# Studio work, outdoors. Girl on Harley Davidson



## Trever1t (Sep 3, 2012)

One 43" shoot through white at face level camera right. One 43" white shoot through low camera left. One bare diffused on wall. SB-800's fired CLS from SB-800 commander. 

Paid portrait session (yay!) I would have liked to been further from the wall, but it runs nearly perfect east west and I only had ~5" of shade there. 




_POR5142-Edit by WSG Photography, on Flickr

Added

#2




_POR5124-Edit by WSG Photography, on Flickr

#3




_POR5075-Edit by WSG Photography, on Flickr


#4




_POR5110-Edit by WSG Photography, on Flickr


----------



## Tony S (Sep 3, 2012)

The ratio of light from both sides was too even resulting in flat lighting.  There are no shadows giving details and dimension to her face.  Use one light as your main light, then try to have the other one a stop or two lower so you get some modeling of shadows to the face.  You are not looking for strong shadows, just slight ones that will give a face some shape and depth. It also looks like maybe you could have dialed the light on the brick wall down some too, it's a little bright compared to the model.

  As far as the posing goes, the way her hands are set in the pockets makes them look really huge.  A slight turn of her body also would help show some girlish curves and not have that head on lineman look.

  I think some of the problem might come from your lights on the model being too far away from her.  A bare flash on the wall is pretty powerful, those other two shot through umbrellas loose a lot of their power and need to be placed closer to the subject to get the most flattering light on her from them.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 3, 2012)

I agree that the "wall light" is too hot, and that the lighting is somewhat flat, BUT, what you've done a good job of here is illuminating the black and chrome motorcycle.  You've got virtually no blown chrome, and lots of nice specular highlights.  I know a lot of bikers, and everyone one of them would be far more concerned with the appearance of their bike in the shot then of themselves - good job Trever!


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 3, 2012)

^This!   Looks pretty good! A little flat, but detail on the bike is good, and the subject is rendered nicely. That semi-flat tanks helps as you don't see the umbrellas in it. Good Job!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 3, 2012)

I bet she's happy with it all, the flat light helped capture cracks and crevices in the bike detail rather than shadow them  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Sometimes i light the bikes flat but the top part of the model less flat with a 3rd light if they are tall enough and I have room and such.

Also don't be afraid to snoot some hard light on certain details of the bike or her hair from behind/side to make little details pop


----------



## Derrel (Sep 3, 2012)

The wall is lit up pretty hard, but her figure stands out in silhouette as a result. I think there's a LOT of room here for a Lightroom Preset tweak that will really elevate this shot to a whole nutha' level.


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 3, 2012)

Thanks all! My skills in LR/CS are severely limited  and very basic


----------



## jowensphoto (Sep 3, 2012)

On a totally unrelated note, is the brick making anyone else dizzy?


----------



## amolitor (Sep 3, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> On a totally unrelated note, is the brick making anyone else dizzy?



The brick is perfectly level and even. What are YOU seeing?


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 3, 2012)

It's the patterns, they are mesmerizing!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 3, 2012)

mesmerizing can be a  good thing


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 3, 2012)

Added 3 more for your review.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 3, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> On a totally unrelated note, is the brick making anyone else dizzy?



Kind of crappy bricklaying... I see what you mean! lol!


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 3, 2012)

my guess is the building is almost 90 years old. Keep in mind, nobody was here before 1849 eh? With the earth in this area moving up to 4" a year...brick tends to 'settle' funny. My first month in CA I watched a brick wall bending and undulating in a 7.1 quake.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 3, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> Added 3 more for your review.



Shot #2 is my favorite of the entire batch. She looks more active in that one than she does in any of the others, due to her pose, and the low camera vantage point.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 4, 2012)

I agree, the lighting (on the bike) is great, but could be better on her and maybe less on the wall.  

The biggest issue, IMO, is posing.  I agree with Derrel that #2 is the best pose, but her head position might have been better and maybe her expression. 
And not that it's a big issue, but just look at how big her butt looks in #1 compared to #2.  She looks a lot slimmer in the second one, and that's just simple posing.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 4, 2012)

Just comments 'cuz its a critique - 

*  In #2 and #3 had she been closer to one light or the other you may have kept detail in the bike and gained her some contrast.  

*  If you turn her sideways a little to the cam she'll look smaller and the bike may proportionally appear larger

* In #3 don't be afraid to hit the right side of engine and front wheel with a light down low. Or tweak the details up a tad in those areas in LR4


----------



## jwbryson1 (Sep 4, 2012)

I like the images on Flickr better than on TPF.  Something about the hosting here made the images a bit soft (just a tad) and I can't quite place it but the WB on TPF just seems slightly off somehow--perhaps a bit greenish or olive toned?  I dunno.  Maybe a reflection off the bike?

In #1, the model looks a bit "big" for the bike--I don't mean she's a "big girl."  I mean that the ratio of her and the bike seems a bit off.  Otherwise, I like the set.


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 4, 2012)

Thanks all for the comments and useful critiques!


----------



## gsgary (Sep 5, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> On a totally unrelated note, is the brick making anyone else dizzy?



Yes because it is the worst bricklaying i have ever seen


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 5, 2012)

Probably not....



Trever1t said:


> my guess is the building is almost 90 years old. Keep in mind, nobody was here before 1849 eh? With the earth in this area moving up to 4" a year...brick tends to 'settle' funny. My first month in CA I watched a brick wall bending and undulating in a 7.1 quake.



The earth here moves, constantly.


----------

