# Bodacious First Shot - Taylor



## DGMPhotography (Nov 11, 2017)

I've just about finished my first shot from my shoot with Taylor. 

I'm still trying to decide on a few things. First off, what crop should I go with? 

If we can agree on that, I would also like to discuss background choice. 

General C&C is welcome as well, but I would like to address the above topics. 

1.
 2. 

On one hand, I've never gotten a full-body shot that I've liked, but this one definitely has me reconsidering that. But on the other hand, I realize the closer crop bring more focus to her face. Thoughts?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 11, 2017)

I prefer the half-body version, for the additional on-screen size and detail that it carries with it. Her posture in #1 looks a bit off-kilter (foot positioning, camera-right) so I prefer shot #2.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 11, 2017)

Derrel said:


> I prefer the half-body version, for the additional on-screen size and detail that it carries with it. Her posture in #1 looks a bit off-kilter (foot positioning, camera-right) so I prefer shot #2.



I agree. Posture looks a bit off below the knee. If I went with the full-body version, I may want to rotate her foot a little bit.

But now I have another question. Are there any situations where a full body standing portrait makes sense? Now that I think of it, I haven't seen it very often.

And aside from that, what do you think of the shot?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 11, 2017)

FULL-BODY standing shots make a LOT of sense...you can literally "see the whole person", from head to toe! She has on a ver interesting denim jumpsuit, very stylized, very retro-chic...she has an attractive figure...literally showing her makes a lot of sense; yet at the same time, cropping this, and showing her more-clearly, in a more close-in crop, is also very appealing. As far as what I think of the shot: I like the slight bit of warming gel filter used on her, but at the same time, I think it might have been a good idea to have included a bit of that gelled light on that gray backdrop. Perhaps a bit of that warm, magenta-ish tone could be applied to the backdrop in post?


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 11, 2017)

Hmm.. I just wonder in what case the full-body shot would be _better_ than a cropped shot. 

As for the background, it's a composite as-is, so adding some color isn't a problem  which I suppose brings me to the second point of my post. What background should I go with? I've got a few options I've worked on so far (and I'll try the color addition as well).

1.
  
2.
  
3.
  
4.
  
5.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 12, 2017)

Beautiful lighting, and I really like the pose. I think the half body looks best; the full body looks a bit awkward. Her hair looks clean and really stylish, and overall the general processing of the image is very good. I don't care for the face retouching though; any detail of her skin looks wiped away, giving her a fake cartoonish look. As far as backgrounds go, I think #4 harmonizes best with her clothing and compliments the pink lighting really well, and the warm tones add a generally healthy look to her. 3 is decent as well, but I think the less contrasting tones between her skin and the background of 4 looks better, and the pink light looks a bit out of place with the cooler tones in 3.


----------



## jcdeboever (Nov 12, 2017)

#4.


----------



## Designer (Nov 12, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> On one hand, I've never gotten a full-body shot that I've liked, but this one definitely has me reconsidering that. But on the other hand, I realize the closer crop bring more focus to her face. Thoughts?


Maybe you should have posed your model differently.  That pose does not flatter her shape, and her legs are oddly placed.  

For a full-body shot, the legs should be more interesting than what is shown here.  A more artful pose might help, and then lower your camera.  Having your lens at about her neck level automatically puts more emphasis on her face, even if you frame to include her feet.  Furthermore, the light fall-off is working against a full-body shot.  You should plan out your shot(s) even before the model shows up so can be ready with the proper lighting.  

As for the background color, use whatever color you want, as long as the color of the background is complimentary to the model, her attire, and the overall theme of the shot.


----------



## Designer (Nov 12, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> I've just about finished my first shot from my shoot with Taylor.


Now I have a question about that statement.  "..finished my first shot.."  Are you talking about doing a lot of time-consuming editing to only one (the first) shot?  If that is the case, my question is "Why?"  

How far off was it before you started?  What all do you have to work on?  Are your edits something that could have (should have) been done when you took the shot?  Are you planning to do a similar amount of editing to every shot?  How many shots and how much time?  Are you incorporating this methodology into your business model?  Have you considered the possibility that you might need to learn photography instead of Photoshop?  

Food for thought.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 12, 2017)

Designer said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I've just about finished my first shot from my shoot with Taylor.
> ...



Masking someone out from a background takes a lot of time, if you want to do it right. And I would expect any self respecting photographer to spend time in post. As for your other comments, I, and others here, really like the pose for the most part. But your comments about the full-body shot and how it could be more interesting do have some truth to them. As I was lighting this shot, I realized the need for a v-flat. Something I've been wanting to add to my arsenal for awhile.



DanOstergren said:


> Beautiful lighting, and I really like the pose. I think the half body looks best; the full body looks a bit awkward. Her hair looks clean and really stylish, and overall the general processing of the image is very good. I don't care for the face retouching though; any detail of her skin looks wiped away, giving her a fake cartoonish look. As far as backgrounds go, I think #4 harmonizes best with her clothing and compliments the pink lighting really well, and the warm tones add a generally healthy look to her. 3 is decent as well, but I think the less contrasting tones between her skin and the background of 4 looks better, and the pink light looks a bit out of place with the cooler tones in 3.



Thanks, Dan. I think #4 is best, too. Thanks for your feedback. As for the face retouching.. I don't think I can ever make you happy in that haha. I actually didn't do much here, aside from a couple of blemishes and darkening her eyes.


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Nov 12, 2017)

Why are the pics so small? You can not blow them up to inspect them at this size. Hard to critique something small.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 12, 2017)

Dean_Gretsch said:


> Why are the pics so small? You can not blow them up to inspect them at this size. Hard to critique something small.



No one else here has seemed to have a problem critiquing at this size. I upload my images at 1700x1700 which is more than enough. 

And it's about the largest I can get without exceeding TPF's upload limit.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 12, 2017)

I prefer the square aspect ratio, half-body shots, and find that 2,3,and 4 all have something to offer in one way or another. I have a slightly opposite opinion on #3 than Dan O. has above; whereas he mentions the contrast of her skin tones against the backdrop in #3 as a slight minus point, I like #3's wardrobe/background color agreement! And I like the way her skin contrasts with the backdrop in #3 as well.

As far as a V-flat...Home Depot's home* insulation sheets*, the BIG ones in the roughly 4 x 8 foot size at $12.99 or so each, the foil-colored ones that are about 1-inch thick, those make good, inexpensive V-flats, and you can PAINT one side, or both; they come in silver-colored finish, but they will take paint, white, or black, to make a reflector, or a subtractive panel in black. They will easily tape together, or you can use wire or zip-ties to make a V-flat outta' these.

V-flats make good reflectors for full-length standing shots, and also disperse the burst of an electronic flash pretty nicely, AND can shield the camera lens from stray light from said flash!

Here is a fantastic V-flat FAQ from famous people-photographer Sue Bryce. https://suebryceeducation.com/blog/polyboards-v-flats-faq/


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 12, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Masking someone out from a background takes a lot of time,



I guess I'm confused.  Even with the new refine edge tools in PS it is a job and takes time to do it right. So why are you finding the need to mask? I've always been a believer in work smarter not harder. Pre-planning is something that could save you a tremendous amount of time. If you know you're going "not" going to use the background, going with a chroma key background will save you time later in the masking. Even better, pre-planning your background for the final shot would prevent masking at all.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 12, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Masking someone out from a background takes a lot of time,
> ...


Masking out the background opens the image up to many different options as to what you could use for a background. It also saves one from having to buy a number of expensive backdrops. Yes it takes time, but I think that time is worthwhile for what you get.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 13, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> I guess I'm confused. Even with the new refine edge tools in PS it is a job and takes time to do it right. So why are you finding the need to mask? I've always been a believer in work smarter not harder. Pre-planning is something that could save you a tremendous amount of time. If you know you're going "not" going to use the background, going with a chroma key background will save you time later in the masking. Even better, pre-planning your background for the final shot would prevent masking at all.





DanOstergren said:


> Masking out the background opens the image up to many different options as to what you could use for a background. It also saves one from having to buy a number of expensive backdrops. Yes it takes time, but I think that time is worthwhile for what you get.



What Dan said ^

Also, "chroma key" backdrops suck for photography. Unless you get the high end ones. Green screens reflect a ton of green light onto the model, especially if you don't have a lot of space to work with. I just use a plain gray backdrop and mask from there. Chroma key backdrops are better for video work. 

And Derrel, that sounds like exactly what I need to do.


----------



## Granddad (Nov 13, 2017)

Dean_Gretsch said:


> Why are the pics so small? You can not blow them up to inspect them at this size. Hard to critique something small.



Dean, if you click on the small image it brings it into a slightly larger slide show style image strip thingy - Then when you *right* click on the image you get the option to view the image in its own browser window and the magnifying option to view full size (discovered this last bit about 3 months ago quite by accident).


----------



## Granddad (Nov 13, 2017)

Am I the only person that has issues with her left breast? I don't know if it's lighting or post processing but it looks to ME to be a different colour tone to the rest of her skin and the merge line between the breast and her body is very sharp. Since no-one else has picked that up I'm wondering if I'm a bit of a weirdo. 

.... Other than that I really like the shot and agree that #4 is the background that best suits the image. VERY good work on the background, by the way.


----------



## Designer (Nov 13, 2017)

Granddad said:


> Am I the only person that has issues with her left breast? I don't know if it's lighting or post processing but it looks to ME to be a different colour tone to the rest of her skin and the merge line between the breast and her body is very sharp. Since no-one else has picked that up I'm wondering if I'm a bit of a weirdo.


There is a sharp line between light and shadow cutting across her skin.  Now that you've pointed it out, Daryll can fix it.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 13, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> Masking out the background opens the image up to many different options as to what you could use for a



I understand "why" someone would select, mask and delete/change a background in post. I've done it when conditions dictated, but in OP's case the "changes" appear as if they could have just as easily been prevented by the use of gels on lights.  I've questioned you in the past on "why" you do things in a certain way, not to be critical, nor to disagree with your methods, but to learn and in your case I've ended up adopting some of those methods in my workflow. 

@DGMPhotography  Okay, so you don't like Chroma Key (which can be another color besides green, and doesn't have to be expensive), but you didn't answer the other part of the question.  I merely repeated something posed earlier by @Designer _Are your edits something that could have (should have) been done when you took the shot? Are you planning to do a similar amount of editing to every shot?_  I'm not being critical of you because knowing your way around PS is a valuable skill, but it seems that you're creating extra work for yourself when  minor adjustment in lighting would have prevented it. Photographers routinely adjust the color of the background How to Use Lighting Gels to Change your Background Color . I have a set of gels (again not that expensive) that will easily change a neutral gray background.  You may have a reason for doing the extra work that I'm not understanding, and if you'd explain that reasoning, I might (as in Dan's case), decide your method is better and incorporate it into my workflow.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 13, 2017)

Granddad said:


> Am I the only person that has issues with her left breast? I don't know if it's lighting or post processing but it looks to ME to be a different colour tone to the rest of her skin and the merge line between the breast and her body is very sharp. Since no-one else has picked that up I'm wondering if I'm a bit of a weirdo.
> 
> .... Other than that I really like the shot and agree that #4 is the background that best suits the image. VERY good work on the background, by the way.



I have issues with the entire image.  I think the pose looks odd, her facial expression odder, the processing makes her look cgi (no joke I thought this was a rendering at first), and I very much dislike the masked out background here.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 13, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Masking out the background opens the image up to many different options as to what you could use for a
> ...



I noticed a pattern/texture in the added background that didn't exist in the original one. To be technical, in this case his edits could not be attained just by adding gels to the lights because it's a different background altogether. In order to get that effect in camera he would have to switch the backdrop out completely. There are many editing techniques beyond masking out a background that are time consuming yet necessary if you want certain results, such as a completely new background (and to me, even the tiniest bit of texture on a background makes a huge difference and makes a completey new background). As well, perhaps this is his favorite image; there would be no way of getting the exact same image by having her redo the exact same shot over and over with different gels on the background. It seems like a waste of valuable shooting time actually, and most photographers would rather mask out the background and replace it on one particular image if that was their plan, not reshoot the same image a ton of times hoping you achieve the same pose and expression, just with a different gel over a background light.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 13, 2017)

Braineack said:


> Granddad said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only person that has issues with her left breast? I don't know if it's lighting or post processing but it looks to ME to be a different colour tone to the rest of her skin and the merge line between the breast and her body is very sharp. Since no-one else has picked that up I'm wondering if I'm a bit of a weirdo.
> ...


What about the pose is odd? I think it looks quite good in the cropped version. Also, what about the expression is odd to you? I personally think it looks great. The CGI look in my opinion is from a mixture of perfect lighting with the added color gel, as well as a bit of over processed skin retouching, but either way I think the lighting is going to cause this image to look a bit like CGI no matter what.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Nov 13, 2017)

I'm aware of the sharp line on her chest, but I think I'll keep it. It is consistent with the lighting across the rest of the image. If anything, I may soften it just a little bit. 

As for using color gels, I literally used color gels in this, so I don't understand what your question is, smoke. Using color gels on a backdrop will never be 100% uniform, like what you can achieve in Photoshop. It's not extra work. It's work that I already planned to do, because I prefer that look.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 14, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> What about the pose is odd? I think it looks quite good in the cropped version. Also, what about the expression is odd to you? I personally think it looks great. The CGI look in my opinion is from a mixture of perfect lighting with the added color gel, as well as a bit of over processed skin retouching, but either way I think the lighting is going to cause this image to look a bit like CGI no matter what.



Her hands for one, they are just held to side, it doesn't look natural or pleasing -- she looks posed like a mannequin.  She could have put her hand on that big 'ol hip, she could have been peaking over her shoulder, or arms up, or one on her face, in her hair, anything, but no, just hands to the side!  And that brings me to her facial expression: she's not fliting with the camera.  She has a dead stare to her eyes, looking beyond the camera, lifeless eyes -- almost a grimace.  In fact, she looks a bit masculine; looking again, the only thing that's actually conveying it's a female her a hint of breast.

To me it's just boring.  I don't like the lighting pattern, and like I said, I hate the pose and facial expression.  A big swing and a miss here for me. milk toast.   give me drama, give me movement, give me interest, give me something!


----------

