you photoshop the glasses on? Not a hair on your head is different between the shots!! heh You criticted yourself much better than I ever could, I would just go along with what the girls said about the cloths because the undershirt was a distraction right away. Also maybe bring your left arm back a little to make your shoulders look broader?

I can really see all the great advice that you give out everyday at work in these shots

lisap

I'm so glad you posted yours too!

Very nice. I don't really have anything more to add except that ya look good both with and without your glasses .

Thanks for even posting your own critique. I find it very helpful.

Thanks also for posting the studio shot. Once I get more of the basement cleared out, I want to try and set up something similar. I've been reading that tutorial on the set up for some time now and can't wait to get all of the materials. I keep hoping the basement area outside my current studio room will miraculously get cleaned up on its own, however that doesn't seem to be happening. Last time I went down there I discovered my 5 yr old had made a huge box fort out of the many empty boxes that get tossed down there. *sigh*

Thanks for sharing yours too, Scott!

-- Lisa P.

Scott_Quier

divamum wrote:

Yippeee! (See Heather? We were right - he's adorable too )

OK - so my DW has competition for my affections!! WOW :lol4

divamum wrote:

I looked at the shots before reading your commentary, and my initial thought was, "These look just like he sounds!". Much more so than your avatar, in fact (nice picture though that is). These somehow manage to convey the mixture of extremely precise, formal-but-also-humourous personality that comes over in your posts (obviously, I can only go on those, but fwiw). I think they're great!

Visual details:

I'm not qualified to comment on the specifics of the lighting other than to say... can I have toys and space like that to play with too? Pretty please? ::starts drafting next year's Letter to Santa:: That looks like studio FUN!!! And it's certainly very clean, even light. Yum.

I'm so glad that humor does come through. I try though hard at times it is to do so.

divamum wrote:

- I don't actually find the burn scar you mention distracting at all - to me it's the natural variation which makes a face waayyyy more interesting than the plasticated and over-perfect skin we've been media-inundated into accepting (as I've mentioned before, I do NOT like over-retouched skin. Some, sure, but the "perfection" of many of the images we've come to accept just makes everybody look like a vinyl doll and I don't terribly like it....)

There's been no retouching done on these - they just weren't worth the effort - they were just lighting test shots.

divamum wrote:

- since you were going for a high key look, the black shirt is perhaps slightly out of place? The light blue is fine (although even lighter might be even better), but the black grabs my eye before your face simply because it's so high contrast.

These were not high key. Had they been, the background would have been much more white and I would have, as you suggested, not worn the dark t-shirt. I hadn't thought about it (the t-shirt) grabbing the attention like that, but I think you may right.

divamum wrote:

- Certainly not a big deal (and you probably know this from your wedding work), but since you're clearly a detail-orientated person I'll mention it anyway: if you pull the shirt down HARD before shooting, and also perhaps around to the back slightly, the natural folds can be smoother and a little more controlled (applies to any male shoots. Similarly, sitting on the back flaps of a suit jacket to make sure that the back of the collar doesn't ride up. See the film "Broadcast News" for a hilarious exchange on that very subject!). Looks to me like you pulled the back of the shirt down after you sat down , but possibly not the front/sides so there's some extra material there that might be better repositioned out of sight.

Some good ideas there for when I do this for real (maybe on Monday?) - we'll see what happens.

divamum wrote:

If you revisit these, I'd love to see what shots are like of you leaning into the camera a little more (perhaps reverse the chair and lean on the back of it?) - let the personality come into the lens rather than letting the camera come to you, as it were.

See above note:D

divamum wrote:

Thanks for posting, Scott - I love getting a stronger sense of who everybody *is* and I think these shots give us a glimpse into the "real life" you more than others you've posted of yourself. thumb

You're right - It's interesting to see the faces that match up to the words posted here.

Scott_Quier

mpaulie wrote:

Did you photoshop the glasses on? Not a hair on your head is different between the shots!! heh You criticted yourself much better than I ever could, I would just go along with what the girls said about the cloths because the undershirt was a distraction right away. Also maybe bring your left arm back a little to make your shoulders look broader?

I can really see all the great advice that you give out everyday at work in these shots

I would love to say that my photoshop skills were up to the task of either putting them on or removing them. But, the fact is that I had them in my hand for the first shot, put them on for the second and shot that. What probably helped is that I was using a remote wired shutter release so I didn't have to move between shots.

I like the idea of pulling my left arm back - good thought!

I really do try to implement the techniques I talk/write about. I don't always remember everything (see my critique), but I try.

eL eSs Vee

Great Scott, Scott! (Go ahead and roll your eyes; I'm sure you've heard that before. ) These are great images and I want your studio. Great idea with those closet doors, too! I'll have to remember that for when I get a studio up and running.

Everything else has already been said, so I have nothing else to add except . . . .

jeffreaux2

Way to go Scott!!!

divamum

Scott_Quier wrote:

Some good ideas there for when I do this for real (maybe on Monday?) - we'll see what happens.

These "lighting tests" are nice, seemingly representative shots with pleasant lighting and an easy mood, so if they were just the teaser, I'm definitely looking forward to "the real thing"

heatherfeather

What a "nice looking fellow" you are! (hee hee!) Though I don't know if I will go as far as adorable (Divamum) since that brings to mind babies and cooing noises. But I do agree that your expression is great- it really matches your personality (from what I can tell).

My personal preference is with the readers... I think they really add to your character since I think you are a thinker. (Apparently there is a LOT of "thinking" going on judging by THAT sentence.) And I also think they add just a bit more visual interest. Which is something that I think (there I go again) this photo needs a bit more of. I bet it will come across more strongly on your Monday SP especially after everyone's great ideas on posing and lighting.

Well done! And do you always do what you are told?

Mitchell

Scott, thanks for showing your setup.

This is a nice job at a standard headshot. The lighting looks good and I find the ratios about right. I agree that short lighting would have been better and that your main light could have been a little higher.

You really did a nice job with the glasses. These frustrate me due to glare. I usually try to get people to ditch them.

Nikolai

Sooooo, you went with the whole Zack's setup, including the doors, huh? Shweet!
Great to see your studio!
And it looks like you got yourself a nice brand new avy!

WingsOfLovePhoto

Scott_Quier wrote:

In Jeffreaux's SP thread, divamum told me that I had to post mine.

So here it is. Understand, these are not 100% satisfactory, they were taken to test the lighting on the set and to see how well I was able to protect the white seamless from spill - hence the darker right side (there's been no vignette applied to these).

1. This is pretty much the way I see myself, happy with an impish grin.


2. But, I'm afraid this is the way other' see me - with the readers


For those that care, these were taken ISO 100, f/11, 1/250 at 99mm with my EF 24-105 f/4L with only the two "subject" strobes firing.

Mistakes I see in thees?

• The model didn't use any make-up and he sure does need it. I didn't realize it until I looked at these, but I'm starting(?) to show the signs of age - I've got age spots and un-even skin tones all over the place? :cry
• Running a comb through the hair might have been a good idea. These were taken right after getting everything set up and I was running a little warm (hence the warm cast to the skin, but note the background is a neutral gray).
• The main light should have been elevated a bit more
• I might have dialed down the fill light (camera left) a bit more for a little more contrasty shadows, but these aren't bad.
• Short lighting might have been a little more flattering to the (short, fat, old) model than this broad lighting.

Oh, and before anyone says something about it, that bright spot above my left eye is a burn scar I during some training some 10 years ago.

And, just to show you how sharp this lens can be (yes, a coke bottle bottom is likely to be sharp at f/11, but this lens is sharp at f/5.6 as well) this is a 100% (800x800 pixel) crop:


The reason why this post is a week or 10 days after everyone else's is because I was in the middle of setting up this high-key, shoot on white studio set.


This set is built from three 4'x8' sheets of "white tile board", a roll of 9' seamless white, 4 AB800 strobes, and a couple of closet bi-fold doors. The bi-folds were painted white on the far side and black on the camera side. This allows them to pull double duty - gobo the strobes (as above) or to serve as either large light reflectors or light subtractors.

I got the idea from a series of posts on Zack Arias' site

As always, C&C is more than welcome!

Scott, what are you using for a hair light in this set up? This set up is sort of like mine but I use a large reflector for the fill on the left side and when using a dark background I use a 18x36 strip light as a hair light or when doing white background I use that light to light the background and have a spot ceiling light rigged temporarily as a hairlight. (that is until my new background bee's arrive tomorrow! ) i

Scott_Quier

WingsOfLovePhoto wrote:

Scott, what are you using for a hair light in this set up? This set up is sort of like mine but I use a large reflector for the fill on the left side and when using a dark background I use a 18x36 strip light as a hair light or when doing white background I use that light to light the background and have a spot ceiling light rigged temporarily as a hairlight. (that is until my new background bee's arrive tomorrow! ) i

No hair light in this set up. A man and artist for whom I have huge respect once said that the only reason to add a light is to solve a problem.

A hair light is used, to my mind, for two reasons (1) to seperate hair from the background and (2) to put some life into the hair. Well, with my dark hair, seperate is not an issue. For the slight sheen of life, I got enough "spill" from the key light to provide that.

When I'm shooting against a dark/black background, things are quite different. There I have key light, a reflector for fill, a snooted or gridded AB for the hair, and maybe another light for the background (unless I want the background to be completely plugged black).