| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/28/2004 01:32:04 AM · #1 |
Well, here's some of the shots from my first session in studio. What do you think?
EDIT (based on DrNick's question about equipment used):
We used 5 Speedtron 2400ws flashtubes with modeling lights on 2 powerpacks and a radio slave to fire them.
1 HUGE, MASSIVE softbox at about 45 deg angle from the front of the camera as the main light
1 kicker with medium softbox behind the model at about an even angle to the backdrop as the mainlight was to the camera. This light had an orange warming gel in it.
2 kickers in medium softboxes for the seamless whitepaper. I think they were getting overpowered at about 600ws each by the kicker with the warming gel (it was about 1200ws I think, notice the orange/red glow on the model's back in the first shot).
1 hairlight on a boom with a 20 deg comb filter to keep it focuse on her (BTW, how the heck do you keep those things actually aimed at the darned model when she's moving around to my directions. I kept having to either move her back just as we were really hitting a stride or I had to stop and go adjust the darn boom).
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
Thanks for your comments and critiques,
Kev
Message edited by author 2004-05-28 01:47:15.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 01:40:18 AM · #2 |
Kevin, great model, great poses. Number 3 is my favourite, the lighting is just right there. For the other shots it seems that your main light source was very low, maybe thigh level, giving some harsh shadows and bringing out the little dimples and skin imperfections. How many lights were you using? Any soft boxes? Fill flash?
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 01:41:39 AM · #3 |
I like them in general. However, I've noticed a common "problem" I think with them. I'm no expert on this kinda photography but I'm noticing an uneven lighting on the model's face in a lot of the shots and strong shadows. In some of the shots it works, but in others it bugs me a little.
Let me know if you want specifics. Great work overall however! I doubt I could do any better. :) |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 01:44:14 AM · #4 |
What do I think?
I think you are having too much fun! :)
Nice work. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 01:50:36 AM · #5 |
| I think these are gorgeous! I could never do anything like this, the lighting only bothered me in 1 shot, (on the chair) but I thought the rest were brilliant :) |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 02:09:43 AM · #6 |
Healthy girl! Great photos! Lucky photographer!
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 02:10:09 AM · #7 |
| Whereas I like these shots a lot, my only serious criticism is in the makeup. If you're going for a truly glamourous look, which I think you are, you need to use PS gradients to smooth out the facial skin textures much more, or employ a good makeup artist. The closeup shots really reveal this weakness. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 02:16:06 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Koriyama:
Whereas I like these shots a lot, my only serious criticism is in the makeup. If you're going for a truly glamourous look, which I think you are, you need to use PS gradients to smooth out the facial skin textures much more, or employ a good makeup artist. The closeup shots really reveal this weakness. |
Jim, if you look at #3 you'll notice that those skin imperfections are not there. It's ALL in the lighting. In #1 and 2 fro example the light is at an angle, grazing the skin revealing evry pit and crevice...
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 02:22:25 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Jim, if you look at #3 you'll notice that those skin imperfections are not there. It's ALL in the lighting. In #1 and 2 fro example the light is at an angle, grazing the skin revealing evry pit and crevice... |
The dot in the head wasn't caused by the lighting, I imagine. Plus, some of the facial lines are natural. But I do take your point, which highlights the need for very controlled lighting. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 03:36:53 AM · #10 |
| Absolutely F A N T A S T I C - Lighting, model, poses, props are just awesome...Well Done!! |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 03:45:21 AM · #11 |
Super wide angle lens is must for that model :-)
Very professional ! |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 06:41:54 AM · #12 |
Thanks for the comments.
DrNick, now that I've actually "played with" a set of lights I'd love to hear more about what you're talking about. Please feel free to PM or e-mail me regarding how I could have changed the lighting. I'm assuming you're talking about the main light. Should it have been raised more? Directed onto her face more? I have a feeling that I should have kept the gel'ed kicker that you see coloring the paper in some of the photos as well as her hair/back/side but I should also have gotten another softbox on the complimentary side of the camera to the main light. Frankly I like the lighting effect in most of the shots I posted but there are several (including some of the ones I selected) where I can see uneven lighting and what looks like flaws but I really think are just problems caused by the lighting.
Thanks for anything you care to share with me about working with a setup like this. It was so much fun I'll probably drop some more change on a setup like this again in a few months and it'd be nice to walk back into that studio armed with a little more knowledge.
Kev
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 07:01:28 AM · #13 |
 Nice work!
My only comment is to soften the facial features on the second shot. There seems to be a bit too much skin detail on her left cheekbone that detracts slightly from the awesome shot.
Beautiful work Kevin. Keep it up.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 07:33:24 AM · #14 |
These are excellent. Kevin, forgive me for editing your work, but I wanted to show what 90 seconds in photoshop could do. All I did was select the skin ... make a new layer with just the skin ... blur that layer ... the kick it down to about 50%. (i won't keep my version up long, it's just an example)
 |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 07:40:14 AM · #15 |
hopper has just suggested exactly what I was going to suggest - you can also Neatimage that skin selection for a variety of different effects - depending on how plastic you want her to look. It's all about removing character :-)
In general, and speaking as a former lighting designer, I think you could happily soften almost every light in your rig - I spy a slight tendency to the common 'I've got all these lights, and you're damn well going to notice' syndrome. I'd use fewer units, more reflectors, personally.
E
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 09:41:43 AM · #16 |
Kevin:
Nice job for your first studio shoot!
Out of curiosity, in some of the shots where the background is "uneven", was that intentional, or were you trying for the typical "fashion" look where the background is pure white? With that much lighting (and powerful lighting at that! 2400 WS. Wow!), I'm surprised at how much detail (i.e. paper texture) in the background is still visible.
Take a look at these shots (the indoor studio shots at the bottom) that I found while searching for examples of what I'm talking about. Paul Ferrera (the photographer) uses 3 strobes (well probably 4 now, but they are only 150WS!) for these type of shots. He says:
"I'm using a Photogenic 375 with a scoop type background reflector for the background light. It's hung from the ceiling and centered and set at 1/2-stop over my shooting aperture of f/5.6. My fill is usually at f/3.5 and is a 42" umbrella. The main is a 60" umbrella at f/5.6 (both lights on).
The background light is 4' from the background and the subject is just in front of that. 6' would be better but I don't have that luxury.
I just won another PL375 off ebay and will be using two background lights for white backgrounds, one on either end of the paper. That'll solve a headroom problem I have with tall subjects and an 8' ceiling."
Not sure if that is helpful or not (since I don't know what your intentions were), but the "pure white background" is a lighting technique that I'd like to try and master once I get some strobes, but I've read/heard it is difficult to learn to do "right".
Message edited by author 2004-05-28 10:05:48. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 10:15:42 AM · #17 |
Great job kevin! number 10 is my favorite.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 10:31:44 AM · #18 |
Okay, the first comment from my 8 year old daughter was, "WOW! Someone pumped her boobies up too much and she looks like she's about to explode!" LOL!
Now that I got that out of my system (sorry but that is the first thing that really draws your attention) I like the shots but the first one, something about the stomach, the way it concaves is a bit odd to me, I know they are skinny but this almost seems likes she's holding it in even further? As other's have mentioned the lighting seems off just a bit on her face sometimes. It works most of the time but you might want to be more aware of that. And the shoes never changed? The outfit changed 4 times but she never changed the shoes? They work well with the outfits but if she's going to take the time to change the clothes, why not the shoes? I know little things but that's the things you want to hear about right? Oh and one last thing, turn the wind machine down a little bit on some of the shots, a nice breeze is fine but on one shot it looks more like a gust is hitting her hair.
Deannda
I registered my daughter at One Model Place and she already got one call! Thanks for the referral! :) |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 10:32:19 AM · #19 |
Hopper,
Thanks. I like the effect you've produced with that. I'm going to try that when I'm editing these photos to print for her portfolio. Your description of your efforts is useful so I appreciate the edit.
Eddy,
The lights were capable of 2400ws but that would have taken some weird configuration between 2 powerpacks pushing one strobe head or something. As it was the hottest light in use during this session was . . . ummmm . . . I think it was an 800ws kicker that we used with the gel to rimlight the subject. Most of the lights were running at about 400ws or 600ws. Then again, as unfamiliar as I was with what the studio owner setup for me I don't know if that is the optimum setting for the powerpacks or if that is actually what they were pushing through the lights.
Regardless, the link is helpful and appreciated. I know that I couldn't hope to afford what this guy had for a studio. Something like 15-20 Speedtrons with 2 big booms and 4 or 8 rolling light stands and 4 stationary stands, etc. It was like being in heaven both because I was shooting with such a wonderful model who made the experience fun and productive and because we had so many toys to play with (well, they were toys to me, I think she could have cared less but she realized how excited I was with all the lights and gels and softboxes).
I was originally going for a solid white background and in the first 150-200 shots that's exactly what we got. It's pure white. Then I started monkeying with the lights and trying to move one just to see the effect (I mean that's what I got out of the deal, right). Next thing you know I've got it so that the texture of the paper is visible and then I screw it up even more by getting the orange gel to bleed onto the paper. Now, granted it ended up giving it a gradient effect and I like it. It was a cool learning experience and I hope to rent that studio again in the relatively near future and shoot several more hours in there until I'm paying some bills with this instead of spending all my money on it and then maybe I'll be able to know what I like and want out of a studio.
Thanks again for all the comments/critiques and the helpful explanations.
Kev
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 04:22:02 PM · #20 |
They're nice photos.
The only gripe that I have is that it seems the light ratio between the main light and shadow is over 1:3 (i'd guess about 1:5). Might be a bit too much for glamour photography.
Also, try a few shots with overexposure, you might find that effect more interesting in some shots (since your background is white, try for high key shots). |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 04:23:57 PM · #21 |
As far as the hairlight -- try using a strip soft box or a medium softbox, then you get better coverage and less harshness, and the model can move around.
If you shoot raw, you may want to convert some of the images with LOW contrast then post adjust. I think it gets really decent results that way, as digital seems to have too much contrast in studio environments.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 04:26:11 PM · #22 |
For me to properly critique these photos, I'mma gunna need a date with the model to understand her motivation and character development. Please have her contact me.
*squirts breath freshener*
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 07:24:25 PM · #23 |
Wonderful shots Kevin. I'm very impressed. I will need to read more about your lighting when I have more time. Beautiful, talented model. Where did you find her?
|
|
|
|
05/29/2004 01:21:24 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Healthy girl! |
are you kidding me? i know girls who are for sure anorexic who arent that skinny...not even going to put the other comments regarding the model i had in mind cuz they're kinda mean and this isnt the place...
technically good shots tho |
|
|
|
05/29/2004 01:28:16 AM · #25 |
She shows no signs of an eating disorder at all. Comments like this just reinforce the 'it's OK to be fat' mindset that many North Americans have. I am a distance runner and see a lot of thin but healthy girls, and also lots of girls with problems. She doesn't have skin problems (very nice skin actually), she has lots of muscle (look at her legs), good hair, etc.
Usually if someone is in trouble their bone structure dominates their body shape, rather than muscle.
Originally posted by MusicAngel:
Originally posted by micknewton:
Healthy girl! |
are you kidding me? i know girls who are for sure anorexic who arent that skinny...not even going to put the other comments regarding the model i had in mind cuz they're kinda mean and this isnt the place...
technically good shots tho |
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/12/2025 09:03:24 AM EDT.
Nice work!
