# Southern Bikini Girl



## Memorylanephotos (Jun 6, 2013)

This is one image from a series of this beautiful southern girl. This was taken with a Canon 50D with a 28-135MM Lens using flash fill, underexposed.
View attachment 46958

Memory Lane Photos


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2013)

You underexposed this in camera and pushed it in post?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 6, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> You underexposed this in camera and pushed it in post?



I thought he meant he underexposed for the girl in camera and used fill flash to expose her properly.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> I thought he meant he underexposed for the girl in camera and used fill flash to expose her properly.



Could be. I would be interested to know for certain.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 6, 2013)

your compositing skills are good, but not great. the light does not match, and the lie of her hand on the branch is bad. still, good effort.


----------



## kathyt (Jun 6, 2013)

The pose is not flattering for this type of shot. You need to try to elongate the body as much as possible. You really can't tell she has a waist here because of the way her arm is laying.


----------



## frommrstomommy (Jun 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> your compositing skills are good, but not great. the light does not match, and the lie of her hand on the branch is bad. still, good effort.



ok.. i zoomed in on this one and don't see (other than the big variance in lighting) why you say its a composite? maybe im being a dumb dumb.. but that would have to be a fantastic job done by op with her hair??


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> your compositing skills are good, but not great. the light does not match, and the lie of her hand on the branch is bad. still, good effort.



An ELA analysis would suggest that this isn't a composite IMO.


----------



## ronlane (Jun 6, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> You really can't tell she has a waist here because of the way her arm is laying.



Waist??? huh? Oh wait, I see it now.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 6, 2013)

frommrstomommy said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > your compositing skills are good, but not great. the light does not match, and the lie of her hand on the branch is bad. still, good effort.
> ...



The biggest tell is the hand resting on the branch. It casts no shadows. At all. The edges all around feel wrong, too sharp maybe? This can be done with lighting, but it made me look closer.

The cutting out is quite good, yes.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 6, 2013)

It looks like one speedlight flash, lighting a real girl, leaning on a real tree to me...I looked at it somewhat closely, and it doesn't look like an obvious composite to me either...I dunno though, I'm easy to fool whenever pretty girls are involved...


----------



## frommrstomommy (Jun 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> frommrstomommy said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



I refuse to believe. lol Where is OP to clear this one up?? There are far too many spider web tiny little stray hairs off in the wind there.. impossible.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2013)

FotoForensics - Analysis


----------



## Buckster (Jun 6, 2013)

frommrstomommy said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > frommrstomommy said:
> ...


Well, no, it's really not impossible.  I can mask and composite stuff with hair like that, no problem.

Nonetheless, having looked closely, I don't think for a moment that this one's a composite.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 6, 2013)

Look at the shadows of the leaves left of her face, and look at the shadows on the right side of the girl, especially around her hand-on-the-branch, but generally as well (camera left/right in both cases) and tell me where the speedlite is?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 6, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> FotoForensics - Analysis



Very interesting, but...what does this tell us?  I'm a complete NOOB at this.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Look at the shadows of the leaves left of her face, and look at the shadows on the right side of the girl, especially around her hand-on-the-branch, but generally as well (camera left/right in both cases) and tell me where the speedlite is?



Speedlight is on the camera. Camera is portrait oriented. Shadows don't stray far from what's casting them, and the catchlights are in the middle of her eyes indicating the flash was placed close to the lens axis.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > FotoForensics - Analysis
> ...



Basically it shows that this wasn't a composite. Or else the ELA values of her and the tree would vary dramatically. Which they don't. There are case studies you can view if you click on the tutorial link at the bottom.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 6, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the shadows of the leaves left of her face, and look at the shadows on the right side of the girl, especially around her hand-on-the-branch, but generally as well (camera left/right in both cases) and tell me where the speedlite is?
> ...



That's what I am seeing for the light on the girl too, except for those leaves, which suggest an undiffused light camera left. Am I seeing this wrong?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



The speedlight is to the left of the camera, it's in portrait orientation. You're seeing it correctly, but you're interpreting it incorrectly.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 6, 2013)

amolitor, that sheet of stickers you found inside that old Cal-Berkley math book from the 1980's...you know the old book you bought at the flea market last week...you didn't lick one of those stickers and put it on any outgoing mail this morning, did you?


----------



## amolitor (Jun 6, 2013)

Oh, I see what you're saying. Gotcha. Thanks!

I think that the chin shadow, say, ought to be at least as pronounced as the leaf shadows, but maybe the photographer just went a little nuts painting them out.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...


It's _*slightly*_ camera left because it's on the camera and the camera is turned counter-clockwise to portrait orientation.

I'm thinking it's probably not even a speedlight, but an on-board flash, putting it even closer to the lens axis.  The lack of shadow on the branch under the hand is to be expected with such lighting, as close as those fingers are, gripping the branch like that.  The shadows to the left of her head are because the twigs causing the shadows are further from the trunk they're casting the shadows on.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Oh, I see what you're saying. Gotcha. Thanks!
> 
> I think that the chin shadow, say, ought to be at least as pronounced as the leaf shadows, but maybe the photographer just went a little nuts painting them out.


Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## frommrstomommy (Jun 6, 2013)

cool site! and buckster, without sounding like a jerk.. id really like to see these said composite skills of yours on hair.. lol


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jun 6, 2013)

I don't know why we had a 20 post commentary on whether it's a composite image or not when the flash and color balance are so off.

O.P., a word of friendly advice when you're trying to balance fill flash with a bright ambient source like a setting sun. You need to understand what settings control which light. Generally speaking, the aperture controls the intensity of the flash and the shutter speed the intensity of the ambient. you may want to consider gelling your flash when the ambient is as warm as this image. This image as it was shot is just about impossible to fix in post with regard to the color balance of the flash.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 6, 2013)

Buckster said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I see what you're saying. Gotcha. Thanks!
> ...



Has this a point, or are you simply being insulting again?


----------



## Buckster (Jun 6, 2013)

frommrstomommy said:


> cool site! and buckster, without sounding like a jerk.. id really like to see these said composite skills of yours on hair.. lol


Sounds like a fun challenge, and I gladly accept.

I won't further derail this thread with it, but will put something together, post a new thread in the "Graphics Programs and Photo Gallery" forum, and then PM you with a link to it.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...


Just putting forth an alternate theory.


----------



## Memorylanephotos (Jun 6, 2013)

Ok I'll try and go through the steps. I handheld this shot using a canon 50d with a speedlight attached in TTL mode. I underexposed the flash as not to overpower it with too much light.  This was shot in RAW. The after process I used was to spot sharpen the image and to adjust the highlights down and the shadows up. I am not a pro by any means so I hope you understand what I am trying to say here. I don't know about what you guys think, but for some reason it works for me big time and really sells prints life crazy.

Another One here processed the same way.
View attachment 46969


----------



## tirediron (Jun 6, 2013)

Well, if it works for you, then it works; personally, I think you'd see a huge improvement if you were to get the flash off of the camera!


----------



## Memorylanephotos (Jun 6, 2013)

Thanks I will try that soon!!


----------



## amolitor (Jun 6, 2013)

Let us lay down this one caveat that I may be missing something here, but ELA seems pretty easy to defeat even by accident. If you start with RAW files and work in lossless formats, and then save to JPEG in the final step (i.e. a pretty normal process) it appears to me that ELA says not much.

FotoForensics - Analysis

I'm pretty sure THAT one is a composite.

Still not feelin the shadows on this one, but it ain't like anyone's gonna die if we disagree.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Let us lay down this one caveat that I may be missing something here, but ELA seems pretty easy to defeat even by accident. If you start with RAW files and work in lossless formats, and then save to JPEG in the final step (i.e. a pretty normal process) it appears to me that ELA says not much.
> 
> FotoForensics - Analysis
> 
> ...



Having shot a lot of photos, and a lot of photos with flash, it's pretty easy to see where the light is coming from.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Still not feelin the shadows on this one, but it ain't like anyone's gonna die if we disagree.


It's not about disagreement, as though it's an opinion.  Either you're correct that this is a composite, or you're not.


----------



## Memorylanephotos (Jun 6, 2013)

This is not a composite image! If anyone wants the original Raw file to experiment with PM me with your e-mail. It won't let me upload it here.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 6, 2013)

Buckster said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Still not feelin the shadows on this one, but it ain't like anyone's gonna die if we disagree.
> ...



Buckster, just leave me alone in future. I don't mind disagreement, but your appalling rudeness is not something I should have to put up with.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 6, 2013)

Okay - The OP has clearly stated that this is image is NOT a composite.  Please *cease and desist*with all talk along that line. 

Thank-you


----------



## Buckster (Jun 6, 2013)

Memorylanephotos said:


> This is not a composite image! If anyone wants the original Raw file to experiment with PM me with your e-mail. It won't let me upload it here.


Thanks so much for your offer!!  I'd love to get a copy of the RAW image, so that I may try it out with the challenge presented earlier in the thread to me.

I tried to PM you, but got this: "Memorylanephotos has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore you may not send your message to him/her."

You can email it to me directly at buckcash@buckcash.com


----------



## Memorylanephotos (Jun 6, 2013)

I am sorry about that. I must have something on my settings wrong. I will check that and I have e-mailed the original raw file to you.


----------



## PropilotBW (Jun 6, 2013)

Her right shoulder is very bright...I saw that at first glance.  Well, maybe second glance.  No, third.

i guess it just looks strange with the composition.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 6, 2013)

frommrstomommy said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > your compositing skills are good, but not great. the light does not match, and the lie of her hand on the branch is bad. still, good effort.
> ...



Not sure if they actually are, but the girl/tree and the background do seem to be two separate entities...

Actually, it sort of looks like three photos - girl, tree, background.

Not sure, but it looks 'fake' to me.

edit
Should have read the whole thread first.  Still - that's how it 'looks' to me.  Not sure if it's just over-sharpened, or what, but something looks "off".


----------



## Memorylanephotos (Nov 27, 2013)

This is not a composite photo. 
Thanks for the interest.


----------

