Male portrait

[Evertking]

CC Please
6d
135 f2
ad600 32 in beauty dish



1/350
2.8
ISO 320

[Manfred M]

Your PP work is a bit strange - bright orange arms?

[Evertking]

Do you think i could just bring the orange down in camera raw and paint it with a mask?

[Evertking]

Your PP work is a bit strange - bright orange arms?

how does this look

[Manfred M]

I do as little in Camera Raw as I can and do all my local edits in Photoshop.

My approach would be to select the arms and then create a Hue / Saturation Adjustment Layer and just bring down the red channel.

I would also burn down the face (I use a curves adjustment layer with a Luminosity blending mode and drop the mid-point to where I want it) and then make a mask. The face is "too hot". The general approach in portraiture is to make it look as if you are not using flash in the image.

[Evertking]

How would you select the arms? the lasso?? The edit you did does look good and THANK YOU for the help.
also, do you think to have a color-calibrated monitor is worth the extra money for the tool? I just now broke down and bought a new one to replace my old Dell 720p and have considered buying one.
I like to try and keep my background at least a stop under. But it's tricky when light is changing fast and I was stuck with my 135mm. I'm still learning how to balance all of that but I'm learning and it kills me to bump my iso over a 100-200
any advice.
again, thank you.
Mike

[Manfred M]

I use the Quick Selection tool for most of my work and will soften the edge of the selection either by adding a small Gaussian blur to it or sometimes feathering it.

I think an accurate computer screen (i.e. at least 100% sRGB compliant) is a must. I also calibrate and profile my screen and as a printer it is critical for me to do this. Some of the relatively inexpensive tools from xRite or DataColor are quite good.

When using studio light I keep my ISO low as well, but I am not worried when I bump it up. This existing light shot was done at ISO 8000 and I did not do any noise reduction on it.

[Donald]

I think you're getting really good support here from, Manfred.

It all adds up to two things:- 1) Getting it as right as possible in the camera - i.e. the use of flash; and 2) learning that an image is made as much after you click the shutter and working to gain those skills

also, do you think to have a color-calibrated monitor is worth the extra money for the too

Yes, definitely, absolutely, without doubt. Even if you're never going to share an image nor print it (so why are you taking photos!) knowing that what you're looking at is correct makes your processing much easier and more satisfying.

[DanK]

do you think to have a color-calibrated monitor is worth the extra money for the tool?

Yes. I would put that in caps for emphasis except that it would seem like shouting.

I have calibrated a lot of monitors over the years, and it is hard to predict because your brain gets used to a color temperature--just as you don't find indoor lighting as yellow as it really is. Occasionally, the effect was small, but often it was large. I used Dell monitors exclusively until recently (our university had negotiated a deal for faculty and staff), and all of the ones I had covered the sRGB gamut reasonably well and could be calibrated. I use xRite tools, and they have worked well.

If you are not going to print a lot, there is IMHO no reason whatever to spend several times as much for a wide-gamut monitor. It won't help you if you are going to display on devices that are limited to sRGB.

I like to try and keep my background at least a stop under. But it's tricky when light is changing fast and I was stuck with my 135mm.

Sorry, but I don't understand. I don't understand what the focal length has to do with exposing the background.

Do I remember right that you mentioned deliberately underexposing in an earlier post? Sorry if I remember incorrectly. The lower the exposure, the more degradation you will see from bumping up ISO. that is, you will see much less impact if you expose to the right. You are nearly always better off exposing to the right and then darkening in post than underexposing in camera. It's just the math: you are giving up a lot of signal when you underexpose.

In this case, my primary concern would be making sure that the face is properly exposed. I would then darken the background in post if it is too bright.

Re selections: it is extremely hard to get as good a selection with the lasso tool (or any manual tool) as one can usually get with the quick selection tool. I generally start off with the quick selection tool and then patch up if needed with the lasso, set either to add or subtract.

[Manfred M]

Do I remember right that you mentioned deliberately underexposing in an earlier post? Sorry if I remember incorrectly. The lower the exposure, the more degradation you will see from bumping up ISO. that is, you will see much less impact if you expose to the right. You are nearly always better off exposing to the right and then darkening in post than underexposing in camera. It's just the math: you are giving up a lot of signal when you underexpose.

Dan - this is a common technique in outdoor portraiture, especially when shooting during "Golden Hour".

The background is metered and then deliberately underexposed by 1 - 3 stops. The subject is lit "correctly" and the resulting image looks very nice with a very moody background. It is far easier to do this in camera than in post as it is a faster, cleaner process. It's not a shot I would normally consider doing with a beauty dish as the light drop-off is fairly high with that particular modifier. A large rectangular softbox or octabox, those work better in my experience.

[DanK]

Dan - this is a common technique in outdoor portraiture, especially when shooting during "Golden Hour".

The background is metered and then deliberately underexposed by 1 - 3 stops. The subject is lit "correctly" and the resulting image looks very nice with a very moody background. It is far easier to do this in camera than in post as it is a faster, cleaner process. It's not a shot I would normally consider doing with a beauty dish as the light drop-off is fairly high with that particular modifier. A large rectangular softbox or octabox, those work better in my experience.

Manfred,

I think we are talking about different paths to the same end. You are saying that under some conditions, one can underexpose the background and obtain a good exposure of the face. I was suggesting simply aiming directly for a good exposure of the face. I suspect the latter is simpler for many people because one needn't guess at the drop-off--that is, one wouldn't have that two-stop range to worry about. Personally, I would spot-meter off the face to lessen the guesswork, possibly opening up one stop because Caucasian skin is about a stop lighter than neutral, and adjust the background in post if necessary.

In this case, I agree that the face is bright--I found as high as 225 in the red channel.

It's impossible to know without seeing the scene, but I think the white balance is quite far off and that this accounts for a portion of the orange tone in the arms, as well as the odd color of the sky. I opened the photo in Photoshop and did nothing other than open a camera raw filter and place the white balance tool on the whites of the camera-left eye. I didn't tune colors more; I might warm it slightly from this. However, this is enough to see part of what is going on. I think some of what you thought might be over-saturation is just incorrect white balance. This looks to me like more natural tones in the face and wood fence.

Mike—out of the box, before calibration, many monitors are far too blue. If your is and you are compensating for it in you processing, that could lead to color casts like this.

Dan

[Manfred M]

Dan - I think what you are missing here is that this type of image involves two separate views of the "correct" exposure:

1. The background, which in this case has been deliberately underexposed. The correct exposure (ISO, aperture and shutter speed) is determined in the "usual way" (I just meter the scene normally with my camera's light meter) without the subject. Because Mike is using a studio light (Godox AD600), his camera will be in manual mode. He will use a shutter speed that is below the published synch speed for the camera because the response time for a studio light is generally up to 2/3 of a stop slower than a camera-mounted speed light. I can usually get away with using the published synch speed on the D810 when I use my PocketWizard triggers, but I have to back off a bit with my Godox unit.

He will then change either the ISO or the aperture to underexpose the background by the amount he is looking for. Two stops is usually a good starting point, depending on how much drama in the background the photographer is looking for.


2. Exposure of the subject - the ISO, shutter speed and aperture are not touched, by using the flash distance and flash power setting to correctly expose the subject. When I do this type of shot I always use my incident light meter to get the right exposure. It can be done through trial and error, but the results can be off a bit.

I will generally use either a daylight or flash colour balance (just to get the JPEG looking right).


This image was done in the way I described the technique, but have applied some PP work to the foreground to get rid of some of the flash on the foreground.




The problem Mike is having is that he is using a beauty dish; these are typically around 22" in diameter, i.e. a fairly small light source for this type of shot, so the light drop-off is quite rapid. While it is often used as a key light, it is usually shot using a fill light as well, with the possible exception of using it for head shots. As I don't see it in the picture, I suspect it was too far away and that is why the light hitting the subject's face is a bit harsh.

When I shoot this style of picture I usually use either my 60" octabox or my 30" x 60" rectangular soft box so that I get good light coverage on the subject.