Takeisha

[Chrisclick]

First home studio shots. Making the transition from wildlife photography to portrait photography has been a challenge. I started gathering the necessary items a couple of years ago, and now have a little studio in my home.

Not abandoning bird photography altogether, just expanding my experience in the hope of having my hobby pay for itself!

These are the first 'real' shots taken in my new little studio:


Takeisha 1 by Maximillion C, on Flickr


Takeisha 3 by Maximillion C, on Flickr


Takeisha 2 small by Maximillion C, on Flickr

CC very welcome.

[Shadowman]

Nice series.

[Chrisclick]

Many thanks, John.

[rpcrowe]

Absolutely wonderful expression on a lovely young lady whom I am sure will grow into a beautiful woman.

I woud have liked to see her at an angle to the camera rather than full on and I would also like to have seen the background reduced in brightness, especially the bright spot image right of her face.

I played with the last image a bit using Photoshop and my NIK Plug-In. I reduced the brightness of the BG, added a bit of vignette and did several other things which I didn't keep track of. What do you think of this?



I realize that the color could be more accurate but, I often have problems copying with the snip-it tool. However, it does seem to me that there is more of a separation between the subject and the background.

[Manfred M]

I would make some of the same suggestions as Richard; straight on shots rarely give the most pleasing results and having your subject at an angle to the camera, rather than being completely square to it usually gives more pleasing look and the same tends to go for the face as shooting straight on tends to emphasize the non-symmetrical elements of the subject's face.

I find that the white balance is off as there is a definite orange (i.e. red and yellow) colour cast. I do prefer my images a bit on the warm side of neutral, but not quite that warm.

What are your shooting parameters (focal length and aperture) and what light modifier(s) are you using (size and distance from your subject). There is one large round catch light in her eyes, so I assume you are using a single umbrella or octabox?

[Chrisclick]

I realize that the color could be more accurate but, I often have problems copying with the snip-it tool.

Just drag the image from CiC to your desktop. You will get a perfect copy of the original including EXIF. No problem.

[Chrisclick]

I find that the white balance is off as there is a definite orange (i.e. red and yellow) colour cast.

What are your shooting parameters (focal length and aperture) and what light modifier(s) are you using (size and distance from your subject). There is one large round catch light in her eyes, so I assume you are using a single umbrella or octabox?

Yes, definitely too orange. A direct result of inadvertently leaving a CTO gel on the speedlight that is directly behind Takeisha illuminating the BG. The tiny studio space has near-white walls and ceiling, which I guess reflected the orange light around.
The hair light was also 1/2 CTO (snooted) for the highlights (camera left) on her hair.

The strangest thing is - I thought that they looked alright! My old eye/brain combination couldn't see the obvious!
Lucky you guys pointed it out before I passed them on to the girl's mother!

Focal length is just 70mm (tiny studio again), opened-up to f/3.2 to soften the BG.

The main light is simply a 24" double-diffused (square) softbox. The round catchlight is created by fitting a shaper to the front of the softbox which has a 17" circular opening. The softbox is supported by a boom arm front-and-center at around 40 degrees and approximately 28" from the model. She is sitting with a white reflector (not apparent in her eyes) on her knees. The reflector angle is not correct to properly eliminate the shadow(s) under her chin - only noticed this after the fact.

Thanks for the feedback.

Here is the color-corrected version of the third image:


Takeisha 2 mod by Maximillion C, on Flickr

[xpatUSA]

Yes, definitely too orange. A direct result of inadvertently leaving a CTO gel on the speedlight that is directly behind Takeisha illuminating the BG. The tiny studio space has near-white walls and ceiling, which I guess reflected the orange light around.
The hair light was also 1/2 CTO (snooted) for the highlights (camera left) on her hair.

The strangest thing is - I thought that they looked alright! My old eye/brain combination couldn't see the obvious!
Lucky you guys pointed it out before I passed them on to the girl's mother!

Focal length is just 70mm (tiny studio again), opened-up to f/3.2 to soften the BG.

The main light is simply a 24" double-diffused (square) softbox. The round catchlight is created by fitting a shaper to the front of the softbox which has a 17" circular opening. The softbox is supported by a boom arm front-and-center at around 40 degrees and approximately 28" from the model. She is sitting with a white reflector (not apparent in her eyes) on her knees. The reflector angle is not correct to properly eliminate the shadow(s) under her chin - only noticed this after the fact.

Thanks for the feedback.

Here is the color-corrected version of the third image:


Takeisha 2 mod by Maximillion C, on Flickr

Good job on the correction ... as it appears to my "old eye/brain combination".

[Chrisclick]

Ha! Many thanks, Ted.

[Manfred M]

Yes, definitely too orange. A direct result of inadvertently leaving a CTO gel on the speedlight that is directly behind Takeisha illuminating the BG. The tiny studio space has near-white walls and ceiling, which I guess reflected the orange light around.
The hair light was also 1/2 CTO (snooted) for the highlights (camera left) on her hair.

The strangest thing is - I thought that they looked alright! My old eye/brain combination couldn't see the obvious!
Lucky you guys pointed it out before I passed them on to the girl's mother!

Focal length is just 70mm (tiny studio again), opened-up to f/3.2 to soften the BG.

The main light is simply a 24" double-diffused (square) softbox. The round catchlight is created by fitting a shaper to the front of the softbox which has a 17" circular opening. The softbox is supported by a boom arm front-and-center at around 40 degrees and approximately 28" from the model. She is sitting with a white reflector (not apparent in her eyes) on her knees. The reflector angle is not correct to properly eliminate the shadow(s) under her chin - only noticed this after the fact.

Thanks for the feedback.

Here is the color-corrected version of the third image:

Some more points to ponder:

1. Why gel both the key light and the hair light? I don't quite understand why you are doing that. CTO is normally used to warm up the flash when shooting a combination of tungsten and flash so that both have more or less the same colour temperature. If both lights are gelled, then the colour temperature would be the same and you should be able to pull a simple white balance (WB) in post.

I can (sort of) see shooting with a gelled hair light if you want to warm up the hair a bit.

For "easy" white balance, shoot an neutral (gray or white) card as your reference and then use that to pull a WB in PP. That's really the easiest way pull a WB in PP. If you want to get a bit more fancy, use the xRite Color Checker Passport which has patches that are warmer or cooler than neutral and pull the WB that way if you don't trust your eyes in PP.

2. I generally shoot between f/8 and f/11 in studio work as I have enough light to ensure that the subject is in sharp focus. Backgrounds like the one in your shot generally look fine when they are in focus. I tend to stick to the boring white, middle gray and black background in much of my studio shooting.

3. I've never used a "shaper" as you describe it with a soft box. I assume it is some sort of GoBo that goes on the light? A 24" box is fairly small, but going down to what is effectively a 17" light source is a bit small for the type of shot you are doing and it will tend to give you a much more sudden drop off.

Look at how your subject's head is quite "hot" and the drop off on her body is fairly rapid. I feel that you might want to not shoot with the GoBo and push out a bit more light over your subject. My smallest softbox is 24" x 36" and I really would not want to go much smaller for the type of shot you are doing. A 17" light source is tiny. Next time see what the light does for you without the GoBo; I suspect you will get nicer light and a more gentle drop of, although catchlights won't be round.

4. Next time get your subject to angle back the reflector on the knees. You want the light to bounce back onto the subject to fill in the area under the neck.

5. I'm not a fan of hair falling down along the neck. I prefer the hair behind the subject and it you want some hair, look at putting it on the side away from the camera. When you shoot up in the direction you are, an exposed neck tends to be more attractive.

[Chrisclick]

Manfed, relax. All good information - thank you.

Just to clear up the very first point that you make about gelling both lights; since you included my entire post in your reply, it may have been worth reading, and noting, that in the very first line, second sentence, I said, (and I quote): "A direct result of inadvertently leaving a CTO gel on............" Yes, that's right; it was accidentally left on. That's why you "don't quite understand....." You didn't quite read it.

Thanks for all of the additional (unsolicited) info. You're a real gem!

[Manfred M]

Manfed, relax. All good information - thank you.

Just to clear up the very first point that you make about gelling both lights; since you included my entire post in your reply, it may have been worth reading, and noting, that in the very first line, second sentence, I said, (and I quote): "A direct result of inadvertently leaving a CTO gel on............" Yes, that's right; it was accidentally left on. That's why you "don't quite understand....." You didn't quite read it.

Thanks for all of the additional (unsolicited) info. You're a real gem!

Chris - I did read that the gelled key light was inadvertent and that was the context of my comment. Selecting the WB in a mixed light situation is tricky to impossible, but in your case, with both lights gelled, it's relatively straight forward as both lights are putting out more or less the same colour temperature light. In this case, getting the WB fixed up means you are not fighting two different colour temperature light sources.

When it comes to mixed light (done on purpose or otherwise), the important thing is to get the skin to look right in this type of "normal" portrait. This is why you will tend to see the gray card in test shots positioned in front of the subject's face or just below the face, as this is the most important part of the image to look "correct". If you are going for a funky skin colour, then that is something else completely.

That brings up another thought and not knowing the size of your studio, I'm not sure if you can do this. To keep the skin tones looking right with a gelled light at or near the face, I generally try to have the hair light coming in from behind the subject. That just generally simplifies things, by keeping the light off the face, although there can be a bit of bleed where the light wraps around the subject.

I tend to shoot with my light modifiers quite close to the subject and sometimes (actually fairly often), they will sneak into the edge of the frame. That is where using a neutral background works out for me as it is easy to clone out the intruding equipment.

[Manfred M]

Thanks for all of the additional (unsolicited) info. You're a real gem!

I try to comment on studio work as it is one area where there is limited experience and knowledge on this site. There is a lot of knowledge on the internet (variable quality, unfortunately), but that is a one-way street without the opportunity of feedback. I have both formal studio training and do shoot reasonably often (I shot on Monday and have another shoot scheduled tomorrow and am at a studio workshop on Sunday).

I do a fair bit of studio type work, but don't post a lot of it here because of "viewer sensitivity". Nicely said, if I suspect I would get suspended for posting on Facebook, I won't post the image here either.

One can do some really funky stuff in the studio. In this shot (10 second exposure), I missed the cue for the manually fired studio light flash so the model is just barely visible as the LED wand provides all the light. The shots where I caught the cue that shows both the model and the light painting are stunning. These will look great in the model's portfolio, but are not something I would post on a family-friendly website.

[Chrisclick]

Manfred, please stop.

[zen]

Manfred, please stop.

No, Manfred, don't stop. The more you cc, the more the rest of us learn.

Thanks for your willingness to share your experience and expertise.

Zen

[Chrisclick]

Zen, allow me to qualify my request so that there can be no confusion:

Manfred, please stop imparting unsolicited information in this thread, and, in any future thread started by me.

I'm sorry. However, I simply cannot abide your delivery of information. It's like being force fed.

Because you are a moderator in these fora, I cannot add you to an 'ignore' list. So, I implore you, please exercise some restraint and refrain from commenting on my posts.

Much appreciated.

[rpcrowe]

If I post on this forum, I expect that there will be comments both positive and negative. If I did not want CC on my images, I would either not post here or ask in the text of the post that CC not be commented. I think that most members would abide by that request.

[Chrisclick]

Hi Richard, it looks like you have misinterpreted the situation here. It is not about positve or negative comments - wonder why you thought it was?

I have no problem with positive or negative comments as you have implied. Of course, I accept both.

This was not about positive or negative comments, this was about the sheer volume of unsolicited information being spewed forth. It is an onslaught. It is ego expression. It is irksome to witness. So, I asked him politely to stop.

I'm quite happy for anyone to provide CC on my photos as long as it is CC. Read carefully Manfred's comments and weigh-up how much is actual CC and, how much is just about him. Starting to get the picture?

Around here, we look down on people who cannot control their desire to impart knowledge to those whom they assume have none. We are also very wary of people whose communication exhibits an excess use of the word "I".
We raise up those individuals who, with caring concern and genuine selflessness, guide others on a path that they have chosen and impart valuable knowledge to those who ask. They are seen as true mentors. They would never just 'dump' information on you. They are valuable individuals - caring, thinking, feeling, human beings.

I guess it takes all types to populate the planet, Richard. And tolerance of one another is a virtuous, if not completely attainable goal.

For me, (and I have not attained that goal, nor may I ever), the method(s) of communication employed within this thread, are at the very least, intolerable. And at best, self-centered.

So, a clash of cultures apparently ensues. Not cultures born of geographic differences or distance, nor of age or gender, certainly not of race or creed. Rather, of cultural differences in consciousness. Two simple categories; one based on me, mine, and what I can do or, what I have. The other based on ideals that surpass or transcend concerns of the self.

When they clash, such as, in fora like these, the former sometimes consider the latter to be weird or spaced-out or some other description that exposes their inability to comprehend anything other themselves and what they are doing. And the latter, are often taken aback by the sheer audacity of the former and sometimes compelled to vomit at witnessing the self indulgent nature of these crude individuals.

Following so-far, Richard?

As an assist, you could draw an analogy to the differences between male and female consciousness. However, I am told that it is not good to dwell on such things!

Richard, did you have something to say about the color-corrected version of the third photo that was posted here? Do you think that it is an improvement over the 'orange' version?

[Dave Humphries]

We are also very wary of people whose communication exhibits an excess use of the word "I".

To impart advice and information here using "I" is generally seen as better than using phrasing that suggests that "you" should have done things differently. Most folks see that as less 'challenging'.

Thanks for all of the additional (unsolicited) info. You're a real gem!

Posters also have to bear in mind that while they may not feel they need a certain piece of advice, others reading CiC threads in the future often find the additional information useful - to ignore the potential benefits of the replies given to other members could be interpreted as somewhat selfish.

For example;

No, Manfred, don't stop. The more you cc, the more the rest of us learn.

You're a real gem!

... and sarcasm rarely helps anyone.

[Manfred M]

Chris - Sorry for the delay in getting back with this answer, but it has been a very busy week of shooting and processing week for me.

CiC is a learning site and any posting should and can get comments and critiques from the members. We all benefit from the thoughts of the members here. One can, of course be free to disagree with comments and thoughts so long as that is done in a courteous manner. If one does not like this aspect of these forums, one is under no obligation to post here.

As for your request to not comment on your postings, I will try to honour that request, but may jump on comments made by others if this adds value to the community.