My first attempt at portrait lighting

[george_c1]

Good morning,

 

After practicing on inanimate objects for several months, I finally found

someone to sit for me. This is my first attempt at studio portrait lighting

and I would very much appreciate any constructive feedback you all may have.

 

Thanks!

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=2358129

[ellis_vener_photography]

A little too contrasty I think.

[ronald_moravec1]

Nice job. I very much like #2. I love Rembrant lighting. Check an original painting if you ever get a chance. It will knock you socks off.

 

Second from right would have been better if you used Short lighting instead of broad. That means the models left side would have received the most light with some light on her right cheek under the eye. In order to do this the key needs to be about 90 degrees off camera axis to right. Use a gobo or barndoors to keep light out of the lens.

 

I think you have a nice amount of well controlled fill light, not too light or dark.

 

Beautiful model. A few more sessions and she will be very good.

[steve_levine]

Try here:

http://jzportraits.home.att.net/

[will_miller2]

Nice job, George. You're definitely on the right track.

 

Keep it up,

Will

[twmeyer]

Joe Zeltzman's photos make me wanna puke. <p>Even a casual observer should notice a substantial difference between the people in his photographs and anyone who is actually alive today (especially the woman in the photos provided in this thread). <p>His technique is classic formula studio portraiture from the 50's, which is fine as social commentary and for historical perspective on the photographic portrait industry, but it's irrelevant to insightful portraiture, in any era. It assures stiff, vacuous results as his examples show. <p>George, I like your lighting, not too contrasty. But your composition is a little out of balance, except for the second one from the left. And the styling is a little heavy handed... are you selling eyelashes and nails, or are these supposed to be a portrait?... t

[george_c1]

Thank you all for taking the time to comment; I really appreciate it!

 

Tom, I wish I knew in advance what she planned for the lashes and nails (especially the lashes!). I didn't know they made them that long.

 

If I were to shoot the one on the far right again, how would you suggest better balancing the image? My guess is to move her cheek a little closer to the left edge of the frame. Am I close? I think this is the area I need the most work in.

 

GC

[george_c1]

Tom, I realize I didn't directly answer your question - these are portraits.

[twmeyer]

The indirect was clear enough. It's as I thought.<p>And I thought about the last image. I can only suggest something that has helped me, and it's pretty vague, while also being pretty ubiquitous. Google "Sacred Geometry" and give it some time, as Google will bring hits AND misses.<p> One problem with that image is it's inner conflict doesn't bring any deeper satisfaction, only different superficial attributes. Her eyes are dominated by the fake lashes, the hand by imitation nails, and the ring is presented like another distraction. All of it seems designed to keep me from seeing her... t

[bigrue]

George C, keep up the good work. Check out some books that talked about portraits lighting, Rufus.