Take 2: Before / After LR3 edits. C&C?

[jwbryson1]

I shot these in manual at 1/200 with SB-700 bounced up and to the right. ISO 1000. Without flash they were completely blacked out.

1. RAW converted to JPEG without any edits except for resizing for this forum.

2. I softened her skin a bit, took out some noise, adjusted for a "right exposure" on the histogram and tried to lighten the whites of her eyes a bit. My monitor at work is bad (too dark) so I have trouble telling how bright these are.

I'd like to hear some comments on the quality of the LR edits and if this is how other edit their portrait shots. If not, what could I do to improve them?

Thanks for any feedback. :thumbup:

 

[jwbryson1]

{{{crickets chirping}}}

Nobody?

 

[bazooka]

An improvement for sure, but I'd lose that blue seat thing... that's really distracting. As far as post, you could desaturate it, but of course, it's best not to include it in the shot in the first place.

 

[jwbryson1]

An improvement for sure, but I'd lose that blue seat thing... that's really distracting. As far as post, you could desaturate it, but of course, it's best not to include it in the shot in the first place.

Yeah, I hate that blue chair thing too but not sure how to get her "propped up" without it. She'll roll right off the couch. =D

What if I cropped it out like this?

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Yeah, I hate that blue chair thing too but not sure how to get her "propped up" without it. She'll roll right off the couch. =D

If you read the warning on those seats, it specifically states not to place them on anything. They can tip very easily when placed on an unstable surface and can scoot/shuffle on a solid surface and wind up going off an edge ( like a table or countertop )

Anyway, I still think you need to work on it. Although an improvement, there are way too many shadows on the face. Why would you shoot at ISO 1000 and introduce a bunch of noise, when you can slow down from your 1/200th of a second? The only reason would be to help conserve flash power or have faster recycle, but in this situation I doubt that would have been much of an issue. You also could have opened up the aperture more ( although I do not know the specific lens being used. ). Shooting at ISO 200 1/60th of a second and F/5.6 would have been better. Although I think increasing exposure 1 stop would have been beneficial. You are also bouncing the flash so that it is not falling on the subjects face which ruins your efforts. You also are going to lose light by bouncing so to help with this if you can't move closer to the wall or ceiling, try putting a dining chair to the right of your subject and place a white piece of foamcore board on it and bounch off of that.

The post processing looks OK, but it would be a lot better if you could get the lighting to the best it could be before hand and also lower that ISO.

 

[jwbryson1]

Yeah, I hate that blue chair thing too but not sure how to get her "propped up" without it. She'll roll right off the couch. =D

If you read the warning on those seats, it specifically states not to place them on anything. They can tip very easily when placed on an unstable surface and can scoot/shuffle on a solid surface and wind up going off an edge ( like a table or countertop )

Anyway, I still think you need to work on it. Although an improvement, there are way too many shadows on the face. Why would you shoot at ISO 1000 and introduce a bunch of noise, when you can slow down from your 1/200th of a second? The only reason would be to help conserve flash power or have faster recycle, but in this situation I doubt that would have been much of an issue. You also could have opened up the aperture more ( although I do not know the specific lens being used. ). Shooting at ISO 200 1/60th of a second and F/5.6 would have been better. Although I think increasing exposure 1 stop would have been beneficial. You are also bouncing the flash so that it is not falling on the subjects face which ruins your efforts. You also are going to lose light by bouncing so to help with this if you can't move closer to the wall or ceiling, try putting a dining chair to the right of your subject and place a white piece of foamcore board on it and bounch off of that.

The post processing looks OK, but it would be a lot better if you could get the lighting to the best it could be before hand and also lower that ISO.

I hate to admit it, but here goes. I had about 5 minutes to shoot these while there was a lull in activity so I grabbed my camera and started to shoot without even checking the ISO. I just changed to manual mode, cranked it to 1/200 to block all ambient light and adjusted the aperture for a correct exposure and started shooting. Only afterward did I discover I was in ISO 1000 and was kicking myself for that very thing. I knew I had to adjust for noise in PP. So my mistake for being in a rush.

But please let me ask this question because I'm really trying to understand--I see photos in this forum ALL THE TIME with "good" or "nice" comments where the subject's face is 1/2 way shadows and 1/2 way lit. I thought that was the POINT -- that mild shadows avoided "flat" lighting. Here the left 1/2 of her face (camera right) is lit and the right 1/2 of her face (camera left) is in mild shadows. I thought I did well in avoiding "flat" lighting? Now I'm really confused. What am I missing?

Thanks!

 

[jmtonkin]

I went ahead, and because your photos are set "OK to Edit", and tried to come up with a visual of where I see the lighting starting and ending. This may be a little off because my screen isn't the best and am not the most knowledgeable about lighting yet, but I thought I'd give it a shot. The reason why I think her face looks dark is because only 1/4 of her face is lit; the other 3/4 is dark.

 

[bennielou]

I think the problem with the lighting is that both eyes are in the shadow area. Had you faced the baby towards the light source at the right and had shadow, that would have been different. Do you see what I mean?

I use bumpies too while shooting kiddos. Next time, put the blanket over the bumpie.

Hope that helps!

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Had you faced the baby towards the light source at the right and had shadow, that would have been different.

^------This

You are attempting to use the shadow to model or shape the subject. Unless the focus of your shot is the side of the child's head and cheek, the shot didn't work out. This could be simply because the child turned their head at the last second, who knows.

 

[Gaerek]

I hate to admit it, but here goes. I had about 5 minutes to shoot these while there was a lull in activity so I grabbed my camera and started to shoot without even checking the ISO. I just changed to manual mode, cranked it to 1/200 to block all ambient light and adjusted the aperture for a correct exposure and started shooting. Only afterward did I discover I was in ISO 1000 and was kicking myself for that very thing. I knew I had to adjust for noise in PP. So my mistake for being in a rush.

But please let me ask this question because I'm really trying to understand--I see photos in this forum ALL THE TIME with "good" or "nice" comments where the subject's face is 1/2 way shadows and 1/2 way lit. I thought that was the POINT -- that mild shadows avoided "flat" lighting. Here the left 1/2 of her face (camera right) is lit and the right 1/2 of her face (camera left) is in mild shadows. I thought I did well in avoiding "flat" lighting? Now I'm really confused. What am I missing?

Thanks!

You are correct in that you want both shadows and highlights in portraits. The problem here is that both of her eyes are in shadow. They look like just dark circles, and there is almost no detail in them at all. If she had been looking more towards camera right, the lighting probably would have been great. But as it is, almost the entire front of her face (including the most important part, her eyes) are in shadow. Remember that highlighted areas stand out, and dark areas "recede" into the background. The lighting here makes her right cheek stand out more than any other part of her face, whereas the front of her face recedes and doesn't appear to be the main subject (even though, it obviously is).

 

[jwbryson1]

Ahhh.....I love these answers. I get it. Clearly, I'm biased to some extent but from a "pure" photography context this makes a lot of sense. I appreciate the feedback!

Got a long weekend coming up--I'll make some time to get some new shots and try them out next week.

Peace!

 

[tevo]

The skin tones / coloring look good, there is some darkness under the eyes . As for cropping out the blue seat, the light reflects the blue onto the sleeve, which looks odd. I would create an adjustment layer and bring down the vibrance of the seat, make it less noticeable.