Author Topic: Opinions Wanted (Read 16706 times)

tillencik · « **on:** April 11, 2009, 18:13 »

Let me know what you guys think of these photos, good or bad. Any potential for stock?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** April 11, 2009, 20:10 »

White balance is off and they're overexposed.

Magnum · « **Reply #2 on:** April 11, 2009, 20:49 »

Try white sheets next time... Just kidding. The happy man above is right.

I´d overexpose the background and not her.

Try again and show us

null · « **Reply #3 on:** April 12, 2009, 01:13 »

Tight crop on the right which limits use. The background in the skin color makes the subject-background isolation more difficult for the eye, so why not isolate overwhite?

Dreamframer · « **Reply #4 on:** April 12, 2009, 03:04 »

I will start with what I think it's good. Basically, subject is nice, composition too... If focus is OK and there is no noise, your images are stock worthy.
What I don't like is white balance and clipped colors due to long exposition or too much light.
Regarding white balance: I guess your camera couldn't find clear white spot to adjust white balance correctly. Your background is similar to skin tone, and that can confuse your camera. Try to use background with different color.
Regarding clipped colors: Look at the brightest parts of girls cheeks and forehead, and at her fingers on the image where she uses headset. You see how texture of her skin is not visible? Try to shorten the exposition just a bit, or to increase f number in your camera.

I don't know which camera you use, but I use NIKON. I noticed that when I use Photoshop for processing my RAW files I always get yellowish or reddish pictures. That's why I use Capture NX for that purpose. After processing RAW files in CNX, I export them as TIFF and continue my work in Photoshop.
I hope this helps.

tillencik · « **Reply #5 on:** April 12, 2009, 16:45 »

The background was a pure white wall and the white balance was set for strobe lights, which I was using. That's what the 'expert' who owned the studio told me to do since it was my first shoot.

There's no way for me to select the model and change the background without making it look like crap. Each time I try in photoshop it looks terrible.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** April 12, 2009, 17:00 »

This is why you shoot in RAW, so you can set the white point later, if you aren't sure of what you are doing.

batman · « **Reply #7 on:** April 12, 2009, 17:12 »

if you did not shoot in Raw and is unable to redo the shoot, i guess you can try using layers and work on each (background) (subject) individually , then merge once you get them to where it should be.

null · « **Reply #8 on:** April 12, 2009, 17:23 »

Quote from: tillencik on April 12, 2009, 16:45

There's no way for me to select the model and change the background without making it look like crap. Each time I try in photoshop it looks terrible.

You can make a layer below and make the saturation zero > b&w version. Then selectively erase the top layer over the (gray) background. That will solve the fringe problem on the hair too, and it will preserve the skin tone as it is. When all is flattened, you can dodge the edges easily to white. But it will add an hour at least to each shot, so it's not very productive.

batman · « **Reply #9 on:** April 12, 2009, 17:49 »

you'll still have that dark shadow under her hair, chin,etc... to contend with. your lighting is uneven (ratio: 1:3 , guesswork here) , so careful with the placement of the model.
from your catchlight , too small to really see from your image here, but it looks like an umbrella or window . but you said flash, so i assume that it's a brolly.

looks like you're using one source of light to light both the subject and background, (telltale 45 degree shadow incline on her nose to chin).
try adding another light to lighten the background to get separation from the model. adding another to fill the shadow side, or use a reflector to fill the shadow side. careful here too, in this case, you may have to watch the spill does not create lens flare. use a go between to contain the spill.
ok, i think you have enough on your hands here, lol.. gotta go ! good luck. keep practising. you'll get the hang of it ! (wink)
at least you have a headstart with a lovely model. (smile)

RT · « **Reply #10 on:** April 12, 2009, 19:11 »

Quote from: tillencik on April 12, 2009, 16:45

There's no way for me to select the model and change the background without making it look like crap. Each time I try in photoshop it looks terrible.

tillencik, You can pretty much do anything in Photoshop if you spend a little time and know what you're doing, however it helps to have the information there in the first place, on this shot all I've done to your image is adjust the colour balance and played with the levels, took about 15 seconds, one side of her face is overexposed which means it's never going to be perfect, but if you were prepared to spend some time on it you could get a reasonable result.

Next time just set your background lights one stop more, and move the light on the right side of her face further back (or lower the power) and the reflector on her left closer. Look up portrait lighting using the 'butterfly' or 'rembrandt' techniques on Google, shadows are a good thing they add definition.

batman · « **Reply #11 on:** April 12, 2009, 20:22 »

i think before you go into more ambitious lighting like rembrandt, butterful,
you need first to learn to balance your lighting ratio. sort of trying to run before oyu walk is not exactly advisable.
from the look of the image , you can tell there is only one point source.
to do butterfly you need more than one. to create the butterfly there is one overhead kicker. so i think before you try something like that, get to be able to light your subject and background separately.
i am not sure if microstock is looking for rembrandt lighting either. as most of them are flat lighting and to a limited extent , high key.

batman · « **Reply #12 on:** April 12, 2009, 20:30 »

Quote from: batman on April 12, 2009, 20:22

i think before you go into more ambitious lighting like rembrandt, butterful,
you need first to learn to balance your lighting ratio. sort of trying to run before oyu walk is not exactly advisable.
from the look of the image , you can tell there is only one point source.
to do butterfly you need more than one. to create the butterfly there is one overhead kicker.
same for the rembrandt, you need to be able to create modeling without clipping the highlight and add enough details to maintain the shadow from blocking. all of which requires more than umbrella .
before you go into doing such classical lighting, you need to master lighting ratio. not getting a separation between your model and background, shows that you've still lacking that ability .
so i think before you try something like that, get to be able to light your subject and background separately.
moreover, i am not even sure if microstock is looking for rembrandt or butterfly lighting either. as most of them are flat lighting and to a limited extent , high key. low key lighting and chiaroscuro
i haven't seen too many of that in microstock.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #13 on:** April 13, 2009, 02:31 »

Quote from: tillencik on April 12, 2009, 16:45

The background was a pure white wall and the white balance was set for strobe lights, which I was using. That's what the 'expert' who owned the studio told me to do since it was my first shoot.

There's no way for me to select the model and change the background without making it look like crap. Each time I try in photoshop it looks terrible.

Always make few test shots to decide what's best for the current photo session. If background was pure white it has to look pure white on your shots, or at least very close to pure white. Once you set your camera properly, everything will be much much easier and you will enjoy shooting.

anton9 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 13, 2009, 03:06 »

With the background as pure white then they are both definately stock worthy especially the first one its a great pic with a great subject

goldenangel · « **Reply #15 on:** April 13, 2009, 03:06 »

If you shot in RAW, you could adjust the whie balance, RT did a great job on your picture. You could even try to clone out the completely white places on her face. For that you can use the clone tool set to the Darken mode and opacity of 20% or so. You may spend a lot of Photoshop time with these pictures but you can also learn new things..

RT · « **Reply #16 on:** April 13, 2009, 04:25 »

Quote from: batman on April 12, 2009, 20:22

i think before you go into more ambitious lighting like rembrandt, butterful,
you need first to learn to balance your lighting ratio. sort of trying to run before oyu walk is not exactly advisable.

Batman I'd love to see what you describe as a more simplistic approach to portrait lighting - using a torch?

For the OP, Butterfly lighting is one of the most basic portrait lighting techniques you can use, but like most things in life simple sometimes works out best, here's a link I found by searching google for basic portrait lighting techniques: http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleedawson/id11.html

The most important thing in portrait photography is the interaction between you and the subject, I think you're off to a very good start, any idiot can learn lighting techniques.

batman · « **Reply #17 on:** April 13, 2009, 08:33 »

Quote from: RT on April 13, 2009, 04:25

Batman I'd love to see what you describe as a more simplistic approach to portrait lighting - using a torch?

no RT, a candle

tillencik · « **Reply #18 on:** April 13, 2009, 10:55 »

Quote from: RT on April 12, 2009, 19:11

Quote from: tillencik on April 12, 2009, 16:45
There's no way for me to select the model and change the background without making it look like crap. Each time I try in photoshop it looks terrible.

tillencik, You can pretty much do anything in Photoshop if you spend a little time and know what you're doing, however it helps to have the information there in the first place, on this shot all I've done to your image is adjust the colour balance and played with the levels, took about 15 seconds, one side of her face is overexposed which means it's never going to be perfect, but if you were prepared to spend some time on it you could get a reasonable result.

Next time just set your background lights one stop more, and move the light on the right side of her face further back (or lower the power) and the reflector on her left closer. Look up portrait lighting using the 'butterfly' or 'rembrandt' techniques on Google, shadows are a good thing they add definition.

I was able to make the picture look the same as you did using the automatic functions in Photoshop, but istockphoto still rejected some of them.

I paid an 'expert' who owns a studio to help me set up the lights, and I guess I wasted my money. I only shot in JPGs, but now that you guys have mentioned it I learned to adjust my camera to shoot both JPG and Raw pictures. I took around 200 shots, so I don't feel like spending an hour on each of them.. especially when my first batch of 12 pictures has yet to be viewed by anyone on fotolia.

Thanks for the help!

batman · « **Reply #19 on:** April 13, 2009, 11:01 »

Quote from: tillencik on April 13, 2009, 10:55

I was able to make the picture look the same as you did using the automatic functions in Photoshop, but istockphoto still rejected some of them.

Quote from: sjlocke on April 11, 2009, 20:10

White balance is off and they're overexposed.

the man already told you the reason .

Magnum · « **Reply #20 on:** April 13, 2009, 12:42 »

You paid a man to set up the lighting? And you have barely learn to control your camera.?? You don´t sound so interested?? If I got my hand on a studio setup. I´d try different settings and positions til my fingers bled. where´s your learning curve?

tillencik · « **Reply #21 on:** April 13, 2009, 13:18 »

Quote from: Magnum on April 13, 2009, 12:42

You paid a man to set up the lighting? And you have barely learn to control your camera.?? You don´t sound so interested?? If I got my hand on a studio setup. I´d try different settings and positions til my fingers bled. where´s your learning curve?

Why so ignorant?

I just got my camera two weeks ago and I've never done serious photography before. I read through the manual a couple times and I got most of it, but I didn't see the benefit of shooting RAW pictures.

I rented a studio because I don't have any room in my apartment and I don't have $50,000 to spend on equipment. Lighting is very complicated so I needed some help. He helped me with the lights and our test pictures looked good, but I don't think he turned on the same lights when my model arrived.

I also work full time and I'm working on a Masters degree, so I don't have all the time in the world go learn every technical detail.. but I'm trying.

Magnum · « **Reply #22 on:** April 13, 2009, 13:39 »

It´s awesome you are trying. Sorry if I sounded harsh. But you said it yourself, You got the camera two weeks ago. And have already started with studio shots. What about basic photography?

tillencik · « **Reply #23 on:** April 13, 2009, 13:44 »

I take a ton of pictures of family members and pets, which are useless as stock. What do you mean by basic photography? I can try and take pictures of meaningful objects, but I'd still have to get some kind of background and lighting.

RT · « **Reply #24 on:** April 13, 2009, 14:43 »

Quote from: batman on April 13, 2009, 08:33

Quote from: RT on April 13, 2009, 04:25
Batman I'd love to see what you describe as a more simplistic approach to portrait lighting - using a torch?

no RT, a candle

Watch out for singed eyebrows

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Opinions Wanted (Read 16706 times)

tillencik

Sean Locke Photography

Magnum

null

Dreamframer

tillencik

Sean Locke Photography

batman

null

batman

RT

batman

batman

Dreamframer

anton9

goldenangel

RT

batman

tillencik

batman

Magnum

tillencik

Magnum

tillencik

RT

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors