Critique my first efforts?

[smarksphotography]

<p>Hi, <br /> I am new to studio lighting and working extensively with flash. (I have been doing natural light photography for a long time though). After reading up on the subject (sources include: The Speedliter's Handbook by Syl Arena and The Moment It Clicks by Joe McNaly, the Strobist site) I am setting a up a small studio. I was hoping to get some feedback on these shots. My setup includes two front lights and large softbox behind. I am using 2 580 ex ii and one 550 ex. In the front is smaller softbox to the right and on the left I am using bounced light from an umbrella. Thanks in advance for any constructive comments.</p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Here's the first image:</p><div></div>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Here's another attempt.</p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Here is another image. (If you press upload before selecting a file bad things happen) </p><div></div>

[starvy]

<p>Hi Spencer,<br>

You will probably get more responses if you posted it within the critique forum.<br>

The model has a defined face and in my opinion would benefit from sharper focal points around the face and lips. The soft all over or critically sharp all over does not work for her. The face does feel more tanned than the body which is distracting. However, careful cropping should sort that out. I blew up the picture using a video card zooming programme and the lighting feels just a little uninspiring. I just feel that a face with so much character needs a little more drama to bring out the personality.</p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Oh, I am using full ETTL mode. To me the images don't seem "bright" enough. Maybe a little dull? I think the skin tone looks OK though. <br>

Anyway thanks in advance for your time. </p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Ack, sorry about posting this in the wrong forum. I apologize for that. This is the first time I've for a asked for this kind of critique, and I didn't realize there was a specific forum. I should have been more careful. Sorry about that.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>In a situation like this, don't use ETTL or any form of semi/automatic exposure. Your camera is seeing a lot of that background, and is adjusting in an attempt to render that at 18% gray. Manually setting exposure and flash power will give you control enough to get it where you want it to be.</p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Thanks Matt and Steve. I think both comments that definitely helped. I switched to manual and think I got at least slightly better results. I will post a second round of shots in the right forum probably tomorrow. </p><div></div>

[smarksphotography]

<p>A problem I see with this photo is the left hand side hair is too dark. </p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Spenser....there's really no nice way to say this......these images are absolutely horrible.</p>

<p>The questions you pose are about technical matters.....but can't you see how ugly you have permitted this poor model who, assumedly, trusted you to create pleasent images of her?</p>

<p>The lighting is beyond amateurish....it is frightfully bad......The poses, the expressions, the post processing.....all bad beyond imagination.....yet all you ask about is Flash, Strobists etc.</p>

<p>Get a book on ART.....look at great portraits.....even not-so-great portraits before turning yourself loose on another human being.</p>

<p>LOOK at what you are showing! <em><strong> "the hair is too dark", "I am setting up a small studio"</strong></em> etc......a small abbatoir more like!</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>" Spenser....there's really no nice way to say this......these images are absolutely horrible."<br />========================================<br />Robert I hope you don't mean that Spencer needs to hire a $150 per hour model that looks like she just jumped out of a cover of Vogue magazine. No matter how bad the lighting, those type of portraits come out looking good. The fact of the matter is that most of us wind up taking portraits of ordinary people not models like you see here on PN and so-called Portrait how-to books selling on the web, our job is to make these ordinary people look as atractive as possible.<br>

<br />Spencer did say that he was just starting to get into portrait lighting so we need to cut him some slack. it would be better to give him Spencer some tips on how to improve each picture, rather than tear down his most recent attempts with a broad stroke of the pen.<br>

<br />The first picture(Pic #1) is probably the best one, but the pose is somewhat lacking. The model's shoulders are pretty much square on which is more of a masculine pose. The nose is over emphasized and the hair is a little dull(this is OK since you are only working with 3 speedlights). Unfortunately the face and body skin tones do not match in this image, the face being darker and more textured than the body. Clothing would probably have improved things, but I think you need to work on the lighting so that it is smooth throughout the picture. Maybe moving in with the softbox migh have helped. The good thing is that there aren't any hot-spots on the skin, the expression is good and the background looks OK, that is if your BG is supposed to be light-grey not white.<br>

<br />Picture #2 the model is in a classic masculine pose, but if this model happens to be the supervisor of a warehouse this might be OK. Again I see color discrepancies between the face and body and the angle of the camera seems to be from below, emphasizing the chin, nose and the neck. There is way too much head room, but I don't see any shadows on the BG which is good.<br>

<br />In Picture #3 the face and body colors do not clash as much as the first 2, but the ratios seem to be off. The entire left side including the hair, face and background need a strong dose of fill light to even things out. The expression is melancholy, but does not say anything. Is she sad, reading a book, or looking at a bug strolling accross the floor ? The skin tones are pretty good on this one and you are pretty close to achieving classic loop lighting, just need a little more tweaking. The eyes might have been placed higher on the frame close to the 1/3 invisible marker but since she is looking down, I guess this is not a big deal. However the pose is better on this one than the previous 2, IMHO.<br>

<br />Not sure how far, or how close your softbox and umbrellas are, but I would expect the lighting to be softer and more even on all three pics considering the tools you are using . You might think about including a diffusing, or soft filter for moments like these. OTOH, there are NO hot-spots, or exptreme shadows which is good, the BG look pretty good also, you just need to work on your technique.<br>

<br />Portrait lighting is not easy and it is rare if not impossible that you get it on your first tries especially working with speed lights. I find that unless you really know what you are doing speedlights tend to give you uneven and somewhat harsher lighting than regular strobes with wider reflectors.</p>

[markus maurer]

<p>I have to agree with Robert to a point, Spencer. Maybe it's your monitor but all of your photos are underexposed, even the one with manual flash settings, and I would use a longer lens and maybe a colored background and some better poses as well. Maybe you should also soften the skin a tiny bit in postprocessing in favour of the model.</p><div></div>

[markus maurer]

<p>I did a b/w conversion with an an orange filter to lighten and clean up the skin and some shadow recovery for the hair and a bit skin softening, maybe you like that Spencer?</p><div></div>

[kevin_delson]

<p>Spencer,</p>

<p>Although Robert's comment cuts to the chase, he is right.<br>

As a photographer looking to improve, hard critiques are what you should seek. In other words, don't ask good friends or your mom what they think. :)</p>

<p>Capturing the human form IMO is one of the most difficult aspects of photography for a few reasons.<br>

1) The subject will offer immediate feedback when they see the photo.<br>

2) Humans are as diverse as snow flakes, each needs to be analyzed by the photographer to capture their essensse. No small task.</p>

<p>While I do not favor a cookie cutter approach to portrait photography, this IS IMO where you must begin to learn portrait photography. ONE good solid book on the fundamentals of portrait lighting and posing will serve as a guide.</p>

<p>I HIGHLY recommend you abandon the (2) light setup for now and practice with one light.</p>

<p>Take notes! Lots of them. Make note of flash distance, camera settings, flash output, color of subjects attire, room dimensions, color of the walls. Draw diagrams and keep them in your note book. While this may seem a tedious task, and it is, it will serve you immensely during your learning process. There is something about (writing it down) that aids in bringing to remembrance what you did.</p>

<p>I have attached one of your photos with a few notes drawn on it, I hope you don't mind.</p>

<p>You will not learn portrait lighting over night, but you WILL learn it through practice and more practice and experimentation.</p><div></div>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Thanks for all the constructive feedback. I really appreciate that - rants I can do without. I have no problem with criticism. That is what I was looking for here, so I really appreciate the effort people took to compose careful critiques even taking the time to annotate or edit the images themselves. That's really helpful. Last night I was focusing more on the technical aspects as I try to get more comfortable with some new tools, but I understand that great photography is the coming together of tools, technique and prospective. I'd appreciate any recommendations for books or articles on taking well crafted portraits. <br>

Thanks again. </p>

[acedigital]

<p>Okay, there is only so much you can do with a model without any makeup on.<br>

Here is an effort using Portrait Professional 9, IMHO, the best $99 a portrait photographer can spend, use standalone or as a plugin to LR or PS.</p><div></div>

[nuno_saldanha]

<p>Mark just came first with my suggestion! lol I dont have the program, but was tring to make an example with the demo mode of PP. He it is!</p>

[nuno_saldanha]

<p>here it is</p><div></div>

[stevenseelig]

<p>A couple thoughts....<br>

1. The white background is harsh and analytical. I would drop the brightness of the background down a lot. This will soften the subjects features considerable.<br>

2. I agree with the previous comment. Learn 1 light first by moving it around the subject so you can see different effects it generates. I actually use one light a lot and use a second light or reflector typically to soften shadows. <br>

3. Catch light is too low in the eyes, as previously said<br>

4. The touched up pictures looked touched up and false. I am not a fan of that look, but I know many people are. I do use touch up techniques but the more I do, the lighter my touch becomes. I use a combination of Aperture and CS5 for touch ups.<br>

5. I know you are learning about lighting, but expressiveness of the subject would also help.</p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Thanks once again for the great feedback. This is just what I am looking for and appreciate it. <br>

Steve, I kind of agree about too much over processing, but the funny thing here at least is that I showed "the model" this thread and she said "What program did he use to clean up the picture. I like it. I really don't like looking like my mother!" I got at laugh out of that. So, I guess there is definitely a place for that kind of touch up. However, I am trying to learn how to get it right when I take the shot and not have to rely (too much) on that kind of post processing. <br>

I am getting lots of good comments about what needs to be fixed, however I am wondering if anyone has book or article suggestions on how to fix it. Just one example: "catch light is too low in the eyes." What are approaches for the addressing that? The Speedlighter's handbook has one chapter on this, which is what I am starting from, but additional kind of how to instructions like the one found in that chapter would be helpful I think. <br>

Thanks again. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>One good way to practice, is to sit your model or or you can even use a mannequin by an open window(north facing window if possible). By moving the model/mannequin around, you can emulate most of the lighting patterns used in the studio. This includes Loop lighting, Short lighting, Broad lighting, Rembrandt lighting, Split lighting. Since the closest thing to window light is a softbox, use your softbox to mimic the exact patterns created by the window light. Make sure when using the softbox that there is no ambient light falling on the model. Later on you can add a fill light to soften up the shadows.<br>

One way to soften the wrinkles on a subjects face is to use the "Healing Tool" in Photoshop. Unlike some of the other touch-up tools, the Healing Tool does not create many artifacts that are hell when it comes to printing, just be careful that you don't create a plastic looking face.</p>

[nuno_saldanha]

<p>I agree with Harry (someone who is the author of "Alexandria Indecision" is naturaly someone to ear all his good advices). And dont misinterpret my intentions when I posted that Ph Pro picture. It's just that when you cant (by whatever reasons) get one calendar pin-up for your photos, and pay to hairdresser or make-up, you can always improve your model, but not necessarily the photo. Portrait Photography it's not easy, and depends on a lot of issues. Some faces are not pretty, some are not interesting, some are unexpressive, and each case is diferent from another. You have to study and find the best of each. Look and study the Grand Masters of Painting Portrait, that can give you some good inspirations. If your goal now is just studing light, I agree with Harry that you could use a manequin, because that will free you up from the particularities of an human model (male or female, child or adult) and focus only in the light issues. By the way, it might help also to know what kind of gear you use, camera and lenses, besides the light equipment.</p>

[indraneel]

<p>I would highly recommend using something inanimate to practice, rather than forcing yourself and subject to deal with human interaction. Once you've got that down, take your model out in open shade with a single reflector and work on key and fill light as well as photog/model interaction. Only after that, get back into the studio with your model for more experimenting with lights... and then go outdoors again... it's an iterative process.<br>

Baby steps and keep down the variables not in your control... and post regularly in the critiques forum. As Vincent Versace quotes Vince Lombardi... "Practice doesn’t make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect."</p>

[dan_south]

<p>A modifier that diffuses the light (umbrella, softbox, bounce flash) would go a long way toward flattering your model and making your images look better.</p>

<p>I would avoid software fixes like Portrait Professional until you learn how to cast a more flattering light on your subjects. Once you get the light setup happening you can use software for the final tweaks. If you're going to put icing on a cake, first you need to bake a good cake.</p>