Rose in Studio

[DanOstergren]

I did a session with my friend Rose earlier this year but only got a chance to edit a couple of the photos until last night. For the silk dress photos I was inspired by a Vogue Singapore cover featuring Lucy Liu. For the others, my goal was to experiment with an extremely shallow depth of field in studio, which is something I have never done before this. I have seen other photographers do it and really wanted to give it a try, as I love the dreamy look of shallow depth of field portraits, but typically I don't use wide apertures in studio. It was a challenge because at such a wide aperture the lens catches even the smallest amount of ambient light. All of the house lighting had to be turned off, and I had difficulty in such low light with my 5D MKIII's auto focus. In the end I was able to get a few good shots though. I want to try this again, but I plan on getting a variable ND filter to help control the ambient lighting and exposure a little better.

The site's uploader seems to be creating some banding issues that I don't know how to resolve. Not sure if it's my fault or not. Also, the grain in a number of these was intentional.
1

2

3

4

5

6
I shared this one here previously, so I'm putting it last. The editing is very clearly different from the first shot in this post, but as this wasn't a client shoot and more a shoot just to create because we were inspired, I'm not hung up on al of these shots matching.

 

[cgw]

Frankly, keep #6. Editorial-wise, the rest seem to me wide of the mark.

 

[terri]

I think both #1 and 6 are dramatic and lovely. She really has the vamp look, amplified in the B&Ws.

Good set - I'm sure she's pleased.

 

[Jeff15]

A very good shot ....

 

[DanOstergren]

I think both #1 and 6 are dramatic and lovely. She really has the vamp look, amplified in the B&Ws.

Good set - I'm sure she's pleased.

Thanks Terri. She is very happy with all of the photos.

 

[DanOstergren]

A very good shot ....

Thank you Jeff.

 

[DanOstergren]

Frankly, keep #6. Editorial-wise, the rest seem to me wide of the mark.

Thanks for looking.

 

[smoke665]

I waited to comment on these till I could see them on a large screen, small resolution doesn't do them justice. This is a really good concept, I'd rate it 10 on the idea and execution, with 1 & 6 being my picks, though I would have liked a little more space around the frame on #6. As presented it feels just a tad cramped.

my goal was to experiment with an extremely shallow depth of field in studio, which is something I have never done before this. I have seen other photographers do it and really wanted to give it a try, as I love the dreamy look of shallow depth of field portraits, but typically I don't use wide apertures in studio. It was a challenge because at such a wide aperture the lens catches even the smallest amount of ambient light. All of the house lighting had to be turned off, and I had difficulty in such low light with my 5D MKIII's auto focus.

I'm not a big fan of portraits shot wide open, due to the tendency to be overdone on the OOF, and the difficulty in catching the eyes sharp (especially on a 3/4 pose). You did a good job on the eyes. I always work with all the overhead lights off in studio, using the modeling lights only to light the subject, I can see how the light falls in real time, and focus, no problems with either auto focus or manual that way. I also shoot tethered to a laptop, for the larger view in focusing/framing. Finally, have you considered switching to "LARGE" modifiers. My go to set is a 72" brolly w/diffusion for the key, 2'x4' rectangular softbox for fill, and a 7" reflector with 10 degree grid for the kicker. The softness you get with this combination lets me shoot at smaller apertures, while the soft light minimizes blemishes. If needed I can spot light on the background with up to 6 more lights with various modifiers.

The site's uploader seems to be creating some banding issues that I don't know how to resolve. Not sure if it's my fault or not

Don't think it's the site. There's some significant banding in the 1st one, and some in the last one. Typically you'd see this caused by insufficient color information in transitions between colors, due to out of gamut caused by over processing. To double check it's a good idea to check for out of gamut prior to printing (or publishing) by soft proofing in LR to the ICC profile for the destination, for most web sites that would be ISO 15076-1. When I print I use the profile supplied by the lab. With all the recent masking features enabled in LR, I'm actually finding it harder and harder to transfer an image to PS.

 

[DanOstergren]

I'm not a big fan of portraits shot wide open, due to the tendency to be overdone on the OOF, and the difficulty in catching the eyes sharp (especially on a 3/4 pose). You did a good job on the eyes. I always work with all the overhead lights off in studio, using the modeling lights only to light the subject, I can see how the light falls in real time, and focus, no problems with either auto focus or manual that way. I also shoot tethered to a laptop, for the larger view in focusing/framing. Finally, have you considered switching to "LARGE" modifiers. My go to set is a 72" brolly w/diffusion for the key, 2'x4' rectangular softbox for fill, and a 7" reflector with 10 degree grid for the kicker. The softness you get with this combination lets me shoot at smaller apertures, while the soft light minimizes blemishes. If needed I can spot light on the background with up to 6 more lights with various modifiers.

Wide open portraits have always been something I love personally, but after 18 years of doing portrait photography I do understand the value of aperture settings that aren't wide open and use settings like that accordingly depending on the job, but at this point it's a personal preference and creative choice when I do it for my personal shoots, like this one.

I had difficulty with the modeling lamps, as they didn't power off when the flash would fire off, and with such a wide open aperture it would still pick up the lighting from the modeling lamps, which I needed for focusing. This is one of the reasons I think an ND filter would be helpful the next time I attempt this look in studio.

I do often use very large modifiers. For the images with the silk dress I used a Westcott 59” Zeppelin Parabolic for the main light, as well as a 2' x 4' gridded strip box to add some light to the dress, a large white v-flat for fill, and the large white cyclorama wall she was posing on also provided a measure of white bounce as well. For other shoots I sometimes use a 4' octa, or a 7′ Parabolic White Bounce Umbrella, and sometimes I use a 21" socked beauty dish. For the shallow depth of field shots I had a specific look in mind for the lighting, so I intentionally used zoom reflectors for both lights in order to get a "hot light" look (a choice that only made using a super wide aperture even more challenging lol), so soft light for those specific shots was not the goal. I wanted them to have a bit of an old Hollywood portrait look while still maintaining a gothic look as well.

Don't think it's the site. There's some significant banding in the 1st one, and some in the last one. Typically you'd see this caused by insufficient color information in transitions between colors, due to out of gamut caused by over processing. To double check it's a good idea to check for out of gamut prior to printing (or publishing) by soft proofing in LR to the ICC profile for the destination, for most web sites that would be ISO 15076-1. When I print I use the profile supplied by the lab. With all the recent masking features enabled in LR, I'm actually finding it harder and harder to transfer an image to PS.

I don't have the banding issues when I upload these same images to other sites, nor does the banding show up in my print of the 6th image, though it shows up in the uploaded file on this site. I highly doubt it's from over processing either. I use the same editing techniques across the board on my images and have never had banding issues like what is rendering when I upload to this site.

 

[Digger...]

Number 6, looks like a butterfly.

 

[smoke665]

I don't have the banding issues when I upload these same images to other sites, nor does the banding show up in my print of the 6th image, though it shows up in the uploaded file on this site

Not sure what to say then, as the only time I've had banding was there was a lack of information in the area to display the color transition. Different sites can display differently depending on compression applied. Some like FB really crush them. Have you tried uploading to Flickr, then copy and paste the BB code here rather than uploading to TPF?

 

[DanOstergren]

Not sure what to say then, as the only time I've had banding was there was a lack of information in the area to display the color transition. Different sites can display differently depending on compression applied. Some like FB really crush them. Have you tried uploading to Flickr, then copy and paste the BB code here rather than uploading to TPF?

I have uploaded a couple of them to flickr without any banding. I'll see if it helps for sharing in the future, though I like the convenience of just uploading right into the forum post.

 

[smoke665]

I have uploaded a couple of them to flickr without any banding. I'll see if it helps for sharing in the future, though I like the convenience of just uploading right into the forum post.

Please do you have me curios now. I normally post to Flickr because it's faster to copy/paste the BB code to multiple sites than uploading images to each. It also allows me to manage my images better. I can delete one image from Flickr and it effectively deletes it from all the sites I've posted the code to. I'm not big on leaving images out there on sites indefinitely.

 

[DanOstergren]

Number 6, looks like a butterfly.

Glad you like it.

 

[CherylL]

#1 & #6 are stunning. Love the pose and the dress. The other 4 photos portray a mood of deep thought. Love these as well.