tom_musselman

<p>One more thing, Elisabeth. You said when you try to make photos like this they look "washed out." That might be lens flare. With white backgrounds like this, too much light can get into the lens causing lens flare. Lens flare lowers contrast giving a washed out look. Prime lenses generally have lower flare than zooms.<br /><br />Keep the background just light enough to be white. More light just increases the risk of flare.<br /><br />I'm not sure if that is what you meant. White backgrounds like this are kind of tricky. You usually need some lights directed towards the background, and it needs to be fairly evenly lit.</p>

<p>Hi Elisabeth. Sorry I'm late, but I think I can add to the discussion. Mathew is right, though the term is "reflection" not "highlight," which is something else. Reflections in the eyes have a special name, catchlights, and can reveal the shape of lights. In this case there appears to be a square or rectangular softbox just above the camera position. That could be the only light. I'd say it might be a 4x4 or 4x6 foot softbox. You can get the same effect with an umbrella.<br /><br />This is not really portraiture light, but if you search "butterfly light" you will get a good idea what this setup looks like.<br /><br />One problem with this light setup, when shooting a full standing model, is getting the model evenly lit from head to feet. Usually the legs and feet are noticeably darker than the face. I like to use a 45 inch shoot-through umbrella just in front of the camera position, low to the floor and pointing up slightly. That can even out the light, and most women look better with some light from below anyway. In this photo the model is evenly lit, but the catchlight shows only one light. These photos might have been processed to even out the light.<br /><br />You have control over the sharpness of the edges of the shadows. A larger softbox, softer edges. And you have control over the darkness of the shadows with reflectors or additional light sources.<br /><br />I hope this helps.</p>

<p>I believe some images get rotated when we don't want it because of an entry in the metadata of the jpeg file. Some cameras put a rotation entry in the metadata that says if the image is vertical or horizontal. Some software applications use that entry, others don't. So it can appear that some applications get it "wrong" while others get it "right."</p> <p>If you know how to erase the metadata, then the offending entry will be gone and no software application will rotate the image. Then just get the image rotated to the orientation you want, and it will stay that way everywhere. Among others, FastStone Image Viewer handles these simple tasks and is free.</p>

<p>Wedding photographers handle these problems with almost every job. A good place for you to start solving your own problems is by researching wedding photography. There are good books available as well as online resources. Good luck!</p>

<p>I have a guess as to what happened. You took a picture and it was too dark, so you tried to make it better and it didn't come out right. Now you are asking what happened. That is a great question. This is a very common problem that can be very confusing. If my guess is right, the large white doors behind the batter caused the first photo to be too dark. Knowing why it was too dark will help you make corrections quickly in the future. Let's see if I can explain why it was too dark.<br /><br />When light meters measure a scene, in this case the scene is what you see through the viewfinder, they return an average light intensity, or a single value that represents the light intensity of the entire scene. The camera sets the exposure based on that average intensity reading. Cameras assume that every scene has an average tonal value of "middle gray." Yes the famous "middle gray" or "18% gray" that people talk about. The camera sets the exposure values so that the photo you see has an average tone of middle gray.<br /><br />Cameras and their light meters work great most of the time. If you took a picture of a grassy field in sunlight it would look well exposed. Now let's say there is a patch of snow on the grass. If you pointed your camera at the snow, the meter would measure more light, the camera would lower the exposure and a picture of that scene would appear too dark. If you zoomed in and filled the entire frame with the white snow and took a picture, the snow would be as dark as middle gray.<br /><br />So when you pointed your camera at the batter, the white doors behind him caused your photo to look too dark. There are a few ways to get your camera back to an exposure you prefer. A quick method is to point your camera at something that is close to middle gray in the same light as the batter, such as grass in sunlight, and "lock in" the exposure value. Then point the camera at the batter and take the picture. See your camera's manual for an "exposure lock" button. Another method is to switch to manual exposure mode and set the exposure while pointing the camera at the grass, then you can take a picture of anything in sunlight and it will be properly exposed, regardless of the white doors in the background.<br /><br />A good book on basic photography can explain this in more detail and it will be easier to understand too. I hope this helps.</p>

<p>In my view, supplying sample photos with your watermark is good for you and the model. It helps the model to have a professional photo from a known photographer in her online portfolio, and it helps you to build a name for yourself. Whether you are known or not, a watermark makes you look known.<br /><br />In my experience, experienced models that work regulary don't ask for photos. Only beginning models ask for photos, partly because modeling is still a novelty for them and they are curious to see what the photos look like, and partly because they need professional photos for their online portfolio.<br /><br />When a beginning model asks for images, I tell her I will send her some samples. I put together 8-12 sample images from the shoot, which may have included 6 or 7 sets or looks. The samples are usually 800 pixels on the long side, and include my promo stamp (watermark). I tell her they are promotional images and she can use them in any way - social media or online profile - as long as the promo stamp remains visible.<br /><br />I hire models through modeling agencies. Some agencies use their own photos for the model's online profile. Other agencies use a mix of their own photos and photos from jobs the models have had. I have no problem supplying promotional images to the agency. I check the agency website to see what size they use in model profiles, and I send them about 6 images that size. Some agencies in LA have several models with my images in their profile. That can't hurt my reputation.<br /><br />When I hire independent art models through sites like Model Mayhem, the same arguments hold. A good sample image that includes a watermark is good for everybody.</p>

<p>As Jeff states, shutter speed is more important that ISO when shooting bands. Definitely. This may not apply to shooting a band in a church, but I always wear earplugs when shooting bands. In fact, I always keep a pair in my camera bag.</p>

<p>I've done many shoots like this with professional models. Even with paid models, I always have a professional female makeup artist. The female MUA has many functions other than makeup, such as making friends with the model and increasing her confidence in her appearance and my abilities to make her look good. These extra duties are more important with beginning models.<br> <br /> However, those are professional models. Paying customers are very different. They have unknown backgrounds and motives, and are inexperienced. Most boudoir photographers are women, but not all. It can work, but consider having a female present, such as an MUA, to act as witness and to help the client relax and feel good about herself. Since you are obviously nervous about this shoot, having a female MUA/witness present will help you relax too. All that relaxing can only be good for your photos. I agree with others who have emphatically recommended abandoning your ideas about recording anything. Have fun and be creative!</p>

<p>Yep, looks like one big light source to me, too. The shadows seem to indicate the height of the light sources, but the models are lit evenly from head to foot, so placement was made carefully. The light in the left photo might be higher. Something I like about the large parabolic umbrellas is that they seem to maintain better quality light at farther distances than an equivalent softbox. That can help reduce light falloff if the model needs to be stretched out toward the light.</p>

<p>You might be noticing more than simple tone or color. Her skin appears to be smoothed, or blurred. The smoothing might be confusing your eyes a little. You can create a mask on the skin and then apply blurring to the skin only, as well as adjusting saturation and color. Or you can use a plugin like BeautyBox, which creates the mask automatically and allows you to make many types of adjustment, such as smoothing, color, hue, saturation and contrast.</p>

<p>A good place to start is with an 80-100mm (in 35mm equivalents) lens or longer to minimize the perspective distortion. Next, some shadows will help make him look manly. Harder light rather than softer will bring out the features in his face, so use smaller light sources. No on-camera flash. Place the light source a little to the side, say at 45 degrees. If you are using a flash head, use a small softbox or umbrella to keep the light source on the small side. If you are using window light, the same idea holds. Moving farther from the window will reduce its relative size and make the shadows harder. Next you might want to control the shadows so they are not too light or dark. A reflector or another light source might help. I don't think I would do anything heavy-handed in PS. Make him look the way he looks and let nature take its course. Lastly, have fun and warn your subject that he might want to be careful what he wishes for!</p>

<p>I think Walter touched on an important point: the internal processing. P&S cameras can do significant processing of the jpeg, and it can be enlightening to compare the RAW and jpeg outputs, if available. The internal processing can correct lens distortions, increase saturation and contrast, alter fill light and sharpen.<br> Just considering the processing that each camera might do, I'm not surprised that the photo taken with the tablet looks "better." It's a consumer item and having photos that look pretty is part of its marketing. The bridge camera, OTOH, is closer to a pro camera and might not do as much processing, but leaves processing to the photographer.</p>