STUDIO SET UP

[keith foster]

Here is a partial view of our set up. And a few examples from todays shoot.
We would appreciate any c&c you care to offer. Our goal was to try some high key shots that would blow out the background and leave us with a lovely lady.
The images(except the studio set up) were pp;d in lightroom. Eyes sharpened hair lighted a few blemishes removed. Clarity nearly all the way to the left.
I posted a link because multiple people worked on these in post. I took the shots but my students set up everything the way they wanted and did the pp

I would like to hear what everyone REALLY thinks.


#1
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4016/4407296931_3bf0c41795.jpg

EXAMPLE 1
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4001/4407298723_c589e3191b_b.jpg


Example #2
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4038/4408065366_53e2dc04f8_b.jpg

 

[JimmyO]

Cool! never tried shooting through saran wrap before

 

[TheBunn]

aww man that soft focus is great! i think if you added like a little bit of lens flare, it could make it that much better!

 

[mdtusz]

Wayyyyyy overexposed in the backgrounds. Turn down the strobe power on the bg and maybe move the models further away from it if they still are super white and bright like that. Just my $0.02

 

[keith foster]

Thanks for the feedbackguys.

The girls thought the overexposure made them look thinner. I think the lens flare idea would look cool, we will give it a try Bunn.

The softness was applied with the clarity slider in lightroom but there was some added because I accidentally left the IS on my lens and we were shooting on a tripod so there was a softness added by the IS. I didn't like it at 1st but it didn't bother me as much once we finished touching up. It does kind of look like Saran Wrap though. Thanks JimmyO.

 

[gdogg16]

Yikes.

 

[keith foster]

Thanks Greg. I agree with you. I was curious how people would respond to these. I wasn't really trolling but my students did the pp on these and I didn't like them much. They disagreed and I told them I would post them for feedback. I didn't want them to get torn apart but I figured there wouldn't be much positive about them. I know my "BE Gentle" request ran most of the experienced photogs away.
We printed a couple and they didn't look as bad printed, the girls liked them.
I would be curious to hear everyone's honest opinion now that I showed last night's feedback to the class. If any of you would like to rip these this weekend I would like to show the "updated" feedback to the class Monday.

 

[JimmyO]

Students? Please dont tell me your a photography teacher. Please

 

[Shelly1204]

Cool! never tried shooting through saran wrap before

:lmao:

 

[keith foster]

Well Jimmy, not exactly a photography teacher but introducing photography is part of the curriculum that I teach. The class is Introduction to Media and I cover almost all the types of media that are out there.
Photography is part of it, as is, shooting and editing video, radio, tv, web, print etc. The class is designed to let students explore all the medias and then concentrate on the one that interests them the most.
I take it from the phrasing of your comment you don't think I should be including photography. Would that be a correct interpretation?

 

[Derrel]

Soft focus looks can be achieved any number of ways, but one thing I like is a sharp underlying image, with a veil of softness on top, which can be achieved with a Gaussian blur layer in PS,and then a Screen application, and then a contortion of the contrast curve, among many other methods. This looks more like out of focus than what is traditionally called soft focus, or diffusion.

I think the girls would really like the "look" they get if the photos had been made with either 1) a hairspray-covered filter or 2) a black paint misted filter or 3) a black-net diffusion filter over the lens or 4)a white-net diffusion filter over the lens or 5) a Cokin 084 diffuser held in front of the lens.

As demonstrated by the photos, and the responses of another high school aged person in this thread, high school aged people often make value judgements that are, shall we say, often not fully mature.

Contrary to what many digital-only shooters believe, images shot with in-camera diffusion can not be replicated in post production. Using diffusion over the lens will cause actual light photos to spill over, into the shadows, and lighten the shadows by polluting them with stray light...this cannot be done later, by re-arranging the pixels. The effect of the Black Net Diffuser filter for example,is one that can not be "faked" in post. Same with shooting through dark, fiberglass or metal window screen material--the resulting glow and star pattern effect on specular highlights is impossible to re-create convincingly in software.

If the girls want to be portrayed this way, some in-camera diffusion filters would be most helpful. A filter misted with aerosol hairspray would work well, as would a filter misted from 24 inches or so with tiny drops of black spray paint. Two entirely different effects will result,and it will look better than this Lightroom effect, which looks like bad-focus and not soft focus or diffusion.

 

[keith foster]

Thanks for that Derrel. Detailed and helpful as always. One of the hardest things I have encountered with kids is their infatuation with pp. They will spend hours creating all kinds of special effects and looks on a photo but only a couple are interested in how to do those things with the camera.
The original photos were out of focus in my opinion when we downloaded them. I am not sure why. I was for deleting them but agreed to keep these 2 and let them play with them. I posted them to prove a point but that has backfired as you can see from the thread. :blushing:

 

[SpeedTrap]

These are not good.

I understand you are learning so here are some things to work on.

1) Overpowered on the back lights, your goal should be to make the background pure white, but you have so much power there you are spilling onto the model and that is never a good look and it also creates problems with contrast.

2) Flat lighting, the light on the models face is very flat and even, you made mention of making them look thinner, this is done with lighting ratios.


3) Soft focus is one thing, but these look out of focus, there are no parts that are sharp, even it a soft focus image, you still have sharp details, these look they had a Gaussian Blur added in post and it creates fuzzy lines around color changes and produces an effect like chromatic abrasion.

Try to fix as much as you can in camera, Photoshop is like strong spice, best use in small amounts or by a master chef.

 

[keith foster]

Thanks SpeedTrap.
I really appreciate the feedback and the suggestions. We shot some more today and I think we did better. I haven't actually looked at any of the images yet except on the camera. I will post a couple if they are any better.
We obviously need to pay closer attention to focus.
In fact, I am going to take these images down now and send them to where they should have been to begin with. :sillysmi:

 

[Derrel]

Looking at the pull-back shot of the set-up, I think what I would have done is used a single flash head light placed at exactly the mid-back height of the subject, and aimed straight at the backdrop. I am familiar with the lights and power packs you have,since I own the same model of light heads. It looks like you're using an M90 with barn doors + a round reflector camera left AND the light from an umbrella camera right to make the backdrop white.

Being familiar with your brand of power pack, I think I might have gone with fewer watt-seconds aimed at white background--as noted, the backdrop has too much light being applied to it...it's already white, so it does not need too much light to make it amply white. A single flash head at 100 to 200 watt-seconds, aimed from right behind the subject, will be enough to make the background pure white, without causing any wrap-around or "blowback". From there, it's up to the Chief Lighting Technician to figure out the best main light position.

In a room with such a low ceiling, rather than a table, I would prefer to have my portrait "sitters" actually "sitting"...on a posing stool. That would allow you to position the main light high enough to get the kind of facial modeling and shadows you want.
A low ceiling like that makes getting a 45 to 48 inch umbrella main light elevated enough to get the kind of effect you might wish to be able to achieve.

Using a smaller umbrella, like a 30 or 32-incher would be an option, as would be cutting some black paper and taping it to the front of the umbrella to create a circle mask or a rectangle mask, to make the light smaller. It's tricky with ceilings so,so low, so lowering the subject,and moving the subject much closer to the camera, and farther away from the background, would both be worth the effort.

I've used Speedotron Brown Line stuff for a long time (20+ years), and am aware that the 800 watt-second power pack you guys have is a bit too much in such a small room. The usual solution with a white background material would be to reverse the main and background lights, and use the 3 and 4 outlets, the "B" channel outlets, in Asymmetrical mode, and pop the backdrop with the lower-channel lights, and use the higher-power 1 or 2 outlets. However, there is another way to set the studio up...

One old "SECRET" to using that 800 watt-second pack with 4 outlets in such a confined space is to use the 1 and 2 outlets for the background using a GRAY FABRIC, and bring it up to white, and use the 3 and 4 outlets for main/fill or just main lighting. In a really confined shooting area, I have had fantastic success by using Asymmetrical Power, the HIGHER-powered two outlets, to light dark backdrops and "elevate" gray to white, and using less light on the foreground. Specifically, set the power pack to Asymmetrical, and aim lights 1 and 2 at a gray fabric background. Each light will be at 240 watt-seconds. Then, lights in outlets 3 and 4 will deliver 60 watt-seconds each--which with M90 heads in Lastolite Umbrellas, is a LOT more light than it might seem. Your gray will be a beautiful white background, and the main light will be about right. One light will be enough in that room to light the face with a nice 3:1 or so ratio, and you might even just aim the second light off a wall to bounce back and make a slight rim light, or use the M90 and barndoors and a diffuser to make a soft,gentle separation light. Or, just point it out the window and throw away the excess light.

That process, using LESS main light, and more light on a gray background to elevate gray to pure white is called "key-shifting", and I learned how to do it from a Dean Collins article I clipped out and still have in a clip-book portfolio. Here's a link to a shot I did on gray seamless in 2006, using 4 lights. Two on the backdrop in outlets 1 and 2, and a hair light and a main light in the lower-powered outlets 3 and 4, using the Asymmetrical option your power pack has. With such a low ceiling, and your power pack and lights, I think I would work on gray,instead of a white background, as I did in the photo I link to here _DSC4648_Justin_sRGB.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com