Studio shots

[Armand]

Hi guys! Two pictures of my wife! C&C welcome, as always and appreciated too!

[Geoff F]

Looks good, Armand.

With the first image, I wonder if the mask is just a fraction on the low side. But without an alternative to compare, I'm not really sure.

[Andrew76]

+1.

Great lighting, sharp focus. I like #1 the best.

[Shadowman]

Nicely done.

[Colin Southern]

Everything looks great, except I think you forgot to re-sharpen after down-sampling (output sharpening) (click to evaluate at best resolution for evaluating sharpening)

eg:



Edit: In fact, I'd probably tap the irises with the sharpening tool a couple of extra times as well.

[Rongnogno]

May I suggest a bit more control on the light for picture #2? (Added later - Then again the use of a flash ring does not help)

Number one is fine but my eye wanders toward the top left to see the feather... If there is one. Because of that I think there is room for improvement in your capture.

[IzzieK]

Beautiful woman! Nice shots!

[FootLoose]

Is anyone else bothered by the white discs reflected in the eyes? They seem too bright and hard to me.

[Shadowman]

Is anyone else bothered by the white discs reflected in the eyes? They seem too bright and hard to me.

Is that the effect of using ring flash?

[Armand]

Is that the effect of using ring flash?

Thanks to all for the comments. No, it's a beauty dish, but I've shot just above it, so it looks like it's attached on the camera. Three flashes were used.

[Rob Ekins]

Is anyone else bothered by the white discs reflected in the eyes? They seem too bright and hard to me.

Agreed. Very distracting,

Great shots otherwise, nice PP.


Robbie.

[Shadowman]

Thanks to all for the comments. No, it's a beauty dish, but I've shot just above it, so it looks like it's attached on the camera. Three flashes were used.

When you were setting up these shots did you worry about positioning the catch lights in the model's eyes or did you just want to capture the effect?

[Colin Southern]

When you were setting up these shots did you worry about positioning the catch lights in the model's eyes or did you just want to capture the effect?

You set the lighting up for the effect(s) you want - the catch lights are just a by-product of that.

[Armand]

You set the lighting up for the effect(s) you want - the catch lights are just a by-product of that.

Yep, I second this.

[Shadowman]

You set the lighting up for the effect(s) you want - the catch lights are just a by-product of that.

So you only care about direction of shadow or minimizing shadows?

[Colin Southern]

So you only care about direction of shadow or minimizing shadows?

It's all about the shadows really. Shadows are what set the mood and give the shot character. Imaging what this shot of mine would look light with flat lighting?



Or imaging how this would look with hard lighting



So without exception, we set the lighting for what we want the shot to be - and the catch lights are what they are. Probably the best example of that is Peter Hurley; this guy shoots celebrities and charged $1500 a session. He shoots medium format with continuous lighting. Check out these catch lights (which are typical) (for this type of shot you often do have pretty flat lighting) (it's kinda the exception to the rule).

[Shadowman]

I would think the catch lights in that last one (Tiffany) was atypical. Was that done with a standard beauty light or is that a trade secret?

[Manfred M]

I would think the catch lights in that last one (Tiffany) was atypical. Was that done with a standard beauty light or is that a trade secret?

I see three separate light sources in the catchlights. I wonder if this is a David Hurley headshot setup?

[Colin Southern]

I see three separate light sources in the catchlights. I wonder if this is a David Hurley headshot setup?

He does vary it, but he seems to gravitate towards a beauty setup, which emphasizes more under-lighting than we'd see in a more typical 45/45 setup. (I've got a light table that does a similar thing that I used in my 2nd example).

Peter Hurley does a lot of work training folks; KelbyOne is the best place to find his teachings, but YouTube also has some extremely educational stuff of his. One for openers is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIMCFVlbEz8

All I know is that they guy produces some DARN good headshots!

[Manfred M]

He does vary it, but he seems to gravitate towards a beauty setup, which emphasizes more under-lighting than we'd see in a more typical 45/45 setup. (I've got a light table that does a similar thing that I used in my 2nd example).

Peter Hurley does a lot of work training folks; KelbyOne is the best place to find his teachings, but YouTube also has some extremely educational stuff of his. One for openers is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIMCFVlbEz8

All I know is that they guy produces some DARN good headshots!

I agree about the quality of his work Colin. but suspect it has as much to do with his "bedside manner" as his setup(s). He seems to coax some wonderful, natural and fluid images out of his clientel.