Fall Beauty C&C weclomed

[KimC]

I recently did some fall photos for a family. This was their daughter (she has purple/reddish highlights in her hair). She was not super happy that her father/mother brought she and her brother out for photos on a very cold fall day; however, she was very pleased with the end result.

ISO 125; 1/200; F4; 122mm

[Manfred M]

I'm sure your subject and parents are quite happy with the images you produced.

That being said, let me give you a few thoughts for next time...

1. Racoon eyes - heavy shadows from darken up the eye sockets. Fill during exposure or dodging in post help fix that. Brightening things up bring out her dominant (left / camera right) eye and that was a bit more hidden by the shadows.

2. Crop - I'm not sure why you have included so much of the background on the right hand side of the image. The bright spot beside her right shoulder is a bit distracting.

3. Hair - again doable in post, but easier to fix during the shot. The hair on her neck are what I would concentrate on and a few of the fly away hairs too.

4. I rarely shoot straight on the subject's face. A bit of a side view tends to give a "more pleasing" look. Careful though, there are a number of issues you have to watch for when doing that too.


Anyhow, here's what I might do with the shot.

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured.

[Dave A]

Nice image and I do prefer Manfred's crop.

Dave

[ST1]

Well captured Kim, Manfreds crop suggestion works for me too

[KimC]

I'm not sure what the "anyhow" refers to, but that aside, thanks for your suggestions Manfred.

I found her to be a dark exotic beauty, and in my opinion, that included the darkness around her eyes (which was enhanced with her make-up). I feel your version loses the exoticness (what I saw - we all see things differently). I do understand your point, so I will explore if there is a middle ground.

I do like your crop. I purposefully didn't crop this image tighter as the family specifically requested a lot of color in the background. I did do some B&Ws of her with a very tight crop.

P.S. I now see you edited your post to elaborate on the anyhow...

Anyhow, here's what I might do with the shot.

[Manfred M]

I'm not sure what the "anyhow" refers to, but that aside, thanks for your suggestions Manfred.

I found her to be a dark exotic beauty, and in my opinion, that included the darkness around her eyes (which was enhanced with her make-up). I feel your version loses the exoticness (what I saw - we all see things differently). I do understand your point, so I will explore if there is a middle ground.

I do like your crop. I purposefully didn't crop this image tighter as the family specifically requested a lot of color in the background. I did do some B&Ws of her with a very tight crop.

P.S. I now see you edited your post to elaborate on the anyhow...

I seem to have cut off the text I had originally posted when I pasted in the image and I did not notice that right away. Sorry about that.

I did notice the makeup when I was in there working the eyes. The trick is to get the makeup to show without the shadows. The problem is that the effect is additive. It can be taken care of in post to some extent, but I did a "quick & dirty" edit to show direction (i.e. I should have softened the lines below the eyes too*).

[IzzieK]

I like Manfred's edit especially around the eyes because I really do not like the make-up down her lower lids. Just a thought...

[Rider in the Sky]

Beautiful exotic subject presented in a pleasing photo.

Btw, would you consider softening her sweater as contributing to let the viewer focus on her lovely features.

Thanks

[bnnrcn]

Very nice image Kim I find Manfred's version better but your original is very close to his edit. So, I think you are getting there

[KimC]

Thanks for the comments everyone. I have to admit, I am struggling with this a little. I did play with the image to see if I could find a middle ground concerning her eye area. My issue is, in Manfred's version and the image I have been playing with this afternoon... it's not her -- it's not what she looks like. I found her beautiful in the first (dark and mysterious). I know how I have felt when photographers have changed me into "something wrinkle free" -- my first thought is, what was wrong with the real me, that you had to manipulate me like that? I would never want to make anyone I am photographing feel that way. I struggled with that little boy I posted recently as well when the shadows around his eyes were lifted (it was no longer "him").

This will be something I will have to work thru, and I appreciate all your comments that make me think deeper about this.

[Manfred M]

it's not her -- it's not what she looks like.

Okay Kim - time to get analytical here. Let's try to figure out why you think she doesn't look like the image in real life?

1. Is it the pose? Are there certain characteristics you are used to seeing that are different in this image? When being photographed people often do something a bit strange with their eyes (open them wider) or jaw (clench it more tightly than usual?)

2. Is it the skin tones? Is the image too light or dark? Are there certain colour undertones in her skin that look different (i.e. did you shoot with a grey card to ensure that the white balance is set properly?).

3. Is the problem the straight on shot? We very rarely see look straight at the face like this and straight on shots can look a bit weird.

4. Are there some areas of her face that look a bit off? Are her eyes usually brighter (they are fairly dark in this shot). Are her lips too dull? There is a strange shadow under her lips that might make the shot look a bit strange? Is that usually there when you look at her?

5. Does she usually dress this way or are the clothes / makeup not the way she usually looks?

[FootLoose]

I prefer Kim's original version. In removing the shadows from under her eyes Manfred has flattened her cheeks and reduced her smile.

[KimC]

Thanks for pursuing this with me Manfred. I needed some time to think about it before responding.

This weekend I did a bit of dodging on a few faces during PP. I thought to myself, why was it ok then? What's different here? The difference, has nothing to do with the items you mentioned below. What bothers me about doing it on this image, or the little boy I posted early this month, is that it dramatically changed their expression, especially through the eyes (they no longer looked like the people I saw on that day). The dodging I did this weekend, didn't change the essence of the person, or their expression, but did enhance the image.

I know time will help me develop my thinking in this area, as well as the people willing to challenge/guide me on this forum.

Okay Kim - time to get analytical here. Let's try to figure out why you think she doesn't look like the image in real life?

1. Is it the pose? Are there certain characteristics you are used to seeing that are different in this image? When being photographed people often do something a bit strange with their eyes (open them wider) or jaw (clench it more tightly than usual?)

2. Is it the skin tones? Is the image too light or dark? Are there certain colour undertones in her skin that look different (i.e. did you shoot with a grey card to ensure that the white balance is set properly?).

3. Is the problem the straight on shot? We very rarely see look straight at the face like this and straight on shots can look a bit weird.

4. Are there some areas of her face that look a bit off? Are her eyes usually brighter (they are fairly dark in this shot). Are her lips too dull? There is a strange shadow under her lips that might make the shot look a bit strange? Is that usually there when you look at her?

5. Does she usually dress this way or are the clothes / makeup not the way she usually looks?

[Manfred M]

Kim - let me throw a suggestion at you. All of the "issues" that you and I have tried to correct using PP are related to things that could have been fixed "in camera". Proper lighting, posing, cleaning up stray hair, positioning of the subject and background, etc.

I find lighting and makeup to be the most critical of these elements to get right. In portraiture we are attempting to sculpt the face and the way that the makeup defines cheek bones, the eyes, the lips. This should be complemented by how the lighting falls on the subject, especially the face, and casts shadows to complement the facial features, often already accentuated by well applied makeup.

I suspect that a number of issues in this shot (strange shadows in and beneath the eyes, below the lips and on the camera right side of the face and neck) could have been avoided by using a fill light that came from camera left and below (I would start 1-stop below ambient metered and see how that goes (drama vs softness) and try moving in 1/3 stop increments to see how I like the look.

I would also probably have asked the subject to swing her hair behind her head on the camera right side as well. Shooting more from the camera left side, rather than straight on would have been worth trying too, if you do want the hair in the image. The problem I have with long hair is arranging it in such a way that it does not look strange in the way it falls on the face and / or the neck.

[KimC]

Yes, I agree. I was thinking the same thing -- I need to make sure I get it right when shooting so there is no need to fix esp the eye area in post. Something that will take more time and experience.

Kim - let me throw a suggestion at you. All of the "issues" that you and I have tried to correct using PP are related to things that could have been fixed "in camera". Proper lighting, posing, cleaning up stray hair, positioning of the subject and background, etc.

I find lighting and makeup to be the most critical of these elements to get right. In portraiture we are attempting to sculpt the face and the way that the makeup defines cheek bones, the eyes, the lips. This should be complemented by how the lighting falls on the subject, especially the face, and casts shadows to complement the facial features, often already accentuated by well applied makeup.

I suspect that a number of issues in this shot (strange shadows in and beneath the eyes, below the lips and on the camera right side of the face and neck) could have been avoided by using a fill light that came from camera left and below (I would start 1-stop below ambient metered and see how that goes (drama vs softness) and try moving in 1/3 stop increments to see how I like the look.

I would also probably have asked the subject to swing her hair behind her head on the camera right side as well. Shooting more from the camera left side, rather than straight on would have been worth trying too, if you do want the hair in the image. The problem I have with long hair is arranging it in such a way that it does not look strange in the way it falls on the face and / or the neck.

[Manfred M]

Bottom-line, was the client satisfied or not.

Second most important question. What the photographer satisfied with their work?

[Rider in the Sky]

Second most important question. What the photographer satisfied with their work?

Ooops ! forgot that one. Thanks for the reminder.

Perhaps, best is take careful note of helpful advice, take a few shots , then move on .

[KimC]

Was I happy with what I gave the family... yes. Was I satisfied, no, as I know I am not the best I can be. In my book, satisfaction leads to a lack of growth.

Second most important question. What the photographer satisfied with their work?

[DEAN01]

Very nice, Kim.