Discussion in 'Critique Forum Archives' started by eye-capture, Sep 23, 2006.
i think her face is a bit on the dark side. Think you would have get more light in her face if you used fill-flash.
But by no means am i a portrait-pro, so just wait till the real guys come in here
Oh and i just love everything else about the pic :thumbup:
I'd agree, the lack of light on the subject is the only thing I might change; the composition is excellent. Although it's not a substitute for using fill flash in the shot, you could use software to lighten the shadow areas. The recent versions of Photoshop Elements have a Shadow/Highlights function which does this for you.
Most portraits need light in the eyes.
It is the first thing we look for in a person.
Eyes are windows to the soul - we dont want a dark soul haha
That came from my teacher last semester
Fill flash.... that's all really!
It's e-mail, but female ...
I like this photo (liked the whole series that you posted in General) but do miss some light in her face. She's all in shadows.
The problem with Fill-in flash is that it changes what you are seeing and if not used very sparingly removes any modelling [shape] from the face. The advantage in your shot is that it would put a catchlight in the eye, which is beneficial. As "ZaphodB" says, use the Shadow/highlights tool in Photoshop, and you won't believe how much you can improve an image. I did it, it took about 30 seconds. new image below. Trust you didn't mind me fixing your image.
I think tha adjustment just makes the pic just look flat. Look, photoshop is a great tool but it doesn't replace taking a good image in the first place. If you did not want to use a straight on fill flas you could have used a reflector off to the side or mabye a flash on the side.
love what Philip did. looks great!
also on location if you wernt to use a fill flash, why not a fill card(or reflector)? It could be placed at different angles for modeling... it helps to have a friend that knows how to use it to assist you though...
While I agree I don't know that Phillip could've gone back in time and reshot the picture so given the circumstances I think it's a huge improvement.
Also Photoshop won't move the source light to the side for the more dramatic portrait (at least not without a significant amount of work). Photoshop won't create pics and I don't know that anyone on the forum would argue that it does but it can patch them up nicely.
Thanks for the previous comments "rmh159 & df3photo" re the manipulation I did on the the original image, I certainly [quote rmh159] "couldn't have gone back in time and reshot the picture" I didn't take the original picture, though I wouldn't mind, she's a good looking chick. I must agree, always do the your best when taking the original shot, but appreciate you may have to do some work later. Even in my darkroom days, which were many, I always attempted to reduce my time in the darkroom by trying to balance my lighting to save time on burning and dodging in the darkroom. I this particular shot "eye-capture" could have, as stated used a reflector or fill-in flash, but then not retained the same "feel"
"df3photo & rmh159"s comments were more than appropriate for the situation and right on the button.
While I was in business, I don't think I ever took a camera out of the stuido without a flash attached.
I know flash is a dirty five letter word now, but back in the day it was the equivalent of an insurance policy. Photoshop or not, I would rather see the contrast and seperation that a solid well placed flash provides. A fill flash set a stop below the daylight meter reading will get rid of most lighting problems outside. Yes it will kill most of the drama, but it sure cut the amount of money to be refunded.
But I'm now living in the forties, so I would have metered for her face, not the whole area. If I were doing it that is, and frankly I don't know a woman who looks like that who would let me make her picture.
Separate names with a comma.