A friend of mine - Revisited

Gary752

This is a photo taken with my first DSLR (D40) before I started shooting in RAW. I felt this was a good one to test Portrait Professional Studio v10 because she had a few skin flaws. This was taken under a big pavillion with available light. Other than touching up a few skin problems, I added catch lights to her eyes, since most people here seem to like them. Feel free to tear this one apart, as I encourage C&C on my stuff, How am I gonna learn to do it right if no one tells me what I'm doing wrong.

My friend Quyen

Click Here for Exinfo

Thanks for looking!

GaryB

Hackbone

I'm big on direction of light. You have the light hitting the part of her face (from nose to ear) as the brightest part. This is called broad lighting and makes the face larger than it is and her being full figure you made it larger than it might be. Exposure and sking tones seem to be pretty even and that is a good thing. The boken helps.

Gary752

Hackbone wrote: »

I'm big on direction of light. You have the light hitting the part of her face (from nose to ear) as the brightest part. This is called broad lighting and makes the face larger than it is and her being full figure you made it larger than it might be. Exposure and sking tones seem to be pretty even and that is a good thing. The boken helps.

Thanks for the C & C Charles! Since this was available light, I guess I would have had to turn her more to her left, and move my posistion approx. 180 degrees around her, to get the short lighting effect. Am I correct on that assumption? Would you short light all females, or just the heavier ones?

GaryB

Yaflyyadie

Apologies for hijacking, but I have the same question for Hackbone about this specific issue.
Thanks.
Y.

Gary752

Yaflyyadie wrote: »

Apologies for hijacking, but I have the same question for Hackbone about this specific issue.
Thanks.
Y.

No problem! Some of us are here to learn, and others that are willing to help.

GaryB

Gary752

Charles, I searched through my photos to see if I had anything close to being short lit. I know the example below is not perfect, but it is the closest I could find. This one was taken in a dungeon, and there were open windows to the left letting afternoon sunshine in, incandessaint light above her, and floressant light from the next room to the right. This place was a total nightmare and will never shoot there again without flash. This was a nightmare trying to balancing out the WB, with the different kighting. So is this close to what you were referring to?




GaryB

rsquared

BroPhoto wrote: »

Thanks for the C & C Charles! Since this was available light, I guess I would have had to turn her more to her left, and move my posistion approx. 180 degrees around her, to get the short lighting effect. Am I correct on that assumption? Would you short light all females, or just the heavier ones?

GaryB

You don't necessarily need to change your position, just the model. If you could have had her keep this exact pose, but facing the opposite direction (e.g. turn her body about 160 degrees so her right shoulder is facing the camera, and turn her head about 20 degrees so her nose is pointed just to camera right instead of camera left) it would have put the natural light on the short side of her face instead of the broad side.

Gotham

I agree with Hackbone that short lighting would be more flattering to her (it is typically described as a more feminine lighting and is often the most flattering for women, though you could certainly decide to light someone differently for creative reasons). I think your friend's pose would be more flattering if she lowered her chin a bit so that her jawline would be more pronounced, as would her high cheekbones.

Gary752

rsquared wrote: »

You don't necessarily need to change your position, just the model. If you could have had her keep this exact pose, but facing the opposite direction (e.g. turn her body about 160 degrees so her right shoulder is facing the camera, and turn her head about 20 degrees so her nose is pointed just to camera right instead of camera left) it would have put the natural light on the short side of her face instead of the broad side.

Thanks for the reply. I'm trying to visulize this in my head. What I'm seeing in my head is no matter which way she turns, and I stay where I am at, she will be broad lit, because the light is coming in over my shoulder. If I turn her the way you suggest, I think I would have to move around 90 degrees to camera right, but I might be missing something here.

GaryB

rsquared

BroPhoto wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. I'm trying to visulize this in my head. What I'm seeing in my head is no matter which way she turns, and I stay where I am at, she will be broad lit, because the light is coming in over my shoulder. If I turn her the way you suggest, I think I would have to move around 90 degrees to camera right, but I might be missing something here.

GaryB

Ah, I see... I was picturing the light coming more from her side than from over your shoulder.

Gary752

Gotham wrote: »

I agree with Hackbone that short lighting would be more flattering to her (it is typically described as a more feminine lighting and is often the most flattering for women, though you could certainly decide to light someone differently for creative reasons). I think your friend's pose would be more flattering if she lowered her chin a bit so that her jawline would be more pronounced, as would her high cheekbones.

Thanks for the reply Gotham. Wouldn't lowering her chin make a double chin more pronounced? If she was looking directly at the camera, wouldn't that also cause to much white of the eyes to be visable under the pupil?

GaryB

Mike Bishop

After just reading the frame filler sticky, this photo and the comments so far go with it very well. With the camera above her, you eliminate the double chin while still getting the effect you would have by lowering the chin to get the cheekbones and better jaw line. Also, picturing the sun coming over your shoulder, I can still agree that simply posing her oposite of what she currently is would give the short side lighting. While the sun may be coming over your shoulder, it is clearly your right shoulder and having her look that way instead of to your left would make a huge difference.

I have no experience in shooting people, none. That is why I'm reading these threads. This is how I vision it though. As for the white under the eyes, I think adding a little could have really made this a better picture.