Forums > Critique > Be nice

Photographer

Philip Brown

Posts: 568

Long Beach, California, US

First shoot with new A7.

I would like to solicit help in picking the "best' couple of shots from my favourites album to do further editing on,
if anyone polite wants to kill some time.

What I am looking for, is,

"this photo is one of the best, because
  - good thing
  - good thing
so it's worth editing some more"

not  "this is the only one that isnt total crap", etc.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/TzajYNhKh34Tv2p1A

There are currently around 45 shots, taken from a shoot of around 300.

Yes I know half of the ones in pink are poorly lit/underexposed. Was pondering if they are worth saving. Thats why they're in there.
If not, no need to comment on them.

Aug 18 18 08:10 pm Link

Photographer

Nor-Cal Photography

Posts: 3717

Walnut Creek, California, US

Sorry but I don't see any images in your set that I would consider good. Posing is mediocre. Nothing interesting about most; the ones with the book have some interest but the model's fingers are very wide spread and detract.

But just one worthless opinion.

smile

Aug 18 18 09:32 pm Link

Photographer

roger alan

Posts: 1192

Anderson, Indiana, US

Philip Brown wrote:
......

What I am looking for, is,

"this photo is one of the best, because
  - good thing
  - good thing

so it's worth editing some more"

not  "this is the only one that isnt total crap", etc.



........If not, no need to comment on them.

You're gonna post in Critique and dictate what can and can not be said? smile









Okay then - good thing.....your model has pretty feet.

Aug 19 18 01:16 am Link

Photographer

Black Z Eddie

Posts: 1903

San Jacinto, California, US

Philip Brown wrote:
What I am looking for, is,

"this photo is one of the best, because
  - good thing
  - good thing
so it's worth editing some more"

not  "this is the only one that isnt total crap", etc.

This is the Critique forum, not the Participation Trophy forum.

The posing, wardrobe, and lighting is just not good.

And, you need to lose that DYI backdrop nonsense.  Go to a studio.  This one for example seems to be inexpensive at $25/hr 2 hr min.  http://www.luminostudios.com/hours.php

Aug 19 18 02:16 am Link

Photographer

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY

Posts: 6597

Uniontown, Pennsylvania, US

Philip Brown wrote:
Be nice

I like Your Model.

Aug 19 18 03:32 am Link

Photographer

Orca Bay Images

Posts: 33877

Arcata, California, US

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/180718/18/5b4fec0e094d2_m.jpg

This is the one image in your portfolio in which you're using light to some good effect.

It could use some fill light to help the model stand out, but it's a start.

Aug 19 18 04:02 am Link

Photographer

Orca Bay Images

Posts: 33877

Arcata, California, US

Quit concentrating on what to edit more. Concentrate instead on getting it right (in terms of lighting and composition) in-camera.

Aug 19 18 04:14 am Link

Photographer

Fleming Design

Posts: 1380

East Hartford, Connecticut, US

OP, those are the 45 you choose to show us from the 300 you shot?  I'd hate to see the rest.  You seem to shoot without seeing.  For shots like the ones with the red robe or the dice I wonder what you were looking at.  Others are poorly lit and/or awkward.  I don't think that any shots are worth post time.

Aug 19 18 05:36 am Link

Photographer

Rik Williams

Posts: 4005

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

File A7100260 is the best I can find in the set you've uploaded.
The models expression is neither here nor there, but the pose makes the most of her physique with that outfit and lighting set up.
The solid blacks lack detail and basically detract from her lean curves, I think it would have paid better dividends if you'd been a little more discerning with the wardrobe selection.
Your model sells the shot, but not in an entirely convincing manner, I'm sure you can do a lot better with this lady if you were to shoot with her again.

Aug 19 18 07:04 am Link

Photographer

Philip Brown

Posts: 568

Long Beach, California, US

Black Z Eddie wrote:
The posing, wardrobe, and lighting is just not good.

okay. what would make the lighting better?

And, you need to lose that DYI backdrop nonsense.  Go to a studio.  This one for example seems to be inexpensive at $25/hr 2 hr min.  http://www.luminostudios.com/hours.php

Seems like if I dont learn how to use studio lighting properly first, i'll just be wasting an extra $50 there.

Aug 19 18 07:39 am Link

Photographer

Philip Brown

Posts: 568

Long Beach, California, US

Rik Williams wrote:
The solid blacks lack detail and basically detract from her lean curves, I think it would have paid better dividends if you'd been a little more discerning with the wardrobe selection..

A fair point. I was only thinking about fabric texture and color. Forgot about specific fit on her.

(but also, the black on black didnt do well in camera either, yeah. I tweaked some of those shots now)
eg:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/J3AZIk-e_WFmsoHI-SpbJ7-LfJU5XsfA9EeZU69zs0mjfkOlsfJgYJ1XWTfGqsJ9axkA3vQvF0ykAMTyrFhPyud0pveBWUQM0sobt9vuP8ZOInWeESvQNKCFKhCFBNYwMuUsWi-20_hKxAsp5z_CyUfA_Gf2DWIbAlfIEmgbU7J5Kp4DM55JlcCNqG_eHQ-k2E18MDgf1lJHWfYjMQyLJMOxEU6la7cDkYEJmCEabRNcZK5P6f1ERl9dMqdFd--Pk_j0TLhvQ7WTXlskbCNoV-EWD2fJ8ibTZw72LORtt3pdtXSUr8oC7i24luxhpAK6guwUJ_rJ-xZdvR2wQW6TnxTdX0sgteIcQwVw1tpc4ZB1CwkRpAwAyXEjFXmGjrEtxq42eNGgHCEGZSl1K99tkXNNe0pzB0b_ffPyPdstTGBLvsZJgps9SGCvpBfyD9w1p7S0D7KjnWhStfLReKDUuKhrXhqaocHPj9NnTkOLGb3ph3oZQ63efGtWvgMk1pJrKxLD65eBxSFay4l9D97n2adru9VcFlTGteXHZUVAB1nKxoZPTbyQhsbxLHcJ6T5wb3dHa76eQTZVFJJgN6A5w3Ua4OCVzUHdTc7zGGhDb99xyqE6udwE04Tu14Z2mGX3orEwEQGkTha0UrY6g1z0I5-Zjw=w600


As reguards body shape... , i probably would have done better with the yellow top without the red drape, I suppose.
My head was focused on colors, it would seem

Any suggested improvements for the headshots?

Aug 19 18 07:46 am Link

Photographer

Philip Brown

Posts: 568

Long Beach, California, US

Rik Williams wrote:
File A7100260 is the best I can find in the set you've uploaded.
The models expression is neither here nor there, but the pose makes the most of her physique with that outfit and lighting set up.
The solid blacks lack detail and basically detract from her lean curves, I think it would have paid better dividends if you'd been a little more discerning with the wardrobe selection.

This was one of the dark ones. I bumped it up a bit.
What do you think about this one? I guess you dont like the "armless" pose?


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/YJ7xF3Ybp8WLi6bqyCwsJweAxf2CJ9Tm_3Ou_4t9M_N0fQleuzIdllJThpcZJ0xQrmfRd4VPsUOFHdS1M6MCUuLSikvx1YbJK1-I4tXa5ztyxX8I9Zcdx2UrTcr9MBhOikxX0uhK10rtTFuerh_Z3cdVuXWcaq6Voq2i1YHD7bIiYkxppo1KcaFi1cqSwLNDWV-KJxlxvmtkZR3_OqZJItRmnxYTEPj3R_5C9o_hsGd_Ztsd8numorF4bwVrRfpWsGZT8HghqcZk0SOtW0kjzcFv7xBR73nHtidUcysUIaVUp_T7pwUNFztWNz1lum73uaxpqz_TlF0c1JS0COo1a_4aZIaGm7VvAVzWlwxlr9axHNkuzLc5K-SUbDH3UQqL88aG3ZVf302L2o41d_hRusIlAOVCkm5v3WSecC1OuQHzmwOOm0WQkcWRk93ru7YOF4VpAsSY1Rl9oxEB7W5Y4glvzq-wOT5G5kQ9kmv7Y0aes9EoNjD87K0wzVM-2KMlsQpK_sY5YxPw1Yl8VkMmXaSIfC0Mps-2mJVuTPgr69tWPcjewgA_06BeLpL4dJbsYja60JOwtIhfnTL8029KWFu8CwZcD-FvjNETqkwDdm2LvcTnfCtdarH_fCeTG7-Pwn5AtteTb5yTECZpj0YwHTvmzw=w625-h936-no

Aug 19 18 07:54 am Link

Photographer

Studio NSFW

Posts: 749

Pacifica, California, US

Be nice?

Depth of field was well selected to make it seem that the background is not wrinkled.

Aug 19 18 08:28 am Link

Photographer

JT Life Photography

Posts: 624

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

I like the first two photos of the model on the sofa, although in one her foot is awkwardly cropped. Maybe you can adjust that; cropping of limbs and digits can be a challenge sometimes.

Your control of depth of field could be a bit tighter in my opinion. It might be worth just taking the same image over and over again with differing depths of field to see which one pleases you most.

JT

Aug 19 18 08:53 am Link

Photographer

Znude!

Posts: 3311

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US

I like these two best.

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO … ZjNHNIMDJn

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO … ZjNHNIMDJn

Her pose is better as well as the composition of the images.

Aug 19 18 09:32 am Link

Photographer

Philip Brown

Posts: 568

Long Beach, California, US

Znude! wrote:
I like these two best.

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO … ZjNHNIMDJn

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO … ZjNHNIMDJn

Her pose is better as well as the composition of the images.

Thanks!

plus it helps that I did some cropping, and light/color editing after everyone else first saw the pictures.
wink

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5hoiWPOilE_R-tqdioxJLu_IfjDStxlDPDseYGfwEWVawuSv10hrCoQLONUBe4XtRnzJ9kGImYENd6yUZhvLe_qV97sOhImHWON_MRhGMcK85_gLaiF3WJ0LQ0rH9j_RUaacQETSn0lB1ohHomKgT-hOQbNoO-YCqRAVidPL9LQnsw_RniICypsml2eHyZS8NgTtqSDpO8IgK5tsPwnK34i0K6kUYd0n4YzUUAjnICCS_N57Cyz8ZyTZPEpaVrD2dyxctWQizeRRPL7bBEug45WmPTDE3tF7PaMuiBrOnfoXeeuEDDTwdqV83vVMr0ofEtVsARfxRfIcd5alvacN87-iR8OTXCXJPdrq5hthXAdzxkZRRjSTmpQkJCWcChcDpziINUqrEdpmTp4zzUnqwhhjo9wyr_gjjKaPv4AlDRTigG8UOqhd3eO9w4e9YUUpgVGhkbqFVXxVCv5hMWk4TIXWgeojel6oE8f4Cn753q2ZF3YWznpj92BupeUUsreDepXTkkv7BYsLR7yme9c_QLkC_Mttz1qpsIek9AUO5_ihI_GPuy-5APFotizvhLyUJJIM8j4Jp7hOIoGUzyLRTpN1WGI-47oAkuk-L3hjNrBZZNivhTI00Rgj5Ju2NpE6t6W9PVjAvoMgFh8MxbjrUmQ2JQ=s400

I was originally HOPING to get more comments along the line of "hey this one is worthwhile if you tweak shadows and crop it".
Nope. Had to stumble through things myself after all.

Aug 19 18 10:01 am Link

Photographer

Eros Fine Art Photo

Posts: 3097

Torrance, California, US

So let me get this straight...you spent anywhere from $1,000 to $2,000 on a brand new camera, but you haven't even come close to understanding the basics of good photography yet.  Just my opinion, but you should've saved that money and put it towards a good photography class or seminar; where you could actually apply fundamental techniques to even the cheapest camera and still achieve good results. 

As far as the shots go; they're all just snapshots.  The poses and expressions are stiff, the lighting is dull; cropping won't save them; and the colors you've chosen to use between backdrops and wardrobe don't work well together at all. 

If you want us to be nice, then you won't learn anything.  As the old saying goes; you have to learn how to walk before you can run.  Giving a Lamborghini to a 16-year-old who just got his license won't make him a better driver; giving him driving lessons on a race track, even in a cheap old car, will.

Aug 19 18 11:09 am Link

Photographer

Orca Bay Images

Posts: 33877

Arcata, California, US

Philip Brown wrote:
okay. what would make the lighting better?

Quit relying on ambient light. The vast majority of your images are flat, flat, flat.

When I started out with my Alien Bees, I sometimes just set up a chair in the middle of a room and shot clothes slung over the back of the chair. Sometimes cardboard boxes and even a basketball, to test the effects of lighting in different arrangements. (The basketball was a pretty good tool for playing with lighting.)

And when I started shooting actual models, for a couple of years I made sure to try a new variation in lighting technique or some camera technique in each shoot, even if it was only a five-minute test set in a much longer shoot that employed tried-and-true techniques. Even if the experiment failed, I learned from it, Failures were often a better teacher than successes were. The experiments were never wasted efforts, even if the results were not usable.

Seems like if I dont learn how to use studio lighting properly first, i'll just be wasting an extra $50 there.

If it gives you an environment in which you'll quit relying on flat ambient light and start learning to actively use light, it's money well spent.

Aug 19 18 12:17 pm Link

Photographer

Black Z Eddie

Posts: 1903

San Jacinto, California, US

Philip Brown wrote:
okay. what would make the lighting better?

1.  Go back to basics.  1 light.  Uno.  Singular.  I think that's been suggested in the past, but, you are so adamant on using multiple lights.  You seem to think the more lights, the better.  I know I know, you bought a set.  Just because it came with 2, doesn't mean you have to use 2.
2.  Put the lights higher than the model and pointed down typically about 45 deg.
3.  This is just one of many video tutorials out there.  It's only 7 minutes.  Watch the entire thing.  Pay attention to his photos then look at yours.  This should give your some inspiration/motivation.  If it doesn't, sell all your gear because you're just never going to get it.

Philip Brown wrote:
Seems like if I dont learn how to use studio lighting properly first, i'll just be wasting an extra $50 there.

Yeah, but, your backdrop is one of the things that's killing your photos.  Also, something to consider is those studios come with lighting equipment as part of the rental.  So, who knows, you might get to learn on equipment similar to those in the videos.  Since you're trying to do more studio stuff, if it were me, I'd try it at least once.

Aug 19 18 12:19 pm Link

Photographer

Philip Brown

Posts: 568

Long Beach, California, US

Black Z Eddie wrote:
1.  Go back to basics.  1 light.  Uno.  Singular.  I think that's been suggested in the past, but, you are so adamant on using multiple lights.  You seem to think the more lights, the better.  I know I know, you bought a set.  Just because it came with 2, doesn't mean you have to use 2.

Actually...I dont think thats ever been suggested to me.
I started my home studio escapades with one light.
Pretty much all the comments I got from here, were along the lines of,
"too much shadow on the side, you need another light"
"too much shadow under the eyes, you need another light".

So... it's a bit frustrating.
Maybe issue is I need a bigger softbox?
the kit one is kinda small.




as an aside: the room is relatively dark without lighting.
My A7 on aperture mode (F5), picks 1/60 and 3200ISO, with the SEL50FE lens, even at 1pm now.

Aug 19 18 01:21 pm Link

Photographer

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY

Posts: 6597

Uniontown, Pennsylvania, US

Philip Brown wrote:
So... it's a bit frustrating.
Maybe issue is I need a bigger softbox?
the kit one is kinda small.




as an aside: the room is relatively dark without lighting.
My A7 on aperture mode (F5), picks 1/60 and 3200ISO, with the SEL50FE lens, even at 1pm now.

Philip,

Plenty can be achieved with only one light, try moving the one You have in closer.

Aug 19 18 02:57 pm Link

Photographer

Risen Phoenix Photo

Posts: 3779

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

Philip I have shot for a while now and all my studio images have been shot with a single strobe. I also shoot with ambient (natural light) not just outside but even indoors where ever it makes sense.

Model photography takes time. You do need to take some basic photography and studio photography classes. I am sure there art top end camera stores that offer classes.  With focus and dedicated work you will see strong improvement after 10,000 images.

You can also look through MM browse local photographers that you admire. Contact and offer to pay them to help you improve your photography.

In 2012 I wanted to sit at the feet of an experienced art photographer. I paid $500 and worked with one of the best. R. Michael Walker. We spent from 8 am to well after midnight being critiqued, instructed, looking at prints, and then going out to Joshua Tree to shoot my model who I had brought with me from Minneapolis MN.  It's a day I will never forget and it changed my photography forever.

After you can play your camera like a well trained musician I would suggest you work with payed traveling models. If you don't have a studio shoot outdoors.

Keep shooting, keep getting help from strong model photographers in your area.  And a year from now I will gaurentee you that will see a world of difference in your images.

Aug 19 18 03:23 pm Link

Photographer

Philip Brown

Posts: 568

Long Beach, California, US

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Philip,

Plenty can be achieved with only one light, try moving the one You have in closer.

for the record, my softbox is 50cmx70cm.
I have two of them, so I can put them sidebyside for effective 100x70cm if appropriate.
Thoughts on adequacy?

Aug 19 18 03:23 pm Link

Photographer

Fleming Design

Posts: 1380

East Hartford, Connecticut, US

OP,
what did you think of the video tutorial that Black Z recommended...

"3.  This is just one of many video tutorials out there.  It's only 7 minutes.  Watch the entire thing.  Pay attention to his photos then look at yours.  This should give your some inspiration/motivation.  If it doesn't, sell all your gear because you're just never going to get it."

Aug 19 18 03:47 pm Link

Photographer

Philip Brown

Posts: 568

Long Beach, California, US

Fleming Design wrote:
OP,
what did you think of the video tutorial that Black Z recommended...

I watched it. yes, "all the way through".
I've seen ones like it before.

It was due to videos like that, that as I said, I originally started with a single light. But then people on here "critiqued" my shots and said oh no no, you need more lights, too much shadow on sides of face, etc.


>.<

The main difference between those videos, and my own setup, is that they all seem to use 80cm or bigger octoboxes.
So thats why I'm wondering maybe I can get rid of the side of the face shadow issues, if I have a larger (not brighter: larger) source.

PS: Thanks to Risen Phoenix for the encouraging words.

Aug 19 18 03:56 pm Link

Photographer

Orca Bay Images

Posts: 33877

Arcata, California, US

Philip Brown wrote:
So thats why I'm wondering maybe I can get rid of the side of the face shadow issues, if I have a larger (not brighter: larger) source.

No need to buy more gear. White foamcore should do for fill.

Aug 19 18 04:09 pm Link

Photographer

Philip Brown

Posts: 568

Long Beach, California, US

okay. So. Below, is what I get doing a self-portrait via the sony remote app, single light classic 45 degree above, with white foamcore reflector on the other side.

You're saying that this:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_Y9mM6YXt1W5-63wq9vyhRibvBqKhepqXNV2HscP7y-MrRBBq-j1KSUb2j1FtAnW0XXSRhI46MjXUD0ZJVxUa86CU7Pmpd3bJW3sSnXyyiyXoFFV2KcTcUyFXfh-E6Zs26dKFb56ZZB43bE2CY26rl5cvMS5GKc9Km843E_v_z92rhF6-oOviONP7Rt4Og4NbkkHx0WMVLwozx0WK20T_bZvGsmqSFQVxCaJaMrXddWMUgEtlUlFXwFZNWVm0tnFSxommbUK5z2_tGyv6g3mq_-SpEoUA_51XoRGwZZNNUzJRQBJKWl0ZJEppGNeZOLu-6zPK2HDepGl6J5iXVO7orHlFfW0819tlZ7yozlH6dJjM49p8BHnnvHV67KcL4WuP_uuLNoPNVW5_EbQrhWUxwT3P3OOCCKLgKk71DEXAbcyJJVWA2k-I92rd3ENdFDxdw4wV8wrN8k9qIL11gvoFhOjTlA-fUkpJhpxMWodpaxCrBUFVC4RCgZ7QOaMVyMGaP7JMRG8oLhVCBFG0_RgquXIKv3bOX51nqC7lIKGO2N-q9jj7rDNqHyLjOVJ3fGtUVQOaa27up6WS5vWVqSOcfAt6fgQBSQT=w500

is better lighting than this

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/UzqN3o-2GdYgYoHPYiremU1HhEayATezZiwew1bLkZGgINrZVdQSPtCrt8O4vZACE5yfn95TNL5duqjwdHEjeD2VRceUkDfQ5JSQjJn5plJh8Eu_ZP6DniInpHdt96ixeQ1BW_loU5WOkedtHq65APyRhdS65nPIuE8vbpURrugRWie__a0PIPHV5hAymx1mGPC86ViakUbC8a6XLsUr5sGnk2oj7CjD9yOg8ev9mDgRmOkDUG3vSfPXWx4pD_xl9cJtClRd7nSjCQVWaqQyi1i2hon9zLplvD_0G5t2OsFmA-u5rCNRnhtZHW7qM2mJ0UJC3nE7cceGfNQUMeljT6gisHBrPUGKM0sYcxrovKcGPj0w8IQF5YexNM7pO259VstDkQBqAc40IT0IQRdly9qACdX19hB_o_BGv6jfo5QlNl30RyZBr2wJw2_hmwb4jfhQ31Kntv1LxFouFfKlum-kq5CPCFMvifX1KYgbocEhV5--XAxo49oszDWy6R-B0bmoGSZ7eigQeqA4D41sCIQ3b6ZL93Oxt9pa2sB5gGesjj-Lt4DSgnsCeO4eUxCH-Gh9DEVF3ZlO7SbaiSFI71i_kGtDJ_EPKsib-T7EA0u1g8jb8En69qd4CFwCUb3y66Lxy2LmSOYnsTKCFY4FxsSKGg=s500

?

Aug 19 18 05:26 pm Link

Photographer

CaliModels

Posts: 2721

Los Angeles, California, US

Philip Brown wrote:
as an aside: the room is relatively dark without lighting.
My A7 on aperture mode (F5), picks 1/60 and 3200ISO, with the SEL50FE lens, even at 1pm now.

There's something Wrong if the ISO is 3200, with a light. For one, the light settings are too low, and at high ISO's, you're pulling other light. It's better to use manual mode and lower ISO's in general. Many photographers first learn outdoors, before indoors. It's also good to know equipment limitations. Take advantage of outdoor opportunities.

Aug 19 18 06:03 pm Link

Photographer

khangle

Posts: 4

Los Angeles, California, US

OP, I think before every shoot, you need to decide the purpose the theme for your lighting. You just can't use a bunch of lights and expect everything to look nice because your lighting then has no purpose and does convey any mood. Please learn more about low-key vs high-key lighting, the different effects of different light modifiers in making hard or soft lighting, and the most important one, the inverse square law of light. Finally, learn to use your camera properly in manual mode and don't rely on aperture mode if you're shooting inside with strobes. After all of those, your photos should improve drastically.

Just FYI, I use the same camera as you do, a Sony A7II, and I mainly use 1 strobe for all my shoots, yet my ISO rarely goes over 160.

Aug 19 18 06:39 pm Link

Photographer

Philip Brown

Posts: 568

Long Beach, California, US

CaliModels wrote:
There's something Wrong if the ISO is 3200, with a light. For one, the light settings are too low, and at high ISO's, you're pulling other light. It's better to use manual mode and lower ISO's in general. Many photographers first learn outdoors, before indoors. It's also good to know equipment limitations. Take advantage of outdoor opportunities.

err.. I specifically said this was with no  lighting. You even quoted me saying it? :-}
I just gave these numbers to show the "ambient light levels", since someone made a comment about ambient light.

Philip Brown wrote:
as an aside: the room is relatively dark without lighting.
My A7 on aperture mode (F5), picks 1/60 and 3200ISO, with the SEL50FE lens, even at 1pm now.

Aug 19 18 06:59 pm Link

Photographer

PhotographybyT

Posts: 7947

Monterey, California, US

Philip Brown wrote:
... single light classic 45 degree above, with white foamcore reflector on the other side.

How big is the foam core and how close is it to you? Try moving it even closer, if possible, and see how that goes.

Aug 19 18 07:28 pm Link

Photographer

Philip Brown

Posts: 568

Long Beach, California, US

PhotographybyT wrote:
How big is the foam core and how close is it to you? Try moving it even closer, if possible, and see how that goes.

its as tall as me, and if it were any closer it would be in the frame :-/
its about 3.5 feet wide

One could theorize I didnt adjust it very well, as its fairly difficult to do so in a selfportrait, even when you're seeing yourself "real time" through the cellphone window replay of the camera

That being said, it didnt seem to make that much difference when I was positioning it at a model other than myself, either.

That is to say, I could see it make SOME difference. But not a huge amount.

I attempted to make a qualitative assessment just now. I just pointed a light meter app directly at the light source.
I then pointed it directly at the foam core at the place where it was reflecting the light. It was four stops lower.
Specifically, 1/250 s, vs 1/4000 s
No idea if thats normal or not. Just putting a data point out there.
The board was around 6ft away from the light source.

in comparison, I have a silvered board. Placed in the same place, it metered only 2 stops lower. 1/1000s

Does that all sound normal?

Aug 19 18 07:53 pm Link

Photographer

the lonely photographer

Posts: 2342

Beverly Hills, California, US

kinda reluctant to put my 2 cents in Philip..Your'e not easy to converse with cause you seem to have an answer for every suggestion people offer...
1) I suggest you make friends with an MUA
2) make friends with a hair stylist
3) if you can't do that then attend meet ups that work with MUA's and hair stylists..
you need to get your models up to speed..

Aug 19 18 10:20 pm Link

Photographer

Orca Bay Images

Posts: 33877

Arcata, California, US

Philip Brown wrote:
okay. So. Below, is what I get doing a self-portrait via the sony remote app, single light classic 45 degree above, with white foamcore reflector on the other side.

You're saying that this:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_Y9mM6YXt1W5-63wq9vyhRibvBqKhepqXNV2HscP7y-MrRBBq-j1KSUb2j1FtAnW0XXSRhI46MjXUD0ZJVxUa86CU7Pmpd3bJW3sSnXyyiyXoFFV2KcTcUyFXfh-E6Zs26dKFb56ZZB43bE2CY26rl5cvMS5GKc9Km843E_v_z92rhF6-oOviONP7Rt4Og4NbkkHx0WMVLwozx0WK20T_bZvGsmqSFQVxCaJaMrXddWMUgEtlUlFXwFZNWVm0tnFSxommbUK5z2_tGyv6g3mq_-SpEoUA_51XoRGwZZNNUzJRQBJKWl0ZJEppGNeZOLu-6zPK2HDepGl6J5iXVO7orHlFfW0819tlZ7yozlH6dJjM49p8BHnnvHV67KcL4WuP_uuLNoPNVW5_EbQrhWUxwT3P3OOCCKLgKk71DEXAbcyJJVWA2k-I92rd3ENdFDxdw4wV8wrN8k9qIL11gvoFhOjTlA-fUkpJhpxMWodpaxCrBUFVC4RCgZ7QOaMVyMGaP7JMRG8oLhVCBFG0_RgquXIKv3bOX51nqC7lIKGO2N-q9jj7rDNqHyLjOVJ3fGtUVQOaa27up6WS5vWVqSOcfAt6fgQBSQT=w500

is better lighting than this

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/UzqN3o-2GdYgYoHPYiremU1HhEayATezZiwew1bLkZGgINrZVdQSPtCrt8O4vZACE5yfn95TNL5duqjwdHEjeD2VRceUkDfQ5JSQjJn5plJh8Eu_ZP6DniInpHdt96ixeQ1BW_loU5WOkedtHq65APyRhdS65nPIuE8vbpURrugRWie__a0PIPHV5hAymx1mGPC86ViakUbC8a6XLsUr5sGnk2oj7CjD9yOg8ev9mDgRmOkDUG3vSfPXWx4pD_xl9cJtClRd7nSjCQVWaqQyi1i2hon9zLplvD_0G5t2OsFmA-u5rCNRnhtZHW7qM2mJ0UJC3nE7cceGfNQUMeljT6gisHBrPUGKM0sYcxrovKcGPj0w8IQF5YexNM7pO259VstDkQBqAc40IT0IQRdly9qACdX19hB_o_BGv6jfo5QlNl30RyZBr2wJw2_hmwb4jfhQ31Kntv1LxFouFfKlum-kq5CPCFMvifX1KYgbocEhV5--XAxo49oszDWy6R-B0bmoGSZ7eigQeqA4D41sCIQ3b6ZL93Oxt9pa2sB5gGesjj-Lt4DSgnsCeO4eUxCH-Gh9DEVF3ZlO7SbaiSFI71i_kGtDJ_EPKsib-T7EA0u1g8jb8En69qd4CFwCUb3y66Lxy2LmSOYnsTKCFY4FxsSKGg=s500

?

A disingenuous comparison of apples and oranges. There is far more difference in the two images than just the addition of a foamcore reflector. Look at the lighting on the background and on the two models. Completely different position and intensity of the light source.

Aug 19 18 11:11 pm Link

Photographer

Black Z Eddie

Posts: 1903

San Jacinto, California, US

Black Z Eddie wrote:
1.  Go back to basics.  1 light.  Uno.  Singular.  I think that's been suggested in the past, but, you are so adamant on using multiple lights.  You seem to think the more lights, the better.  I know I know, you bought a set.  Just because it came with 2, doesn't mean you have to use 2.

Philip Brown wrote:
Actually...I dont think thats ever been suggested to me.
I started my home studio escapades with one light.

Actually....yeah it has; and no you didn't start with one light.  Remember this.

Maybe issue is I need a bigger softbox?
the kit one is kinda small.

If you think about it, a lot of photographers use beauty dishes, speedlights, etc.  A larger softbox could be more forgiving and give softer lighting wrapping around the model, but, like everything else, you need to use it correctly.   

as an aside: the room is relatively dark without lighting.

You would think this could be an advantage for you to hide the backdrop + light the model cleaner.
--try moving the model away from the backdrop as much as possible.
--try moving the light as close to the model just so it's out of frame.
--use a grid.

Risen Phoenix Photo and Eros Fine Art Photo had some great suggestions.  If it were me, at this point, I'd sign up for hands on classes, workshops, or hire a photographer. 

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Model photography takes time. You do need to take some basic photography and studio photography classes. I am sure there art top end camera stores that offer classes.  With focus and dedicated work you will see strong improvement after 10,000 images.

You can also look through MM browse local photographers that you admire. Contact and offer to pay them to help you improve your photography.

Aug 20 18 12:41 am Link

Photographer

CaliModels

Posts: 2721

Los Angeles, California, US

Philip Brown wrote:

err.. I specifically said this was with no  lighting. You even quoted me saying it? :-}
I just gave these numbers to show the "ambient light levels", since someone made a comment about ambient light.

Let us know your settings with or without strobes. Per the photos with the model,look like they're on high ISO's. Also, if the room is as dark as you claim, the numbers provided for ambient light levels show there's light in that room. Using simple factoring, F5 is about 2 stops away from 2.8. Which makes ISO 3200 about 2 stops from 800. So, your room at F2.8, 1/60s, and ISO 800 has quite a bit of light.

Aug 20 18 02:02 am Link

Photographer

Znude!

Posts: 3311

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US

To better understand lighting quality and ratios it might help if you set up something like a mannequin head in a stationary position and practice lighting it in fully manual mode, manual ISO, manual shutter speed, manual f/stop, and fully manual flash settings.

Leaving the flash in the same position do a series of shots changing only one thing, flash power. Leave everything else unchanged on the camera and position of the light and mannequin. You could use a basketball or soccer ball if you don't have the mannequin. Use a low ISO

Take careful notes relative to light power and position.

Repeat with a bounce card on the opposite side.

Pay attention to where the light is aimed and the angle of the bounce card.

Do another run of tests moving the light in closer, and another changing the angle of the main light so it's more directed at the bounce card.

Learn to shoot fully manual before digging in to anything automatic. Once you master that you should be able to repeat it over and over again using the light ratio and settings that you prefer.

Personally I prefer to learn to shoot with available light outdoors using no more than a reflector before venturing into using a flash. At some point you will have to learn to mix flash with available light. But just master one thing at a time and keep it as simple as possible before moving to the next step.

And be thankful you aren't learning all of this using film as it could get expensive.

Aug 20 18 05:48 am Link

Photographer

Philip Brown

Posts: 568

Long Beach, California, US

CaliModels wrote:
Let us know your settings with or without strobes. Per the photos with the model,look like they're on high ISO's.

Interesting. What makes you say that?
FYI, the link I gave was to google photo. if you click in to an individual photo, and press the (i) icon, it shows you the full details.
The majority of shots were at 400/ F4.5.  A couple went to ISO 640, but not many.
The only high iso one, was when I was compensating for high shutterspeed, for the hair flip effect.

Aug 20 18 07:06 am Link

Photographer

Fleming Design

Posts: 1380

East Hartford, Connecticut, US

Phillip,
People are referring to you using strobe/flash but it appears that you are using LEDs or even hot lights.  It might help if you would include a wide shot that shows your entire set up.

If you were near me I would invite you in to use my studio and all the lighting and modifiers for a few hours.  It would help you immensely.

Aug 20 18 07:17 am Link

Photographer

Philip Brown

Posts: 568

Long Beach, California, US

Black Z Eddie wrote:
--try moving the model away from the backdrop as much as possible.
--try moving the light as close to the model just so it's out of frame.
--use a grid.

Risen Phoenix Photo and Eros Fine Art Photo had some great suggestions.  If it were me, at this point, I'd sign up for hands on classes, workshops, or hire a photographer.

I am definitely considering the classes/shadowing someone approach.
That being said, I'd like to round out the "one light" idea.
I was inspired this morning.
Since part of the problem looked to me, that there was too much highlight on me, what I changed was:

1. went from the truly "one light" 50x70cm, to 2 side-by-side 50x70, giving me "one"  100x70.
2. *reduced* light power in each one considerably

Lemme know what you think [other than morning hair and proximity to backdrop smile  ]

To my eyes, in addition to reducing specularity, it also seems to have made the reflector board more effective.


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/jZe4tDXW9VzEG9Vy9uSMDVYVip8RVt2jy32IDq8wYTloNDu3q0JSQ6_yxXUipjlPFBoiKe9o8eW297e1WhNSW_J3kzdRpr5ypPKebZRciOaffg0iwq9ZJpXbEWj2oDs2vJl4Ocr2fUIBmUUy-7srIXzyf-Qev5deITp30OIlj-_5GVLNXKag3w00ztAmmTKsLFy91CG4LDkOfiRlTehFJSTMb1m0KDpvakD-RahPfdE45GO1u5wfGdeazh41Vqb6raaXDnc0XcIohklmokXQaqXZii0b6DGXW8fFCv5N32JUwTe9LuGG_TgikWPEPZay_9WoCEuxAnvqvy10QRTzzxFPiEYdaYDUQdKw7Q_cyUPOyiQuXSCQuvKAo4qZKQ_hup41Hqetcp6UMxrcgg7UbyxC4UkNrxSmQ01mbNbSfZkEzqwkBoTdry2MkwqGHNfWovSFDDzUF5Iil2ztjxQqG0wnafZ-ryht3VPLQQe_VFOpTXf3QYetwDL-5XGMzCNtWffrRMUch6UfkM0k24sW5fBNMtS25cAd_VjBowLRkZbByGXjo79GN5ONVMsta8ICI5jJm5EmNlTbGwiGVYIl0zf5i0g4vJk7=w500

Reminder to people who might peek at the settings: I didnt choose F4, 1/160,ISO1250. Camera was on auto for remote app use. The app didnt let me change settings. (although.. I see webpages that claim it should. wierd....)

[Edit: Thank you Fleming for the neighbourly invite]

Edit 2: I suddenly realized, waitaminit..my prior shot was AT NIGHT. close to zero ambient light. But this is morning time.
So I took a quick no-light comparison shot, same settings: F4, 1/160, ISO1250.
Seems like its dark enough to not count much.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Z5gZp2dDOKo3duADEDLdYs-b9OdE3q4bKpcUBiYCX5ivdhnwNt_HFxbcJi748guDg1o303zrg8-Sl6IbE0oavk7Tj35FaORjD_ihfd1ShJtw57a5SenFwygXNCd_gZ808IbGRn_CpWkrtxQ5u9pss-Jf3BfTiwjc5xaMDloGvRIvoaNi2Jz6ovUb1rNKN7w4syKSX5TQUEpNqg-k4b9pu0JY2MibFHCUIUPoZH1tNX9kARpC0F8tf042C611hnu7coQSiKQT2SLuL7VQ7BNO-UcsoiBA3VxvNZ0gQZqhVDffjZewviHc5-dMGZ2eBnOTOipTBYvH_LWts2oqA6SpJ8YR08V9SGyKnlpZAWjEMn4ITEPWAEMlmoAN7ZZ13Paz59zp-kja7PN_KU6BILr_Vr3Lg_PT5g_X3EBIvrb2zevV-9hZ2R6CUDDq-ZRzhX5WrH2XKYm_oSX-_XPxMwQfebbGY_fmM_8GZPqe-NLSe6F0IkagkpJ8k4vM7yRS7HcCRGq5_ErC4-d2iEWfGwyE8rAG0bvdkM1XXiSDklwU_7iIVNlQ0hf_qcnqVIGAI765Z1lPl3E_phz1IWhbY2_w9V1GAiAyHuWMes1Mz9rZHEwVNsAHphH1JqBOplTtKC7q07HKyUVWOU6gHRiFtrrrXD4BmQ=s300-no

Aug 20 18 07:39 am Link