# Winter project - learning to take studio portraits (UPDATE Week 2)



## MSnowy (Nov 26, 2016)

This winter I've decided to learn another type of photography studio portraits. Any advice will be helpful and appreciated.


----------



## Rick50 (Nov 26, 2016)

Pretty good. You handled the eye glasses well. Only nitpick would be the upper right background going to black catches my attention.


----------



## MSnowy (Nov 26, 2016)

Rick50 said:


> Pretty good. You handled the eye glasses well. Only nitpick would be the upper right background going to black catches my attention.



Thanks.  Ya upper right appears to be a shadow of some sorts


----------



## tirediron (Nov 26, 2016)

Welcome to my world!   You're off to a good start, 'though I see one or two areas which could be, IMO improved a little bit.  What was your lighting set-up for this?

I like the way you have her body positioned, 'though I think it would have been beneficial to have her lean forward just a little; to bring her head, chest & medal just a little closer to the camera.  I would also suggest pulling down the top to reduce the number of wrinkles in it, and it looks like her collar and the medal ribbon are a little messed up.  

The shadow on the background doesn't bother me; there's a vignette formed by your lighting, and that works with it, but you could easily tweak it in post if desired.  

The lighting on her head/face isn't ideal.  There seems to be a very strong highlight coming from 90 deg. camera right, and her face itself seems a bit under-exposed with a strong red cast toward the camera left side.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 26, 2016)

That black blob in the upper right hand corner looks a lot like an out of focus umbrella that accidentally got into the shot.

As far as advice...I have a lot of opinions, but it's difficult to tell what YOU might need to know. But a few generalities: know your gear. use the same stuff until you know what it can do, or tends t do. Shooting: tripod mounted, from a fixed distance to the subject is easiest to get results refined the fastest (RE: the black blob upper right...oh...my umbrella's edge is in my shot...I need to move my light a bit...) because the camera and lens are in the same place from shot to shot to shot: that allows you to adjust things, and to slow down, and to review shots and determine what,exactly, needs to be done to improve a shot. Shooting hand-held is different.

Know your lights. Learn your modifiers.

I am a HUGE believer that modeling lights in studio flash heads are THE easiest to learn with. They also give light to focus by, and help your models find the light, AND they give you a full-time preview of how the light hits the model. Working with speedlights is one thing, working with studio flash units is a different type of thing, and having three, 150-watt modeling lamps on is VERY different from working in semi-lighted conditions with three speedlights.

There is a LOT that could be talked about. But, when learning, try to keep things consistent. Pick a main light, and use it the same way for several sessions, so you get to know how it works. Beware of on-line "lighting diagrams"; many are flat-out WRONG, or incorrectly drawn, and they do not tell you a whole lot, and many are drawn by people who do not really understand how to light. For example, MANY show the reflector placements flat-out wrongly, in places where the light will not actually be reflected, either at all, or properly. Beware the Myth of the Greatness of The 60 Inch Umbrella. Beware learning from YouTubers with only a  few months's worth of experience in lighting.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 26, 2016)

Other tips: shoot-through umbrellas lead to lots of ambient spill light that scatters all over; this is worst in small shooting areas, and can be harnessed, or can ruin shots. Reflecting umbrellas with black backs keep the light moving,mostly, in one direction. Same with enclosed softboxes, and black-backed umbrellas boxes: the light is _contained_, and sent out in one direction, with fairly minimal spill light scattering around. Recessed face soft boxes, which have about a two-inch *recessed face*, allow you to control spill more than flush-faced modifiers do; if an egg-crate type fabric grid is added to a modifier, the grid accessory keeps the light moving only forward, and can keep light from spilling onto even nearby backdrops, or other pats of the shot. This si why so,so many newer softboxes offer an egg crate type grid as an accessory.

You can do a lot with one light. A 43 inch reflecting umbrella can light the person, and light the backdrop! A 28 x 28 inch gridded softbox from the same position can light the person, but make the backdrop go four stops darker. And this is why I suggest learning with one type of light unit, over several sessions. using the same main light source will give you a good idea of what it "does". This goes double if you are shooting blind, with speedlights, and can only evaluate your lighting placement and effects AFTER the shot has been captured.

The last suggestion: since you're using an APS-C camera, beware on half-body and 3/4 body shots like this, of getting into that 23 to 38mm focal length range from TOO CLOSE of a shooting range: this is a common issue with APS-C in-studio: the need to drop focal length to get a whole person in, and in the process, show too much background width behind the subject, and to show too much DOF at f/8 to f/11. If you have the room, it is almost always better to move BACK, and shoot with a longer focal length lens, or you risk running into background lighting issues. The short length lens shows more w i d t h of the background, behind the subject, than does the longer lens, with narrower FOV, from farther back. This becomes a big issue when you do not have lights that can cover a wide field of view BEHIND the subject. For a full-length person on APS-C with 85mm lens, you need to be 34 feet back; With a FF camera and the same,exact 85mm lens, you place the camera at precisely 20.0 feet for the SAME picture. But the backdrop is very different. Even though the person will be the same height, in an 8.5 foot tall frame. APS-C favors shooting from 7 feet back to 10 feet on singles, back to to 25 to 30 feet on larger groups.


----------



## MSnowy (Nov 26, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Welcome to my world!   You're off to a good start, 'though I see one or two areas which could be, IMO improved a little bit.  What was your lighting set-up for this?
> 
> I like the way you have her body positioned, 'though I think it would have been beneficial to have her lean forward just a little; to bring her head, chest & medal just a little closer to the camera.  I would also suggest pulling down the top to reduce the number of wrinkles in it, and it looks like her collar and the medal ribbon are a little messed up.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks John. This was a quick picture taken of my wife after she just came back from running a 4mile race. The red cast is from her running in damp 40*f  morning weather. She gave me 2 minutes to do this. I had a speedlight in a softbox 45* camera left and a flashpoint 320  shot into an umbrella 45* camera right and flashpoint 320 into umbrella behind her camera right. This was off the cuff with no time to check the lighting ratios. So hopefully next time she care spare 5 minutes.


----------



## MSnowy (Nov 26, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Other tips: shoot-through umbrellas lead to lots of ambient spill light that scatters all over; this is worst in small shooting areas, and can be harnessed, or can ruin shots. Reflecting umbrellas with black backs keep the light moving,mostly, in one direction. Same with enclosed softboxes, and black-backed umbrellas boxes: the light is _contained_, and sent out in one direction, with fairly minimal spill light scattering around. Recessed face soft boxes, which have about a two-inch *recessed face*, allow you to control spill more than flush-faced modifiers do; if an egg-crate type fabric grid is added to a modifier, the grid accessory keeps the light moving only forward, and can keep light from spilling onto even nearby backdrops, or other pats of the shot. This si why so,so many newer softboxes offer an egg crate type grid as an accessory.
> 
> You can do a lot with one light. A 43 inch reflecting umbrella can light the person, and light the backdrop! A 28 x 28 inch gridded softbox from the same position can light the person, but make the backdrop go four stops darker. And this is why I suggest learning with one type of light unit, over several sessions. using the same main light source will give you a good idea of what it "does". This goes double if you are shooting blind, with speedlights, and can only evaluate your lighting placement and effects AFTER the shot has been captured.
> 
> The last suggestion: since you're using an APS-C camera, beware on half-body and 3/4 body shots like this, of getting into that 23 to 38mm focal length range from TOO CLOSE of a shooting range: this is a common issue with APS-C in-studio: the need to drop focal length to get a whole person in, and in the process, show too much background width behind the subject, and to show too much DOF at f/8 to f/11. If you have the room, it is almost always better to move BACK, and shoot with a longer focal length lens, or you risk running into background lighting issues. The short length lens shows more w i d t h of the background, behind the subject, than does the longer lens, with narrower FOV, from farther back. This becomes a big issue when you do not have lights that can cover a wide field of view BEHIND the subject. For a full-length person on APS-C with 85mm lens, you need to be 34 feet back; With a FF camera and the same,exact 85mm lens, you place the camera at precisely 20.0 feet for the SAME picture. But the backdrop is very different. Even though the person will be the same height, in an 8.5 foot tall frame. APS-C favors shooting from 7 feet back to 10 feet on singles, back to to 25 to 30 feet on larger groups.


 
Thanks Derrel I need to read your posts and Johns over and over. This was taken with a Nikon d3s and a 84mm D 1.8 My space is limited to a 12 'x 18' room full of furniture.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 26, 2016)

I think the Flashpoint 320M is the best bang-for-buck monolight avaialble today. Adorama's generic (one-size-fits-many) barn doors and gel holder device is pretty good...I bought one, like it a lot. Comes with the barn doors, the set-screw-and wire-clamp setup, a frosted diffuser in a frame, and three colored gels in frames, and one grid. The diffuser and gel holders are all identical in dimensions, and can be modified to be all-diffusers if desired,etc. Kind of a nice barn door and grid and gel holder set that adapts to apprx. 5-inch to 8-inch reflectors. Worth the money for the Flashpoint user. Works on Speedotron 7-inch reflectors quite well.

Gotta run.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 26, 2016)

One of the hardest things with learning in 2016 is the prevalence of HUGE lights...big umbrellas, big soft boxes, big octas and so on; the issue with big lights? They put out a large swath of soft light, and they make it hard to learn exactly where to place the lights. They throw light 'everywhere'. Shoot-thru umbrellas can throw ambient spill; flush-faced softboxes can throw a lot of light off to the sides; 60-inch umbrellas are sooooo big they can barely be used indoors unless you have 13-foot high ceilings.

There's a lot to be said for 16- or 20-inch parabolic reflectors (with diffusion added to the front), or 20- to 22-inch beauty dishes, as a way to really learn the how of lighting. The 16- and 20- parabolic reflectors are "old-school"; the new-school is the beauty dish in 20- or 22-inch sizes most often. The difference is the beauty dish usually has a disc-shaped deflector, while the old-fashioned parabolic does not have the deflector, but allows the flash tube to be seen, hence the common use of a mylar front diffuser.

Basic idea: 1) Main light off to one side, but the fill light placed right by the camera, aimed straight ahead. Or, 2) Main light off to one side, fill light proivided by a reflector placed in front of the subject's nose line. Avoid two lights at 45 degrees to the subject most of the time on people.

Lighting Ratio of about 3:1: Main light at 4.0 feet, or 5.6 feet, or 8 feet, or 11 feet. Fill light unit set to the identical power with identical modifier at one distance greater than the main light distance. Mathematics and f/stops works in strange ways.  The second way to get this 3:1 lighting ratio is two lights, one at Full power, other at Half power, at the same distance to the subject.

30- to 32-inch umbrellas can create beautiful light that looks a lot like a beauty dish. Ones that have black backing, and reflect the light, are preferable. Photoflex and Westcott make GOOD umbrellas. 28 x 28 Made in China soft boxes are pretty handy for head and shoulders and low-ceiling rooms. The medium 36" x 48" Photoflex white-interior softbox is a standard size useful for many situations, and has the _rectangular advantage_. With umbrellas, use the right spill-kill reflector on the light, or you risk letting raw light leak out everywhere, off to the sides and ceiling/floor. Again...an eggcrate grid can be super-useful on a softbox or octabox.

Studio lighting, for people or for products, is an entire field of photography. If you have no people to work on, get some kind of a stand-in. Hell, even a basketball. The biggest issue I see is all the YouTubers who use nothing but one or two kinds of light modifiers, and who really do not understand what *light shaping tools* are. Grids, flags, reflectors, diffusers,snoots,different types of metallic reflectors, barn doors, cookies, etc..


----------



## OGsPhotography (Nov 27, 2016)

Cookie!?

Awesome info in this thread.

I just added a 59" octa to my setup, in a similar small room, and yes, its probably too big to be practical.

I use a stuffed teddy for practice.

Im always shooting for soft light and to minimize shadows, but that because my one and only customer likes portraits done that way. 

You'll get results if you know what your after. So, if after run portrait is important, keep working on that one setup!


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 27, 2016)

I would add some top and side to bring her head down a bit and position her more in the center.  (There seems to be no artistic reason to have her off-center.)

And really cut back on that vignette. If it is noticeable, imo, a vignette should look like there is a background light tapering off rather than a smokey fire in the room.


----------



## MSnowy (Nov 27, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Other tips: shoot-through umbrellas lead to lots of ambient spill light that scatters all over; this is worst in small shooting areas, and can be harnessed, or can ruin shots. Reflecting umbrellas with black backs keep the light moving,mostly, in one direction. Same with enclosed softboxes, and black-backed umbrellas boxes: the light is _contained_, and sent out in one direction, with fairly minimal spill light scattering around. Recessed face soft boxes, which have about a two-inch *recessed face*, allow you to control spill more than flush-faced modifiers do; if an egg-crate type fabric grid is added to a modifier, the grid accessory keeps the light moving only forward, and can keep light from spilling onto even nearby backdrops, or other pats of the shot. This si why so,so many newer softboxes offer an egg crate type grid as an accessory.
> 
> You can do a lot with one light. A 43 inch reflecting umbrella can light the person, and light the backdrop! A 28 x 28 inch gridded softbox from the same position can light the person, but make the backdrop go four stops darker. And this is why I suggest learning with one type of light unit, over several sessions. using the same main light source will give you a good idea of what it "does". This goes double if you are shooting blind, with speedlights, and can only evaluate your lighting placement and effects AFTER the shot has been captured.
> 
> The last suggestion: since you're using an APS-C camera, beware on half-body and 3/4 body shots like this, of getting into that 23 to 38mm focal length range from TOO CLOSE of a shooting range: this is a common issue with APS-C in-studio: the need to drop focal length to get a whole person in, and in the process, show too much background width behind the subject, and to show too much DOF at f/8 to f/11. If you have the room, it is almost always better to move BACK, and shoot with a longer focal length lens, or you risk running into background lighting issues. The short length lens shows more w i d t h of the background, behind the subject, than does the longer lens, with narrower FOV, from farther back. This becomes a big issue when you do not have lights that can cover a wide field of view BEHIND the subject. For a full-length person on APS-C with 85mm lens, you need to be 34 feet back; With a FF camera and the same,exact 85mm lens, you place the camera at precisely 20.0 feet for the SAME picture. But the backdrop is very different. Even though the person will be the same height, in an 8.5 foot tall frame. APS-C favors shooting from 7 feet back to 10 feet on singles, back to to 25 to 30 feet on larger groups.



Thanks again for the great info. Time for me to get practicing


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 27, 2016)

Many thanks to @MSnowy for starting this thread!! I too have started moving into this area, and lighting is making me pull my hair out.



Derrel said:


> APS-C favors shooting from 7 feet back to 10 feet on singles, back to to 25 to 30 feet on larger groups.



Great Information provided. I understood most of what you were saying, but was the above quote a mistake??? Did you mean to say FF, because it seems to contradict what you said earlier in the same paragraph? Otherwise I'm confused?



Derrel said:


> using an APS-C camera, beware on half-body and 3/4 body shots like this, of getting into that 23 to 38mm focal length range from TOO CLOSE of a shooting range: this is a common issue with APS-C in-studio:



In your comments you advocate moving back 34 feet on a full length shot for an 85mm lens, APS-C. For those of us using a 50 mm prime, and limited floor space, what would you recommend (distance or maximum profile)?


----------



## MSnowy (Nov 27, 2016)

OGsPhotography said:


> Cookie!?
> 
> Awesome info in this thread.
> 
> ...





The_Traveler said:


> I would add some top and side to bring her head down a bit and position her more in the center.  (There seems to be no artistic reason to have her off-center.)
> 
> And really cut back on that vignette. If it is noticeable, imo, a vignette should look like there is a background light tapering off rather than a smokey fire in the room.
> 
> View attachment 130902



Thanks for the suggestions


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 27, 2016)

Derrel said:


> I think the Flashpoint 320M is the best bang-for-buck monolight avaialble today.



Apparently you aren't the only one who thinks highly of the unit. Just went to their site, every one is on back order!!! Assuming this is a temporary situation, what would you recommend to start with on a 3 light setup?


----------



## Braineack (Nov 27, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Apparently you aren't the only one who thinks highly of the unit. Just went to their site, every one is on back order!!! Assuming this is a temporary situation, what would you recommend to start with on a 3 light setup?



that thing is always on backorder.  why i went with impact... been great for years, except now i have one that can't support a heavy modifier anymore -- starts to slowly tilt down no matter how hard i try to tighten it.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 27, 2016)

OGsPhotography said:
			
		

> Cookie!?



Yes, *cookie*, the modern word for the old-school device called a cookaloris.https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...=Lkry&p=cookaloris&fr2=sp-qrw-corr-top&norw=1

As far as replacement monolights for the Flashpoint 320M...as far as I can tell, these are made offshore by the Mettle company, and Adorama just "orders more as they are needed", hence the back-order status. In actual tests, the 320M puts out MORE flash power than an Alien Bee that costs much more, and which has a higher "faked" model number, something the Bees have been doing for a long time. An Alien Bee "800" is about a Speedotron "250". An Alien bee "1600" is a Speedotron "400". Mettle lights are sold world-wide, under multiple brand names.

I own mostly Speedo equipment, so I can not recommend to others much more than Flashpoint or Alien Bee 400 and 800 for lower cost units; the Einstein 640 is a very nice unit, but costs more than some people want to pay, per-light.

I would rather have more individual lights than more power. Today, 150 Watt-second units are enough for individual people and couples; we have ISO adjustment these days, and Nikon 200 ISO digital SLR is as good as 40 to 64 ISO slide film was when light unit powers became standardized decades ago.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 27, 2016)

[QUOTE="Braineack] that thing is always on backorder.  why i went with impact... been great for years, *except now i have one that can't support a heavy modifier anymore -- starts to slowly tilt down no matter how hard i try to tighten it*.[/QUOTE]

Does it use replaceable washers in the tightening mechanism? Ones which could be replaced with newer, grittier washers made of thin leather, or a "sandpaper washer"?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 27, 2016)

smoke665 said:
			
		

> Many thanks to @MSnowy for starting this thread!! I too have started moving into this area, and lighting is making me pull my hair out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I learned studio photography on 6x7 roll film, and on 35mm 24x36, and shot a ton on half-frame 35mm long-roll magazine cameras, which is almost exactly APS-C. No, APS-C format studio portraiture works best from 7 to 10 feet on singles and couples, with a zoom lens, and 25 feet back, camera horizontal, on groups of up to 25 people. THOSE ARE the 'secret distances' that make the background width its maximum, and make the people look the best, and which keep the background well out of focus, and avoid showing the top or edges of a 12-foot wide backdrop. If you have only 9-foot wide paper, the issue is even worse, and you need longer lenses and need to carefully _avoid using too short of a focal length, from too close-up_.

The danger with APS-C is shooting from too close a distance, at too short a lens length, and showing the edges of the backround paper or canvas; moving the camera farther away, and using a longer lens length, *keeps the angle of view narrower, behind the subject. *I do not 'recommend' being 34 feet back with the 85mm lens on APS-C: that is the simple physics to get an 8.5 foot tall framing area; that is literally the requirement of APS-C; with 24x36mm, like MSnowy has in Nikon D3s, he can get the same, exact picture frame height from 20.0 feet.

For a group of 20 people with APS-C, you need to move the camera back to 25 feet or so, flip it wide, and shoot in the 70-75-80mm length to get the group, three rows deep, 1) in-focus at f/13 and 2)the camera far enough away so that the front row is not vastly larger on-film than the back row. If you shoot the same group from "up close" at 32mm lens zoom, the front row will be BIG, the second row smaller, third row pin-headed and 2) the angle of viw will go "off the canvas" even with a 12-foot wide sweep. hence, why APS-C works best from 7-10 feet on singles, and up to 25 feet away on bigger groups.

Each camera format has its own best range of focal lengths for in-studio shots. APS-C uses shorter lens lengths than 24x36, for the same picture angles. The biggest issue is groups of 10 or more, that cover a lot of physical width, which is when you need to mocve the camera BACK, to avoid wide-angle lenses and the way they show the world: wide in view, and with *close=big and far=small*, and a w_i_d_e angle of view *behind* the foreground, which is where the people are placed.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 27, 2016)

OGsPhotography said:


> Cookie!?



For anyone that's interested, probably the best and most comprehensive lighting terminology glossary on the 'net.


----------



## MSnowy (Nov 27, 2016)

Derrel said:


> One of the hardest things with learning in 2016 is the prevalence of HUGE lights...big umbrellas, big soft boxes, big octas and so on; the issue with big lights? They put out a large swath of soft light, and they make it hard to learn exactly where to place the lights. They throw light 'everywhere'. Shoot-thru umbrellas can throw ambient spill; flush-faced softboxes can throw a lot of light off to the sides; 60-inch umbrellas are sooooo big they can barely be used indoors unless you have 13-foot high ceilings.
> 
> There's a lot to be said for 16- or 20-inch parabolic reflectors (with diffusion added to the front), or 20- to 22-inch beauty dishes, as a way to really learn the how of lighting. The 16- and 20- parabolic reflectors are "old-school"; the new-school is the beauty dish in 20- or 22-inch sizes most often. The difference is the beauty dish usually has a disc-shaped deflector, while the old-fashioned parabolic does not have the deflector, but allows the flash tube to be seen, hence the common use of a mylar front diffuser.
> 
> ...



Day 2

I tried idea  #1


----------



## tirediron (Nov 27, 2016)

Nicely done!  The only immediate nit is that his face seems to be picking up quite a bit of the red from the shirt.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 27, 2016)

The red shirt is very powerful. Might have a litle bit more fill light than is needed on the face and ear; the lighting is rather low-ratio, which keeps skin texture low-ish, which is probably a good thing. It's very subtle, but his body posture is not quite ideal...he'd look better if he were leaning forward from the waist a little bit, so his head would come more forward, and be a bit more prominent. As-shown, the dark area at the bottom, and the long sleeves in the 3:2 aspect ratio make this shot feel a little bit too tall and skinny.

Save it, look at it in two weeks. Then two months. Your opinion and your eye will change over time. If this is a selfie, it's pretty good, since they are so difficult to do and you cannot evaluate everything the way you can when standing behind the camera. I think it is just a little tiny bit over-filled on the face. The bottom of the zippered shirt looks a bit dark, and the chest and face have maybe a little bit more light on them than ideal to force the eye to the man's face.

I see a pretty decent crop-in with 65% of the outside eliminated, a much more close-in look at the man, less shirt.


----------



## MSnowy (Nov 27, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Nicely done!  The only immediate nit is that his face seems to be picking up quite a bit of the red from the shirt.


 
Thanks John. Not sure if the red's from the shirt or wind burn, I just got back from looking for Snowy Owls down at the ocean when I took it.


----------



## MSnowy (Nov 27, 2016)

Derrel said:


> The red shirt is very powerful. Might have a litle bit more fill light than is needed on the face and ear; the lighting is rather low-ratio, which keeps skin texture low-isa, which is probably a good thing. It's very subtle, but his body posture is not idea...he'd look better if he were leaning forward from the waist a little bit, so his head would come more forward, and be a bit more prominent. As-shown, the dark area at the bottom, and the long sleeves in the 3:2 aspect ratio make this shot feel a little bit too tall and skinny.
> 
> Save it, look at it in two weeks. Then two months. Your opinion and your eye will change over time. If this is a selfie, it's pretty good, since they are so difficult to do and you cannot evaluate everything the way you can whens standing behind the camera. I think it is just a little bit over-filled on the face. The bottom of the zippered shirt looks a bit dark, and the chest and face have maybe a little bit more light on them than ideal to force the eye to the man's face.
> 
> I see a pretty decent crop-in with 65% of the outside eliminated, a much more close-in look at the man, less shirt.



Thanks. more great info. Ya it's a selfie.


----------



## MSnowy (Dec 7, 2016)

Week 2 of my project

This one I've posted in another thread but here I've adjusted the reds down some per @tirediron






These are from my "I hate when you ask to me pose for pictures sessions"





22 and still wont follow directions


----------



## tirediron (Dec 7, 2016)

Nicely done.   Nice, appropriate lighting; good solid images.  I think #1 is much better with the reds pulled down a bit.


----------



## MSnowy (Dec 7, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Nicely done.   Nice, appropriate lighting; good solid images.  I think #1 is much better with the reds pulled down a bit.



Thanks John I appreciate your help


----------



## tirediron (Dec 7, 2016)

MSnowy said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Nicely done.   Nice, appropriate lighting; good solid images.  I think #1 is much better with the reds pulled down a bit.
> ...


You should re-shoot that wearing a dark brown fedora or similar hat....


----------



## MSnowy (Dec 7, 2016)

tirediron said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...


 
A little Indy


----------



## tirediron (Dec 8, 2016)

MSnowy said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > MSnowy said:
> ...


Pre-zact-ickly!


----------



## Braineack (Dec 8, 2016)

MSnowy said:


> Week 2 of my project
> 
> This one I've posted in another thread but here I've adjusted the reds down some per @tirediron
> 
> ...




what are you running on the skin?


----------



## MSnowy (Dec 8, 2016)

Braineack said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> > Week 2 of my project
> ...



Not sure what you're asking about


----------



## Braineack (Dec 8, 2016)

did you use Portraiture software (or alike) on these images (specifically #3)?


----------



## MSnowy (Dec 8, 2016)

A little Lightroom work on # 2


----------



## Derrel (Dec 14, 2016)

MSnowy said:


> A little Lightroom work on # 2


The skin softening adjustment brush and the Dodge and Burn tools in LR can do pretty well on portraits if one is familiar with how to use them. Many go too far on skin, eyes and teeth. Keep at it, winter is a long way from over.


----------



## MSnowy (Dec 14, 2016)

Derrel said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> > A little Lightroom work on # 2
> ...


 
Thanks I posted week 3 here Winter project week 3


----------

