# Portrait shoot with Lyla - C&C please!



## yetimeister (Aug 19, 2012)

Hi guys. It might be wrong of me to be posting in a "professional" thread but I could really use the advice of professionals. I just bought my SLR about two months ago and was able to get my first shoot in tonight. Her name is Lyla, a friend of my girlfriends who has some experience modeling (figured that would be easiest with my lack of experience). Anyway we took her out into a field and nearby railroad and started shooting. Again this is my first shoot and just curious what big no-nos I need to be aware of in my pictures. These were all taken today and have yet to make any changes to them in PP. All C&C is deeply appreciated!

I know these first three are clearly over-exposed, is there a good professional way to correct this using CS6?
1.


2.

3.

4.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 19, 2012)

Shots 2 and 3 appear out of focus, but might be salvageable for small, web-sized image use. The overexposed shots might be able to be improved upon if the original photos were shot in RAW mode. These are very much borderline exposures: recovering that much overexposure is going to be VERY tricky, with most cameras. The last shot has an unfortunate cropping-off of her feet, but that exposure is save-able...She's so attractive, you will definitely want to do a re-shoot to do her justice.


----------



## yetimeister (Aug 19, 2012)

Already planning on another, we were cut short due to a nail in her tire. Bad luck! They were shot in raw though, do you know of any good tutorials on correcting the exposure on images like this? My problem with both the exposure and the focus was the fact that she continued to move so much it was hard keeping everything right. With a model that is constantly moving should I be in AF? How good does AF really work? I'm always scared to use it thinking it wont focus the right areas. I didn't initially notice the focus on 2 and 3 but you're definitely right. Thanks for the advice Darrel!


----------



## Derrel (Aug 19, 2012)

Well, in most RAW conversion software of today, there is Exposure and also Highlight Recovery. The first three need the Exposure slider to be "pulled back", and also to have the Highlight Recovery slider engaged (probably MAXED out actually). On half-body shots like these, Autofocus when the lens is set to f/4.8 to f/11 is usually pretty doggone good. At f/5.6, there is *usually* adequate DOF to get the entire head in focus, and the torso as well. On a moving subject, in good summertime lighting like this, a modern d-slr's AF will be, usually, VERY fast, and very sure. A bit of reading about how the AF system works, and its various modes, can be most helpful. I would give AF the advantage over hand-and-eye focusing with *most* shooters behind the camera.


----------



## Heitz (Aug 19, 2012)

slightly overexposed with harsh highlights.  should be fixable in lightroom.  cute model!


----------



## yetimeister (Aug 19, 2012)

Darrel, you have been most helpful! I absolutely need to be reading up on AF more. I've really been cramming myself with as much knowledge of cameras as I can in these last two months, I didn't even consider understanding AF and how good it was with the assumption that MF would be better. I will be using AF next time I meet with her as well as work on correcting the exposure in the pictures from today. Thanks again!


----------



## yetimeister (Aug 19, 2012)

After playing with the exposure, highlights, contrast, and whites in photoshops camera raw I came up with this. I also added some vignetting because I read to do so in the portrait tips on this forum 
Clearly not finished, but a step in the right direction?

1.1


----------



## Derrel (Aug 20, 2012)

I just pulled the image into Lightroom, and saw it large-sized...a couple of things...ISO 100, f/2.8 at 1/60 second...camera movement is visible...if the shutter speed is 1/60 and the lens is at f/2.8, that is a dangerous zone for focus AND for shutter speed blur on moving subjects AND for camera shake...JACK THAT ISO UP to 400 or 500!!!! Here are a couple of re-envisionings of your JPEG...a lot better image could be created from the RAW file, of that I am sure. and here is a second image re-envisioning. I cropped off a little bit of top space to make the composition balanced better. The original shot had too much top space. I adjusted the orange hues in the cold-tone B&W, and also the red hues, to make her lips darker. Watch that shutter speed!!! DON'T let it stray down to that 1/60 second zone--the risk of blurring is simply too great.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 20, 2012)

The biggest favour you can do for yourself is to immediately stop of thinking of post as a way to "correct" mistakes.  Post-production is a tool to enhance your images.  Yes, if you do make a minor mistake, it can help bail you out, BUT never, ever rely on the "I'll fix it in post" mentality.  That said, the biggest issue with these images is, as you have already identified, the over-exposure ('though that branch growing out of her head in #1 doesn't look too comfortable).  In order to get this right, in camera, you need to read up on metering and lighting.  


Read your camera's manual thoroughly, especially the sections on metering modes and exposure adjustment.  Then go here and read through the tutorials on Exposure, Metering and Dynamic Range.   Once you've done that, stroll over to the Strobist Blog and read through their Lighting 101 section.  Taking these images from blown to well exposed isn't difficult, and you won't even need to buy more equipment (although of course, we all know the more gear the better), but it will take some reading and practice.

Good luck!


----------



## yetimeister (Aug 20, 2012)

Darrel, thanks for the tip on the shutter speed, I thought I read, or heard, somewhere that depending on the lens your wanted your shutter speed at least one notch faster (ex. 50mm = 1/60th / 250mm = 1/320th). I had no idea that the higher your aperture the more susceptible to blur you were. I kept meaning to use a tripod just to be safe, but again with so much moving I found it difficult with my cheap-o tripod. Going into it next time I will definitely be making sure it's up to 400-500, with that lighting I definitely could have afforded it! I really like the idea for the golden hue in your first picture and had read posts of yours from the past warning about dead space and definitely had that thought in mind in post production, i'm glad you pointed that out!

tirediron, that is perfect! I am in need of links to tutorials like these bad, I appreciate you posting them! I didn't think about looking into metering and dynamic range, and still not sure what I will learn from researching them.. but I definitely will anyway! I definitely try not to have a mentality of correcting in post, but with the limited skill set I have it's good to know I have the tool available. I played with photoshop and other editing tools for years when I was younger but not relying on that knowledge as a crutch if absolutely good advice 

I couldn't be happier with the input from you guys. You should be getting paid for this - I feel extremely lucky! I will definitely be posting the result of our second shoot in the coming weeks as well!!


----------



## jaicatalano (Aug 20, 2012)

Nice save Derrel. Like them both. 



yetimeister said:


> After playing with the exposure, highlights, contrast, and whites in photoshops camera raw I came up with this. I also added some vignetting because I read to do so in the portrait tips on this forum
> Clearly not finished, but a step in the right direction?
> 
> 1.1
> View attachment 17660


----------



## Studio7Four (Aug 20, 2012)

yetimeister said:


> Darrel, thanks for the tip on the shutter speed, I thought I read, or heard, somewhere that depending on the lens your wanted your shutter speed at least one notch faster (ex. 50mm = 1/60th / 250mm = 1/320th). I had no idea that the higher your aperture the more susceptible to blur you were. I kept meaning to use a tripod just to be safe, but again with so much moving I found it difficult with my cheap-o tripod. Going into it next time I will definitely be making sure it's up to 400-500, with that lighting I definitely could have afforded it!



You generally grasp the relationship between shutter speed and focal length, but remember that a) this is a guideline (it has exceptions) and b) it is a recommendation for _minimum _shutter speed to prevent blur due to _camera shake_.  Imagine you're shooting a still life of a bowl of fruit - this is a good starting point to get a sharp image.  Experienced shooters with good form can shoot at a slower shutter speed and get a sharp image, someone with jittery hands may need an even faster shutter.  On the other hand, this guideline doesn't really have any relation to blur due to _motion of the subject_.  Often even higher shutter speeds are needed to freeze subject motion.

The large aperture doesn't make you more susceptible to blur, per se, but it does make it easier for your subject to move out of the range of acceptable focus.  You may very well have a quick enough shutter to have frozen the image, but the subject has moved out of the focus range.  With such a large aperture you may only have a depth of a few inches in which the image will appear sharp.  For example, if you press your shutter button halfway to get focus lock on her eyes, then she rocks forward a little before you press the rest of the way to capture the image, her eyes may have left that range of sharpest focus.  Yes, she is now "out of focus" because she moved, but not because she moved while the shutter was open.  You can combat this by using a smaller aperture, which has a larger depth of focus (a slight rocking forward is less likely to get her eyes out of the range of acceptable focus).

One suggestion which I haven't seen yet in this thread is to read up on the Exposure Triangle.  Forgive me if you have read up on it (it does seem like you've done a lot of research on your own), but that is recommended reading when someone has exposure issues.  By your own admission you have overexposed the first three images.  Per the Exposure Triangle, there are three things you can do to change exposure - change your shutter speed, your aperture size, and your ISO setting.  Since these images were overexposed, you needed to capture less light.  You could have used a faster shutter speed (which would have helped any blur issues), you could have used a smaller aperture (which would have increased your depth of field as well), and/or you could have used a less sensitive ISO setting (though you were already at 100).  Learning how each affects the final image will allow you to get a proper exposure while maintaining the artistic vision you intended.  Personally, for this type of shot I would first set my aperture to get the depth of focus I wanted - find that happy medium between getting my model in focus and blurring the background.  Then, if motion is still an issue, I would adjust my shutter speed.  After making these changes, if the image were underexposed, only then would I bump up my ISO (higher ISO settings tend to induce more noise).  Conversely, there may be times you want to capture a certain amount of blur (so set your shutter speed first), or maybe you even want to create noise for stylistic reasons (so start with a high ISO setting) and adjust from there.


----------



## ronlane (Aug 20, 2012)

Not sure that I helped much, but I can let Derrel critic my editing (from Photobucket, since I'm at work).




IMG_60255 by Ron_Lane, on Flickr




IMG_61033 by Ron_Lane, on Flickr


----------



## Studio7Four (Aug 20, 2012)

By the way - sorry, got caught up in some of the technical aspects and forgot to comment on your original question about no-nos.  Overall, for your first time shooting a model I think this is a good set.  As always, take these "no-nos" as suggestions and not hard-and-fast rules (there are times to break them all):

- Don't crop off limbs / don't crop at joints.  As Derrel pointed out, you lopped off her toes in the last shot, but otherwise I think you did a good job of choosing where you cropped.  The crop in the second one may be closer to her knees than ideal, but I don't find it that bad.

- Don't shoot a female square to the camera.  This position broadens her shoulders and reduces the impact of her curves.  That being said, I love the pose in your first shot - her posture and expression have some attitude, so this is an example where breaking the rule definitely works for me.  Conversely, the square to the camera pose in shot 3 does nothing for me.

- Don't include so much dead space.  Okay, I really wanted to phrase this as "fill more of the frame with your subject", but I'm trying to stick with the no-nos theme.  As Derrel showed, you can crop the first one in a little tighter to better emphasize the model - you can crop the other three in quite a bit to emphasize the model without losing anything in the background which adds to the image.  Obviously there are times when dead space is useful, such as if your model is looking somewhere off camera, but none of these fit that bill IMO.

- Don't ignore your backgrounds.  You have limbs growing in/out of her head in a few, and if she had taken one step backwards (to camera right) in shot two she would have been nicely framed by the arch of the branch over her head.  Shot two also has a couple mildly unfortunate horizon lines (the field/tree transition cuts right across her bust line, the tree/sky transition cuts right at her neck).  None of these are particularly egregious in these shots, but keep an eye on such things in the future to really kick a shot up a notch. 

- Don't always shoot vertically (in "portrait" orientation).  The first three are certainly appropriate as verticals, but I feel the railroad shot would benefit from being in horizontal ("landscape") orientation.  The trees and sky over her head don't really add to the image, whereas if this were horizontal you could have given her feet some breathing room on the right side of the frame.  There's nothing wrong with taking two shots of each scene, one vertical and one horizontal.

- Don't confine yourself to keeping your subject centered (see:  Rule of Thirds).  I'm not saying you should never center your subject (horizontally, vertically, or both) as I think your first shot works very well centered horizontally and would not work as well off center.  But when your whole set is centered it gets a bit stale.

Keep these things in the back of your mind but don't worry overly much about them.  You've got a good start and these things will become second nature the more you shoot.  Looking forward to seeing examples from your next shoot with her.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 20, 2012)

Ron, you are on the right track with these edits, but the SOURCE files you had to start with were already limited by their 8-bit JPEG nature...it's very,very difficult to perform the exact right kinds of editing tricks on images that need corrective measures when the original shots were exposed too much,and are only JPEG files.

This thread is a very positive thread! Some excellent comments have been posted here by various members, and the OP is taking it all in stride!


----------



## Designer (Aug 20, 2012)

yetimeister said:


> My problem with both the exposure and the focus was the fact that she continued to move so much it was hard keeping everything right. With a model that is constantly moving should I be in AF?



This model has had some experience, and I think movement is usually exactly what the photographer wants because it gets the clothing and hair moving, and sometimes the pose is very interesting when caught between balance on one foot and before it is all the way on the other foot.  Also, if she moves her head, then sometimes the eyes catch the camera with a "just right" glance. 

The problem with trying to do that kind of shooting with available light is that your camera generally will have a difficult time keeping up with her.  If you can, try to watch a professional photographer in a studio with good strobe lights, and maybe some wind effects.  I'm guessing that the pro will run the shutter faster, even with a fairly wide aperture sometimes.  They might use burst mode more than you and I would as well.  

When you have limited yourself with the lighting you used (available ?) you should probably boost the ISO up from 100 to allow for faster shutter speeds.  

If you can't get more light on the model, next time ask her to pause at each pose.


----------



## Jwestmorelandphoto (Aug 20, 2012)

Hi,
For my two cents, the third image is the closest to the correct exposure for a 'print' type image.  I would be more concerned with the white balance, but it's not too far off that it cannot be fixed in post.  And don't believe the hype...photographers for years have been using the most advanced tools available to them...now we just happen to be able to post process when we make mistakes in camera.  That is the beauty of digital.  The last image is way too dark, and also the color balance is odd.  Do you take a white balance prior to shooting?  I know in the Nikon, a custom WB is very quick and easy to do.  Not sure about Canon, Derrel might be more suited to tell you that.  I'd be curious to see some close-up images, with a correct white balance.  Great job!


----------



## yetimeister (Aug 21, 2012)

Studio7Four said:


> - Don't ignore your backgrounds.  You have limbs growing in/out of her head in a few, and if she had taken one step backwards (to camera right) in shot two she would have been nicely framed by the arch of the branch over her head.  Shot two also has a couple mildly unfortunate horizon lines (the field/tree transition cuts right across her bust line, the tree/sky transition cuts right at her neck).  None of these are particularly egregious in these shots, but keep an eye on such things in the future to really kick a shot up a notch.



Some great advice, thanks for the input Rob! I feel like you guys have created a thread which I will come back and reread many times!! I have read a lot on the exposure triangle, though I definitely have no perfected it yet. The backgrounds tip was something I didn't even think to look for before this, I didn't even think of the way the picture would look with a tree limb coming out of her head LOL. Definitely looking back it would've been an easy fix and something to keep in the back of my head (and not hers!!). I've decided to start taking my iPad with me and I have notes about camera settings and things not to do in my notes section on that. Hopefully until I can get it all drilled into my head I will be able to use that to remind me while i'm out shooting.

Posting my first shoot here was probably the best decision I could of had! Thanks for the positive feedback guys, it's extremely appreciated!!!!

Posted some of the, in my opinion, final edits on flickr for you guys to check out & give input on if you'd be so kind . Changing each image to low quality seemed a little silly. Not sure if I am allowed to post links here, but you can take it down..
flickr.com/photos/theyetimeister/sets/72157631181557380/


----------



## yetimeister (Aug 21, 2012)

Jwestmorelandphoto said:


> Do you take a white balance prior to shooting?



I absolutely do not. I have read up on WB a little though, seems to been pretty important as well as commonly looked over. I read it is as easy as taking a picture of a white piece of paper before shooting? I think part of my WB issues is simply experience and always watching to make sure my whites are true whites and being able to tell when they're not. Can anyone confirm if setting your WB is that easy? If so i'll be sure to do it before every shoot!!


----------



## Jwestmorelandphoto (Aug 21, 2012)

I'm using a Nikon D300, and it is SO easy.  i usually carry a white popout to bounce light, and use that for balance a lot.  But like you can see in some of mine, even a white balance, if you don't take it several times during your shoot, can change because the sun changes temp within that final golden hour.  On a Nikon, there's a button called 'wb' on top, you press and hold, then when it blinks, you point the camera at the white, and press the shutter.  it will tell you if the WB is good, and then you're set.  I've heard Canon is fairly simple, as well.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 21, 2012)

Well, keep the shutter speed in mind. Focus carefully! And shoot,shoot,shoot! 

BUT,before you shoot,shoot,shoot! one of the things that will really help you get better frames is to take the time to get the exposure *JUST RIGHT for each scene* or each pose you want to do, and then do what is called "shoot the daylights out of it". Take the little bit of extra time to nail down the right ISO level for the light. The right lens f/stop. The right shutter speed. The right background. And THEN, once the basics are *really worked out, then go to town!* Shoot each pose, in short sequences of 3 to 8 frames, to ensure that you get a good, solid shot of each pose, and only then move on to the next refinement of the pose.TELL your model ahead of time that that is the way you two are going to work together.

When the lighting is tricky, or the set-up is tricky or unfamiliar to you, pause and verbally TELL your model that you need to get the exposure worked out so it is, "Just so," and stay in control of the shoot. THEN, once you are satisfied, start shooting "for keeps". This is the best advice I can give to a newcomer. Make SURE to get the in-camera settings and the shot worked out JUST RIGHT, and only then shoot it "for keeps".


----------



## yetimeister (Aug 21, 2012)

I experienced a big issue with attempting to get the exposure perfect last time, and your comment made me recall the incident Darrel. We were shooting in mid-day sun without any shade for the most part, clearly not ideal shooting - I unable to accurately see my images on the viewfinder due to the direct sunlight. What solutions are available for viewing the viewfinder better? I think shades might have helped but I wear glasses and that just wont work for me..


----------



## Jwestmorelandphoto (Aug 21, 2012)

have you tried using a meter?  It might eliminate ALL of your issues with light.  But honestly, almost every issue with lighting can be tweaked in post.


----------



## yetimeister (Aug 21, 2012)

Jwestmorelandphoto said:


> have you tried using a meter?  It might eliminate ALL of your issues with light.  But honestly, almost every issue with lighting can be tweaked in post.



I feel a bit dumb, but i'm not even sure what a meter is! I'll do some searches for it now though for sure. You definitely seem to be right, this being the first time i've ever tried to edit a raw file in photoshop I was extremely surprised with how much could be corrected! With that said though, the pros here have it right - get it right the first time - which is definitely my goal!!


----------



## Jwestmorelandphoto (Aug 21, 2012)

The thing with digital is that you can tinker a lot in raw converter, but that can be bad if you're not familiar.  You shouldn't have to do too much.  I sometimes adjust exposure 1 or 2%, and then i'll often times shoot a grey card during the shoot, and do a grey balance to all of the images at once.  That's super helpful, especially when there are several different types of light sources. But yes, learn how to get it right in camera first and foremost.  The other beauty with digital is that your in camera meter is sufficient.  First things first, read your manual cover to cover, take notes, highlight and dogear.  But overall, you have a wonderful eye, and the shoot turned out great.  I crop in camera, so i felt like the images had too much extra around her that could have been cropped out.  Yes, watch your composition.  Also, finding good models who understand taking a beat in between movement is necessary.  An account with Model Mayhem would be a good start to find local models.  play play play.  Read read read.  and please, have fun.  You have everything you need already, no need to buy new equipment.  Learn to use what you have, but remember, you're already on the right track!


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 22, 2012)

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the thing that jumps out at me when first viewing the images, is the rather boring compositions.  In the three (or was it four?) shots, her face is practically dead center of the frame...which tells me that you probably just used the middle AF point, put in on her face and snapped the photo....without putting much thought into the composition.  
This, of course, leads to a bunch of images with a lot of 'dead space' above the subject, and leaves the subject to be a rather small percentage of the overall photo.  You can crop the images down later on...but that hits on what John was saying before...about the mentality of 'fixing it in post' as opposed to shooting it right 'in camera'.  

And the worst crime when shooting with too much dead space, is cutting off the bottom of your model, which you've done in each photo.  It's simple to crop a photo tighter, but you can't add in parts that aren't in the original photo.  With all that space above the model, there is no excuse for not including her lower half in most shots.  Although, I'll grant some leeway for 3/4 or head & shoulder shots.


----------

