Sisters

Bryce WilsonBryce Wilson Registered Users Posts: 1,586 Major grins
edited January 15, 2012 in People
Although there was a bit of an age spread and they certainly look completely different, their personalities left no doubt that they were indeed sisters.

This was a new lighting configuration for me. Main light (large softbox) directly overhead with a fill about 45 degree camera left at about a 3 to 1 ratio. I'm mostly happy with the outcome although I might like a bit more light drama.

D-100 5.6 160

Comments

  • jpcjpc Registered Users Posts: 840 Major grins
    edited January 13, 2012
    Light looks great. Plenty of drama.
    http://www.jpcirre.com

    please visit: www.babyelephants.net
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited January 13, 2012
    15524779-Ti.gif
    Very nice, Bryce.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • JamesbjenkinsJamesbjenkins Registered Users Posts: 435 Major grins
    edited January 13, 2012
    lighting, exposure and WB all look spot on. Very nice! I'd like to see one of them looking at the camera...
    Website: www.captured-photos.com
    Proofing: clients.captured-photos.com
    Facebook: Like Me || Twitter: Follow Me
    Gear: Lots of Nikon bodies & glass, an office full of tools and toys
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited January 13, 2012
    I'm a little confused. The catch lights would seem to say that your fill was to CR.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • Bryce WilsonBryce Wilson Registered Users Posts: 1,586 Major grins
    edited January 13, 2012
    Icebear wrote: »
    I'm a little confused. The catch lights would seem to say that your fill was to CR.

    You are CORRECT SIR! Writing mistake on my part. CR or SL.
  • zoomerzoomer Registered Users Posts: 3,688 Major grins
    edited January 14, 2012
    Pretty ladies, looks slightly blurred and a smidge of a green tint. Was your exposure brought up in post?
    Lighting looks ok, not ideal (I don't know much about studio light so grain of salt)

    Did you do some cloning on the blonde ladies eyebrow, something looks off there.

    Minor nits, it is a nice photo and I am sure your clients are very happy with it.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
    http://500px.com/Shockey
    alloutdoor.smugmug.com
    http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited January 14, 2012
    You really have the "classic portrait" thing down pat, Bryce. That said I agree with Zooms that it is a touch soft - has a film look in many ways.

    You really inspire me to get better at lighting!

    ETA: The "away from camera" look also adds to the film feel - it's your 1930's Hollywood look surfacing again! (Btw, have you ever read this book? It is AWESOME. Click image to read the blurb at Amazon)

    417VL3qviVL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
    facebook | photo site |
  • Bryce WilsonBryce Wilson Registered Users Posts: 1,586 Major grins
    edited January 14, 2012
    zoomer wrote: »
    Pretty ladies, looks slightly blurred and a smidge of a green tint. Was your exposure brought up in post?
    Lighting looks ok, not ideal (I don't know much about studio light so grain of salt)

    Did you do some cloning on the blonde ladies eyebrow, something looks off there.

    Minor nits, it is a nice photo and I am sure your clients are very happy with it.

    I may have brought it up a tad in post. I tend to cheat a bit under with digital.

    The eyebrow issue is "over plucking" on her part. Didn't touch a thing.
    divamum wrote: »
    You really have the "classic portrait" thing down pat, Bryce. That said I agree with Zooms that it is a touch soft - has a film look in many ways.

    You really inspire me to get better at lighting!

    ETA: The "away from camera" look also adds to the film feel - it's your 1930's Hollywood look surfacing again! (Btw, have you ever read this book? It is AWESOME. Click image to read the blurb at Amazon)

    417VL3qviVL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

    can't tell you how happy I am that there is a film feel to you. Personally, I find much of the digital product today to look too antiseptic to my taste and if that is happening clap.gif. However, I think some of the softness happens when I reduce the size of the file.

    Thanks for the link. I just ordered it!

    Here is a shot with more eye contact. I didn't like it because one sister was looking slightly off.
  • HackboneHackbone Registered Users Posts: 4,027 Major grins
    edited January 15, 2012
    Question for you, if you main was directly overhead did you need a fill? Just wondering.
    Charles
    www.cameraone.biz
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited January 15, 2012
    I'm guessing it helped under the chin and hair.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • Bryce WilsonBryce Wilson Registered Users Posts: 1,586 Major grins
    edited January 15, 2012
    Hackbone wrote: »
    Question for you, if you main was directly overhead did you need a fill? Just wondering.

    Icebear hit it on the head.

    The idea was for the fill to act in place of a reflector. It was set lower in height and in power in relationship with the main in the hope that it would soften the shadow that would be created under the noses and the chin area.

    Question for you folks...

    I have noticed that when I reduce image size for web posting, they become much softer than the original. Case in point, the first image was reduced and posted as is and on my big monitor I now see that it is quite soft. The second image had just a touch of sharpening applied after size reduction and it appears as it should.

    I'm using Photoshop for the size reduction. Why might this be happening?
Sign In or Register to comment.