Still practicing studio lighting, CC Please

[Geaux]

Ya'll are going to get tired of seeing my face, but I need the practice and CC on different types of lighting.

Lighting is
b1600 in 47" octal camera right, 45 degree'ish
b800 behind me fired at wall to create halo lighting effect.

Overall, I'm very pleased with this look, my post work...ehhh, probably needs some work. I'm not used to touching up faces on portraits, so that'll take time. I didn't want to overdo the softening of the skin, but I was told on my last thread it could use some softening so I tried it out.

Another thing that bothered me is the refraction (correct me if I'm using this wrong) of my facial features through the lens on left of the frame. I know that could be fixed with a head on look, but anything else I could do to possibly steer clear of this or is this not a really big issue?

Let me know what y'all think

 

[yahgiggle]

I am not good at studio lighting so ill just give you my opinion, i feel the back light is spot on but the light on the face is poor on the left side. maybe putting a soft box on that side might help.

 

[Gavjenks]

Here's my edit:
1) White balance was way off in the original. 20ish points too far red/magenta. Pay attention to white balance when you have an obvious white sheet behind you.
2) Lightened the curves on the left side of the face, I agree you needed more fill light.
3) Off centered you a little bit.
4) Selected the right eye copied to new layer, warped it to fill the lens hole, and trimmed. This makes your eye too big, which I could de-fish essentially to fix, but whatever. Something you should fix in real life anyway, not photoshop.
5) Slightly more softening of face, with judicious use of a 50% opacity soft edged clonestamp tool.

 

[o hey tyler]

I would prefer the WB to be somewhere between where you have it and where Gav tried to demonstrate "proper" WB. However his rendition makes you look like there's no accessible sunlight where you live.

 

[EIngerson]

I can't for the life of me stop thinking of "Kiss my Anthia"……weird.

 

[Designer]

Another thing that bothered me is the refraction (correct me if I'm using this wrong) of my facial features through the lens on left of the frame. I know that could be fixed with a head on look, but anything else I could do to possibly steer clear of this or is this not a really big issue?

If you can, remove the lenses from your glasses. Wear the empty frames for the shot.

 

[Geaux]

View attachment 66980
Here's my edit:
1) White balance was way off in the original. 20ish points too far red/magenta. Pay attention to white balance when you have an obvious white sheet behind you.
2) Lightened the curves on the left side of the face, I agree you needed more fill light.
3) Off centered you a little bit.
4) Selected the right eye copied to new layer, warped it to fill the lens hole, and trimmed. This makes your eye too big, which I could de-fish essentially to fix, but whatever. Something you should fix in real life anyway, not photoshop.
5) Slightly more softening of face, with judicious use of a 50% opacity soft edged clonestamp tool.

1. that "obvious" white sheet is actually a gray wall, so not that obvious I also feel your white balance is too cool imo. This is the part of digital that is tough for me, I don't have issues with WB in my regular shots, its my portrait work. It's different on every monitor I come across unfortunately.
2. I could possibly use a bounce card camera left for some more fill, I agree. I wish I had the space to raise the softbox above and over my head for even lighting, but alas..not the case.
3. I understand rule of 3rds and I don't have a problem with offcenter, but if I'm doing a headshot for a client, doubtful they'd want off center. That's just my opinion though.
4. Wonk Eye, thanks. Not sure the purpose of doing that here. If it's to lighten the eye, why not dodge it?
5. Extra softening not bad, but more than I'd like for a male face. For a female face, sure.

Thanks for your suggestions, I'll take them all into consideration in the future

I would prefer the WB to be somewhere between where you have it and where Gav tried to demonstrate "proper" WB. However his rendition makes you look like there's no accessible sunlight where you live.

Agreed lol. My problem is my monitors aka 32" led tv, everything has a reddish tint to it and I can't change those settings on the tv with the way the hdmi out in the mid2009 macbook hooks up to the TV. It disables settings. I'm always trying to find a medium between that and the macbook screen.

If you can, remove the lenses from your glasses. Wear the empty frames for the shot.

Not a bad idea, but would be too much work for me, being my only pair and just playing around. I'd rather contacts

I'm happy with it not being crazy reflective though, so thats a plus I guess.

 

[Gavjenks]

All I did was just made the white wall white (or gray whatever. Not colored).
If the subject looks too ghostly to your tastes, then I would suggest selecting the face alone and reddening only that. That's fine, probably a good idea. Will trick a person into thinking it's white balanced, but also the healthier look you want.

But pink walls that are clearly supposed to be white don't look right no matter what. It just looks like a red light to me, not a difference in skin tone.

 

[D-B-J]

Nicely done! My only suggestion is to lower the power or snoot the backlight. Your halo isn't as well defined as I think you had wanted it to be.

Best,
Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Geaux]

But pink walls that are clearly supposed to be white don't look right no matter what. It just looks like a red light to me, not a difference in skin tone.

Just a question, but, is your monitor calibrated?

The two monitors at home aren't and there isn't a pink wall, but my computer at work (which the screen sucks) has that pinkish hue you speak of (dell monitor).

Even with my bad monitor at work, it doesn't look like a red light at all.

 

[Geaux]

Nicely done! My only suggestion is to lower the power or snoot the backlight. Your halo isn't as well defined as I think you had wanted it to be.

Best,
Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, the power was already at 1/32, but not gridded. I think that's my problem, was only using the regular alienbee reflector.

 

[D-B-J]

Nicely done! My only suggestion is to lower the power or snoot the backlight. Your halo isn't as well defined as I think you had wanted it to be.

Best,
Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, the power was already at 1/32, but not gridded. I think that's my problem, was only using the regular alienbee reflector.

Oh that makes sense. Yeah, it seems well placed, just not as obvious of a "halo."




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

I think fixing the eyeglass refraction issue REALLY makes the photo look better...it's one of those persistent headaches that eyeglasses can give a photographer, and eliminating that effect really makes it easier to focus on the "person" rather than what his or her eyeglasses do when the camera-eye peers through the off-side eyeglass lens.

As to the "red" or "pink" background, I think that's a case of the eye being fooled by your overly-ruddy face in the original photo. If I put my hand over you and cover you up, the background looks pretty acceptably neutral gray....

The mind plays tricks on us all the time.

 

[Gavjenks]

But pink walls that are clearly supposed to be white don't look right no matter what. It just looks like a red light to me, not a difference in skin tone.

Just a question, but, is your monitor calibrated?

The two monitors at home aren't and there isn't a pink wall, but my computer at work (which the screen sucks) has that pinkish hue you speak of (dell monitor).

Even with my bad monitor at work, it doesn't look like a red light at all.

I was doing it by photoshop RGB values not by eye. Monitor doesnt factor in in this case. It really Is quite pink in the OP. Looking like a red light is more a psychology perception subjective thing *shrug*