Flatter than a pancake! Help Please

CollidePhotography · May 9, 2012

I'm new to the world of the dSLR but decided to dive in head first. I'm doing so by only shooting manual, learning proper lighting and composition techniques, and reading anything I can get my hands on. I want to get the best image possible SOOC. However, putting it all to work is definitely not as easy as it sounds (for me anyway). My biggest struggle is getting my images to show dimension. I feel like no matter what settings I try all of my images look flat like this one:

Please help. I feel like I'm taking all the 'right' steps, but everything looks all wrong still. Constructive criticism only please and thank you in advance for advice.

CowgirlMama · May 9, 2012

Are you using one on camera flash? Direct flash takes out the shadows that create depth.

CollidePhotography · May 9, 2012

No, it was a continuous lighting set up. Two lights; one positioned low right and the other mid left of the scene. (Does that make sense?)

480sparky · May 9, 2012

Check out your histogram. You really don't have anything darker than 70. Bring your black slider up to that point.

CollidePhotography · May 9, 2012

480sparky said:
Check out your histogram. You really don't have anything darker than 70. Bring your black slider up to that point.

Call me an idiot, but I have no clue how...

In camera?

480sparky · May 9, 2012

Kinda like this, only with the black slider.

CollidePhotography · May 9, 2012

Thank you so much!!!

CowgirlMama · May 9, 2012

That light setup gives you less shadow, too. I'm still learning how to actually control light, but I like some shadow for sculpting.

CollidePhotography · May 9, 2012

CowgirlMama said:
That light setup gives you less shadow, too. I'm still learning how to actually control light, but I like some shadow for sculpting.

Makes sense! I know this will all take a LOT of practice. Thank you for your feedback.

Buckster · May 9, 2012

Here's a good, free resource for learning lighting: Strobist: Lighting 101

Ysarex · May 9, 2012

SOOC is a myth. It's important to get the lighting and exposure right. That's not a myth; post processing shouldn't be about fixing your screw-ups. That said, the software in the camera isn't up to the task of rendering an excellent finished photograph. SOOC means you're accepting piss-poor quality from software algorithms that have proven time and again they're not even capable of good yet alone excellence. You have to include at least basic post processing. If you really want excellence then the inevitable conclusion is you'll shoot RAW and acheive your final result hands on.

Joe

CollidePhotography · May 9, 2012

Buckster said:
Here's a good, free resource for learning lighting: Strobist: Lighting 101

Thank you.

CollidePhotography · May 9, 2012

Ysarex said:
SOOC is a myth. It's important to get the lighting and exposure right. That's not a myth; post processing shouldn't be about fixing your screw-ups. That said, the software in the camera isn't up to the task of rendering an excellent finished photograph. SOOC means you're accepting piss-poor quality from software algorithms that have proven time and again they're not even capable of good yet alone excellence. You have to include at least basic post processing. If you really want excellence then the inevitable conclusion is you'll shoot RAW and acheive your final result hands on.

Joe

Maybe I was a bit misunderstood. I don't expect to get my final image SOOC. I do however want my editing to be about enhancing and not about 'fixing my screw ups'.

I guess I feel like I am somehow screwing up in-camera, with how flat my images appear. I know I have a lot of learning yet, especially with post processing. You hit this spot on.

Tony S · May 9, 2012

You also need a smaller aperture to help this shot out by getting more area in focus. The little one in front is nice and sharp, but the back child loses sharpness. Your skin tones look pretty nice.

CollidePhotography · May 9, 2012

Tony S said:
You also need a smaller aperture to help this shot out by getting more area in focus. The little one in front is nice and sharp, but the back child loses sharpness. Your skin tones look pretty nice.

I should have added, I actually did a low f stop on purpose. (ISO 800 f2 1/125) I did the reverse focus as well and both in focus too. (Mom wanted the variety) I just chose this image because of the adorable expression and it displayed the 'flat-ness' I was talking about.

The skin tones look nice?! Thank you. I really struggle with that, WB is still a little difficult for me to grasp...