Sisters

Bryce Wilson · January 13, 2012

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

jpc · January 13, 2012

Light looks great. Plenty of drama.

Icebear · January 13, 2012

Very nice, Bryce.

Jamesbjenkins · 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...

Icebear · January 13, 2012

I'm a little confused. The catch lights would seem to say that your fill was to CR.

Bryce Wilson · 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.

zoomer · 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.

divamum · 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)

Bryce Wilson · 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)

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

. 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.

Hackbone · January 15, 2012

Question for you, if you main was directly overhead did you need a fill? Just wondering.

Icebear · January 15, 2012

I'm guessing it helped under the chin and hair.

Bryce Wilson · 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?

Sisters

Comments