First Pic Post Here

[Nikon Fan]

This is my first time to post a pic on this forum. I posted this same pic on another forum today, but I would really like to have more opinion. So please critique away. No photoshop was used.

 

[Alison]

I like the pose, but the lighting seems a tad harsh on her face thus there is a lot of detail loss on her forehad, cheeks and chin. What lighting set up did you use?

 

[Nikon Fan]

I shot this at the college I attend, in their makeshift studio (basically a classroom w/a few lights). Anyway, I wasn't really sure how to go about lighting, so I just played with different setups. I agree that the lighting is quite harsh, but the print itself looked much better than the computer does it justice for. If I were a photoshop kind of gal I would tone it down, but I'm not, so if anyone wants to play with it feel free!!!!

 

[deb]

The skin tones appear to have some red left in them, and the lighting is too bright on her face.

What was your lighting arrangement? The catchlights in her eyes through me off a little. The positions are inconsistent. One looks as though it came straight on, the other catchlights (located at the 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock positions) confuse me. I would expect them to both be at 10 o'clock or 2 o'clock depending on where the other light source was located.

 

[Nikon Fan]

Keep in mind I'm brand new to photography, so I'm not sure exactly what the lights are called and all that, but the main light, was to the left of me, so to the right of her, and then the other light which I think was a fill light, I'm not really sure on that though, was off to my right, her left. Both lights were about 4-5 feet away from the subject. There was also a hair light, and then a light that was placed on the background. I have more pics with the lights in the same spots just positioned differently. I will post a few of them. Also keep in mind that these were shot in black and white kodak film, and processed at walmart.

 

[Nikon Fan]

Here are two different shots, with lights a bit different, and the camera off tripod in the second one.

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the site.

I like the poses and the composition but the lighting/exposure is just strange. Did you scan the prints or did you get wal-mart to put it on a CD?

Can you tell us more. What camera & lens were you using? What film were you using (type & ISO)? What exposure values were you using (aperture & shutter speed)?

I wish I had access to a photo studio...classroom or not

 

[JonMikal]

Welcome as well!

I like you captures :thumbsup: , but as everyone has pointed out, the facial tones are blown way out. Try working a bit on toning them down and see what results you get. Do you have PS?

 

[deb]

I like those two better, but it's still a bit overexposed in my opinion.

Did you have the b/w film developed at the 1 hour lab?

How do the scans compare to the prints?

If you look at the catchlights in her eyes, you'll see what I meant about the first one. The second shot has three distinct reflections and the positions are consistent for both eyes.

I'm still seeing some red in the skin tones. Is anyone else seeing this. I've recalibrated my monitor and it's still there, and I'm not seeing it on other images.

 

[Nikon Fan]

Thanks for the welcomes and comments. I have an old version of PS, but I never use it. Just not a big fan of it at the moment. But as I put earlier if anyone feels like attempting to adjust the images feel free. Walmart did everything from developing to putting on CD. I use a Canon Elan 7ne, and the film was something that the subject picked up from walmart, whatever the kodak black and white film that they use there is, 400 ISO. Since I've just started in photography I set the camera to automatic, and pretty much just guessed at the lighting. However we did use the studio once before during class time, and the teacher had us set on manual settings and do all that jazz, but mine came out way to dark. So somehow I need to find a medium ground. But honestly I would much rather shoot outside in a studio where the lighting is more natural.

 

[Alison]

Have you tried keeping a journal? I know when I was in a photography class we recorded the settings for each shot so at the end we could look at the print and the settings and see what we did wrong (or right!). I've been doing this as a business for over a year and lighting is HARD. I shoot digitally so I do have the benefit of seeing right away what the exposure looks like. I too prefer natural light, but sometimes that can be just as bad if not wore because of harsh shadows, etc. If you want to shoot outside get a good flash to use as a fill and something to use as a difuser and a reflector and you'll be all set :thumbsup:

And, I have to say you have a great eye for portrait work. Those poses are gret! The lighting will come with practice.

 

[Big Mike]

It seems obvious that the model is over exposed but I don't know why.

If you had the camera set on automatic, the camera's meter would probably under expose based the models skin. On the other hand...Maybe the matrix metering took the dark background into account and overexposed the face in an effort to balance out the whole scene. Was it possible had the exposure compensation set?

You could try this...use the center wighted metering button and hold the shutter half way down to get a reading from the models face. Or you could zoom in/get close and fill the frame with her face while you take a reading. Now when you compose the shot. Put the camera in manual and set it to the values that you got from her face. (you could even open up a stop). This should expose the face nicely and let the background become dark. (darker)

 

[motcon]

yah, lighting is a little harsh, but what i question is the metering method. did you just do the auto matrix or did you use a spot meter? it appears as though it was matrix metered as there are middle zones present in the hair with an about equal amount of white and black in the frame.

each person has a style when it comes to studio shots. my style: hairlights aren't necessary. all that is needed are simple reflectors opposite the main and fill lights. a reflector can be anything, really. standard plain old white card stock works wonders. if you want things to be a little warmer, use a gold colored stock card. total cost for two reflectors: about a dollar.

in terms of composition, i think you utilized your frame space rather well and the poses are flattering. as i quickly scan them over a few times, i do think that the watch bothers me a bit as it leads my eyes away from her eyes.

edit: it appears as though Big Mike and i were typing replies at the same time and we both had questions regarding metering. his suggestions on the metering are precisely what you need to do. i would even go as far as metering for the face and bracketing each side by 2/3 of a stop for a roll or so.

 

[Nikon Fan]

Thanks Big Mike, I will definitely give that a shot next time I attempt this! AlisonS, a journal is a great idea! I attempted to write down all the needed info when I did some night exposures, and then dropped the paper I was writing on in a puddle. I also really appreciate your comments about the poses and such. I love shooting people, and as you all have said lighting comes with practice. Thanks again everyone for the great critique!!!!

 

[motcon]

just some things to keep in mind and others to try with lighting.

- light works on the inverse square law. simply stated, if you move half the distance toward the subject, you will double the stops. if you double the distance, you will cut the stops in half. this is important when it comes to light placement. keep yourself and the subject stationary and move your lights as needed.

- most keep the fill light at a full stop below the main light. i keep mine at about a half below (depending on desired effect, of course).