Trying Portraits Again

[CatherineA]

My son kindly obliged me and let me take some photos and post them here for comments.

I know some of the things that I did wrong - the first and the third should have more of his neck, for example. And I could have positioned his shoulders better in the middle one. But there are probably any number of things that I doing wrong that I am unaware of and so might just keep repeating. I would appreciate your comments on how to improve.

I know that I need to learn more about editing too. It's on my "to do" list but in the meantime, improving the shots in the first instance can only help the cause.

Thank you!

[Shadowman]

Background is fine, as always the severe crop (especially at top) always kills a good portrait for me. I agree with you about the neck, needs a bit more or a lot less but you don't want to crop at the adam's apple either. Two much shadow beneath the chin and too much shine on the forehead in the second image. Nice lighting on the first and third image. How were your lights (flash) positioned?

[CatherineA]

Thank you very much John, I'm keen to try again keeping your points in mind. I got attached to working a 55mm and was having fun chatting away always at the same close quarters to him. I will try other focal lengths and other working distances. I actually hadn't noticed that it was a tight crop above his head. And all the problems with the middle photo were lost on me because all I saw was a lovely smile.

How I placed the flashes ... imagine him facing me straight on. I put one flash at 45 degrees from his shoulders and pointed it down on him. The other I placed behind him so that the front flash, his head and the back flash were in a straight line. the back flash was also pointed down.

[Manfred M]

Three nicely posed portraits. These are definitely an improvement over your previous shots with your son.

The poses are effective, the background is neutral and effective with what the subject is wearing. The only significant issue I see is that the shots are all a bit "hot", i.e. overexposed. If you were shooting using an automated mode, you might want to look at the flash exposure compensation function to cut that back a bit. Automated exposure can be fooled by the dark background and what we see here tends to be the result.

What I do like is the dramatic lighting. #2 is classic butterfly lighting and #3 is Rembrandt lighting.

I tend to prefer shots in "portrait orientation" as this helps control the amount of background that is showing.

I've pulled down the highlights a bit...

[Shadowman]

Thank you very much John, I'm keen to try again keeping your points in mind. I got attached to working a 55mm and was having fun chatting away always at the same close quarters to him. I will try other focal lengths and other working distances. I actually hadn't noticed that it was a tight crop above his head. And all the problems with the middle photo were lost on me because all I saw was a lovely smile.

How I placed the flashes ... imagine him facing me straight on. I put one flash at 45 degrees from his shoulders and pointed it down on him. The other I placed behind him so that the front flash, his head and the back flash were in a straight line. the back flash was also pointed down.

Catherine,

Thanks for the flash placement information, the frontal flash explains the jawline shadow position.

[CatherineA]

The only significant issue I see is that the shots are all a bit "hot", i.e. overexposed. If you were shooting using an automated mode, you might want to look at the flash exposure compensation function to cut that back a bit. Automated exposure can be fooled by the dark background and what we see here tends to be the result.

What I do like is the dramatic lighting. #2 is classic butterfly lighting and #3 is Rembrandt lighting.

I tend to prefer shots in "portrait orientation" as this helps control the amount of background that is showing.

Thank you very much Manfred! Now that I know that what I was after in the second photo is called butterfly lighting I have looked up how to go about placing the lights to get a better result. I see that some photographers have the subject hold a reflector under the chin presumedly to avoid the shadows under the chin that John noticed.

I have two sets of challenges when it comes to exposure compensation. One is a skill I need to work on - editing. The other is my monitor not showing the colours or highlights as you would see them on yours. Mine cannot be calibrated to the standard of yours. On my screen the edit you did of the second photo looks very yellow and unflattering. I'm sure that what I see is not what you actually did.

The photos were all taken with ISO 100, f/4.5 and 1/250 s. Here is a screen shot of the histogram of the second photo. It didn't show me that anything was wrong but clearly there was.

[CatherineA]

Catherine,

Thanks for the flash placement information, the frontal flash explains the jawline shadow position.

You are right! I'm going to try the second photo again with a reflector under his chin and if that doesn't work well I will try out other solutions. Thanks John

[Manfred M]

Catherine - when I burned in the "hot" areas, I did so in a way that only impacted the luminosity of the image. The yellow colour cast is in the originals, but because the areas are so bright, we don't notice this as much. I'm working from the file you uploaded to TinyPic.

With the original raw, you should be able to pull a much more accurate skin tone. If you have a gray card, get your subject to hold it just under his chin and that lets you get the white balance quite quickly.

The histogram looks fine and I don't see any areas where you have lost shadow detail; working with the raw file will let you do things with a lot more finesse than working from the posted JPEG. Taking the yellows down / blues up and adding a touch more read will get you a more natural look; Caucasian skill does have a distinct red component to it.

If you look at a somewhat similar image that I took, a dark background with dark clothing, the histogram is also heavily skewed toward the left hand side. The reason that you see a double spike on the left is that the leftmost spike shows the black background and the one beside it is the "black" dress that is actually dark gray.






If you look at the numbers, the black background shows very low values, but not zero, so I know that the background is not blocked up. If you look at the light values, I show a 255,255, 255 reading; these are specular highlights of the studio flash reflecting off the pearls on the collar.

You write "flashes"; does that mean you used more than one flash? I see a fairly large catch light at around 11 o'clock.

[CatherineA]

Catherine - when I burned in the "hot" areas, I did so in a way that only impacted the luminosity of the image. The yellow colour cast is in the originals, but because the areas are so bright, we don't notice this as much. I'm working from the file you uploaded to TinyPic.

With the original raw, you should be able to pull a much more accurate skin tone. If you have a gray card, get your subject to hold it just under his chin and that lets you get the white balance quite quickly.

The histogram looks fine and I don't see any areas where you have lost shadow detail; working with the raw file will let you do things with a lot more finesse than working from the posted JPEG. Taking the yellows down / blues up and adding a touch more read will get you a more natural look; Caucasian skill does have a distinct red component to it.

You write "flashes"; does that mean you used more than one flash? I see a fairly large catch light at around 11 o'clock.

Thanks so much Manfred! That is an enlightening illustration of what an incorrect white balance can do. I could have sworn that you had used a "sallow skin" preset on my poor son but evidently not. Fortunately he is here for another couple of days so I will take a couple more shots but this time I will use a grey card. (I have a really cheap one, hope it is good enough.)

I do wonder whether slightly over-exposed or under-exposed images are always more flattering. But I will play with editing and see what I get.

And thank you so much too for the tips on how to use the yellow, blue and red sliders for his skin tones.

As to flashes, I used two on Christopher. One is positioned in front and to the side and the other is behind and to his side. The flash, his head and the flash behind him were in a straight line.

[Manfred M]

I do wonder whether slightly over-exposed or under-exposed images are always more flattering. But I will play with editing and see what I get.

Actually, correctly exposed gives the best results. You don't want to block up the shadows and don't want to clip the highlights.

A assume that while you are using off-camera flash, you are not using any light modifiers like an umbrella? I suspect that this is the case because the light in your shots is fairly "hard". There is a bit of rim light noticeable in the first two images and that would match what you say about the light coming in from behind Christopher.

Wilf Oberthier usually does a lighting workshop about three times a year, starting in the fall. If you haven't gone through one of his sessions, you might want to sign up now that you are becoming more familiar with this genre. If you have, taking it again would definitely be useful too as it will cover off some of the issues you are facing here. I'm trying to arrange for Mike Giovinazzo to do a portrait retouching seminar in the fall; that might be something you would find useful as well.

[CatherineA]

A assume that while you are using off-camera flash, you are not using any light modifiers like an umbrella? I suspect that this is the case because the light in your shots is fairly "hard". There is a bit of rim light noticeable in the first two images and that would match what you say about the light coming in from behind Christopher.

Wilf Oberthier usually does a lighting workshop about three times a year, starting in the fall. If you haven't gone through one of his sessions, you might want to sign up now that you are becoming more familiar with this genre. If you have, taking it again would definitely be useful too as it will cover off some of the issues you are facing here. I'm trying to arrange for Mike Giovinazzo to do a portrait retouching seminar in the fall; that might be something you would find useful as well.

Hi Manfred,

1) I was using light modifiers but I put a grid into each because I wanted the harder look or drama that that would give. I know that larger soft boxes give nicer light but this is just for fun so I bought the cheaper smaller ones.

2) I did not had success in the club studio. Very often the flashes wouldn't fire for me or my camera won't focus. I was told that that happened regularly with Sony cameras. I don't understand why that would be - I have no trouble with my Godox speedlites. Portraiture seems good fun and satisfying and I will continue learning but I don't think that I will join the studio again.

3) Does Mike's retouching seminar concern itself mainly with retouching the images of young women?

[Manfred M]

Hi Manfred,

1) I was using light modifiers but I put a grid into each because I wanted the harder look or drama that that would give. I know that larger soft boxes give nicer light but this is just for fun so I bought the cheaper smaller ones.

2) I did not had success in the club studio. Very often the flashes wouldn't fire for me or my camera won't focus. I was told that that happened regularly with Sony cameras. I don't understand why that would be - I have no trouble with my Godox speedlites. Portraiture seems good fun and satisfying and I will continue learning but I don't think that I will join the studio again.

3) Does Mike's retouching seminar concern itself mainly with retouching the images of young women?

1. I use grids all the time too, but they do not create either a harder or more dramatic look. They primarily control light spill, i.e. keep it from going places that you don't want it to. Drama is added by controlling where the light falls and how it is balanced out. Small light sources tend to produce harder light. This is part of the reason that the eye sockets are so dark. Adding a reflector will soften the dark areas and will remove some of the drama.

2. I seem to remember that being the case. Not being a Sony shooter I can't help here. I've used my Panasonic mirrorless camera in the studio and had no issues.

3. I will ask Mike to include doing men and children. Part of the reason that retouchers tend to concentrate on women is that this is where the bulk of the retouching work tends to be. With men we tend to have a much softer touch. With men of all ages we tend to consider scars or facial lines as "badges of honour" and these do not get retouched. With women, we tend to soften or remove them, based on the wishes of the subject. When it comes to children and young adults, their skin is so good that retouching is generally a really light touch (small temporary blemishes or acne) are removed and the rest is not touched.

Nicely said, if you can retouch a woman's face then men, children and young adults are easy. That is why we tend to teach how to retouch women.