event exposure help

OK, so matt & I are going to be shooting at Medieval Faire in Norman, OK in exactly one week. (and now

the 2 of you in OK i know of are obligated to show up!)

 

Anyway, I'm browsing the test shots we did in the living room tonight, and thinking we still didn't get the

exposure quite where I'd like to see it. So below, there is an example of darker colored clothes, and one of

light color. The lighter 2 exposures are exactly as they came out of the camera, the darker ones I used

Aperture to crank the exposure and brightness way down.

 

Right now, in my head, I'm going for a more subtle look, very low-key. Usually we wind up shooting

pretty high-key, and I'm wanting to change. I'm also thinking the rich colors of costumes and a dark,

subtle background will be really fascinating if I keep the light cranked down quite a bit from our norm. I

do NOT want the bench to completely disappear, as I will have a dark vase of dark flowers on the floor

next to it...

 

What do you think? Which look do you like better? Stick w/ our usual bright light? Go somewhere in the

middle of these samples? Blast away - I've only got a few days to fix this! (and pray for good sunlight w/

light cloud cover, but not blasting us out & drenching the tent in bright light I have to overcome).

 

 

Sample #1 - brown dress, original as taken<div></div>

now, I cranked the exposure and the brightness nearly all the way down. Ignore the blasting

out of the white sleeves. Not part of my current issue.<div></div>

and now for the bright, shiny dress. Boy, I hope there aren't too many people wearing

glimmery, satiny costumes coming through!<div></div>

and FINALLY, the last one....<div></div>

oops. It's obviously too late to be up & typing. I forgot to mention, on #4 above there, I

barely darkened the exposure and brightness

I've been resisting the urge to comment, but I'm bored...

 

A. I think the original exposures are PERFECT! After all, I'm the one who set them. Love how the details get blown out of the white in the jpeg, though. #2 looks sick to me, but at least the wrinkles aren't blown...

 

B. Is the subject the person or the stool?

 

C. Original exposure was determined by shooting a grey card and evaluating the histogram, with some minor adjustments on the fly (like reducing flash power so we could get shallower DoF on CU shots). The pink satin is a good example of when you have to expect to see spikes on the right of your histogram that you just have to live with (none of the exposures had 'blinkies').

Whooh! I hate doing portraits - but, If you want an opinion, I think you should create layers - and fix portrait 2, the background could be lightened, and the figure, separately. (The glaring white of #1 is frightening - dont expose that far)

 

I like the background of #1 though. - and, of the two bottom images - I prefer the girl's coloring more in #4. (although the background seems a bit on the dark side).

 

As I started though - I'm horrible with taking portraits - so all these mutterings are just my preferences.

Medieval dress with 'black pedicure' ... what's that all about? or are her toes going gangrene?

I'm no expert (everyone should know that by now) so here's my inept opinion. If the first shot was taken in RAW, I would simply try some highlight recovery for the sleeves, as everything else seems fine to me. The shiny dress also looks fine as taken (#3).<br>

<br>

Maria, remember what your priorities when you take these photos in OK: the people! I assume you guys are going to be selling these photos to the people who pose, right? In that case, they want to see themselves looking the best they can, and the first thing they're going to look at is their faces. So, if somebody decides to wear a black dress with white sleeves, expose for the face and hope that later on you can recover some white highlights and lighten up some black shadows. But in these cases it's <i>impossible</i> to expose correctly for the whole scene, so don't stay up till 2:00am worrying about it and do like Matt: go to bed and get some rest!<br>

<br>

And that was Miserere's inept opinion of the day (MIOOTD™).

Always expose for the face and always focus on the eyes. You can fix everything else without any great level of skill.

 

You didn't say what light set-up you used. One suggestion, although you probably don't have enough time to get it mail order, get Gary Fong's Illumisphere. Its wonderful for event photography like the one you are doing.

 

I'd take #1 and fix the blown out white sleeves. In photoshop there is an undocumented feature called an 'illumination copy'. Click on channels then control-alt-click on the top RGB thumb. That only copies high-illumination pixels. Paste into a new layer and set the blend mode to multiply. Stack more copies of the multiply layer if required.

 

Here's a quick sample. I edited the mask to bring her face back to prevent it from effecting her face. I could do a lot better with a higher-res non-jpg photo.<div></div>

I like #4. On the first set, I think I'd try to keep the white on #2 and do a little lightening of the background and the bench. Sounds like an interesting gig, but I don't think I can get there.

 

Cheers

I guess Maria should also have said that this will be a 'shoot-it-and-print-it' setup. I won't have time for post processing, certainly no time for layers. I usually have a script set up for dropping in a bug in the corner and adjusting the image curve for our printer. I'm running full speed just to get these into the system and through the printer.

 

This set-up was with two Novatron strobes shooting through umbrellas, and our 400WS powerpack cranked ALL the way down. We varied the output on the left hand light from -1 to -2 stops below the main (left) light.

This is your livingroom?? That is really nice wallpaper! Now, that is truly a fine idea. Select attractive wallpaper also good for photography background!

 

Well, when pressed for time, digital shows its advantages, as in this case.

 

Otherwise, if it were me, ideally I'd probably shoot this kind of portrait with Kodak Porta 160, avoiding the highlight loss.

 

Maybe this would have been a good demo example for the new high DR capability of the new Pentax K20D and K200D!!

BTW, exposurewise, looks like about 1 stop between 1 and 2, so I'd go right in between. No.4 looks good to me. The slightly darker background makes the subject stand out better and has a better sense of depth.

 

Since these will be printed, running test prints may reveal a different result. On screen viewing is backlit by its nature, prints are not, and tend to look flatter and dimmer. Even details looking blown on screen may show up on a print. I have often had to increase contrast some for a print that looked fine on screen.

Personally I prefer #3 between the last 2 images. #4 looks washed out, and flat on my monitor. As somebody mentioned already, I think you need to make some prints if that is your final objective. As to the first two photos, I much prefer the face on #1. Looks slightly more contrasty and much more natural. Not sure I am too keen about the blown out highlights tho..

Well, I like 1 and 4...and I will see YOU on Friday! *smile!* How fun!