# [Serious] How can I improve this studio shot?



## NedM (Jul 27, 2017)

Hey guys. I'm finally diving into the world of working in a studio environment. I recently shot with a model in my studio the other day and when I put the images onto my computer I noticed a lot of discrepancies. 

Here's a shot straight from the camera:
*STUDIO SHOT*

Camera settings:
Canon EOS 5D Mark II
F/11
1/200 sec.
ISO-160
Tamron 24-70 2.8 shot at 50mm
White Balance: Set to custom at 5700K

Lighting setup: 
I had two Flashpoint 620M 300 Watt monolights setup both at 1/2 power. I had one 24x36 Softbox and one 30x60 Softbox setup. You can see my setup more clearly here:
*SHOT OF STUDIO*

Here are some questions I have:

Why is my background not completely white but instead a bit more warm in some areas?
How can I improve or reduce the shadows in her eyes and also caused by her hair?
How can I make her skin tone more flattering? It's a bit orange or saturated to me.

These are the only questions I have right now, but any help would very much appreciated!


----------



## Designer (Jul 27, 2017)

1. The variance in the light on the background is due to natural falloff.  With only two softboxes the background is not evenly lighted.

2. It seems you need a light closer to the lens pointed straight at the model.

3. Adjust your white balance.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 27, 2017)

To add to Designer's points:  You generally need two dedicated background lights when shooting wide seamless, and it's usually best to cross light (Light on the right illuminates the left side of the paper and vice versa).  Read up on the inverse square law to learn about light fall off.

Your lights should be raised; I generally like to have the lowest part of the modifier above the waist, and often closer to the shoulder.  I'm not sure that I would add a light to illuminate her face straight on, but if the hair couldn't be moved and you couldn't tweak her pose or the light position just a bit, than I would up in with a couple of reflectors to kick some light back into those shadow areas.

Is 5700K the correct WB for the your lights with those modifiers?  I would recommend the acquisition of an X-Rite Colour-Checker Passport and its associated LR plugin for optimal colour accuracy.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 27, 2017)

for that tamron at f/11, it seems really soft at 100%  

so my number 1 would be: getting the focus nailed.


----------



## NedM (Jul 27, 2017)

tirediron said:


> To add to Designer's points:  You generally need two dedicated background lights when shooting wide seamless, and it's usually best to cross light (Light on the right illuminates the left side of the paper and vice versa).  Read up on the inverse square law to learn about light fall off.
> 
> Your lights should be raised; I generally like to have the lowest part of the modifier above the waist, and often closer to the shoulder.  I'm not sure that I would add a light to illuminate her face straight on, but if the hair couldn't be moved and you couldn't tweak her pose or the light position just a bit, than I would up in with a couple of reflectors to kick some light back into those shadow areas.
> 
> Is 5700K the correct WB for the your lights with those modifiers?  I would recommend the acquisition of an X-Rite Colour-Checker Passport and its associated LR plugin for optimal colour accuracy.



I have heard about the inverse square law and I figured that inconsistent background was due to some light fall off but I definitely need to look into it more. When you mention modifier are referring to the soft boxes I have attached to the strobes? I'm not at all too familiar studio jargon. 

Her hair just happen to be in front of her face for that shot and I was just curious to see if there was a way to eliminate or at best reduce those kinds of shadows. I was shooting for a client for their e-commerce and so the model did do a lot of different poses. If I raise the soft boxes higher or above her waist would that result in more flattering lighting on her face? Here's a shot where her hair is out of the way but the lighting on her face seems a bit off to me: SHOT 

I set the WB to 5700 because I thought that would yield me a 'whiter' or more color corrected image. How can I figure which WB is correct for my setup?


----------



## NedM (Jul 27, 2017)

Braineack said:


> for that tamron at f/11, it seems really soft at 100%
> 
> so my number 1 would be: getting the focus nailed.



You think so? I thought my focus was spot on but I can see what you're referring too. Before the shoot started I pre-focused using live view and zooming in to have the focus sharp on the model's eyes. I left it alone after that. The model did move around quite a lot and she probably moved out of the plane a few times. I figured f/11 would have given a larger plane of focus, so I wasn't too worried. Maybe f/11 isn't my lens sweet spot... I see that you have same lens. Which f-stop is sharpest for you?


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 27, 2017)

Tirediron's comments on lighting are good advice to follow, he's helped me a lot. Another thing to consider is that if this was a head/shoulder shot, two lights would probably work well, but a full body shots takes more lights to keep even illumination. In lieu of additional lights or in addition to, reflectors can easily be used to tweak the shadows.

On white balance I leave the camera set to auto WB, then hang this in the first shot. Vello White Balance Card Set for Digital Photography WB-CS B&H  In LR it's really easy to get the WB right. You highlight all the images in the set to select. Go to the first image with targets, and use the eye dropper tool to sample the white, gray or black to get the best WB, and or tweak it manually. Then click Synch>White Balance only. All the photos in the series will now have the same WB. You can do the same in PS but a little more difficult.


----------



## KmH (Jul 27, 2017)

With many cameras _f_/11 is real close to where focus sharpness loss starts because of diffraction.
Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

Point of focus distance & lens focal length are also very important considerations when trying to control the depth-of-field.
Understanding Depth of Field in Photography


----------



## Designer (Jul 27, 2017)

NedM said:


> Before the shoot started I pre-focused using live view and zooming in to have the focus sharp on the model's eyes. I left it alone after that. The model did move around quite a lot and she probably moved out of the plane a few times. I figured f/11 would have given a larger plane of focus, so I wasn't too worried.


You should work out the DOF more accurately, not leaving it up to a hunch.

Also, why not focus every shot?  If you are concerned about focus, then leaving it to chance is not the best strategy.


----------



## Light Guru (Jul 27, 2017)

NedM said:


> I figured f/11 would have given a larger plane of focus



Its a single person with a white background you don't need that big of plane of focus.


----------



## NedM (Jul 27, 2017)

Designer said:


> NedM said:
> 
> 
> > Before the shoot started I pre-focused using live view and zooming in to have the focus sharp on the model's eyes. I left it alone after that. The model did move around quite a lot and she probably moved out of the plane a few times. I figured f/11 would have given a larger plane of focus, so I wasn't too worried.
> ...



In the OP, I'm not super concerned about needing every shot to be pin-tac sharp. To reiterate, I was working for a client who needed their e-commerce done, so we went through about 200-300+ outfits that day taking about 7-10 shots per outfit. We only had 8 hours, so there was just no time for me to fiddle with the focus for each shot. As long as the shots were relatively sharp, both the client and I were satisfied.


----------



## NedM (Jul 27, 2017)

Light Guru said:


> NedM said:
> 
> 
> > I figured f/11 would have given a larger plane of focus
> ...



Yes, I'm realizing from everyone's post that my f-stop is unreasonably put at f/11. I'l probably read the articles Kmh sent and put my f-stop somewhere at f/8 for better results!


----------



## Derrel (Jul 27, 2017)

Reducing the eye shadows caused by the hair: in shot #1, the left-hand side's softbox WILL cause a shadow on the face, because the hair is in between the softbox and the model's face/eyes...you need the main light to be more on-axis, and not so much off to the side. RE: the orange makeup...you can tinker with the oranges and reds and yellows in Lightroom, and tone those down, to get a more-realistic or should I say a more-pleasing makeup look. Some makeup will photograph with that type of coloration.

A good idea is a key light coming from a slight angle to the model, and the second light, or the fill light, placed RIGHT NEXT TO the camera and aimed straight ahead at the model, and not as you have lighted this wioth cross-lighting.  Cross-lighting is fine on backdrops, but often causes issues with the people in front of the background.

If you want a white backdrop, you can add light to it, or subtract light from the subject, and then expose for the dimmer subject, which will drive the backdrop "Upward", or brighter. For example, had you exposed her at f/8, the backdrop would have looked whiter.

Shooting this with just two lights is not nearly as easy as it would be with three, or with four light units.


----------



## NedM (Jul 27, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Reducing the eye shadows caused by the hair: in shot #1, the left-hand side's softbox WILL cause a shadow on the face, because the hair is in between the softbox and the model's face/eyes...you need the main light to be more on-axis, and not so much off to the side. RE: the orange makeup...you can tinker with the oranges and reds and yellows in Lightroom, and tone those down, to get a more-realistic or should I say a more-pleasing makeup look. Some makeup will photograph with that type of coloration.
> 
> A good idea is a key light coming from a slight angle to the model, and the second light, or the fill light, placed RIGHT NEXT TO the camera and aimed straight ahead at the model, and not as you have lighted this wioth cross-lighting.  Cross-lighting is fine on backdrops, but often causes issues with the people in front of the background.
> 
> ...



Exactly the information I was looking for! Thank you so much for your input. I'm definitely going to give that 'upward' tip a shot when I get back in my studio. For now, I'll just have to settle with two monolights. I'll need to invest into a third and possibly a fourth strobe so I can get the results I want.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 27, 2017)

There are many ways to liught things. Here is one suggestion you could try:

IF YOU have the space...move the main light farther away from her, so its intensity drops from f/11 to about f/5.6...then crank one background light to Full power. So, one main light that illuminates her...from relatively far away...and at less than half-power, and the exposure set to get her into decent focus...say at f/5.6 or f/6.3...and the second light set so it hits the backdrop from a fairly straight-ish angle, just out of camera view, but behind her foot position on the seamless paper's front or "apron"...

Using LESS light, on her, and exposing for* a dimmer main light*, with lens set to f/5.6 or f/6.3 or so, and one light lighting the white seamless, at a higher output level than the main light, will give a pure white backdrop.

That would be one way to shoot this in a smallish office like you did. You do not necessarily "need" a second light for shadow fill-in. In a low-ceilinged office and with a white seamless paper on the floor, there'sprobably enough ambient spill from the main light to fill-in the shadows cast by one softbox.

And by the way, the softbox is not a very large one...moving to a larger box could be helpful. But not 'necesary'. There are many,many ways you could light this type of e-commerce catalog or site stuff.

Look on-line for studio videos on YouTube, or on web sites dealing with white background shots and how to do them.


----------



## NedM (Jul 27, 2017)

Derrel said:


> There are many ways to liught things. Here is one suggestion you could try:
> 
> IF YOU have the space...move the main light farther away from her, so its intensity drops from f/11 to about f/5.6...then crank one background light to Full power. So, one main light that illuminates her...from relatively far away...and at less than half-power, and the exposure set to get her into decent focus...say at f/5.6 or f/6.3...and the second light set so it hits the backdrop from a fairly straight-ish angle, just out of camera view, but behind her foot position on the seamless paper's front or "apron"...
> 
> ...



If this were Reddit, I would give you gold but for now enjoy a nice winner rating! Thanks again for that all helpful information. I am definitely going to give that a try and see how that works. Typically, I usually have a whole lot more room and a higher ceiling to work with, but I've since moved my studio into this smaller office temporarily.


----------



## fmw (Jul 29, 2017)

NedM said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > NedM said:
> ...



I think you are taking the wrong thing from the discussion.  f11 is fine.  I often shoot at f22 in the studio.  I think the softness is due to poor focus.  The model's hair is casting a shadow on her eyes.  You need to place the lights to prevent that.  I assume your gear has modeling lights.   If not take a test shot to see how your placement worked and then adjust from there.

You can blow out the background in post process by using the levels function.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 29, 2017)

LIsten to this guy ^^^^^^.

There's nothing inhernently "wrong" with using f/11 under studio flash, but for a one-person, one-plane, standing pose shot, you likely could get by with f/5.6 or f/6.3 or f/7.1 or f/8, since there's not a pressing need for a lot of DOF. Buuuuuut...getting the focus correct is important for good sharpness. On modern, high-megapixel cameras, missed focus shows up, clearly. I think on shot 1, you missed focus. The lens is surely sharper than the photo shows...even $20 pawnshop optics can deliver higher sharpness when focused properly.

As fmw mentions...use levels or the curves tool, and tweak the whites...you ought to be able to "lift the whites up" pretty easily; I use the curves tool quite often to do that.

Yous situation is better than having blown-out the background light to a high degree, where you have blowback, coming from behind her, and bouncing back toward the camera.

If you want to use two lights, you COULD use 4 large V-flats, or 4 LARGE reflector panels (house door sized or bigger)....blast the lights into the panels, which will bounce light back to the backdrop paper...THEN, the reflected light from the background  bouncing back toward the camera position can be caught and bounced back off of a second set of reflectors, toward the model's face and front.

What will that do? There will be MORE light on the background (say f/11 incident at the backdrop paper), and DIMMER light on her face and front. Expose properly for the face and the dimmer lighjting that it has on this thrice-reflected light (say f/5.6 ioncident light), and PRESTO! Pure, white backdrop, directly done, in camera. Using the science of light.


----------



## NedM (Aug 3, 2017)

OK, guys! I  took a lot of advice given to me in this thread and I was able to get
the results I wanted in my studio.

First, I moved my studio into another part of my building with much
more room to work with than previously before. In addition, I also moved my soft boxes further away from my subject or more straight on to help ease the shadows on the face. Both were set to just under 1/2 power.




I also went out and bought two Einstein 640 WS to compliment the two Flashpoint
620M 300 WS I already had. I used both the Einsteins has my background light and
set them crossing over just as Derrel suggested. I set them both 1/32th for power. I'm
not entirely sure what the rest of the numbers mean. I'm *really* new to having a studio.

 

This was the final image and I couldn't be happier:

 

Previous shot on the left. Current shot on the right.

Thanks to everyone for the great advice! I'm still very much new to studios so it's definitely a learning process.

Here were my camera setting:
f/7.1, 1/200 sec. @ ISO-200


----------



## lance70 (Nov 13, 2017)

You can try moving the model a little closer to the camera.....have one light shooting at the backdrop which looks like you did but if she's moved up a bit you won't get as much bounce off the backdrop.....Then shoot in RAW and adjust your white balance in post processing. Maybe try and put the main light a little closer to the model as well.....


----------

