"School of Portraiture" - Lesson 05 - Introduction to Flash & Some Inspiration!

[wilgk]

So a colorimeter fell into my lap, and I ran it through its thing.

Two of three monitors I have available, none of which are exceedingly sweet ones. But they are calibrated and profiled. Saved, located, and looking a little strange, but I’ll get used to that.

So I thought I’d have another go at another shot.

Notes to self:
Have subject change eyes so that the larger one is on the other side if I am going to shoot from this angle!

This was shot before lesson 05 was published.

Terry I really like the angle with model looking up through eyelashes to you
Excellent work - keep going

[Colin Southern]

Colin, because of distractions on the home front, I arrived late in your school of portraiture but I am up to speed with it now. First, thank you for sharing your knowledge. These posts have been helpful. Second, some of the shots in this post are OUTSTANDING. Lighting ranges from good to excellent and posing and composition are very good. You have nudged me farther toward trying this myslef.

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for the kind words. As a landscape shooter (perhaps like you?), I actually surprised myself when I also started shooting portraiture; I thought that it would always play 2nd fiddle to landscape, but I've discovered that I like making beautiful images regardless of how they come about, or what they're of - and of course, each comes with it's own set of challenges, so I felt that as I mastered something new each time, I'm actually adding to my "photographic toolbox".

[Colin Southern]

I have to admit, I am having a ball and learning a ton doing this, though I'm not getting to do it as much as I would like! But after showing a couple of these around a little, I'm getting more volunteers for models! (Mostly freeloading family and friends wanting some freebies!)

Feast or Famine, I guess!

Having fun and getting good results are what it's all about - and the funny thing is, once just a handful of basics are mastered then taking shots good enough to print on canvas and hang on a wall becomes "no big deal". In fact, sometimes when your trying to select a shot to be printed, the biggest problem starts to become "I have so many good one, which one do I choose?"

And the other thing to keep in mind is that I've seen many "professionally shot" portraits that weren't as good as what I'm seeing here (and a lot that were better too, so don't get too big headed!) ... and I'll bet you all a chocolate fish that at some point in the future someone is going to say "are you a professional photographer". You probably won't feel like one, but if you're producing work that's better than some pros then perhaps it's a case of "if the cap fits, wear it"?

[Colin Southern]

She is my day 9 PAD girl - but popped her here as well, so Terry & Sam know you are not alone!
I'm still trying too
although I do acknowledge I have a head start by having someone keen to have their picture taken!

Hi Kay,

I think that image nicely represents a "cumulative total" of what you've learned so far - very well done

However ...

... nobody ever gets away with a perfect 10 in my class, so:

- If you stand back and just look at the image, you'll notice that shoulder area to camera right is bright enough to compete with the face for the viewers attention. Pretty easy to deal to (and a new tool for your toolbox) just duplicate the layer (for no other reason than for safety) - select the burn tool (midtones) (perhaps highlights afterwards) (low exposure, eg 4%) - fairly big, soft brush, and just hand burn the image. Have several passes as required, and if you go too far then ctrl + alt + z will step you back up to 50 states (by default, or up to 1000 if you tweak it). It's a bit scary to start with, but at the end of the day, it's something you just need to get used to -- there's only so much you can do with global adjustments. Because you duplicated the layer to start with, you can (a) toggle the top (adjusted) latyer off and on to see what you've done, and (b) you can also reduce the opacity of the top layer if you want to water down some of it's effect. Probably aim to reduce it to about the same level as your vignette in the corner has.

- Speaking of vignetting, I usually drag the midpoint control a long way towards the left; if the lit portion of the face is well away from the edge (as it is here) it's usually quite surprising just how far you can move it and still get away with it - in fact, if anything, it'll make the lighting look more directional (but in the same breath, don't over do it -- it's a bit like sharpening in that it should make the image look better, but the average person shouldn't be able to pick it out as something you've done).

- In shooting any portraiture, theres SO SO SO SO many variations - variations in composition, variations in lighting, variations in background, variations in posing etc - so don't be afraid to mix it up a bit ... so not every shot needs to be a head and shoulders shot of a smiling model with a dutch tilt in front of a brick wall. Try a head and shoulders shot of a laughing model with a dutch tilt in front of a brick wall (and it'll look completely different) - try the above while someone blows the hair about with a fan - try some different backgrounds with a smiling and then a laughing model. Mix it up a bit in other words -- it's how you start to spread your wings and improve your skillset

And finally, pat yourself on the back -- with a slightly different crop, I could print a shot like that - you could hang it on your wall - and the only comment people would make was "wow - what a great shot" ... and it would be one that she could proudly show her grand kids long after we're both gone! (was that really you grandma ... "yes it was!" ... wow, who took the photo? ... "your great grandmother!" ... wow - was she a professional photographer? ... "yes, she was!").

PS: I like your border and presentation (even if it does look a LOT like mine!) I think that this is a part that people often forget: Image Presentation. I compare it to dinner served on a plate in a restaurant -v- dinner served on a plate in an army mess; same food, way different presentation ... and I know which looks better!

PPS: If you can, get your reflector / flash up higher, and a little "further around" - what you have here is bordering on what I call "under lighting" - not a big sin by any means, but we are accustomed to seeing people lit by a light source that's above the horizon.

[Loose Canon]

Very nice, Kay, as usual! I love the pose.

Funny, but I found out PDQ a long time ago about a Phenomenon I call the “I Love Me” Factor. Learned this shooting video.

A lot of people are often camera shy and you can’t hardly get them on camera. However, once they see the final output, they wonder why they didn’t get on camera more! Next time out, they actually become a PITA because once they see a camera pointing at them, they start “acting”. With still photography, I find that the kids I shoot candidly are worse! If they see me with a camera they hide behind Mom, until they see one I accidently nailed that was a pretty nice shot of them. Now, they watch me to see if I am trying to capture their image, and if they see I am, all I get is their version of “funny face” or peace signs, or whatever they think might be cute! Guess I’m going to need a longer telephoto to get far enough away that they can’t tell who I am aiming at!

My model was reluctant at first and still is to some degree. But after a session, she can’t wait to see what I came up with. To the point of coming into the office to direct my PP!

Regardless of how camera shy a lot of people are, they dearly love to have shots of them (action, nice portraits, etc.) up on their “I Love Me” wall (Or a nice DVD of them in action)!

I never underestimate the Power of “I Love Me”!

Stay tuned for Chapter II of this story: “Everybody’s a Critic” or “This Would Have Been Much Better If You’d Got More Shots of Me”!

[CNelson]

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for the kind words. As a landscape shooter (perhaps like you?), I actually surprised myself when I also started shooting portraiture; I thought that it would always play 2nd fiddle to landscape, but I've discovered that I like making beautiful images regardless of how they come about, or what they're of - and of course, each comes with it's own set of challenges, so I felt that as I mastered something new each time, I'm actually adding to my "photographic toolbox".

Yes, with photography the learning never stops, it just branches. This keeps it ever fresh. Most photographers who support themselves with photography are productions photographers (portraits, weddings, families, seniors, etc.). Most fine art photographers don't earn what production photographers do and there's a lot less pressure to produce. I am increasingly recognizing the art and technical challenge of production photography and it's clear thay many such photographers are great artists in every sense of the word. They deserve the the good income they earn and they earn it with hard word. In reading their blogs it's clear that the learning never stops in any branch of photography. As cameras, lenses and software evolve, the art and science of photography evolves with it. We follow in the steps of the greats who have gone before us yet we are still pioneers because we seek our own way through the technology and possibilities of modern photography.

Hmmmm.....I didn't start out to wax philosophical....my keyboard wouldn't quit.

Chuck

[Colin Southern]

Terry,

I've re-worked the things I was talking about ... what do you think?

[wilgk]

Hi Kay,


- If you stand back and just look at the image, you'll notice that shoulder area to camera right is bright enough to compete with the face for the viewers attention. Pretty easy to deal to (and a new tool for your toolbox) just duplicate the layer (for no other reason than for safety) - select the burn tool (midtones) (perhaps highlights afterwards) (low exposure, eg 4%) - fairly big, soft brush, and just hand burn the image. Have several passes as required, and if you go too far then ctrl + alt + z will step you back up to 50 states (by default, or up to 1000 if you tweak it). It's a bit scary to start with, but at the end of the day, it's something you just need to get used to -- there's only so much you can do with global adjustments. Because you duplicated the layer to start with, you can (a) toggle the top (adjusted) latyer off and on to see what you've done, and (b) you can also reduce the opacity of the top layer if you want to water down some of it's effect. Probably aim to reduce it to about the same level as your vignette in the corner has.

o.....kay she says not really understanding yet, but will give it a whirl and have a try

- Speaking of vignetting, I usually drag the midpoint control a long way towards the left; if the lit portion of the face is well away from the edge (as it is here) it's usually quite surprising just how far you can move it and still get away with it - in fact, if anything, it'll make the lighting look more directional (but in the same breath, don't over do it -- it's a bit like sharpening in that it should make the image look better, but the average person shouldn't be able to pick it out as something you've done).

understanding this bit a weeny bit more, so will try that again too

Mix it up a bit in other words -- it's how you start to spread your wings and improve your skillset

these wings still have very big L's on them, but yep we had on our to do list some other ideas to try....1 pose will be a copy from an e.g on the back of this months PC magazine of all places!

PS: I like your border and presentation (even if it does look a LOT like mine!)

Sorry it's the only 1 I've worked out how to do in CS5 yet.

PPS: If you can, get your reflector / flash up higher, and a little "further around" - what you have here is bordering on what I call "under lighting" - not a big sin by any means, but we are accustomed to seeing people lit by a light source that's above the horizon.

Yep understand this bit perfectly - maybe this higher might even have helped with lessening the 'brightness area' on the shoulder possibly?

anyway thanks again so much for the feedback, very much appreciated, and the example of your outdoor lighting rig. I thought I was Christmas when I could fire my 430 with it on the tripod off to the side of the model from the camera....can I do it without the manual in the other hand? - nope....but maybe 1 day!

[Colin Southern]

Yep understand this bit perfectly - maybe this higher might even have helped with lessening the 'brightness area' on the shoulder possibly?

Imagine you have Fashionista standing in front of you - imagine you have Dad standing 6 feet to her left with a powerful fan. If you point the fan directly at her, you'll have hair going everywhere - but - if you carefully point the fan (initially) in front of her (but whilst still standing on the side) you'll (theoretically) strike a zone where she can feel the edge of that column of air brushing past her face, but none of it (again, in theory) goes back far enough to mess up the hair.

OK, crazy example - and it's not something that you'd probably ever want to do with a fan (unless you live in Australia where it's too hot!) (even in winter!) - but - it IS something you can do with lighting. It's easier to do with soft boxes and umbrellas, but you can do it with reflectors too if your VAL can follow instructions. So in reality you're illuminating the face, with less light hitting the shoulder and lower torso areas. It's a problem we sometimes have in the studio with big softboxes (my smallest one is about 1m x 1m) - they produce lovely soft light, but it often illuminates too far down the body so we end up pointing it upwards - and using a flag (big black thing that blocks some of the light at the bottom) and in reality, we position the light so it "blows past" the face rather than "pointed into the face", as many would first expect). In reality, for most studio portraits I have about 1/3 of the light hitting the face, and the other 2/3 sailing right on by that ends up hitting my reflectors (if I'm using them, other wise it just gest absorbed by the blasck walls).

Takes a bit of getting used to - you could swear that the lights look horribly misaligned, but they're that way for a reason.

So to answer the question, yes, raising the reflector and/or flash can help with getting some of the light away from the shoulder - but - you have to angle it up a lot more than you'd first think.

[Colin Southern]

Hi folks,

Just a little "heads up" to let you know that I've just posted 18 portraits shot in about an hour today, here.

Hoping you might get some ideas and a bit of inspiration

[Loose Canon]

so don't get too big headed

If you’re talking to me, Colin, that’s one affliction I have no worries of suffering from anytime soon!

As regards your re-make? I like it. But its not enough for me to just say “I like it” and leave it at that. I’m afraid I have to know why I like it. Or more specifically, what to do to make it better. Or even more specifically, what to do to duplicate the results. If I don’t, then what have I gained?

So I brought up the image again and started adding and subtracting adjustment layers. The closest I could duplicate your results (so far) was simply a dark and light color algorithym and snapped neutral midtones. But looks pretty close to me before posting.

My model got all dolled up for this shoot. From the waist up! She was wearing light colored shorts and I see (now) that they were peeking through in the lower left corner! Fixed that on one of many re-dos! Chaulked that up to just one more thing I missed! Also had a bit of an eye adjustment and vignette added.

By the way, Colin? Both of your portrait series' are very inspirational.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Terry,

- I think you've got the vignette sussed on this one; it doesn't draw the eye to the top of the hair in this one.

- Zapping the shorts in the lower-left is good; I also zapped a small shiny thing at the bottom of the zip that I found distracting.

- Overall, skintones look a lot better than the original, and are very close to mine. However, I think that they're still not 100 right in either of our versions. I think the colour is pretty good, but they're just a touch washed out. A tap or to with the burn tool on midtones and shadows (prob set to around 4%) might improve them.

- With regards to the eyes, I think you've make the whites a little too white - looks a bit un-natural to me. I actually toned these down quite a lot in my version.

- I think that the direction of the light has left some tones a bit brighter than they need to be (eg the skin on the left (camera right) shoulder and left-hand side of the head). Not a biggie, but I suspect that if you subtly toned these down and then compared version, you'd probably prefer the toned-down version more.

[Loose Canon]

Thank you, Colin.

I understand everything you have said and I certainly do appreciate it.

[Colin Southern]

Thank you, Colin.

I understand everything you have said and I certainly do appreciate it.

No worries Terry - that's what we're here for!

[Sam Smith]

Well after getting a 2x4 to get the "model" out of bed and moving I had another go at it. I am hesitant to post after Terry's post. Mine looks like a snap shot compared to it. Anyway here it is.

[Colin Southern]

Well after getting a 2x4 to get the "model" out of bed and moving I had another go at it. I am hesitant to post after Terry's post. Mine looks like a snap shot compared to it. Anyway here it is.

Hi Sam,

I'm a bit puzzled as to why the background is so dark. Was the whole shot everely under-exposed or something?

[wilgk]

Well at first I wasn't sure if Colin was being too hasty throwing me out of the nest so soon!......now I'm certain of it

BUT the good thing is, I can see a lot of what is wrong with these even before he tells me and he is quite right, if I had stuck with my same model, just changing different brick buildings for background, I wouldn't have got any further ahead.

So thanks to my friend's most co-operative models, I had a go at trying some shots with all sorts of variables - maybe too many all at once but as they say in NZ...'may as well be hanged as a sheep as lamb'



Meet Zoe - red head band & pink top don't go well at all and I will need to learn to pp those wee distracting bright patches that crop up.
And the background is 'on the fence' doesn't really help context and yet maybe not 'oof' enough



Josh take 2 - red tag on top should go and yet another wee bright spot sneaks in to distract...



And finally I tried for all 3 at once - they live on a property so I wanted to get a bit of the bush feel happening with the trees, didn't work exactly as I had in mind & again lots to improve upon.....but that is the point

[Colin Southern]

[wilgk]

Thankyou

[Colin Southern]

Thankyou

Hi Kay,

Sorry, I was going to type something as well, but my beloved Formula 1 was on TV, and - well - you know, "priorities" and all that!

Not withstanding the fact that my home screen is possibly a little bit out, I still think you need to develop an eye for washed out skin; when retouching the image I had to adjust the black point, midtones, overall exposure, and even then, run the burn tool over Zoe's face a couple of times just to add a bit of contrast to the skin (which does wonders to the colour as well). Assuming you're using a profiled monitor then you should be able to look at the two versions and see much nicer tones in my quick retouch. If you're not working from a profiled screen then we're into the kind of territory where your screen could throw adjustments like this either way.

I also added a subtle vignette to draw the eye towards the centre.

All in all, pretty good though - coming along quite nicely