Sandy

Evertking · Jun 13, 2020

Ok, I was going for this look. .Barbara MacFerrin Fine Art Photography
But MISSED the mark. Anyone know how this is done??

Tropicalmemories · Jun 13, 2020

Evertking said:
Ok, I was going for this look. .Barbara MacFerrin Fine Art Photography
But MISSED the mark. Anyone know how this is done?? View attachment 192973

Yours looks close, but lighting not bright enough.

The Old Masters who inspured the look in your link will have used natural light, and the example portraits have a natural light look, which is either very good artificial lighting or real natural light.

I'm guessing flash, as it needs to be powerfull enough to overcome background light, so a classic Rembrandt set up?

But as I'm not skilled with flash, to get the same effect naturally I'd find a large window with bright but indirect light, note the time when the light is bright but diffuse (not direct sunlight), set up a dark back-cloth, position your model to get the light three quarter to the side, and see what it looks like. If light not directional enough, try a black 'reflector' on the other side, or position that bkack back-cloth on two sides.

The strobist and light meisters will have a better plan, but that's how I'd do it.

Evertking · Jun 13, 2020

This photo is another that fits a question I asked a few months ago. The histogram is bunched up to the left and if I try and "spread" out the histogram and take it to the right, the image looks like hell and blows out without actually being blown out according to ACR.
. Is it just that it's a poor exposure?

zulu42 · Jun 13, 2020

The histogram is showing the levels throughout the entire frame. With a large, dark background it should be heavy on the left. Temporarily crop to the face and check the histogram.

tirediron · Jun 13, 2020

I think you've actually achieved a genuine 'old masters' look. I am deducting 5 points for the wedding ring being rotated off-centre, and 5 more for the light reflection in her glasses, but other than that, it's a great image. As far as the 'MacFerrin' technique. It's hard to see with those small thumbnails, but I would guess fairly basic standard lighting and then a script which pulls down the peaks in the tone curve.

Evertking · Jun 13, 2020

tirediron said:
I think you've actually achieved a genuine 'old masters' look. I am deducting 5 points for the wedding ring being rotated off-centre, and 5 more for the light reflection in her glasses, but other than that, it's a great image. As far as the 'MacFerrin' technique. It's hard to see with those small thumbnails, but I would guess fairly basic standard lighting and then a script which pulls down the peaks in the tone curve.

A negitve 10, I will take it.. lol I shot about 20 frames before I noticed the light in the glasses and had to adjust the light. I need to read up on how to fix that. I have a boom arm, I just need a sand bag. I have tried to "fly" it over head before and it got a little worrisome.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback

tirediron · Jun 13, 2020

Evertking said:
A negitve 10, I will take it.. lol I shot about 20 frames before I noticed the light in the glasses and had to adjust the light. I need to read up on how to fix that. I have a boom arm, I just need a sand bag. I have tried to "fly" it over head before and it got a little worrisome.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback

Modern glasses can be very difficult; the anti-reflective coatings cause that horrible green cast, and often they have a slightly convex outer surface which makes things even more challenging. In general, remember that "angle of incidence = angle of reflection" and a very slight movement of the light or subject's head would have done the trick, but finding that sweet spot can be tough.

smoke665 · Jun 13, 2020

Evertking said:
The histogram is bunched up to the left and if I try and "spread" out the histogram and take it to the right, the image looks like hell and blows out without actually being blown

Think about what you're saying. A histogram of your original image, is a graphic representation of the data captured in shadows, midtones, and highlights. A histogram wont always resemble the perfect bell curve from left to right but a full sensor will generally have something stretching from the far left to the far right, unless you are shooting nothing but black. An image of mostly whites will be loaded to the right, likewise one with shadows loads left.

In post you can sometimes stretch the data to recover tonal range that wasnt captured which causes the software to estimate, to fill the gap. However there's a point where there isn't enough data to make an estimate and the image looks like crap as you said.

In studio you either add light or subtract light to expose your shot. If the original histogram shows data all the way from left to right then you've captured a full exposure. If specific parts are to dark or to light then it's a matter of moving/blocking light to raise or lower the exposure on that part of the image.

On the glass reflection it's physics. Physics Tutorial: The Law of Reflection

Derrel · Jun 13, 2020

I think you need a larger light source....something like 60x 60 inches or larger, and post processing that lightens the shadows some.

Your final look has too much shadow to match the look of the other photographer's look...her work is more low-ratio lighting.

Derrel · Jun 13, 2020

I just took another look at her Family portfolio. It appears as if she does a pretty fair amount of Fairly heavy dodging on the faces. This would work well with your style. In Lightroom take a moderate diameter brush and use the Dodge tool and lighten up the foreheads and the cheeks and the chins. Do this operation in a series of three steps, rather than one full value application of the Dodge tool.

Designer · Jun 13, 2020

Evertking said:
Anyone know how this is done??

Just a wild guess.

Most of her models are well lighted on the front. Your model has some heavy shadows (right shoulder, and most of her sweater). If I had to put it into a shorthand suggestion, it would be this:

lots more light and a soft focus lens

Evertking · Jun 13, 2020

Thanks for all the help.. So her images are not a one light set up? I have a alien bee 400 I could use in slave mode to go with the 600 watt main light and I am looking for a larger Octa, you can get the EZ lock brand for cheap and it's good.. those two usually don't mix.

Derrel · Jun 13, 2020

It's not a matter of "one light" as much as it is of lower highlight to shadow ratio in the final images...her shots have brighter, more open shadow and an overall brighter look. What you achieved is more akin to the Old Masters look, whereas what she shoots is more modern, with a lower contrast overall lighting scheme. One of the easiest ways to do this using just one light is to make that one light very large; bounce off of a large reflector or shoot through a large scrim, such as a 60 by 60 in square PVC frame with a tightly stretched silk fabric, or if you don't have that, try bouncing your strobe light off of a very large wall or ceiling. It really does not matter how much light you have in terms of Watt-seconds, but what you need is a large source of light.

She is shooting in a style reminiscent of the old North Light Studios of the 1890s, but with the advantage of modern digital post processing. I can assure you that she is doing digital dodging of the faces in her family section especially.

JBPhotog · Jun 13, 2020

It would be mistake to classify these as a one light set up. Many use behind camera fill and reflectors. I'd suggest having a close look at the catchlights which can reveal a fair amount. Looks like a choice of Octa, Paraolics and rectangular soft boxes are her usual methods. All have plenty of PP editing.
This one is three light sources: