Before & After

FattyMcJ · Nov 17, 2010

So...I did a shoot for a local bunch of Mary Kay consultants last weekend and this is one of the more dramatic "changes" from the more than 15 women I shot that day.

I'd like some feedback on the processing of the (obvious) after shot, if it's too much, if it's "unreal".

I'd also like some feedback on the before shot. I was specifically asked to "not do anything fancy to make them look better" so as to showcase the makeup. I don't think I could have gotten the shot any more ... for lack of a better term "ugly". Bad lighting, bad composition...I broke all the rules. Is it too much of a contrast for a Before & After shot like this? Did I make her look too ugly?

Thanks for looking and for your comments, in advance.

-Jason

heathercantu · Nov 17, 2010

I'm a newbie but IMO Great job, If I were from Mary Kay I'd love it!

Blake.Oney · Nov 17, 2010

I think it works. The only thing that I would change is the background for the second picture. I think most consumers would thing the changes in the second photo really were because of make up, but the gradient back ground kind of pronounces the superior lighting to me. I don't know if consumers would see it that way, but I'm trying to think like a consumer. When I see commercials with before and after shots I'm always more convinced if the photo's look closer to the same conditions. I do think the lighting difference on the subject is necessary, though.

Edit: I just wanted to say that if you were only using one light then you obviously didn't have much choice on the background. I know I explained that in detail, but just to be clear I don't think it's a big deal at all. Just a little something I would change if I had the option. Over all I think it's really good and there's a strong possibility that I can't get out of the photographer's shoes and into the consumer's.

PerfectlyFlawed · Nov 17, 2010

I think you've done very well with the Mary Kay shoot so far! The only nit picks I have with this shot...

The 'Before' works ...I think the background is a bit bright, but it works.lol
The background on the 'After' looks 2-toned. Left side darker than the right. And the "flap" on her coat is falling into her cleavage ( not a big deal though :er

.
I think you did a amazing job with keeping the facial details presentable for the consumer. The make up looks great in the after shot--what a huge difference!
Good Job!

Derrel · Nov 17, 2010

Man, I tell you...I'd like to run into that lady on the right in a dark alley...

FattyMcJ · Nov 17, 2010

heathercantu said:
I'm a newbie but IMO Great job, If I were from Mary Kay I'd love it!

Thank you, and that's exactly the kind of reaction my client wants! :mrgreen:

Blake.Oney said:
I think it works. The only thing that I would change is the background for the second picture. I think most consumers would thing the changes in the second photo really were because of make up, but the gradient back ground kind of pronounces the superior lighting to me. I don't know if consumers would see it that way, but I'm trying to think like a consumer. When I see commercials with before and after shots I'm always more convinced if the photo's look closer to the same conditions. I do think the lighting difference on the subject is necessary, though.

Edit: I just wanted to say that if you were only using one light then you obviously didn't have much choice on the background. I know I explained that in detail, but just to be clear I don't think it's a big deal at all. Just a little something I would change if I had the option. Over all I think it's really good and there's a strong possibility that I can't get out of the photographer's shoes and into the consumer's.

Interesting point of view, and I agree...I do the same with most before-after shots I see on TV, like Proactive commercials...which are obviously different lighting conditions. That's kind of why I didn't alter the background, it works for the major "skin care" lines, why not leave it? lol

Also, no, I used 3 lights for these shots. 2 SB-600's at a high 45 degrees to the model, CL through a 24" softbox as key light and CR through a 43" umbrella for fill...the third (Vivitar 285HV) was on the ground behind the models lighting the wall. It was an ugly brown-egg color wall, so I used the flash to lighten up the wall a bit. AND...I had to overpower some fugly "office lighting". It was a learning experience for sure.

PerfectlyFlawed said:
I think you've done very well with the Mary Kay shoot so far! The only nit picks I have with this shot...

The 'Before' works ...I think the background is a bit bright, but it works.lol
The background on the 'After' looks 2-toned. Left side darker than the right. And the "flap" on her coat is falling into her cleavage ( not a big deal though :er.
I think you did a amazing job with keeping the facial details presentable for the consumer. The make up looks great in the after shot--what a huge difference!
Good Job!

Haha, thanks Felicia. Yeah, this particular girl was VERY self conscious about her "cleavage" and I had to ask her to at least fix one of the lapel flaps. I finally got her to open them both, but that was at the end of this particular outfit. Hind-sight is 20/20, I should have done another "head-shot". But...this is for a makeup client, and the face was the main issue.

That being said...the makeup did NOT help this girl. Photoshop did. I <3 healing brush.

Derrel said:
Man, I tell you...I'd like to run into that lady on the right in a dark alley...

Hmm, compliment? I'm lost...but...since you didn't say you WOULDN'T want to meet her, I'll take it as you think she's pretty! And that means I did my job, so ... THANKS! :mrgreen:

It's sad she has such bad pock marks, because she really is a pretty girl with beautiful eyes.

Thanks for looking and the comments folks! More is always welcome

Blake.Oney · Nov 17, 2010

Well either way, you did a fine job. I'm sure they will be happy, and I don't think any of their potential customers would be as critical of stuff like that as we are.

Kind of a tangent here, but you said you used a Vivitar 285hv and the sb600s. How is the vivitar? I'm thinking of getting 3 of them for a 3 light set up. How are they compared to the 600's? My only concern is that they aren't powerful enough.

FattyMcJ · Nov 17, 2010

Blake.Oney said:
Well either way, you did a fine job. I'm sure they will be happy, and I don't think any of their potential customers would be as critical of stuff like that as we are.

Kind of a tangent here, but you said you used a Vivitar 285hv and the sb600s. How is the vivitar? I'm thinking of getting 3 of them for a 3 light set up. How are they compared to the 600's? My only concern is that they aren't powerful enough.

Thanks

The Vivitar 285HV is actually more powerful than the SB-600. 120' @ 35mm vs. 98' @ 35mm.

However...the SB-600 has far more control over the output power in 1/3 stops vs. the 285HV's four settings- 1/1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/16. And...the SB-600 has i-TTL...if that's your kind of thing. I use radio triggers, so full manual please

All that being said, I started with the 285HV's and bought two SB-600's afterward. I really like the 285's, but the unit itself is bulky and I wanted more control over the output power. I still use the 285's outdoors, for the power, but I'd buy another SB-600 (or ideally an SB-800 or SB-900) before I bought another 285.

Hope that helps

Blake.Oney · Nov 17, 2010

Yea it does actually. I'll be using radio triggers. OCF is the main reason I'm getting them. I've considered their power settings, and I think for my budget and how cheap they are I will get them and just figure out ways to diffuse them more haha. Thanks for the answer.

Back to your topic!

Robin Usagani · Nov 17, 2010

Fatty, one comment I have is that the right frame either need to look straight like the before, or It should look to the left. Being on the right and looking right looks very heavy on the right. Perhaps you can flip the pic?

ababysean · Nov 17, 2010

Is this supposed to be before makeup vs after?
I'm asking because the first thing that jumps out is the lighting. All women know how much lighting effects appearance. They are going to see this and say, oh she looks better because of the lighting, not the make up.
I'll go back and read and see if you mean before/after lighting change or makeup applied?

Blake.Oney · Nov 17, 2010

It's before and after make up I'm pretty sure. I didn't really know how to look at it from a woman's perspective, though haha.

ababysean · Nov 17, 2010

ahhh ok, yes, the lighting is going to get women right away to say oh no, that is from lighthing...
Can you go back and whiten the background in photoshop and then mask her back in? if the background was the same brightness in both shots, the different pose would not be so bothersome, but yea, the lighting needs to be the exact same for this to hold any type of water with us girls!

NikonNewbie · Nov 17, 2010

I can't give you any real C&C except that I know several Mary Kay ladies and I think your touch up photo would be exactly what they would want, and as far as I'm concerned...the background doesn't look bad, we are talking Mary Kay, these are pics for her sellers website, no?...you should see some of the other ladies pics, your lady looks professional, put together and capable of giving good make over advice.
I'd use her! but probably would NOT if she used the before picture, call it snooty...whatever...that's how women think.
You can't sell me makeup when you don't look like you don't wear it.
I think you did a great geat job!

MSnowy · Nov 17, 2010

ababysean said:
Is this supposed to be before makeup vs after?
I'm asking because the first thing that jumps out is the lighting. All women know how much lighting effects appearance. They are going to see this and say, oh she looks better because of the lighting, not the make up.
I'll go back and read and see if you mean before/after lighting change or makeup applied?

I agree. if you look at just the pictures I would have thought the thread was about a before and after lighting setup