Christiana

[Thiophilos]

This shot of Christiana is from a fun shoot with different outfits and sets. The purpose was to get experience with lights and posing, and get some nice photos for portfolios. Suggestions appreciated.

 

[paigew]

Lighting is nice, but try to work on getting your clients to loosen up and feel more comfortable at the shoot. She looks a little stiff. You can talk and joke, become a friend!

 

[smoke665]

Suggestions appreciated

Studio portraiture has been my passion for many years. Rather than assuming things, how about supplying a little more information, on your lighting - number, modifiers and setup. Assuming you metered... what was each light metered at? What ratio were you shooting for?

 

[Thiophilos]

Studio portraiture has been my passion for many years. Rather than assuming things, how about supplying a little more information, on your lighting - number, modifiers and setup. Assuming you metered... what was each light metered at? What ratio were you shooting for?

I'm not able to provide such detailed info, unfortunately. I used two lights with 28" and 36" octaboxes, and they were moved around often as the poses, outfits and sets changed. Should one keep records of lighting setups? I have been to many shoots in different studios and nobody here does that.

 

[Thiophilos]

Lighting is nice, but try to work on getting your clients to loosen up and feel more comfortable at the shoot. She looks a little stiff. You can talk and joke, become a friend!

OK, thanks for the observation and comment.

 

[cgw]

Over-processed face, neck and upper torso(too much Liquify?). Rendering is almost taxidermic, waxen, flat and lacking texture. I look at the hand which, I'm guessing, received little if any processing. There's more natural detail there, including a nearly-healed scratch, than I see in her face. Double catch-lights in the eyes.

 

[Thiophilos]

Over-processed face, neck and upper torso(too much Liquify?). Rendering is almost taxidermic, waxen, flat and lacking texture. I look at the hand which, I'm guessing, received little if any processing. There's more natural detail there, including a nearly-healed scratch, than I see in her face. Double catch-lights in the eyes.

You are observant.

The benefit of posting in a CC thread is finding out what others' impressions are, because they might not be the same as mine. The three replies so far all highlight different issues.

Christiana is a professional international model. I'm just an amateur enjoying photography. (And trying hard to get pro results.)

After the session, I had a heck of a time getting the skin tones to look right. It took a long time for me to realize that the model had used makeup on her face that was rendering in a greenish tone. Plus, it had a coarse texture.

Here is another photo from the same session, unprocessed except for cropping and exporting as a JPG. I think it shows the tone problem.

I dealt with the tone issue by warming the face selectively and reducing texture in LrC. I thought it looked OK. Now when I look at it here in the forum, in a different context, the face looks a bit too saturated and too pink.

Man, it is hard to get good skin tones if the starting point is not right.

I thought I should get some advice on this, because this is now the SECOND time that I have had major problems with face makeup on a model. I have a third suspect case too. This must be pretty common. What do you guys do? Or maybe I'm just unlucky.

There wasn't much processing of the neck and torso, and no liquify there. As for the scratch on the hand, that is my error - should have been cloned out.

I appreciate the feedback.

 

[cgw]

Man, she troweled that stuff on! Can only suggest attending sessions with an onboard MUA experienced working on photo shoots. DIY make-up is always iffy. If you're shelling out for the model(s), MUA, space and equipment, you're entitled to make-up do-overs if test shots expose(pun hazard)problems like these.
Less so post-pandemic but pricey "model shoots" around Toronto were once a racket. Promises of great studios, equipment and models often fell way short of boosted expectations.
I do think you retrieved a borderline disaster here, so full marks for that. Try some natural light work sometime, too.

 

[smoke665]

I'm not able to provide such detailed info, unfortunately. I used two lights with 28" and 36" octaboxes, and they were moved around often as the poses, outfits and sets changed. Should one keep records of lighting setups? I have been to many shoots in different studios and nobody here does that.

Well this explains a lot. I'm not trying to be harsh, but they supplied the model, wardrobe, lights, setup, pose and your sole creative input was to press the shutter???? This is why I HATE THESE EVENTS, like @cgw noted above they're a racket designed to make money, and provide zip in learning experience for the photographers attending.

The lighting is flat, done that way so that they'd assure most everyone would get a shot regardless of their skill, but results in total lack of any dimensional modeling of the facial structure. You say the model is a professional, but based on the pose she looks more like she's going to a Wrestle Mania event. Any model with experience should know the difference between head tilt for feminine and masculine poses, as well as how to pose, but ultimately it's the photographers job to direct and engage. As to the makeup, since you have no idea on any of the information from the shoot, I'm assuming that you didn't use Color Checker or some other method of setting a profile for the lights. It's not her makeup, that's causing the tonal problem, it's the light reflecting off the makeup (which is different than the bare skin). Despite the fact that I use the same lights, modifiers, and mostly the same general setup, I shoot a Color Checker card prior to every shoot, and create a profile for post correction. The condition of the skin (blemishes, wrinkles, make up/no makeup), determines my light placement, modifiers, reflectors and flags. When I get to post I have "known values" to work with, so that any corrections needed can be done without guessing.

Studio lighting isn't rocket science, but it does take practice and yes even notes initially. If you really want to learn, the first step in the process is to buy one of those foam wig heads. They're cheap, you can find them about anywhere. Take the head, put it on a stand in a dark room. Take a flashlight and shine it on the head. Move the light around slowly, in and out, up down, pay attention to how the shadows fall, how the shadow transitions soften as you move the light closer and get harder as you it away. Understanding shadows and transitions is an important first step.

BUY AN INCIDENT LIGHT METER, you can find a good used one like Sekonic 308 in the $100-$125 range. IT IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH LIGHTING RATIOS WITHOUT ONE unless you have sufficient experience and knowledge of your equipment. Now start off with one light, it can be a speed light if you can move it off camera. Get a stand with adapter for speed light, a white reflective umbrella and a large white poster board for reflector. Set your wig head up on stand, the light stand can be on either side approximately 45 degrees off CL of camera (about 6' away to start), point the speed light into the umbrella, raise the umbrella up so the center shaft is just above the forehead of the wig head, then point it down at the eye socket. Put your white poster board on the opposite side about 3'feet away. Take your incident meter with the back against the head and the dome pointed at the light, adjust the power on the light until it reads F8. Go to the opposite side, adjust the poster board in or out until you can hopefully read f5.6 (2:1 ratio). Now with the back against the head, under the chin pointed toward the camera take another reading...This will be the aperture setting for your camera. Shoot and check your shadows, have you got gradual micro transitions, or sharp edges??? Experiment moving the light away or closer, adjust you light settings accordingly and look at your shadow transitions.

Once you feel comfortable with one light, add a second, now you can really start to work on Ratios. Learn what they are, how to establish, and what to use.

When you have that down add the third light (kicker), that's the cherry on top of the sundae.

 

[cgw]

Yup, the little 308 is the Swiss Army knife of handheld meters. Never leave home without one!

 

[Thiophilos]

Well this explains a lot. I'm not trying to be harsh, but they supplied the model, wardrobe, lights, setup, pose and your sole creative input was to press the shutter???? This is why I HATE THESE EVENTS, like @cgw noted above they're a racket designed to make money, and provide zip in learning experience for the photographers attending.

Well, one of the reasons I do these shoots is to learn. And I have learned a lot.

I hope there is room in this C&C thread for those who are not studio pros.

We have a vibrant group of photographers and models here in Ottawa numbering well over 1000. Some of the models are local startups but others are seasoned international pros. The photographers are mostly advanced amateurs and some pros.

When I got in with this group about three years ago I hit the books and learned about posing and lighting. But in the shoots, most didn't know or care about the principles I learned. That's how it goes - you learn how it is supposed to be, and then find out how it actually is.

If I were in your circle, clearly the ways would be different and I would adapt.

I have a flash meter! It's a Minolta Auto Meter III. They laughed when I showed up with it a few sessions ago.

We generally have four photographers and one model in a shoot with the photographers taking turns. Sometimes the shoots are one-on-one: just the photog and the model for an hour or two. Posing and lighting are arranged informally. Sometimes there are examples and sketches.

My objective is to get better at this, to know what to do better next time. My suspicion was that there was an issue with the texture and tone of the face (doubtful because eyes can play tricks on you). I think that was confirmed. It's not the first time it has happened, so it will happen again. How to deal with that? Send the model to the showers when we meet? LOL. No, I think the answer is post-processing.

 

[smoke665]

Well, one of the reasons I do these shoots is to learn. And I have learned a lot.

I hope there is room in this C&C thread for those who are not studio pros.

C&C is and will always be for any skill level. I refer you to #3 in the guidelines "Keep your skin thick in here. People who may come across as blunt are not necessarily trying to be insulting. Don't expect flowers to be tossed your way; that's not what this is about" .

When I posed the question "how about supplying a little more information, on your lighting - number, modifiers and setup. Assuming you metered... what was each light metered at? What ratio were you shooting for" you response was "I'm not able to provide such detailed info". I'm not trying to be hard on you, but this is very basic information that you should know. Any studio photographer at even beginner level knows this. You say you've learned a lot, what am I missing, enlighten me on what you've learned, because so far the only thing you've said you did is press the shutter and PP, to correct problems that shouldn't have been there, problems you didn't understand what caused them, and as such didn't understand the proper editing required.

My objective is to get better at this, to know what to do better next time.

Then follow my advice earlier, and start with the basics. Spend a few hours doing what I advised and you'll learn 100 times more than at these events. Not saying you have to give them up, but at least know enough to not flop around like a fish out of water.

I think the answer is post-processing

NO, NO, AND &%$# NO. If you aren't striving for the best SOOC shot you can get, you're a glutton for punishment. In about 70% of my shots a few LR edits are all they need. I reserve the heavy lifting to serious problems or creative edits....most times it's creative edits.

Despite what you might think I want you to learn, I've seen some of your other work. You have the ability to be very good at portrait photography but it takes effort.

 

[Thiophilos]

OK, thank you, smoke.

 

[cgw]

Judging from recent posts, the OP is just a bit reactive to criticism. BTW, a "professional international model" usually doesn't pose broken out plastered with foundation. That's Model Mayhem...

 

[paigew]

Judging from recent posts, the OP is just a bit reactive to criticism. BTW, a "professional international model" usually doesn't pose broken out plastered with foundation. That's Model Mayhem...

Professional just means she was paid, right? Doesn't have to be at any specific skill level.

Personally, I feel like a photographer should be able to handle skin breakouts as it's very common and I'm certain 'professional' models have breakouts. I do think her make-up could use some work. As well as the posing as mentioned. Honestly to me posing is the number one issue you've got here. You have to flatter the model or you've got nothing. Even with bad light, bad makeup, bad anything.... the model HAS to look good/natural/comfortable.