Tina Mae, part I

Nikolai

White dress.

1:

2:

3:


Canon 40D, EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM, PW
ISO 100, f/4, 1/200s
Striplight on the camera right, silver 3x4 reflector on the camera left, hair light with a tight snoot up & behind the model.

TristanP

Looks good but I have one suggestion. Instead of a snoot on the hairlight, maybe widen the beam a tad. I'd like to see if the hair highlighted on both sides (not just her left) would give it more pop. Dress exposure looks good to me.

Nikolai

TristanP wrote:

Looks good but I have one suggestion. Instead of a snoot on the hairlight, maybe widen the beam a tad. I'd like to see if the hair highlighted on both sides (not just her left) would give it more pop. Dress exposure looks good to me.

Thank you!
Yeah, I agree, I may need to make another, less tight snoot. I'm still in process of figuring out how to make one with variable beam angle, something like bellows...

super star

Hi Friend,

I second it with Tristan.... you should highlight model's hair...

#1 Take a look at shadow area on her left side face... OOF, On shadow.. the power of models eyes...thrown away. Hair should be highlight.. rest everything is fine.

#2 Same problem again.. wonderful pose... Correct snoot light setting compared to picture #1.

#3 Tight crop works very well but, again lighting not properly done.. lost of details by shadow below nose... and hard shadows on her neck area...insufficient of lights or you planned to take like this ??

all this are personal opinion... not hurt you in anyways..

thanks

-Super star :davidto

jeffreaux2

Nik,

I have a question about you watermark. Was it custom designed for this photo? I notice the font is dark where it needs to be dark...and light where it needs to be light. How did you accomplish this?

On the photos,

Not being a fan of studio shots.....and as such...not at all versed in studio lighting I will leave the lighting suggestions to others. What I will say is that while I like to see shadows that help to shape faces I also like to see both eyes. One and two both have hard shadows hiding her right eye.

Nikolai

super star wrote:

Hi Friend,
...
all this are personal opinion... not hurt you in anyways..

Thank you for the detailed comments, appreciate your time!

Re: shadows:
The shoot target output was originally intended to be a dramatic bw. Hence my choice of striplight instead of full softbox. I'm still going through the materual (we had shot 9(!) looks), and decided to produce color versions first and only then work on the final BWs.
Cheers!

Nikolai

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Nik,

I have a question about you watermark. Was it custom designed for this photo? I notice the font is dark where it needs to be dark...and light where it needs to be light. How did you accomplish this?

"Difference" :-)

jeffreaux2 wrote:

On the photos,
Not being a fan of studio shots.....and as such...not at all versed in studio lighting I will leave the lighting suggestions to others. What I will say is that while I like to see shadows that help to shape faces I also like to see both eyes. One and two both have hard shadows hiding her right eye.

Jeff, please see my reply to superstar. This was shot for dramatic BW. There are more looks coming, so stay tuned, you may like them more.

super star

Nikolai wrote:

Jeff, please see my reply to superstar. This was shot for dramatic BW. There are more looks coming, so stay tuned, you may like them more.

Anyway.. in next posts please describe your pictures to make us understand better...

- Super star:davidto

TristanP

Nikolai wrote:

Thank you!
Yeah, I agree, I may need to make another, less tight snoot. I'm still in process of figuring out how to make one with variable beam angle, something like bellows...

What lights were you using? Maybe a small softbox or fairly open grid rather than a snoot would do the trick? Looking forward to the rest.

Seneca

Make sure that the check that is in the shadow has a tri-angle shadow of light.

Otherwise...great shots.

dawssvt

Very nice shots! How do you like that lens? I am looking into getting the 17-55 IS f/2.8 or the 24-105 IS f/4.

Nikolai

TristanP wrote:

What lights were you using? Maybe a small softbox or fairly open grid rather than a snoot would do the trick? Looking forward to the rest.

The hairlight is sunpak 555EX. I use it there because it's very light compared to Profoto monolights.
I was about to make a softboxy thing for it, but lately I've been so busy shooting that I really had no time for this. But I can see that I probably shood spend an hor and make it happen, cause it really affects the results.
Thanks!

Nikolai

Seneca wrote:

Make sure that the check that is in the shadow has a tri-angle shadow of light.

Otherwise...great shots.

Thank you!

Nikolai

dawssvt wrote:

Very nice shots! How do you like that lens? I am looking into getting the 17-55 IS f/2.8 or the 24-105 IS f/4.

Dawson, thank you!
I love my 17-55! You can't beat f/2.8! I got it almost a year ago and enjoy it tremendously. It's my primary workhorse, almost never leaves the body (except for big landscape shoots, where I tend to use 10-22 more).

evoryware

I understand for fashion photogs don't move the lights around much because the model is constantly moving but for studio portrait photogs, the lights are moved around constantly to complement the posing.
Judging by the catchlight and shadows in #3, I feel like you should have repositioned the main light to a higher point and maybe with a tilt to compensate for her tilting her head. As it is the shadow is running from the bottom of her nose into her eye. Regardless, I like that shot the most followed by #2 and #1.

Nikolai

evoryware wrote:

I understand for fashion photogs don't move the lights around much because the model is constantly moving but for studio portrait photogs, the lights are moved around constantly to complement the posing.
Judging by the catchlight and shadows in #3, I feel like you should have repositioned the main light to a higher point and maybe with a tilt to compensate for her tilting her head. As it is the shadow is running from the bottom of her nose into her eye. Regardless, I like that shot the most followed by #2 and #1.

Thanks!
FWIW, I kept the lights the same during "the look", but changed them in between... In fact, this probably was my biggest light-adjusting experience ever. Switching from strip to softbox to octabox to horizontal half-box to ...

Swartzy

Hi Nik. I think what throws these off balance a bit is that they are broad lighted. With her facial features and body position/pose, short lighting with a lowered ratio on camera right would have provided a tad more fill without the dramatic fall off. Since her apparrel and pose is that of a more standard portrait, perhaps more traditional lighting would be more appealing. Now if she was posed and dressed in grunge..harsher light works great.

You already know this stuff.....and I'm certain you have your reasoning....just wanted to point out my initial view. BTW...I loved your last gallery (was viewing it on my little IPod Touch while away from home)

Nikolai

Swartzy wrote:

Hi Nik. I think what throws these off balance a bit is that they are broad lighted. With her facial features and body position/pose, short lighting with a lowered ratio on camera right would have provided a tad more fill without the dramatic fall off. Since her apparel and pose is that of a more standard portrait, perhaps more traditional lighting would be more appealing. Now if she was posed and dressed in grunge..harsher light works great.

You already know this stuff.....and I'm certain you have your reasoning....just wanted to point out my initial view. BTW...I loved your last gallery (was viewing it on my little IPod Touch while away from home)

Thanks, David!
Appreciate the C&C. You understand, of course, this was a dynamic shoot, I couldn't change the light setup for every other frame. However, light was different throughout the shoot, so I hope some worked better for some poses, some for others..:-)
We are, in fact, planning another session with her, so hopefully I'll have a chance to try more setups..