# Portraits of my girlfriend, novice photographer C&C Needed



## SJ_PhotoG (Sep 27, 2012)

Hi, I'm a somewhat new photographer (6 months) and just received my first off camera lighting kit last week. I would like some C&C on my portraits that I took within the past 3 days. They were taken with the gear in my sig. Thanks for any C&C and taking the time out to view my photos. One thing to keep is mind is that she is very light skinned (porcelain skin) so her skin might appear to be overexposed but it is not. All the best.





































I want to build up my skills in this craft known as photography as smoothly as possible so any advice is greatly appreciated.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 27, 2012)

Do you have an umbrella or softbox? The flash in these are fairly harsh on a few. THere are a few that are good. Way to many to go through. 5 is my limit when I have a ton of spare time.


----------



## SJ_PhotoG (Sep 27, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Do you have an umbrella or softbox? The flash in these are fairly harsh on a few. THere are a few that are good. Way to many to go through. 5 is my limit when I have a ton of spare time.



Umbrella, the flash isn't harsh. If you read my post you would have read that she has porcelain skin aka very, very light skin. If I dial my aperture up so that its letting less light in and lowering the flash's power her skin tone ends up being underexposed. I already tested this as I thought the flash was too much myself but it's set just about right for her skin tone.


----------



## MK3Brent (Sep 27, 2012)

SJ_PhotoG said:


> Umbrella, the flash isn't harsh. If you read my post you would have read that she has porcelain skin aka very, very light skin. If I dial my aperture up so that its letting less light in and lowering the flash's power her skin tone ends up being underexposed. I already tested this as I thought the flash was too much myself but it's set just about right for her skin tone.




Oh sorry, you've got it all covered.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 27, 2012)

SJ_PhotoG said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have an umbrella or softbox? The flash in these are fairly harsh on a few. THere are a few that are good. Way to many to go through. 5 is my limit when I have a ton of spare time.
> ...


No, it's definitely harsh flash. Light skin is skin tone. Harsh flash is harsh flash.


----------



## SJ_PhotoG (Sep 27, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> SJ_PhotoG said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...



Well can you point out to me which photos have harsh flash instead of just saying they have harsh flash? Underexposed skin tone doesn't look so good to me but I don't see how any of them have overexposed flash and I'd like you to point them out to me, thanks.

The last picture is a perfect example of what I mean by saying that her skin tone is very light. The image itself is properly exposed (I used available light, no flash) and her skin appears to be too bright when in reality that's just her skin tone. Saying light skin tone is light and harsh flash is harsh is not helpful......thanks.


----------



## SCraig (Sep 27, 2012)

SJ_PhotoG said:


> Umbrella, the flash isn't harsh. If you read my post you would have read that she has porcelain skin aka very, very light skin. If I dial my aperture up so that its letting less light in and lowering the flash's power her skin tone ends up being underexposed. I already tested this as I thought the flash was too much myself but it's set just about right for her skin tone.



As MLeeK said, the flash is harsh.  It has nothing to do with skin tone, it is harsh and not diffused.  Look at the shadows.  They are very well-defined and hard-edged, or in other words: Harsh.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 27, 2012)

The last one is fine other than she is orange. The first two are your worst harsh flash. You have some serious inconsistencies in processing. She has everything from orange skin to hot pink to white. THe color in the first two is probably most accurate, but the flash is hard.


----------



## SJ_PhotoG (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm sorry but I disagree, the shadows appear soft and not well defined......how could they be harsh when I'm shooting at a 40" umbrella reflector in very close proximity to her. Can I just get critique on my composition or something other than exposure, I don't feel like getting into a long/drawn out debate about flash exposure as most of it, is opinionated just like ambient exposure when taking photos using flash. 

As for the different color tones, I prefer to keep a warm color tone on the kelvin scale, I'm not looking for consistency here just a nice warm tone. I generally bring the kelvin temperature up and add a slightly warm tint to the highlights in LR.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 27, 2012)

For a newcomer, I think you're doing pretty well! I liked #8, the B&W look at her from above...kind of a neat shot. #1 is "okay" as well...in some ways it has a very old-time, 1920's-type appeal to it. If these are your first efforts, I'd say you'll make good progress with practice, a bit of study, and some repetitions. Overall, MUCH better than many newcomers can create. Just keep at it. Keep learning about lighting, and theories of how to light.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 27, 2012)

You have no gear in your sig, actually no sig.
I look at the pictures unemotionally and the difference between the shots when she is and isn't smiling is amazing.
When she is 'serious' all the life goes out of her face. She has a short upper lip and this contributes.
Don't shoot from below and get some life in her face.


----------



## SJ_PhotoG (Sep 27, 2012)

Derrel said:


> For a newcomer, I think you're doing pretty well! I  liked #8, the B&W look at her from above...kind of a neat shot. #1  is "okay" as well...in some ways it has a very old-time, 1920's-type  appeal to it. If these are your first efforts, I'd say you'll make good  progress with practice, a bit of study, and some repetitions. Overall,  MUCH better than many newcomers can create. Just keep at it. Keep  learning about lighting, and theories of how to light.



Thank you very much, whats your opinion on shoot through vs reflective umbrellas? I just got into off camera lighting about one week ago and I like the control of light that reflective gives me and the results that it gives me but it seems like many forum goers think that the light quality that it produces is too harsh such as some of the posters in this thread. Do you think that shoot through is softer? 

@ TheTraveler, thanks for the advice about the short upper lip and the role that it plays in emotion when doing portraiture photography. This will be very useful in my future portrait sessions and I thank you for that. I only took two shots of her from an angle below her as I learned that from another forum but I still like the emotion that they show. Don't you agree that shots 1, 3, and the last one show emotion? The other shots were taken to get more of a seductive mysterious/no emotion look. 

While I'm at it, does anyone have any advice for a good book on portrait? Sort of like a bible for it? I picked up the book Light, Science, & Magic and have learned a TON within the past week but I'm almost finished the book and am looking for a book that is focused more on portrait specific lighting and portrait specifics in general, thanks and I wish the best to all. 

BTW I updated my information with the shooting equipment that I use.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm not really seeing the sharp shadows, myself. I mean, they might be sharp given the brolly? Which probably means you have the brolly far away, or it's a bad one. For really soft shadows, your diffuser is literally JUST out of frame, the farther away from the model it is, the sharper the shadows.

I'm with Derrel and Lew here -- pretty good. Shoot her from above, and make her smile unless you want her to look angry and badass (in which case, get some leather!)


----------



## Derrel (Sep 27, 2012)

I normally "prefer" reflecting umbrellas over shoot-through styles. I own both, and have used shoot throughs longer, but have grown tired of them for the most part...I actually "prefer" a specific modifier, the Lastolite Umbrella Box, although I also like 43 inch size "convertible" umbrellas, as well as Speedotron's *Super Silver model* metallized umbrella for things that are going to be finished as Black and Whites.

"Softness" of umbrellas: the double-diffusion style of the enclosed Lastolite Umbrella Box is *THE* softest umbrella I know of. It's a wonderful choice for using with powerful flash units, like 200 to 1200 Watt-second flash heads; I HAVE NEVER used it with a speedlight. For speedlights, I PREFER reflecting umbrellas: I think their efficiency is better, AND they offer more "control". To me "control" is much more-critical than "softness". SOftness depends on distance and size of the umbrella/source and the distance to the object and how big or small the source is in relation TO THE OBJECT being photographed. I also like some of the *Photoflex brand* convertibles, espdcially their 30-inchers for use with speedlights. The white interior, black-backed Photoflex Convertible is a GOOD inexpensive umbrella!


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 27, 2012)

My opinion follows- 

I was a dentist specializing in prosthetics (bridges, dentures, etc) and spent a lot of time looking at people's mouths and lips and it was crucial that their upper lip have the right amount of 'plumpness.'  In shot one, her upper lip looks really thin and almost depressed. I wouldn't have even shown that look to a client.
Her 'badass' face just looks emotionless and unattractive to me; I don't think that on her look is flattering, especially compared to the next to the last.
I think it is important to be able to see the best look you can get from any subject and she looks best while smiling even just a bit.


----------



## ewick (Sep 27, 2012)

I would say to watch your background. IMO 3,4,6 have a branch comin out her head. it is not too distracting but if you work on that you will get better images. Her skin tones from face to arm changes a lot and that can be fixed in pp. For your first run you did better than my first try. Keep on shooting and you will learn something new every single time.


----------



## rokvi (Sep 27, 2012)

SJ_PhotoG said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have an umbrella or softbox? The flash in these are fairly harsh on a few. THere are a few that are good. Way to many to go through. 5 is my limit when I have a ton of spare time.
> ...



Here  are some things you might find interesting to do with lighting and what some refer to as harsh or hard lighting. If you look at the shadows behind the subject, you can see that it is a little harsh. The  inverse square law might also pertain to this.
You may already be aware of some of the information but you can always take away other bits of it as well.

Other than that I feel you've done an excellent job!


----------



## Tee (Sep 27, 2012)

Since your lighting is so perfect, my only other comment is to always be aware of shooting up nostrils,  bra straps, white balance, how to turn the body, and sharpening for final output.


----------



## haynie90 (Sep 27, 2012)

I wish i knew everything at 6 months.


----------



## jesse101 (Sep 28, 2012)

Agreed with softening that light, will help with some of the abrasive lighting. Also, its frowned upon to shoot looking up into their nose, try a couple of stolen shots of her tilting her head to slight left or right..and go from there.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Sep 28, 2012)

SJ_PhotoG said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > SJ_PhotoG said:
> ...




Why start off a post saying you have no experience and are brand new to lighthing, and then argue when someone starts pointing out the issues you are having.?  Sounds like you should have said you have 6 months experience and know everything so don't bother posting.


----------



## Parker219 (Sep 28, 2012)

*<Moderated>*


----------



## JAC526 (Sep 28, 2012)

Parker219 said:


> *<Moderated>*.



What a *Richard *comment.


----------



## Parker219 (Sep 28, 2012)

^ He wanted C&C.  At least I gave him some, you didnt give your c&c.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Sep 28, 2012)

WB appears to be all over the place.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Sep 28, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> What a dick comment.



^^^  This x 100,000,000


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 28, 2012)

That comment by Parker219 is way over the line.
I asked the mods to remove his comment.
If he doesn't remove it himself, besides being a jerk ,he is a fool .


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 28, 2012)

Parker219 said:
			
		

> *<Moderated>*



Reported, you ass.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 28, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> Parker219 said:
> 
> 
> > *<Moderated>*.
> ...



Indeed. Just FWIW, she's shown in shots by a novice people photographer AND she does not appear to have even a drop of foundation or any other makeup on. And that mane of thick,lovely, black hair! Nice! Good teeth too. I tell ya' what Parker219, $100 says just 10 minutes' worth of makeup and a splash of lipstick, and a dress on her-- and you'd be *BEGGIN* to go out with her...of course...she'd probably turn you down...


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 28, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> you'd be BEGGIN to go out with her...of course...she'd probably turn you down...



Derrell, you're giving this clown too much credit. He's never garnered the courage to speak to a woman. He's chosen instead to sit in front of his computer and make misogynistic, hateful comments about women to hide his bitterness.


----------



## Parker219 (Sep 28, 2012)

*<Moderated>*


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 28, 2012)

Parker219 said:


> *<Moderated>*





Parker219 said:


> *<Moderated>*[/COLOR]



Nope, an edit won't do it.
Trying to save face when you should have just apologized and left.

And another attack.
Your best strategy is to go away and perhaps re-register under another name because nobody who sees this thread will comment on your images.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Sep 28, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Parker219 said:
> 
> 
> > *<Moderated>*
> ...



Don't believe this is the first time a comment like that has been said by him.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 28, 2012)

Oh no, Parker is well known to be a 12 year old douchebag. It's fun to poke him with sticks to see him hop around all angry and pretending like he's too cool to be pissed off though.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 28, 2012)

The_Traveler said:
			
		

> nobody who sees this thread will comment on your images.



I'll be happy to comment on his images. Let me just save "*<Moderated>*." to the clipboard, so I don't have to type it out each time. :lmao:


----------



## Parker219 (Sep 28, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Oh no, Parker is well known to be a 12 year old douchebag. It's fun to poke him with sticks to see him hop around all angry and pretending like he's too cool to be pissed off though.





I'm 12? Yet you say "pwned". Lets stick to the facts here. lol


----------



## amolitor (Sep 28, 2012)

12 is just an estimate. douchebag isn't, it's an exceedingly precise and factual measurement.


----------



## Parker219 (Sep 28, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'd be as mad as you with that haircut. Look at it, it looks like they tripped and feel while cutting your hair dude.


----------



## Parker219 (Sep 28, 2012)

amolitor said:


> 12 is just an estimate. douchebag isn't, it's an exceedingly precise and factual measurement.



You REALLY need some new phrases. They went out of style with your hat. lmao


----------



## jwbryson1 (Sep 28, 2012)

Can one of the moderators ban Parker219 please?

Thanks.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 28, 2012)

*And, I think we're done here.  

OP:  You might want to check the attitude when you're given advice.  You don't have to agree with it, but you should try and be at least as respectful as the person who gave it was.

Everyone else:  KNOCK OFF THE PERSONAL ATTACKS or a whole bunch of people are going to take an all expense paid TPF holiday!!!*


----------

