# Worked with new lighting equipment and a makeup artist



## Foxx (Dec 27, 2012)

I got my first softbox and umbrella for christmas this year. Also made a DIY ring light. I think the results of which were excellent :mrgreen:

I had the chance to collaborate with an amateur makeup artist too and got a model friend of mine in on the project. Looking for feedback on these shots. Let me know what you think!!

#1







#2 






#3






#4






#5


----------



## Mully (Dec 27, 2012)

#4 is your best image....the others don't work for me..... makeup is a bit wild to say the least but 4 I like


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Dec 27, 2012)

I think the photographer did better than the MUA  .  Not digging the make up.  I think the catch light is too centered... unless that is the look you were looking for.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 27, 2012)

I like #3 the most out of the shots shown (the close-up shot of her face). I am not overly fond of these mostly because the camera is so,so CLOSE to her that her features show obvious distortion. Looks like tyou shot these with a 50mm lens from way,way too close. The relative size of her facial feayures is oddly distorted, due to the working distance. The makeup is, uh, "trippy", I guess is one word. "different" is another word. The dark-dot-inside-circel-of-light ringlight catchlight signature, and the nearly shadowless light it gives is, uh, what it is...

The woman in the lasat shot looks...weird...her chin is so,so pointy! And her skin looks blotchy and magenta-ish.

I dunno...these are definitely NOT your father's pictures!!!! These are definitely "different", and they do give the viewer pause.


----------



## Ron Evers (Dec 27, 2012)

I like #3 best as it is not showing the annoying ring-light in her eyes.


----------



## Foxx (Dec 28, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I like #3 the most out of the shots shown (the close-up shot of her face). I am not overly fond of these mostly because the camera is so,so CLOSE to her that her features show obvious distortion. Looks like tyou shot these with a 50mm lens from way,way too close. The relative size of her facial feayures is oddly distorted, due to the working distance. The makeup is, uh, "trippy", I guess is one word. "different" is another word. The dark-dot-inside-circel-of-light ringlight catchlight signature, and the nearly shadowless light it gives is, uh, what it is...
> 
> I dunno...these are definitely NOT your father's pictures!!!! These are definitely "different", and they do give the viewer pause.



Actually I shot all of these with my kit lens(18-55). most were on the wide end(18-30mm). Maybe it was the angle I was shooting her from that gives the wierd proportions? TBH I don't really see what you're talking about...

And is the catch-light that distracting? I know it's somewhat gimmicky but I thought it worked really well for the shoot. Also yes, the makeup was supposed to be wild. This shoot was for the makeup artist to showcase her ideas.

Will have some more photos up today...


----------



## jowensphoto (Dec 28, 2012)

I'll be blunt. The make up is really, really bad. I rather like the composition of 3, but the makeup, being that it is what is being showcased really ruins the image.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 28, 2012)

Foxx.... Wide Angle FLs can cause barrel distortion.. anything under  50mm can be very noticeable. Even a 50mm will do it if you are too  close.

Look at the nose in #1.. it is probably not that big in real life. The makeup even appears to accentuate the issue...

How close were you in most of these shots?


----------



## kathyt (Dec 28, 2012)

These just aren't working for me. I can see all of the models blemishes and when working with a MUA, you should have a flawless face. You have got some really strong color casts on these, so maybe if the WB was fixed I could see through the blue. I would go into PS and do some touching up on the blemishes and fix the WB. Then you might be on to something.


----------



## Granddad (Dec 28, 2012)

Is it stage make up meant to be viewed from a distance? I like the concept and design a lot but the execution is too scruffy to be used for photo make up unless you are going to spend hours in pp. #3 and #4 are the best but there are make up smudges in places which spoil the overall effect.

I'm very cautious of make-up artists; I have limited portrait experience but in the three cases where my subjects used a make up artist they were all disappointed with the results. My last subject said that her makeup (which cost her as much as my portrait session) made her look "like a raddled old tart." 

I'm with the crew who don't go for ring flash catchlights.


----------



## Foxx (Dec 28, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> I'll be blunt. The make up is really, really bad. I rather like the composition of 3, but the makeup, being that it is what is being showcased really ruins the image.





kathythorson said:


> These just aren't working for me. I can see all of the models blemishes and when working with a MUA, you should have a flawless face. You have got some really strong color casts on these, so maybe if the WB was fixed I could see through the blue. I would go into PS and do some touching up on the blemishes and fix the WB. Then you might be on to something.



Okay, so I probably didn't do as good a job in PP spotting out her blemishes. The MUA also is not a professional, she's just starting out so I can understand why flaws are more apparent.(this wasn't paid, mostly for fun on both our parts). *But what is so wrong with the actual makeup?* I'm no fashion photographer and, quite honestly, I know just about zero when it comes to stage makeup. I'm asking not in defense of, I really want to know what can be improved here so I can pass on the feedback. 



cgipson1 said:


> Foxx.... Wide Angle FLs can cause barrel distortion.. anything under 50mm can be very noticeable. Even a 50mm will do it if you are too close.
> 
> Look at the nose in #1.. it is probably not that big in real life. The makeup even appears to accentuate the issue...
> 
> How close were you in most of these shots?



I can see what you mean now. For the ringlight shots my guess is less than 2 feet, the umbrella shots were farther out but not by much. What should I do to avoid this? I have a 28-135mm -- would shooting at a longer focal length fix this?


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 28, 2012)

Foxx said:


> I can see what you mean now. For the ringlight shots my guess is less than 2 feet, the umbrella shots were farther out but not by much. What should I do to avoid this? I have a 28-135mm -- would shooting at a longer focal length fix this?



Typically, unless you WANT the distortion, stick to 50mm or above. You can use wide angles, but you need more distance to prevent the barrel distortion... and that makes for smaller subjects. These kinds of shots, I would have probably used my 85mm and mixed it up with my 70-200... shooting full frame! Crop Sensor? Play with it and see. 

Just keep in mind, that while you get basically a 50mm field of view with a 35mm (as an example) on a Crop sensor, you are still going to get 35mm style distortion, that doesn't change.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Dec 28, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Just keep in mind, that while you get basically a 50mm field of view with a 35mm (as an example) on a Crop sensor, you are still going to get 35mm style distortion, that doesn't change.



You are mistaken Charlie.  I was thinking the same too a while back but I was wrong.  A 35 mm on a crop sensor will produce identical distortion as 50 mm on full frame (52.5 mm to be exact for 1.5 crop factor).

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/288250-fov-crop-ff.html


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 28, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Just keep in mind, that while you get basically a 50mm field of view with a 35mm (as an example) on a Crop sensor, you are still going to get 35mm style distortion, that doesn't change.
> ...



How far away were you from the shutters? Distance matters.... for barrel distortion... and that was my point.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Dec 28, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Doesnt matter.  Both shots are from the same distance.  I would get the same result if I get closer.  Test it your self.


----------



## jowensphoto (Dec 28, 2012)

RE: the makeup, it's smudgy and messy. The feathers combined with eye shadow with the lip stick and the mismatched earrings... it's too much. Messy make up is very much "in" but it's usually concentrated to one area. There's so much going on that it's hard to look at. Perhaps sticking to highlighting on feature, say eyes, lips or overall facial structure would produce a less distracting image.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 28, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Robin_Usagani said:
> ...



On distortion or FOV? I agree FOV would be the same.. distortion will not be.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Dec 28, 2012)

Here is a sample of processing I have done.  I did not take the photo.  I just edited it.  It is modelmayhem free for all edit.  Make it clean man.  Unfortunately the make up artist didn't do a good job.  Look very messy so it may be hard to make it look clean.  It is more fun to just add your own crazy make up digitally!

Usagani Photography - Denver Wedding Photographer, CO | Photoshop Edit (Before & After)


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Dec 28, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



So you are arguing that if someone shoots with 35mm w/ D7000 crop sensor vs 50mm w/ D800, the D7000 will show more distortion?  It is not.  The D7000 will be identical to the D800.  The extreme distortion you are seeing will be clipped on the sides by the cropped sensor.  Remember, they are both will be shot from the same distance to produce the same framing.  The distortion will be the same.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 28, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Robin_Usagani said:
> ...



At 5 feet... I would agree.

At 4 feet... probably

At 3 feet... I doubt it.

At 2 feet... I doubt it very much!

If I get really bored.. and can find a better test subject than what you used.. maybe I will shoot it.


----------



## Tee (Dec 28, 2012)

The good news is you're practicing and exploring new things.  When working with wigs and make-up artists, it is imperative you get it right before hoisting the camera.  All of these shots are close and expose flaws.  For instance, in #3 all flaws are exposed and there is no skin re-touching done.  I think #4 is your best image with regards to lighting and composition.  If you're only using your 18-55 lens, keep it at 55 and use your feet to zoom in and out.   As for the DIY ringlight, the ring is way too small around the pupil.  Make the ring larger and it will be less distracting.  

The great thing, and this is what I remind myself all the time, is that this is fun.  Have fun learning and improving.  Take the critique and apply it to the next shoot.  Ask the MUA who worked with you on this shoot to work again except this time, you create the make-up vision and practice explaining how you want it to look.  I have a scrapbook album of faces with various make-up themes that I like and use it to convey the concept I want.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 28, 2012)

Fox.... I hope you don't mind... I did a little cleanup and skin softening.... what do you think?


Your original for comparison


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 28, 2012)

Tee said:


> The good news is you're practicing and exploring new things.  When working with wigs and make-up artists, it is imperative you get it right before hoisting the camera.  All of these shots are close and expose flaws.  For instance, in #3 all flaws are exposed and there is no skin re-touching done.  I think #4 is your best image with regards to lighting and composition.  If you're only using your 18-55 lens, keep it at 55 and use your feet to zoom in and out.   As for the DIY ringlight, the ring is way too small around the pupil.  Make the ring larger and it will be less distracting.
> 
> The great thing, and this is what I remind myself all the time, is that this is fun.  Have fun learning and improving.  Take the critique and apply it to the next shoot.  Ask the MUA who worked with you on this shoot to work again except this time, you create the make-up vision and practice explaining how you want it to look.  I have a scrapbook album of faces with various make-up themes that I like and use it to convey the concept I want.



Exactly!


----------



## Foxx (Dec 28, 2012)

Tee said:


> The good news is you're practicing and exploring new things.  When working with wigs and make-up artists, it is imperative you get it right before hoisting the camera.  All of these shots are close and expose flaws.  For instance, in #3 all flaws are exposed and there is no skin re-touching done.  I think #4 is your best image with regards to lighting and composition.  If you're only using your 18-55 lens, keep it at 55 and use your feet to zoom in and out.   As for the DIY ringlight, the ring is way too small around the pupil.  Make the ring larger and it will be less distracting.
> 
> The great thing, and this is what I remind myself all the time, is that this is fun.  Have fun learning and improving.  Take the critique and apply it to the next shoot.  Ask the MUA who worked with you on this shoot to work again except this time, you create the make-up vision and practice explaining how you want it to look.  I have a scrapbook album of faces with various make-up themes that I like and use it to convey the concept I want.



Thanks for the encouragement  I am constantly thanking myself for not making photography a career choice because I think I'd be jaded/stressed out of my mind by some of the critique I receive. The fact that I do this as a hobby means I can progress at my own pace and *have fun with it*. I take all the feedback I get in stride and do my best to apply it to everything I do going forwards, but I stay light with it to make sure I don't get burned out.

As for the FL I will be using my 28-135mm for the next session. The ring light came pre-fabricated so there's not much I can do about making it bigger. I'll try standing farther back from the model and see if that helps.



cgipson1 said:


> Fox.... I hope you don't mind... I did a little cleanup and skin softening.... what do you think?



I don't know...maybe fashion photography isn't for me. I don't like how much you softened her hair and how brushed her skin looks -- it doesn't feel real. I definitely need to clean up my originals but your edit seems too overboard for me.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 28, 2012)

Foxx said:


> Tee said:
> 
> 
> > The good news is you're practicing and exploring new things.  When working with wigs and make-up artists, it is imperative you get it right before hoisting the camera.  All of these shots are close and expose flaws.  For instance, in #3 all flaws are exposed and there is no skin re-touching done.  I think #4 is your best image with regards to lighting and composition.  If you're only using your 18-55 lens, keep it at 55 and use your feet to zoom in and out.   As for the DIY ringlight, the ring is way too small around the pupil.  Make the ring larger and it will be less distracting.
> ...



Checked out any fashion magazines lately? lol! You can still see pore structure / texture... I just got rid of all the bumps and zits, highlighted the eyes...


----------



## Tee (Dec 28, 2012)

Foxx. No retouching done on this as the MUA working with me did this for her portfolio so I didn't want to manipulate her work. I asked for a clean look. 




ETA:  I lied.  I brought out her eyes and removed a zit.  But the make-up is all original.


----------



## Foxx (Dec 28, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Checked out any fashion magazines lately? lol! You can still see pore structure / texture... I just got rid of all the bumps and zits, highlighted the eyes...



I know but I don't want to photograph for vogue  It's just not my cup of tea.



Tee said:


> Foxx. No retouching done on this as the MUA working with me did this for her portfolio so I didn't want to manipulate her work. I asked for a clean look.
> 
> 
> View attachment 30189
> ...



That's fantastic! I see my MUA has some work to do....


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 28, 2012)

Tee said:


> Foxx. No retouching done on this as the MUA working with me did this for her portfolio so I didn't want to manipulate her work. I asked for a clean look.
> 
> ETA:  I lied.  I brought out her eyes and removed a zit.  But the make-up is all original.



Nice! It can be done with a MUA, or it can be done it post! Usually a bit of both! 

Tee... what do you think of my edit above?


----------



## Tee (Dec 28, 2012)

Charlie- for me a little too soft along the jawline but a definite improvement. :thumbsup


----------



## Derrel (Dec 28, 2012)

I wanted to link to fashion/beauty photographer Stephen Eastwood's "famous" photo illustration of a model photographed with lenses from 350mm down to 17mm, all with the same HEIGHT of head in the frame, but shot from different distances, so that the features of the face were all subtly different. Unfortunately, his site seems to be "suspended" according to the web host's warning...

Stepheneastwood.com / Pinterest

It's pretty apparent that short focal lengths, used at close ranges, make the human face look "ungainly".


----------



## Foxx (Dec 28, 2012)

Derrel said:


> It's pretty apparent that short focal lengths, used at close ranges, make the human face look "ungainly".



Woah that is a huge difference. Thanks for the visual!

Here's one more shot from the second session I did yesterday(before I posted here)







I tried touching it up a bit better. Unfortunately her makeup was more caked than the first model's so I had a hard time :/
I've tried skin softening with an inverted high pass and surface blurs, but I haven't seen great results. cgipson1, what do you do?


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 28, 2012)

Foxx said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > It's pretty apparent that short focal lengths, used at close ranges, make the human face look "ungainly".
> ...



Foxx..  I start with Imagenomics portraiture.. and go from there. I usually highlight the eyes, and remove any blemishes... not much more than that.

This one is a really good example of how makeup can accentuate barrel distortion.. her nose and the bridge of her nose.. looks a bit large. Do you have any shots of her at 50mm or above?


----------



## 412 Burgh (Dec 28, 2012)

I love #3 and #4...wish i knew some make up artists.... or models! I just make my friends model for me and be guinea pigs


----------



## Ron Evers (Dec 28, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Fox.... I hope you don't mind... I did a little cleanup and skin softening.... what do you think?
> View attachment 30187
> Your original for comparison
> View attachment 30188



Sorry Charlie, OVERDONE.


----------

