First pics from home studio

[MOREGONE]

Had my first client over yesterday to take pics in my home studio which is my garage. I should have taken a Behind The Scenes. These are senior photos for a pretty awesome guy that was easy to work with.

Seamless gray hung on the side wall. 36" octabox with 400w mono and a couple speedlights.

Let me know what you think

 

[tirediron]

Thoughts per req:

1. Not overly fond of the 'square to the camera' look. A little bit of an angle would have helped IMO. I think you may have over done the shallow DoF thing here; the OOF tie and collar really annoy me.

2. Much nicer, better lighting ('though the highlights are a tad hot for my taste). I'm curious as to why this was shot in landscape.

3. Nice! I like the bit of flare in the corner, but again, the highlights on his cheek are just a bit hot, and he's square to the camera. I wish you'd included all of the guitar.

4. Great expression, but needs a hairlight, and you've cropped off his left elbow!

5. Another good expression; I wish you'd brought your key around a bit further to the right; that dark shadow in the eye-socket/nose isn't really working IMO.

Overall it's a nice set. I think in general your lights should have been higher and closer. and more attention paid to the minutia of composition (elbows, etc).

Just my $00.02 worth - YMMV

~John

 

[MOREGONE]

Thoughts per req:

2. Much nicer, better lighting ('though the highlights are a tad hot for my taste). I'm curious as to why this was shot in landscape.

~John

Haha, even as I took that picture I told him, "I'm a fan of portraits done in landscape but most people don't care for it." I really like landscape portraits. Maybe it's part of my style.

Thanks for the feedback. I still have a lot to learn and would say I fall into the the advanced newbie category for studio/portrait work. Need to get a boom arm. Def had the need for one yesterday.

 

[Forkie]

I'm definitely a landscape portrait guy, which is why #2 is my favourite. It's very clean and nicely lit. I'd have given him a touch more headroom, though.

I think you've done really well with your lighting considering it's your first client. My only real criticism is that they could all do with having the saturation knocked down a peg or two, but I understand that's a personal taste thing, so no biggy if you like them that way.

Overall, a good job for your first go!

 

[MOREGONE]

I'm definitely a landscape portrait guy, which is why #2 is my favourite. It's very clean and nicely lit. I'd have given him a touch more headroom, though.

I think you've done really well with your lighting considering it's your first client. My only really criticism is that they could all do with having the saturation knocked down a peg or two, but I understand that's a personally taste thing, so no biggy if you like them that way.

Overall, a good job for your first go!

Thanks for the feedback. High-five on the landscape portraits!

These all have pretty minimal edits. Aside from the 1st pic which had vibrancy bumped up and saturation down, they all have -10 on vibrancy and saturation was left alone. His skin is a little spotchy looking and I will be trying to even that out when I get into editing them more and will play around with the saturation too.

Thanks!

 

[Designer]

Let me know what you think

You sure?

I think your key light should have been more direct so as to minimize his nose.
The hair light should be dialed down or just use a reflector.
Not a fan of his shirt being out of focus.
Somebody should have touched up his boo-boo with some makeup.
#2 there is no reason for this shot being in horizontal format.
#345 all good.

 

[MOREGONE]

Let me know what you think

You sure?

I think your key light should have been more direct so as to minimize his nose.
The hair light should be dialed down or just use a reflector.
Not a fan of his shirt being out of focus.
Somebody should have touched up his boo-boo with some makeup.
#2 there is no reason for this shot being in horizontal format.
#345 all good.

Yeah I was using a speedlight with a 7" reflector and grid for the hair light. I would like to see what I would have got if I used one of my smaller 16" softboxes and the hair light. I think the highlights on his cheeks from the hair light are a bit distracting and not what I was intending.

I like the shallow DOF look in portraits and am unsure what boo-boo you are mentioning. I haven't touched up yet the skin these pretty much just have the Color Portrait preset from the SLR Lounge set applied on import to them.

One more reason to keep going with the landscape portraits!!

Thanks for the feedback

 

[Forkie]

Let me know what you think

You sure?

I think your key light should have been more direct so as to minimize his nose.
The hair light should be dialed down or just use a reflector.
Not a fan of his shirt being out of focus.
Somebody should have touched up his boo-boo with some makeup.
#2 there is no reason for this shot being in horizontal format.
#345 all good.

Bit harsh. He did mention it was his first go.

Secondly, there is always a reason to do a portrait in landscape orientation. And thirdly, how many crew do you envisage were on this shoot for there to be someone there to touch things up with make-up?

 

[Designer]

He's a big boy, and he can take it. Besides, I think it would be far better to get him thinking about those details now than after he has 12 year's experience doing it "his way".

Shots 3 & 4 are excellent examples of horizontal format working for the better.

If it isn't a wound above his eye, then never mind, but if it is a fresh wound, then his own mother would have something that would cover it up. We're not talking rocket surgery here.

 

[Derrel]

The lighting and processing on #1 is...just awful. Awful. And that OOF shirts and tie as such huge elements? Sorry, I realllly dislike this concept and execution. The skin tones are whacked as well...

On the other hand, shot #4 brushes with greatness. I think it's a bit too darkly-rendered in processing, but the lighting and overall "look" is a very classic color studio posed portrait image. Shot #5 has the same rich, saturated color look; on both #4 and #5, I think the degree of saturation and vibrance is a little too high, but looking at these, I think you could process them for a bit more digital fill, and a little bit brighter blackpoint.

What I really do not like about 1,2, and 3 is the incorporation of raw, specular flash accent lighting: I know how it is done, and have seen it done since the 1980's. To me, it looks noobish. I want to see that kind of accent light done expertly, with a grid and a diffuser over the flash, so the light is not "raw light" that looks blue...grid + diffuser + barndoors is my recipe for this. I actually have an entire system dedicated to this light...it's an 11.5 inch , 50-degree beam spread, deep metal parabolic reflector fitted with either a 20 or 35 degree grid and 1,2,or 3 mylar diffusers, + a 2-way barndoor, so the light looks very subtle. That is impossible to do with a speedlight unless you go to a lot of hassle.

Shots 3 and 4 forego the "I'll aim a speedlight at him" lighting scheme, and skip the unneeded accent light, and that's why I like them much more than the other three images. The lighting is understated, and simple, and the subject just naturally advances in a dignified, three-dimensional, glorious way. #4 has a gorgeous Rembrandt-style lighting scheme, and except for the deep dark shadows and heavy blacks, looks awesome. Shot #5's accent light is very small...so,so subtle, and yet, it's a little blue, but I don't care--it's so small, and yet it helps so much. I like the skin tone rendering on #4 and #5..

That's not a wound above the eye...he's had that since he was born...for a first effort, this is a pretty good result. We've all seen much worse.

 

[MOREGONE]

The lighting and processing on #1 is...just awful. Awful.

I don't know how to take this. Sure isn't constructive. I can take feedback but this just comes across as Derrel stroking himself via his keyboard. Again. When I looked at that on the back of the camera, it is what I was going for and achieved. I guess you don't get it.

I know how it is done, and have seen it done since the 1980's. To me, it looks noobish.

Super, glad you've been doing the same old stuff long before I was even into photography let alone out diapers. Maybe you should consider that not everyone is going for the "Derrel" look. I going to go out on a limb and say I would probably be bored by your work.

To me, it looks noobish.

I guess you missed the part where I identified this as my first time in my home studio and as a newbie

I actually have an entire system dedicated to this light...it's an 11.5 inch , 50-degree beam spread, deep metal parabolic reflector fitted with either a 20 or 35 degree grid and 1,2,or 3 mylar diffusers, + a 2-way barndoor

Cool numbers, you must be pro.. really glad you're helping me along with what you would do with the gear you have.

Guess what I am going for doesn't really fit in here. No biggie. I do like shallow DOF, even in portraits. Landscape portraits, sign me up. I have plenty of shots from the session that would would be better received here, it's just not what excited when I was going through the images. I appreciate the constructive feedback and have some things that I would have liked to done differently but that is part of learning. But ultimately I happy with the images and so is the client.

 

[Derrel]

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I apologize for that. I see some obvious equipment and technique deficiencies in these. I praised shots #4 and #5 pretty strongly.

My guess is you have a very expensive camera, and a very low-cost lighting kit, and not a lot of experience with studio lighting.

You used one 400 W-s monolight and a couple of speedlights. Your work is being hurt by the lack of equipment and experience.

This was your first "client", as you described him, and these are your "first pics from home studio".

I used to make my entire living shooting studio portraiture, five days a week, in a busy studio. I am sorry if I did not fall down and praise all your work as much as I commended shots 4 and 5, but you described yourself as "advanced newbie" and you don;t have a boom light, and don't have the right equipment to do this kind of studio lighting well. The images show it. I can spot it. Many people can. I am happy your 18 year-old client likes his images.

My take is that you have a VERY expensive camera, and a very basic lighting and studio setup and not much experience. I gave you a shopping list as to what you need, and you already know you could use a boom stand. Your work would benefit hugely from just a few, professional-level light modifying tools, and retiring the speedlights. The reflector, grids, and diffusers are standard pro lighting tools. SHooting "blind" and making speedlights try and fulfill the role of studio flash units with dedicated light-shaping tools is what separates serious shooting from the "advanced newbie" stage you consider yourself to be at.

Again, I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

 

[MOREGONE]

I took offense to my work being called awful. I like that shot, I went for it and pretty much got what I wanted. When you called it awful, I realized then and there I wasn't going to agree with you so that applies to what you have to say about 4 & 5. I know I am not exactly new to these forums, but I shoot mostly events, not portraits. Telling someone their work is awful comes across demeaning and doesn't really help. Which begs the question, then why say anything at all. You add a lot of value to the forums, that's undeniable. But this wasn't one of those times.

.02

 

[gsgary]

I'm with Derrel on no1 you would never know he was wearing the same shirt and tie

 

[pixmedic]

I love me some portraits, so Ill get in on this as well.

#1 I really like all of my subject in focus, (or at least, more than just their face) so the super shallow DOF here isn't my cup-o-tea. Its the OOF ear that really bugs me the most there. Otherwise I think its a nice headshot. Some people really love the shallow DOF, so I admit that its definitely "a thing", its just not my thing.

#2 I like this one better. it works as a horizontal portrait, but more importantly (for me anyway) his entire head is in focus. This would also look great cropped to an 8x10 "tall" shot. (I might have included both in the set)

#3 and #4 are nice, though I might have cropped just a little lower on both of them to get the guitar/left elbow in the frame. its harder to tell if it would improve #3 though because i would not want his knees in the frame, so if you sacrificed that bit of guitar to get his knees out of the frame, then I think you made the right call on that shot.
the shadow on his face in #4 is a little heavy for my personal taste.

#5 is a nice "tall" shot. if you have a full body version with all or most of the guitar in it i wouldn't mind seeing it as well. Again, I think the shadow on his left side is a little harsh, but I think a good deal of the shadow critique is just my own personal preference. If you have seen any of my portrait work, you know I prefer flat, even lighting.