Lighting and Editing - Am I doing this right?

[smoke665]

The ideal way (IMO) to have dealt with the shadow would have been to bring a fill light with a strip box image right

Not sure what program you're using

The OP in his first thread stated that his "lighting" consisted of a gold reflector and ambient light, his editing software was what came with his operating system, his camera a point & shoot model that I don't believe offers much manual adjustment, and the files saved are JPEGS. Considering the problems that all of this combined can create, I'm surprised that the results were as good as they were. That's not to say that the equipment the OP has will not produce excellent results. The OP seems to have a natural eye of sorts, that needs practice and knowledge of how best to utilize the equipment limitations he has.

 

[tirediron]

The OP in his first thread stated that his "lighting" consisted of a gold reflector and ambient light, his editing software was what came with his operating system, his camera a point & shoot model that I don't believe offers much manual adjustment, and the files saved are JPEGS. Considering the problems that all of this combined can create, I'm surprised that the results were as good as they were. That's not to say that the equipment the OP has will not produce excellent results. The OP seems to have a natural eye of sorts, that needs practice and knowledge of how best to utilize the equipment limitations he has.

What... I'm supposed to read the whole post???? Honestly, I missed that, thanks, Smoke, and in that case, I have to agree 100%; excellent results for such limited equipment.

OP: I would strongly suggest saving and investing some money in (1) a decent DSLR/Mirrorless camera; (2) better software; and (3) some lighting. You've obviously got talent and passion. You need to exploit it.

 

[smoke665]

@tirediron before we infect the OP with a massive case of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome), maybe we could help him with some suggestions on using what he has. LOL

The Sony DSC-HX100V that the OP is using is apparently a capable little model as Point and Shoot goes. I mistakenly assumed it only offered auto, but after researching, it claims to offer full manual as well. The OP would do well to learn many of the other things mentioned herein first, like exposure, WB, composition, framing, color theory, and how to read/use ambient light, before succumbing to the fate we all eventually share.

 

[JBPhotog]

I wold say the OP would get some benefit to either take a natural light workshop or watch several youboob vids on this topic. Getting to know light is the prime directive of quality image making.

 

[Designer]

So, as to specific questions:
-These three photos look distinctly different from one another. Are all of these looks valid but different, or are some of them not good?
-Does the first photo look too dull?
-Do either of the second two photos look unrealistically colorful, or otherwise over-edited?
-Does the third photo look "too yellow?"

#1; Needs more light on the model's face. Face should be at least as bight, if not more so, as the light on her midriff.

#2; No, but cropping her hand is a problem.

#3; Is this photograph a composite?

 

[Designer]

You've obviously got talent and passion.

Not to mention a very capable model!

 

[Derrel]

One big issue when using a small-sensor camera---extremely deep DOF at wide-angle settings! photo #3 is a good example....as soon as the field of view is even moderately wide-angle, the DOF expands very quickly, so the background is rendered pretty sharply, and recognizably, so background control or integration of the background becomes very important.

Earlier, I had seen the photos small, on my iPhone SE, which has a pretty small screen...now on my iMac, and I can see in Photo #3 the sidewalk edge and her shin...what's going on there?

overall, though, the processing is not too bad. Not great, but far from bad...

 

[JBPhotog]

Might as well toss my edit into the mix.

With complete understanding these were done in PS and the OP doesn't use it. I added contrast via Luminosity masks, did a bit to the eye bag colour and overall face toning, brought the fingers into the same colour tone and toned down her left torso.

 

[ElNico]

If I may start by going on a bit of a meta tangent:

The OP would do well to learn many of the other things mentioned herein first, like exposure, WB, composition, framing, color theory, and how to read/use ambient light

I wold say the OP would get some benefit to either take a natural light workshop or watch several youboob vids on this topic. Getting to know light is the prime directive of quality image making.

I dislike this type of comment. Usually, when someone tells me "learn about [subject]," either my attempts to do so do not answer the question at hand, or I've already learned the basics of the subject but again still don't know the answer. It's fine to tell me to learn [more] about a subject, but I'd appreciate it if you would also give me one or two sentences about what the problem is within the context of that subject.

Saying "this image is too orange" is helpful. Saying "learn about white balance and color theory and you will know what's wrong with this image and how to fix it" is not helpful.

Also, if you're going to assume I know nothing about a subject, please describe it using words and not an abbreviation. Googling "white balance" is useful; Googling "WB photography" does not get me anywhere.

In the case of white balance, I understand the concept, but I don't think I have the best eye yet for what a good balance is. (Another reason why saying "this is too orange" or "this is too green" is much more helpful.) The main purpose of this thread, as stated, was to ask whether the second two photos were off balance and/or overly saturated; 95% of the comments I've received have not been about this. Not that the comments on other subjects haven't also been helpful; but this makes it even more annoying when you just say "learn about color balance." I know what color balance is, I was asking about color balance, and yet you haven't answered my question.

[edit]

I apologize if that sounded overly harsh. I've gotten this type of comment and been annoyed by it several times now, and I blew a bit of a gasket.

It is true that learning the basics is important, and to be clear, I am not for one minute suggesting that I don't need to learn the basics. The problem, however, is that in cases where I've already learned the basics, it is extremely annoying when someone tells me "go learn the basics" and nothing else, because in that scenario you have effectively told me exactly nothing. It's fine when it's a general suggestion (and as to that, perhaps I was being too harsh in calling out the specific people above, and I apologize for that); but when you say "learn the basics of [subject]" in response to a specific question I've asked, you are not being helpful. Learning about a subject doesn't always mean I'm able to extract the relevant piece of information that pertains to the situation at hand, and that is what I probably need further help with. Again, telling me to learn about a subject is fine; I just ask that this be accompanied by a one or two sentence specification of the problem assuming I've already done so. (If there is a specific photo/issue being discussed about which to specify.) If I have already learned the basics, then that specification is what you actually need to tell me; and if I haven't, then I'll be able to understand it after I do, at which point it will be immensely more helpful compared to just telling me to learn about the subject. The example I've already used is a good one; "this image is too warm" is much more helpful than simply saying "learn about white balance."

[/edit]

All in all, a few people have said that the colors in these photos are not off, which some others appear to disagree with. A bunch of other people have said that the "white balance" is off, but haven't said how it is off. I think the only one who said how the colors are off is tirediron, who said that the greens and the yellows are too strong in #2. I asked a follow up question about this which hasn't been answered; should I shift the image towards blue and purple (which I can do), should I decrease the color saturation, or should I do both?



With that out of the way, on to the more specific comments.

A number of people have advised me to edit a particular section of an image. I can adjust shadows and highlights, but as to "making the face lighter," I don't think the software I'm using can do that, at least not in a way that doesn't create a hard border around the area I'm editing (i.e. selecting an area in Paint Shop and then adjusting brightness/color/whatever). It's possible that I just don't know where to look though; what would such a tool be called?

Regarding white balance, I can adjust blue/orange balance and green/purple balance; is that normal/enough, or would more advanced software have more/different parameters?

Considering the problems that all of this combined can create, I'm surprised that the results were as good as they were.

in that case, I have to agree 100%; excellent results for such limited equipment.

Thank you.

#3. To me, the look is a result of using too short a lens, getting too close to the subject, and looking down; the legs and feet look odd. You are looking at the top of her foot.

Part of why the legs and feet look odd is likely because the reflector is illuminating her upper body but not her lower body, which is a fair criticism. Apart from that, I don't see the problem with her feet, what you mean by "looking at the top of her foot." The only thing I can think that is odd about her feet is that they're not pointed towards the camera; is that not valid? I believe I had her point her feet one way and then twist her upper body to face the camera so as to emphasize her hips; is that not a thing?

Background; what is that long white thing to the right of her head?

A stick. I might be able to get rid of that.

in general the key light should be in such a position that the catchlights are around the 10/2 position in the eyes.

I understand what you mean by that, but how do I accomplish it? How do I adjust the relative position of the light source so as to achieve that effect?

By my reckoning, the catchlights are currently at 9 o'clock in #1; is that right? The reflector is about level with the model I think; is the angle of the catchlights equal to the angle of the light source? So to get them at 10/2, the light source should be at a 30 degree angle?

EDIT - Are the catchlights actually important, or am I just using them as a way to gauge the angle of the light source? Are you telling me to put the light source at a 30 degree angle, and to use the catchlights to judge whether it's at that angle?

OP: I would strongly suggest saving and investing some money in (1) a decent DSLR/Mirrorless camera; (2) better software; and (3) some lighting.

(2) This is probably the next thing I'll spring for, or close to next. I have a lot more money now than I did last year.
(1) This might take longer.
(3) What kind of outdoor lighting equipment doesn't cost $200+ per light?

Again regarding "the yellows and the greens" being too strong; should I shift the image towards blue and purple (which I can do), should I decrease the color saturation, or should I do both?

#3; Is this photograph a composite?

A combination of two photos? No, why?

I can see in Photo #3 the sidewalk edge and her shin...what's going on there?

Not a clue. Anyone have any theories?


When I get back home I'll try to imitate some of the edits people have made on #1.

 

[Derrel]

More sophisticated software would make it a lot easier to edit photos shot in such difficult conditions. As far as dodging,which is another word for lightening,or burning in,which is another word for darkening specific small areas,programs such as Adobe Lightroom use what is called an adjustment brush, which is also called a paintbrush in common vernacular.if your software requires you to draw around the area or select it the best choice is to feather the selection, which makes the result of lightning or darkening harder to see.

regarding the comment that we are looking down on the tops her feet, about three weeks ago there was a photo posted here shot by a fellow from Texas and a long time member Lew Lorton (AKA the traveler)made the comment that the combination of focal length and Camera height used had change the apparent perspective of a photo. If the camera lens is too short, and the camera's lens is tilted down at a person,it can make their head look large and their feet look small. The correct camera orientation has the back of the camera parallel to the spine of the person, for the most accurate perspective. with shorter lenses the photographer should lower the camera to approximately bellybutton level of the subject, and keep the back of the camera parallel with the spine of the person. Keeping the camera farther away from the subject, and using a longer lens both tend to minimize what is called apparent perspective distortion. By using something like a 24 to 28 mm lens on a full frame camera is possible to make legs look longer,to make fish look bigger,to make breasts look bigger etc.

 

[ElNico]

So do her feet look too big or too small?

You're suggesting that I shoot from further away from the subject (which I can do) and/or that I use a longer lens (which I can't currently do as I have a point and shoot camera). However, others have cited long shooting distance and long lens as the reason why the background stands out; how do I solve the one problem without creating the other?

 

[Derrel]

I have been involved with photography for about 45 years now, and one thing I'll tell you is that the modern state of photographic instruction with YouTube and Web based articles is different than it used to be. Today, we have many people who are not experienced trained professionals, either writing or creating or editing instructional content, which is seen on the World Wide Web in blogs and websites, and on YouTube and other video networks. Many times, these articles are either incorrect or are misleading, and I would suggest that you could learn a tremendous amount by going back to the film era and looking at many of the how to books written by the great authors and teachers,such as John Hedgecoe. He wrote something like 34 books about photography. Kodak and other book publishers used to publish books that contained 75 to 100 chapters, each one 2 to 5 pages in length, and which dealt with many sub areas of photography, and camera handling. This type of instruction is no longer offered. Today's books and videos and articles deal mainly with digital imaging and software manipulation and they're very lean on camera handling basics and the thing called lens work.

 

[Derrel]

The reason the background stands out is the exact opposite of what you just said, and which I explained earlier. The shorter the lens focal length the wider the angle of view and the more crisp and clear and detailed the background looks.

 

[Derrel]

Depth of field is a somewhat complicated issue and HereI/wecannot begin to tell you everything you need to know about it. But one thing is simple depth of field at normal People photography distances is regulated largely by three things, or four things. One major determinant of depth of field is sensor size,

With a small sensor camera like a smart phone, or a small-sensor point and shoot digital camera,the depth of field tends toward deep depth of field, with easily recognizable backgrounds. There is something called background blur,which results from a physically wider aperture, such as a 300 mm telephoto lens shot at a wide aperture like F2.8. A 300 mm lens and F2.8 used in most fashion!scenarios creates what is called a "blown out" background, inwhich objects in the background are very hard to discern, very blurry Using something like a 24mm wide angle lens even at F2.8 the actual physical with of the F2.8 aperture is small. As a result the background from the 24 mm lens does not tend to offer much blurring. This is something that many people do not really understand. Abdthe amount of articles that deal with this topic? extremely small!

When you do photography with a small sensor camera you have to be extremely aware of background in most shootings situations. Your ability to do in the background well out of focus is extremely limited compared to 35 mm sized and larger sensors. This is because for a given picture angle of view, The smaller the sensor,the shorter the needed lens length. My iPhone has about a 4 mm semi wide angle lens, a full frame Nikon D 800 uses around a 28 mm lens, while a medium format film camera would require a length of about 65 mm, so consider that using a point and shoot camera with a small center means that it will be somewhat difficult to achieve blurry backgrounds but it will be easy to get photos in which the background is well-rendered and clearly revealed

What has happened over the past 25 years is that the nuts and bolts, the science,and the optics,and the camera work and the lens work that underpins good photography, has been more and more pushed to the background.The actual secrets of photography are today seldom discussed. In many ways today's photographic educational materials gloss over or omit fundamentals which used to be major obstacles in learning photography. Today we have quick two-and three-minute lessons, often in the form of YouTube videos. However, the topics covered in these videos used to be learned over one or two or even three years of slow, difficult learning.

 

[ac12]

Quote

ac12 said: ↑
#3. To me, the look is a result of using too short a lens, getting too close to the subject, and looking down; the legs and feet look odd. You are looking at the top of her foot.​

Quote

Part of why the legs and feet look odd is likely because the reflector is illuminating her upper body but not her lower body, which is a fair criticism. Apart from that, I don't see the problem with her feet, what you mean by "looking at the top of her foot." The only thing I can think that is odd about her feet is that they're not pointed towards the camera; is that not valid? I believe I had her point her feet one way and then twist her upper body to face the camera so as to emphasize her hips; is that not a thing?​

As Derrel said

. . . the combination of focal length and Camera height used had change the apparent perspective of a photo.
If the camera lens is too short, and the camera's lens is tilted down at a person,it can make their head look large and their feet look small.
The correct camera orientation has the back of the camera parallel to the spine of the person, for the most accurate perspective.
With shorter lenses the photographer should lower the camera to approximately bellybutton level of the subject, and keep the back of the camera parallel with the spine of the person.
Keeping the camera farther away from the subject, and using a longer lens both tend to minimize what is called apparent perspective distortion.​

Perspective distortion is something that you learn to see.
Based on the picture (if that is the entire frame), I am going to guess that the camera was at your eye level, a bit above her eye level, and pointed downward towards her waist/hip, and you are about 6 feet from her. Am I close?
It is this downward looking angle that causes her feet to look odd, to me.

Rather than lowering to her belly button level, at the same distance, I would get further away from her.
For a full length shot, I would prefer to be about 15-20 feet away, to reduce perspective distortion.
Keep the back of the camera vertical.
And lower the camera to her eye level, or lower.

So, try an experiment.
Shoot a set of shots.
#1 at the same distance, camera height, camera angle and aiming point, as your shot #3.
#2 step back to about 10 ft, with the same aiming point.
#3 step back to about 15 ft, with the same aiming point.
#4 step back to about 20 ft, with the same aiming point.
Then compare how her body looks in all 4 shots.

Then do the same set of shots, but change the camera height, to HER eye level, and aim at her face.
Then compare to the set above.