# Dress Up - Second go at OCF, first go with the softbox



## jowensphoto (Jul 17, 2013)

8x36" softbox 45 degrees from her, camera right. 

how'd i do?


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 17, 2013)

For my "self critique": it's a little hot for my liking, but being that it was originally underexposed when I opened in post, I think bringing the light a little further back would have helped here.

BUT it sure beats my first try:


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 17, 2013)

Jess.. those are all pretty fried.... way bright! Especially the last too....

#2.. look at the cheek (right side) blending with the background


----------



## ronlane (Jul 17, 2013)

I agree that the faces on the second two are hot.

The first one is pretty close to me. May dial down the power of the flash a little (and I mean a very little, like from 1/2 to 1/4)


----------



## squirrels (Jul 17, 2013)

You guys, I think she just wanted C&C on the first one.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 17, 2013)

Guys, lol, I KNOW! About the second two. I was actually poking fun at myself


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 17, 2013)

Takes a woman! Lol


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 17, 2013)

ronlane said:


> I agree that the faces on the second two are hot.
> 
> *The first one is pretty close to me. May dial down the power of the flash a little (and I mean a very little, like from 1/2 to 1/4)*



You are kidding, right? Unless this monitor is suddenly out of whack.. this is closer to what I see as proper subject exposure.. (no blown highlights)



Not mentioning the wrinkled underexposed background!


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 17, 2013)

But the wb isn't right, that bg is pure white.


----------



## Dinardy (Jul 17, 2013)

jowensphoto said:


> View attachment 50236
> 
> 8x36" softbox 45 degrees from her, camera right.
> 
> how'd i do?



Thats one cute baby.

For me, the left side of the sheet is distracting. If it was all white I think it would play better with this style. I like the picture soft. Also its kind of bright lol. IDK though lol I'm just a noob


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 17, 2013)

Or is that caused by the flash? Soft shadow on entire bg?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 17, 2013)

jowensphoto said:


> But the wb isn't right, that bg is pure white.



Background are only pure white.. if you light them to be pure white.... you can't base your subject exposure on what you want your background to be.... lol!

Did you light the background separately?


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 17, 2013)

Dinardy said:


> jowensphoto said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 50236
> ...



Thank you  It is, the squeeze clamp I used, I didn't position right to remove the wrinkles. Or I didn't drape enough - it's too in between for my liking right now. The shadow just needs fill camera left.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 17, 2013)

jowensphoto said:


> Or is that caused by the flash? Soft shadow on entire bg?



Camera left dark area is shadow, yes...


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 17, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> jowensphoto said:
> 
> 
> > But the wb isn't right, that bg is pure white.
> ...



Nope, one light set up here  There was a tiny bit of fill from 90 degrees subject left. I'm new to the OCF world, so I appreciate the help


----------



## ronlane (Jul 17, 2013)

Not really, no. I remember seeing a lot of her photos that are more of a high key look and I believe I remember her saying that she likes that look. If you were to turn the power down from full to 1/2 or 1/2 to 1/4, I think she would get the look that she likes.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 17, 2013)

jowensphoto said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > jowensphoto said:
> ...



If you want a pure white background, you have to light the background separately. Usually overexpose the background 1 to 1.5 stops.

You light the subject separately... and expose based on what you want the subject to be exposed at... the background will take care of itself.

Like this...




Yes.. My Eyes are Green! by CGipson Photography, on Flickr


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 17, 2013)

Here is a good link  I&#039;ve moved the blog ?> zackarias.com/blog » White Seamless Tutorial :: Part 1 :: Gear & Space


----------



## Derrel (Jul 17, 2013)

An 8"x36" softbox is really a tough,tough choice to work with as a main light...the light it is casting is very hard. The right-hand side of her is blown out, and then just a few inches away, you have a pretty substantial shadow that appears to be easily the width of the baby's body...the degree of fall-off is pretty steep, considering the range might be ten f/stops.

I would not use a strip light like that as a main light source from that angle at that distance; the rapidness of the fall-off is simply terrible. Look at the boys: from nuclear blown out, to inky black chin shadow, within a 6-inch span.

I am guessing you are using speedlights, which have no modeling lights, or you would literally "see" the issues in real-time.


----------



## squirrels (Jul 17, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Here is a good link  I&#039;ve moved the blog ?> zackarias.com/blog » White Seamless Tutorial :: Part 1 :: Gear & Space


I want to click on the link, but I can't look away from the cat's eyes!


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 17, 2013)

Derrel said:


> An 8"x36" softbox is really a tough,tough choice to work with as a main light...the light it is casting is very hard. The right-hand side of her is blown out, and then just a few inches away, you have a pretty substantial shadow that appears to be easily the width of the baby's body...the degree of fall-off is pretty steep, considering the range might be ten f/stops.
> 
> I would not use a strip light like that as a main light source from that angle at that distance; the rapidness of the fall-off is simply terrible. Look at the boys: from nuclear blown out, to inky black chin shadow, within a 6-inch span.
> 
> I am guessing you are using speedlights, which have no modeling lights, or you would literally "see" the issues in real-time.




You are correct on all points, except (and I should have said this), the boys were shot with the speedlight/shoot-through umbrella combo. My daughter was the only photo with the softbox.

Is there a way you'd suggest using it? I have one photo of her, when she ran close to the camera and light; it created some very dramatic shadows. Do you think overhead, using the white bg/floor as a reflector, would be a better use? I know these are often used a hair lights.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 17, 2013)

One more before I head out:


----------



## Derrel (Jul 17, 2013)

Well, common advice goes like this: "The closer the light, the softer the light." Well, in one manner of speaking that is true, but in another manner, it's utterly wrong. If a light is very close to a person, the rate of fall-off is EXCEPTIONALLY RAPID, as in the shots of the boys...from exceedingly over-bright, to full, detail-less shadows--within just, literally, inches.

On the shot of the baby: the light is close enough that one side is overexposed, so I'd say move the light farther away, which will make the degree of fall-off from one side to the other very minimal.

A light that is 8 inches wide x 36 inches tall demands very critical aiming, and at close distances, it is going to light up some areas, and other areas are going to..."go dark". I'd be tempted to bounce the flash off of a wall as a main light, rather than use a strip box as a single,main light. Doubly so if I had to work with no modeling lamps to guide me and allow me to preview the lighting effects.

When using a small light source, or a hard light source, the exact, precise placement of the key light in relation to the subject is critical. Even a little bit off, and you can easily plummet directly into the catastrophic failure zone, much of the time.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 17, 2013)

An 8"x36" is a specialized softbox.. usually used for specifically lighting certain areas as a key light (fill), not usually used as a main since it is not wide enough. It throws out a thin slice of light... unless you put it far enough away, and then the light is hard...not soft. They are sometime used for very dramatic, contrasty lighting on a subject... but mostly as specific fill.

You need a bigger "box" if you want a decent main light... Whatever possessed you to get a box like that to learn with? Look at the light pattern on the photo above.. not even wide enough to cover an toddlers chest....


----------



## frommrstomommy (Jul 17, 2013)

jess, creative live just had a mastering ttl episode if you will and its rebroadcasting now. i was watching some of it to try and just see how ocf is/can be done.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 17, 2013)

frommrstomommy said:


> jess, creative live just had a mastering ttl episode if you will and its rebroadcasting now. i was watching some of it to try and just see how ocf is/can be done.



TTL is never as accurate as manual flash.. but when properly used, can produce good results...


----------



## frommrstomommy (Jul 17, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> frommrstomommy said:
> 
> 
> > jess, creative live just had a mastering ttl episode if you will and its rebroadcasting now. i was watching some of it to try and just see how ocf is/can be done.
> ...



The only speedlight I have is manual anyway.. lol but I was more watching just to see how they make use of multiple lights.. placement, etc. That's honestly the most intimidating part of it all to me.. how to set everything up.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 17, 2013)

Yeah, the strip box is more of a specialized accent modifier.  Great for lighting a wine bottle, not so much for a human, regardless of size.

For a speedlight, consider something in the 24x24" size and double baffled.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 17, 2013)

It's virtually impossible to do high key with a single speedlight.  It's easy with two however, and YNs are cheap & cheerful... treat yourself!  Here's the way I would have approached this using just a single speedlight:  Place the light just slightly camera right, say no more than fifteen degrees, use the shoot-through umbrella, NOT the strip-box, as Charlie said, that's a specialized tool, and raise the light so that it's pointing at a slight downward angle, say <20 degrees.  Bring the subject out from the background.  A LOT!  I like 8-10' of separation; if you can't acheive that due to space, get as much as you can.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 17, 2013)

Like this John?









Sorry but I already had this on camera left and at a greater angle than John mentioned..


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 17, 2013)

Looks like I'll be breaking out the shoot thrus again  thank you all! Such a wealth of knowledge.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 17, 2013)

I like it pretty well as-is. It's not high key, it's just brightly lit with a moderately high lighting ratio. You got nice baby skin tones going on, kids look good overlit a bit, which is why absolutely every baby photographer on earth lights the heck out of them, and/or processes the skin tones way up in post.

The ratio is on the dramatic side for kid photos, I'd say, but I think it works pretty well. The background is slightly too obviously "a sheet" rather than "lovely drapes" or whatever, but honestly nobody's looking at the background. The kid's super cute, you got a nice drape of the pearls. I absolutely love the way the pearls in shadow look, check the sheen on the bit draping against her tummy. They're purely gorgeous.

I don't care how you got the background white. You can smear whiteout all over your computer screen if you want, I think it's pretty successful. Yes, there is a gradation of tone across the background. 19th century painters were at some pains to achieve this, they called it Breadth, so I am pretty sure it's ok.

As for the strip light not working for people, I don't quite get that. I don't have one, I have not fabricated one, but I don't see why you can't feather it pretty successfully. You'll get falloff, but you just put your big photographer pants on and work with it. Reflect it back, or make a picture that works with a pretty strong ratio. If it's good for wine bottles, why isn't it good for kids? Kids, as you may have noticed, are roughly the shape of a wine bottle..


----------



## kundalini (Jul 17, 2013)

amolitor said:


> ....., but honestly nobody's looking at the background.......


You're talking out of your a$$. Any photographer worth their salt will be looking at the background.



> As for the strip light not working for people, I don't quite get that. I don't have one, I have not fabricated one, but I don't see why you can't feather it pretty successfully. You'll get falloff, but you just put your big photographer pants on and work with it. Reflect it back, or make a picture that works with a pretty strong ratio. If it's good for wine bottles, why isn't it good for kids? Kids, as you may have noticed, are roughly the shape of a wine bottle..


Since you don't own a strip box, have never used a strip box and probably don't understand the intended use for a strip box..... STFU.   :er:


----------



## amolitor (Jul 17, 2013)

<edited out the nastiness, this dude's not worth it>


----------



## amolitor (Jul 17, 2013)

kundalini said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > ....., but honestly nobody's looking at the background.......
> ...



... but I will address this. It turns out that there are many people on the world who are not photographers. You may not have noticed this, since you spend all your time snarking off and being a jerk on internet forums.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 17, 2013)

amolitor said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...


.
Yep, that's me to a tee......... but you may have noticed this image was posted on a PHOTO FORUM with a bunch of PHOTOGRAPHERS on it.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 17, 2013)

Then what the heck did you light those photos w that you had me look at?! Lol


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 17, 2013)

Guys! Calm the **** down. Seriously, don't get my ish locked.


----------



## Tiller (Jul 17, 2013)

I would grab another yn-560 for a background light. It would also bounce off the background and create a nice rim light for the subject.

Cute baby!


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 17, 2013)

I dig the brand^ I use their trigger/receivers - never failed me yet!


----------



## Derrel (Jul 17, 2013)

amolitor said:
			
		

> >>SNIP>>>As for the strip light not working for people, I don't quite get that. I don't have one, I have not fabricated one, but I don't see why you can't feather it pretty successfully. You'll get falloff, but you just put your big photographer pants on and work with it. Reflect it back, or make a picture that works with a pretty strong ratio. If it's good for wine bottles, why isn't it good for kids? Kids, as you may have noticed, are roughly the shape of a wine bottle..



Please let me take a polite approach to this with a little experiment. I've seen how you're lighting your still lifes, which are like wine bottles, but with vases and flowers. Yet still, inanimate objects, and very narrow in width, and pretty short compared to even an 18-24 month old toddler. So...let's "make" a strip light for you. Set up your lightstand and speedlight 12 inches from an open door that leads from one room to another. Tape 36 inches of typing paper over the open door, which is cracked open precisely 8 inches. Then, call your older daughter into the next room, and shoot some pictures of her, using the light that comes from your home-brewed strip light.

The issues? The kid will move, more so than a wine bottle. The kid is five times wider than the bottle and 2.5 times taller, and maybe 50 times larger in volume. The "sweet spot" of the light will be about four inches wide and 24 inches tall, with STEEP fall-off at the top and bottom of the beam on "most" Chinese made strip boxes when a speedlight is used inside, and not a 360 degree, circular flash tube from a studio monolight or flash head.

It's like herding wild cats, using a strip box on a real-life, live-action, 3-D,slobbering, toddling, wandering, amused, moving kid, AND the best part with speedlights? You are* shooting totally blind*, due to lack of modeling lights. The thing with strip lights is they were really designed for studio flash, but they look cool. However, there's kind of a difference in the way speedlights light up some modifiers, versus the way round flashtubes with 360 degree output, around a "doughnut" shaped flash tube. There is also only ONE distance from flash to baffle to front diffusion cover. A strip light is a very rigid device, with options of a grid or louvres, but only a little bit of mods are possible. Not much "range" of effects on a strip light.

A MUCH, much,much,much better solition is a 11.5 inch parabolic reflector with a 50 to 65 degree beam spread; a metal honeycomb grid in 10,15,20, to even 35 degree spread, then a snap-on mylar diffuser, or two stacked or even three stacked mylar diffusers (or Tuf-Spun, whatever), and then a set of 2-way barn doors. Now that, that actually "WORKS', AND WORKS "RIGHT". It is a strip of light that YOU can control to the *nth degree* in terms of specularity/diffusion, spread, and width. And, with real studio flash units, you can actually SEE where the damned thing is aimed! Woo-hooo!

NO offense, but hey...I could go to the dump tonight with my semi-automartic .22 and maybe hit a rat and killone or two if I fired 500 rounds in the dark...if I used a .410 shotgun with a flashlight taped under the forestock. I could probably kill 1,2,or 3 of the little buggers each SHOT. Right tool, used with enough light to SEE WTF is happening...


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Jul 17, 2013)

if you have only one light and dont want shadow, put the subject farther away from the background and or raise the light.  That way the shadow will be below the frame and not on the wall.  As far as 8"x36" softbox, why not?  It is bigger than a bare flash.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 17, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> if you have only one light and dont want shadow, put the subject farther away from the background and or raise the light.  That way the shadow will be below the frame and not on the wall.  As far as 8"x36" softbox, why not?  It is bigger than a bare flash.



Because if you get it far enough away from the subject to light anything bigger than a pop bottle... the light will be just as hard as using bare flash. The way a flash puts out light... I bet there is one big hotspot in the middle of the softbox.. with very light light at either end. Hardly optimal...


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Jul 17, 2013)

I never said anything about putting it far away.  Keep it close to the subject.  A softbox usually has a mid baffle to spread the light more to avoid what you were saying.



cgipson1 said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > if you have only one light and dont want shadow, put the subject farther away from the background and or raise the light.  That way the shadow will be below the frame and not on the wall.  As far as 8"x36" softbox, why not?  It is bigger than a bare flash.
> ...


----------



## NoelNTexas (Jul 17, 2013)

I would ad a little fill from the left, maybe a reflector. Also, what size was your softbox and how far away was it? Seems like a smaller light source. Just my own opinion but the light looks a little hot and hard for nice smooth baby skin.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 17, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> I never said anything about putting it far away.  Keep it close to the subject.  A softbox usually has a mid baffle to spread the light more to avoid what you were saying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did you notice on the kid above.. the light pattern? The light all chest width with immediate falloff as you got to the edges of the chest, can't even cover the width of one child (unless you move it farther back.. and then it gets hard)... not even soft lighting... which is why this softbox is to small to use as a Main on people or even kid size subjects...


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 17, 2013)

NoelNTexas said:


> I would ad a little fill from the left, maybe a reflector. Also, what size was your softbox and how far away was it? Seems like a smaller light source. Just my own opinion but the light looks a little hot and hard for nice smooth baby skin.



It is an 8"x36" as mentioned earlier in the thread. And I agree... too small for the subject, too hot center, with too much fast falloff one edges.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 17, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> I never said anything about putting it far away.  Keep it close to the subject.  A softbox usually has a mid baffle to spread the light more to avoid what you were saying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A few people here seem to be confusing a "*strip light*" with a "softbox". Pretty common mistake to make. Strip lights make crappy main lights. They were never designed to be "main" or "key" lights for portraiture. They are fine for lighting SMALL, and SPECIFIC areas, but they absolutely suck as broad area lights, because they are designed to RESTRICT the light beam. Strip lights were originally designed to work with "real" studio flashes, which radiate light in all directions, from a pretty big, 360 degree circular flashtube. A speedlight on the other hand, has a teensie little strip of flashtube, about the size of half a cigarette. In a shallow, cheap, Chinese-made strip box, the flashtube is often about four inches from any baffle, and there really is little "spread"of the light inside the strip box. So, while the front is 8x36, a speedlight's dinky little flashtube, aiming straight ahead, might not always work the way a *strip light* was designed to work.

A strip light is NOT a "softbox". A softbox has some depth between the flashtube, and the internal baffle, allowing flash to spread out some. One of the bigger problems with using speedlights in light modifiers that were never engineered for speedlights is that the device often will not really "fill" with a speedlight's output, which is at close ranges, a tiny little rectangular emission of light; in cramped spaces like inside a strip light, or even in parabolic deep-bowl umbrellas, the majority of modifiers were designed to work best with a broad, circular, 360 degree, wide-angle FLOOD of light, flooding the entire surface, and then being reflected out evenly.

As the tests at Robgalbraith.com confirm, even an inch or two difference in exactly WHERE a light is positioned can make a HUGE difference in total light output. Buff makes a speedlight-offset mounting device for its PLM parabolics which greatly increased output, by moving the flash about 1 and 3/4 inches! A butter knife is not a fillet knife.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 18, 2013)

kundalini said:


> Like this John?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  Yes, exactly like that... I never remember about that 'site!


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 18, 2013)

OK - to clear things up.

I used an 8x36" gridded softbox, commonly called a strip softbox - like Derrel said, not an LED strip light kinda thing.

It has an inner diffuser, as Robin mentioned.

Here another when she ran closer to the light, with (I believe) same flash/camera settings. I can see the more/less (this is inverse square, right?) light as described earlier.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 18, 2013)

And it's not a sheet! It's muslin! lol


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Jul 18, 2013)

Just grab another light and shoot it to the BG.


----------



## NoelNTexas (Jul 18, 2013)

adding lights to the shot is as simple as bouncing them in a Mirror from around your house. Use one to bounce the main light back from behind the subject to create a rim light, use something white or reflective camera left as a fill.. BAM 3 point light setup. now for background, I would ad another light source unless you want the muslin ruffled/wrinkled look.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 18, 2013)

NoelNTexas said:


> adding lights to the shot is as simple as bouncing them in a Mirror from around your house. Use one to bounce the main light back from behind the subject to create a rim light, use something white or reflective camera left as a fill.. BAM 3 point light setup. now for background, I would ad another light source unless you want the muslin ruffled/wrinkled look.



I'm going to give it another go with a silver reflector added in.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 18, 2013)

Yes, you are seeing the effect of the inverse square law in this most recent shot; one side has a lot of light, while the other side of her has fallen off into blackness, across a span of the width of a toddler's face. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, it's just that a bright, light, airy feeling to the lighting is not what that modifier gives, so the white background doesn't coordinate super-well with such high-ratio lighting, dropping to gray. I think a darker-toned backdrop would look good with this higher-ratio lighting. The lighting shows a lot of shape, and gives dimension. Adding a reflector just outside of camera range should lighten up the shadowed side a pretty fair bit, as long as the reflector is actually aimed right to catch the light and bounce it; not surprisingly, I see a ton of lighting diagrams that show reflectors placed in a manner that they will not actually be doing much 'reflecting', so, make sure the angle of the reflector is where it can "see" the main light's beam.

If you want to use it as an "area light" I would most definitely remove the grid; the grid makes the light fall off EVEN-more rapidly, and prevents the light from going off to the background. The grid makes the light more-confined, makes it fall-off in intensity faster, and keeps the light "localized", so that it does not spread out much at all. A grid is useful for containing,restricting the light, and it really does help keep light from hitting the background or other nearby parts of a scene.


----------



## OrionsByte (Jul 18, 2013)

The exposure on the subject wouldn't look nearly so hot if it wasn't for the over-exposed sheet that takes up half of the image on the right side.  Nothing that's not fixable in post anyways - I don't see any blown highlights on her (except for her diaper).

Assuming you had the flash in manual, I would try doubling the distance from the background to her, and then doubling the distance from her to the flash (or decreasing the flash power by a stop, maybe even a stop and a third) and leaving everything else the same.  The white background would fall to a more even shade of grey, and her shadow may fall outside the frame to the left.  If you wanted to keep the background white, you'd need to light it separately.

(FAIL POST - didn't notice there was more than one page until after I posted, and thus my advice has been covered and covered again, so just ignore me and move along).


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 18, 2013)

With some help from our very own e.rose in the editing department, here's a new version. I didn't do nearly as much to this in post as I did in the OP.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 18, 2013)

It may throw the size outside of a standard print size, but I would like to see as much air space at the bottom of the pearls and the bottom of the page as you have between the hands and the top of the page.

The edit looks good except the noise in the shadow.  I'm seeing hints of green and magenta, even though my reminder to recalibrate popped up today.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 18, 2013)

jowensphoto said:


> With some help from our very own e.rose in the editing department, here's a new version. I didn't do nearly as much to this in post as I did in the OP.
> 
> <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=50311"/>



MUCH better, Chica!  :thumbup:


----------



## Granddad (Jul 18, 2013)

No comments on softboxes or main lighting, that's been well covered (new edit has the lighting on the Princess about as close as you're going to get). After seeing the cute pic of your toddler the second thing that jumped out at me was the backdrop picture left. Stretch your muslin backdrop tight with lots of clamps, I picked up ten cheapies off Ebay for less than £5, they look cheap but they work! That sorts out the folds (they're too big to be called wrinkles) For the wrinkles that remain I use a hand held steamer picked up for £5 from a charity shop. Move your subject further away from the backdrop so shadows are softer (3 or 4 feet+). Light the backdrop separately (if the main light is subject left and I only had two lights I'd use the backdrop light subject right). If wrinkles still show (they do sometimes) I dodge them to heck and back in post. 

From the looks of the little lady you will have fun practicing.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 18, 2013)

Thanks! Lowes has the clamps I got at $4 for a 5 pack. I'll have to make another trip! I could tell during the set up that more would have been better.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 19, 2013)

kundalini said:


> It may throw the size outside of a standard print size, but I would like to see as much air space at the bottom of the pearls and the bottom of the page as you have between the hands and the top of the page.
> 
> The edit looks good except the noise in the shadow.  I'm seeing hints of green and magenta, even though my reminder to recalibrate popped up today.



The original crop was 8x10 - I need something new for the family room. I wasn't thinking for the second and did my go-to 5x7.

I kind of like this one in toned black and white (and that's what I'm replacing - I like consistency lol):


----------

