Casual Muse

Bilsen

Here's Muse rocking some casual fashion. Click the first image to see the entire gallery.










<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________

InsuredDisaster

3 and 4 look really awkward, like she's about to fall over.

2 grabs me, but not sure why. The face almost seems muddy, and her arm appears really, really hairy.

So I'm not sure the series works for me.


However, I do think the lighting is pretty good. Pretty well balanced in most of the shots. #2, I'm not sure what went wrong there. With 4, I think the ambient should have been brought up.

In the others, its very smooth lighting. How did you do this? Did you use extra reflectors, flash units, what? I think its pretty good.

3 is pretty cool too. I like the slightly more focused light on her. Draws attention to the face.


Good lighting work.

Bilsen

Thanks Insured. I agree # 2 isn't getting it done.

There's no flash or reflectors in any of these. All ambient metered off her face and body.

InsuredDisaster

Wow. Not even in #3? The lighting was really cooperating with you. You must have made some good use of shade or something.

Nikolai

John,
I don't mean to pry, your #4 (girl on a rock with just the lake as the bg) makes a very strange impression...

I mean:

• the rock is lit from the right, strictly by a side lighting, the top of the rock is not lit directly;
• her left elbow, which is very close to the lit part of the rock and, at least in theory, should be lit by the same light source, is very dark and carries the signs of PS (dark spots on the forearm/elbow).
• her face carries no distinct shadows and has all the indications that she's been lit from the position of the camera, maybe Up and Left from the camera (definitely not from the right, as the rock)
• her legs are lit rather evenly from the front, yet again carrying a rather atypical darker shades on the top of her right (upper) leg
• and finally, her shoe and her mettallic skirt provides a hint of a rather intensive light source positioned next to the camera (again, not the one on the right that lits the rock).

There are other minor things, but I guess my bottomline question is: is it a cut-out-type composite?
Thank you!

InsuredDisaster

Nikolai wrote:

John,
I don't mean to pry, your #4 (girl on a rock with just the lake as the bg) makes a very strange impression...

I mean:

• the rock is lit from the right, strictly by a side lighting, the top of the rock is not lit directly;
• her left elbow, which is very close to the lit part of the rock and, at least in theory, should be lit by the same light source, is very dark and carries the signs of PS (dark spots on the forearm/elbow).
• her face carries no distinct shadows and has all the indications that she's been lit from the position of the camera, maybe Up and Left from the camera (definitely not from the right, as the rock)
• her legs are lit rather evenly from the front, yet again carrying a rather atypical darker shades on the top of her right (upper) leg
• and finally, her shoe and her mettallic skirt provides a hint of a rather intensive light source positioned next to the camera (again, not the one on the right that lits the rock).

There are other minor things, but I guess my bottomline question is: is it a cut-out-type composite?
Thank you!

I will agree, it does look a bit weird. I'd thought maybe your lighting was from two difference sources, hence my suggestion to bring up the ambient. It did immediately strike me as a cutout as well.

Bilsen

It's not a cutout guys. Where she is is where she was. I didn't have a flash at this location although I did later for the porch shots in the formal dress (Elegant Muse).

HOWEVER, the background was blown on the two your referring to. I brought is back in DPP. What you're seeing is a bit of HDR treatment of these two. It's possible I messed up the light in that process.
Really sharp eyes on both of you.

Thanks for the detailed look.

InsuredDisaster

Ah, then while you didnt use any flashes or reflectors, you did spend a good bit of time after the shoot the fix the lighting?

No matter, thanks for sharing these.

Bilsen

Absolutely Insured. It actually doesn't take that long. I just convert a dark copy and a light copy and then blend them in PS. I guess sometimes I blow it.

goldilocksandmy3bears

InsuredDisaster wrote:

3 and 4 look really awkward, like she's about to fall over.

2 grabs me, but not sure why. The face almost seems muddy, and her arm appears really, really hairy.

So I'm not sure the series works for me.


However, I do think the lighting is pretty good. Pretty well balanced in most of the shots. #2, I'm not sure what went wrong there. With 4, I think the ambient should have been brought up.

In the others, its very smooth lighting. How did you do this? Did you use extra reflectors, flash units, what? I think its pretty good.

3 is pretty cool too. I like the slightly more focused light on her. Draws attention to the face.


Good lighting work.

That is so funny that you said that about pictures 3&4 because as I was scrolling through them my 2 year old was on my lap and he said look mommy lady fall in the water lol.