More OCF, CC appreciated

[Rosy]

 

[Braineack]

photo is too small with no resize option...

from what I see, this screams the need for a rim/hair light.

 

[Rosy]

CRAP - this is the highly edited one. YEP i see the darkness

the un-edited was better. Not sure what's happening to my flickr

TAHNK YOU, as always!

 

[Braineack]

copy and paste the BBCode, don't link to the photo directly using

 

[Rosy]

ok - how 'bout now


1779846_580014955424747_1610466422_n by rosy1816, on Flickr

 

[Mach0]

ok - how 'bout now http://www.flickr.com/photos/95431066@N07/12173348235/ 1779846_580014955424747_1610466422_n by rosy1816, on Flickr

Still looks very small. Id say the hair light. Also, I don know if it's my phone but her left side seems a bit hot. Just a tad.

 

[ronlane]

I would agree with the hair light and that the image is still small. I would suggest posting images at 1000 pixels on the long edge.

 

[Rosy]

i'll repost original un-edited image this evening

THANK YOU guys!

 

[Braineack]

not better, it was uploaded to flickr at 403x267.

 

[Rosy]

here are more larger sized images
1

_DSC9183 by rosy1816, on Flickr
2

_DSC9184 copy by rosy1816, on Flickr
3

_DSC9201 copy by rosy1816, on Flickr

 

[sk66]

They look good to me. The lighting is quite flat, but that is often flattering for young children and it works here. If I had to guess I would say it's due to high ambient levels (or spill into the ambient).
Your exposure/color is shifted between the two images... I think the second is a little better.

I'm not fond of the B&W conversion but it's not bad...."flat" and "monotone" aren't usually a good mix.

 

[Derrel]

Yes, the lighting is a bit "flat"...in the first of the larger images,see how on her dimples, there is a little shadow that is almost perfectly equal, on each dimple??? That's from the light sources on the left side of her, and on the right side of her...that casts identical shadows, and ONLY in areas where there is a crease or skin fold...on each side of her nose there is NO shadow...this is an almost perfect 1:1, or ratio-less lighting scenario. It's bright, and light,k and there's a lot of "eye-sparkle" due to the two sources, but the depth, the dimensionality of the scene is totally lost. It looks "flat". Luckily, she's adorable, and there are bright, vivid colors that mitigate the effects of the flat lighting, so those two things help.

The second large color image has a slight,slight bit darker light on the right side of her face, but it still qualifies as flat, low-ratio lighting. But again, the colors and cuteness kind of subdue the lighting scheme.

I'd be tempted to use just ONE umbrella, and take a second light and fire it at the background, OR take the one,large umbrella and literally AIM IT AT THE BACKDROP about 3/4 of the way, and then skim the other 25% of the light "in front of her face"..."feathering" the light across the face, to give more definition and at the same time, throwing much more light on the backdrop, which would give an in-camera gradient effect on the dark backdrop, which would make her hair separate and would literally bring the "three-dimensional" look fully to the forefront.

 

[Rosy]

Yes, the lighting is a bit "flat"...in the first of the larger images,see how on her dimples, there is a little shadow that is almost perfectly equal, on each dimple??? That's from the light sources on the left side of her, and on the right side of her...that casts identical shadows, and ONLY in areas where there is a crease or skin fold...on each side of her nose there is NO shadow...this is an almost perfect 1:1, or ratio-less lighting scenario. It's bright, and light,k and there's a lot of "eye-sparkle" due to the two sources, but the depth, the dimensionality of the scene is totally lost. It looks "flat". Luckily, she's adorable, and there are bright, vivid colors that mitigate the effects of the flat lighting, so those two things help.

The second large color image has a slight,slight bit darker light on the right side of her face, but it still qualifies as flat, low-ratio lighting. But again, the colors and cuteness kind of subdue the lighting scheme.

I'd be tempted to use just ONE umbrella, and take a second light and fire it at the background, OR take the one,large umbrella and literally AIM IT AT THE BACKDROP about 3/4 of the way, and then skim the other 25% of the light "in front of her face"..."feathering" the light across the face, to give more definition and at the same time, throwing much more light on the backdrop, which would give an in-camera gradient effect on the dark backdrop, which would make her hair separate and would literally bring the "three-dimensional" look fully to the forefront.

Thanks Derrel your CCs are always so informative!

 

[sk66]

I'd be tempted to use just ONE umbrella, ........

I'm not arguing your suggestion as such, but I'd wager this was done with relatively small modifiers (looks like bounce umbrella and small soft box) ~6 ft away( or more) in a smallish room (<20ft, guessing ~10ft), and probably w/ light colored walls/ceiling... IMHO, most of the lighting is ambient+spill... Otherwise it would take two large modifiers pretty close and a reflector *minimum* to get such even fill... I'm fairly certain of this for many reasons, but primarily it's that you just can't get such flat lighting with hard-ish highlights (lips/nose) without a lot more work otherwise.
In such a situation as this, moving the lights will change where the highlights/hot spots are, but not the overall "ambient" lighting too much.

Again, not a big deal IMO... "flat" is also "soft," and cute kids are soft....all good. But getting away from a "mostly ambient exposure" (ambient + spill) will be hard to do in such a setting w/ such equipment.... It's probably doable for a headshot, but maybe not for a happy bouncy kid.

Don't get me wrong...I'd be completely happy to fill a room w/ bounce flash and get a nice image such as this...

 

[Derrel]

I agree with your analysis: there is likely a LOT of ambient spill from the umbrella and the softbox combination, and a LOT of people are forced to shoot in rooms where the space is so small that reflecting or shoot-through umbrellas throw a TON of spill all over. So...I figure, why not try and get a bit more of a three-dimensional quality? Remove one of the lights from this basically dual-mainlight equation, and move the second light to a place where it will have a positive effect, like the background, or off to one side and aimed back at the child, to provide some rim lighting that keeps her hair from blending into the black background.

The whole "ambient spill" issue is the main reason I often prefer Lastolite Umbrella Boxes over most reflecting umbrellas in places like living rooms, apartment rooms, etc... Another easy way to get rid of the ambient spill is to shoot with a recessed face, grid-equipped soft box, which has almost NO ambient spill. Buuuut, I'm not sure if Rosy has either of those kinds of modifiers. Ambient spill light in small, low-ceilinged rooms is a big,big issue with many umbrellas. I do agree, it looks like a smallish room, and the lights are fairly close to the child.

Even just aiming a speedlight at the background and firing it at a low power would really "add" three-dimensionality and some visual relief to the inky-black backdrop, even if the lighting were left JUST as it was. And you are right: "filling a room with bounce flash" is a pretty good, easy way to get soft, even light, where the kid is free to move about without the whole lighting setup falling apart, and it does look "soft", and that's generally agreeable for little kids' pics.