Marilyn. C&C Please.

scotthofferphotography

Please let me know what you would have done different or what you like about these.

1.



2.



3.



4.



5.

Overfocused

As it stands, the photos are well lit but she has little dimension to her. She is curvy but the actual lighting of her is flat. I'd brighten up her face a bit and play around with dodging the rest of her body. Gotta pull out the dimension. Specifically, I think bringing up the skin areas would make it much more effective. Skin, legs, hands, and most importantly the face.

It could be done with lighting, but it'd take much less time and effort to do it just as effectively in PS since you have good material to start with.

scotthofferphotography

Thanks overfocused for the C&C.

D3Sshooter

The face is very red.... The first one and the last one are my preferred choice. Add a bit extra light to place a few accents

scotthofferphotography

D3Sshooter wrote: »

The face is very red.... The first one and the last one are my preferred choice. Add a bit extra light to place a few accents

Where would I add the light for accents? Do you think the red is from the shirt? to much saturation? her makeup? what were you thinking D3?

divamum

You have a good WB on the background, but her face looks like it's the WB isn't quite right for skintones. What actual lights are you using (studio strobes? Speedlights? Bulbs?) and where were your lights? Were you mixing light temperatures (eg daylight+flash, daylight+incandescent/fluorescent etc etc)?

#2 is the easiest one to see how lght placement isn't putting maximum lumens on the subject's face - in that one, the chair seat is far brighter than the subject. Also, it looks like you might have done a bit of post processing on her skin? It's a little too much for me; sometimes, that can also lead to the skintone being a little dark/red, depending on the method you were using.

Nice model and poses, however - definitely worth working with these shots as they have great "bones". #5 is a wonderful image, and with a little work on the skintones will be terrific

Overfocused

scotthofferphotography wrote: »

Where would I add the light for accents? Do you think the red is from the shirt? to much saturation? her makeup? what were you thinking D3?

Her face is not that red at all on my screen. I don't think the red is from the shirt. The whole photo is fairly warm so I think it's the WB. Try adjusting reds in saturation and you lose basically all the color in the photo... so you know its a really warm pic, lol. Plus, purple is going toward the blue end of the spectrum so it's not going to red up her face all that much concerning light reflecting onto her face.

Since the pic is so warm, also, did you use a grey card or anything? I'd test your lights and get your key light measured exactly every time. Like, put a sticker on the light stand with the Kelvin temp that is it so whatever is the key light for your subject, you can turn your WB to that and have no question of tone accuracy. Some people have funny tones but if you know the light is right, they just have that shade of skin. If they look funny still, thats what PS is for. Lol.


After thinking a bit, it hit me that this photo is underexposed. Bumping the exposure would really help here. Yes, the background looks great and everyone is mentioning this, but this is what is tricking us. The BG is already 255 across the board, but the subject is pale and dim. Bump the exposure. Getting the subject brighter will correct some of the odd tones here and the BG won't be changed since its maxed already. If that's not enough, THEN go to the tones and saturation levels. The photo is on the warm side to try auto-tone/auto color separately and see what PS does. Trying each one is almost always worth pressing since it usually cuts the time down from manually doing the balance yourself. If it doesn't work just ctrl+z and go to the sliders.

D3Sshooter

scotthofferphotography wrote: »

Where would I add the light for accents? Do you think the red is from the shirt? to much saturation? her makeup? what were you thinking D3?

It might be a reflection, as stated before the background looks ok. Did you took a shot with a gray card before ? And if so is the WB adjusted to it.

I am not sure about your flash positions, maybe you can tell us how you did the light set-up.

Cross-light, main light, fill-in light......

Try to apply an accent light on the hear from the back , that always helps.

scotthofferphotography

Thank you all for the comments. I was using two 500 watt interfit umbrella lights at 45 degree angles from the model, and then a 580exii speedlite flash to overexpose the background with the speedlite hanging upside down from the ceiling. The model has a natural american/hispanic tint to her skin. I was not using a grey card while shooting these at all. I do not have one. I was trying to set the wb to custom and setting it off zooming in on her face.

Overfocused

scotthofferphotography wrote: »

Thank you all for the comments. I was using two 500 watt interfit umbrella lights at 45 degree angles from the model, and then a 580exii speedlite flash to overexpose the background with the speedlite hanging upside down from the ceiling. The model has a natural american/hispanic tint to her skin. I was not using a grey card while shooting these at all. I do not have one. I was trying to set the wb to custom and setting it off zooming in on her face.

That doesn't typically work too exact, since our minds auto correct what we see. Having something to compare makes it much easier. So while you were really close, it wasn't exact. Hence, the grey card, or a WB lens cap, which I think you'd like better:



Also, many packages you buy bulbs in should have the color temperature labeled on them. Get the measurements for each of your lights and label the stands so you don't forget. If not, you might need a gray card to get exact measurements of the color temps needed to be set for each lamp.


Still, she's underexposed and that makes just big difference in skin tone as the white balance does here.

scotthofferphotography

Thanks alot overexposed. The lamps are supposed to be 3200k on the bulbs according to the packaging.

Here is what they are.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/621490-REG/Interfit_INT160_EZ_Lite_2_Light_Kit.html




Interfit - Lamp for Stellar Tungsten 3200K (ECT) 500W/120V

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/500800-REG/Interfit_INT032_Lamp_for_Stellar_Tungsten.html

scotthofferphotography

Does this look better?

Jeremy_22

Background is exposed well, subject is underexposed.

dogwood

Super easy tip -- get her to open her mouth slightly. Check out fashion magazines -- you'll see that slightly open mouth in a LOT of photos for a reason.

scotthofferphotography

what does a slightly open mouth do?

D3Sshooter

Scott,
No I know why we have the strange colors. The background was exposed with a flash unit, typically that is around 5300 kelvin.
The umbrella's used to lighten the model around 3200 Kelvin. A mix that will always cause issues with the WB. The best you can do is use light of the same temperature. Or place a tungsten filter on the flashunit and set the camera WB to 3200K. That will work.
However the second problem is that the flash will overwhelm the set . You worked at 1/200 second , so the effect of the umbrella's will be minimum and seen as environmental light. That is the light you used for the model, as such lighting can not be correct. The use of a flash combined with continues light is difficult. But if you do so, why not use the flash for the model (put a diffuser on it) and a reflection panel on the other side. You can light the background with the umbrella's. Although I would rather buy a few flash units. You find them on the market as of 300$. Otherwise it will be very difficult to get good images. Of course you could only work with continues light.

angevin1

D3Sshooter wrote: »

Scott,
No I know why we have the strange colors. The background was exposed with a flash unit, typically that is around 5300 kelvin.
The umbrella's used to lighten the model around 3200 Kelvin. A mix that will always cause issues with the WB. The best you can do is use light of the same temperature. Or place a tungsten filter on the flashunit and set the camera WB to 3200K. That will work.
However the second problem is that the flash will overwhelm the set . You worked at 1/200 second , so the effect of the umbrella's will be minimum and seen as environmental light. That is the light you used for the model, as such lighting can not be correct. The use of a flash combined with continues light is difficult. But if you do so, why not use the flash for the model (put a diffuser on it) and a reflection panel on the other side. You can light the background with the umbrella's. Although I would rather buy a few flash units. You find them on the market as of 300$. Otherwise it will be very difficult to get good images. Of course you could only work with continues light.

Agreed!

Caveat, using mixed lighting to good effect can be hazardous to your sanity! It can be done , but it takes some play, practice and experience. Staying all with one WB color light (K) is easiest.

Also I'd like to mention that I have Models put make-up on under correct color temp too. For instance I have 5k florescents that I hang to have them do make-up under, when shooting with flash. Or sometimes I just set up white foam-core and use reflected sunlight.

Also, when you run into these gals that go to tanning booths and come out orange, you'll find it can be hard to make them look naturally colored.

dogwood

scotthofferphotography wrote: »

what does a slightly open mouth do?

It generally makes for a better expression and thus a better photo. Don't believe me? Look through a Vogue and note how many photos have a model with a slightly open mouth. That's no accident. Most of those advertisers have done a lot of market research.

scotthofferphotography

Cool, thanks for the tip. Also I got a gel filter to reduce 6500k to 3200k, should that work on my flash to make colors match better?