More Jess. C&C welcome

Granddad · Nov 7, 2016

Having taken the advice given in my earlier thread "Jess," two more herewith to see if I got it right.

1) Aiming at low key.

2) Head flip shot for the fun of it. I probably should have used a higher shutter speed. It was at 1/200th and it looks just a shade soft to me. I applied the advice given before again ( particularly adding light to the top of her head and balancing the highlights) and also had to work on her left eye which was quite a bit wider than her right eye and spoiled the shot. How did I do, is the eye credible?

tirediron · Nov 7, 2016

Nicely done; of course it always helps to have attractive material with which to work!

I think both could use a little more hairlight. Out of curiosity, how far are your lights from the subject?

JoeW · Nov 7, 2016

Lovely model, lovely results. On #1, the light on her cheek is distracting to me. I'd suggest pulling the light a bit more to her side so one side of her face is entirely in shadow. But that's just my take. Second photo, nice energy. The pendant on the necklace is off-center and that bothers me (yeah, anal-retentive). I agree with TiredIron's comment about more light to offset the hair and provide some separation.

Granddad · Nov 8, 2016

Thanks John and Joe. John, the strip box with grid was about 3 feet from the model and the back light was directly behind her a couple of feet. After reading your comments I've been looking at Youtube and I can see that my back/hair light was quite a bit too low. Was the key light too close?

Joe, be as anally retentive as you wish! I get that way myself at times. The necklace moved when she flicked her hair (you can see the motion as the chain has lifted to the left of her neck) but it would have been better if the pendant hadn't flipped to the side. You're right about the light on her cheek in #1, it suggests chipmunk cheeks and now I've seen it I can't unsee it, I'll see if I haven't got a better one in the batch even if the expression isn't as attractive.

I've been in a rut shooting dancers in motion with the same basic set-up for too long. It's humbling to find out how little I really know about lighting.

tirediron · Nov 8, 2016

Actually, I think the strip box was probably a bit too far away; that, or you need another layer of diffusion. I keep big pieces of white, rip-stop nylon in my 'odds & ends' bag to use in situations like this. Just drape it over the light and reduce the specularity. Looking at this again, I'm also seeing some WB inconsistencies. #1 is definitely cooler. Are your lights consistent in temp across the power range and after they've been used for a long time? If not, it might be worth shooting a few more WB confirmation shots (grey card, white card, etc) as the shoot progresses.

Granddad · Nov 8, 2016

Re the WB, I started off set to auto which usually does quite well. When I noticed how blue they were coming out I switched to flash setting and that was much more accurate. #1 was adjusted in LR but not enough.

Probably more diffusion needed, as I said it's a new box and this was my first shoot with it. I'm thinking about making my own inner diffuser out of an old white sheet and see what that does. I need another victim to work on!

Granddad · Nov 8, 2016

Here's another without the chipmunk cheek light. Extra light added to the top of her head and WB adjusted in LR.

JoeW · Nov 8, 2016

I like this last one the best of the lot. It's a lovely photo and she's lovely. Here are a couple of hints that I think would enhance the pose/shot.

1. More light behind the model to halo and backlight the hair--it's a bit light (no pun intended) and low for my taste on your right.

2. I'd have her pull the neck of her top down a bit to show a bit more skin and to separate the necklace from the clothing. I think that looks better. And the necklace/pendant is like an arrow pointing to cleavage--it's a subtle and subliminal thing.

3. I personally would darken the glint in the model's left eye (that is otherwise in shadow.

Again--lovely work.

Granddad · Nov 8, 2016

Thanks Joe,
1. Yep, my back light was too low. It was the 2nd time I'd used one like this and I've learned a lot - I hope. I also got a new deflector yesterday so I'll see if that works better than my home made cardboard and tinfoil one.

2. I didn't pay enough attention to detail. I missed seeing the necklace/top thing entirely till I got it into post. Too late! Attention to that kind of detail is one of my recurring issues and one that needs to be dealt with. More homework!

3. I wondered about that glint. I think I agree... yes, I definitely agree, it needs at least darkening.

She's a lovely model; we've known her for years. She said she enjoyed this experience a lot so I may get another shot at her. Unfortunately she's a secondary school English teacher so her workload is a problem.

JoeW · Nov 8, 2016

Granddad said:
Thanks Joe,
1. Yep, my back light was too low. It was the 2nd time I'd used one like this and I've learned a lot - I hope. I also got a new deflector yesterday so I'll see if that works better than my home made cardboard and tinfoil one.

2. I didn't pay enough attention to detail. I missed seeing the necklace/top thing entirely till I got it into post. Too late! Attention to that kind of detail is one of my recurring issues and one that needs to be dealt with. More homework!

3. I wondered about that glint. I think I agree... yes, I definitely agree, it needs at least darkening.

She's a lovely model; we've known her for years. She said she enjoyed this experience a lot so I may get another shot at her. Unfortunately she's a secondary school English teacher so her workload is a problem.

Looking forward to more with her. You're getting some good stuff and she's beautiful.