Critique My second photoshoot!

For me (and I'm no expert), the lighting is a bit harsh in 1 & 2 for my tastes. You don't say what setup you're using but try a diffuser or softbox on your source light and move it closer.

The light on the 3rd and 4th shots is much nicer although a tiny bit flat on the 3rd, there are a few blown highlights still and the model could do with being further from the background to enable seperation a bit more.

Good attempt though, way better than my first ever portraits that's for sure, keep plugging away at it (y)
 
Last edited:
For me (and I'm no expert), the lighting is a bit harsh in 1 & 2 for my tastes. You don't say what setup you're using but try a diffuser or softbox on your source light and move it closer.

The light on the 3rd and 4th shots is much nicer although a tiny bit flat, there are a few blown highlights still and the model could do with being further from the background to enable seperation a bit more.

Good attempt though, way better than my first ever portraits that's for sure, keep plugging away at it (y)
Thank you very much for your comments! I was using a softbox but I guess I should turn down the power a tad!
 
Hi James

For a first attempt you have done well (y)

I agree with Ian re the lighting being too powerful and you can see this in Rose having her left side heavily shadowed. #4 shows this on the background too.

My other observation is that Rose's poses look quite hard (I guess it was her first shoot too?) she looks very formal with the crossed arms and then hands on hips - for your next perhaps try some more relaxed poses and have her less full on to the camera. The pose in #1 is far better in that she is at an angle but turning her upper body slightly and unfolding the arms would have been more pleasing to the eye IMO.
 
How much room to you have, James? First thing I noticed apart from the comments above was the background is not set-up very well - creases in the infinity curve. If you have more space then pull it out a little further and get your model further away from the curve so her shadow isn't casting on the background (unless that is specifically what you want and then it is often better do do away with the curve completely).
 
How much room to you have, James? First thing I noticed apart from the comments above was the background is not set-up very well - creases in the infinity curve. If you have more space then pull it out a little further and get your model further away from the curve so her shadow isn't casting on the background (unless that is specifically what you want and then it is often better do do away with the curve completely).
Im in a class room but with the tables moved I can get quite a bit more space so I will definitely take this into account next time!
 
Great. see if you can set up the lights in such a way that you cannot see the curve. Shoot at a wider aperture to put the background out of focus a little if you can, but if not it's a great boon to have the light across the background nice and even and the curve blended in.
 
Thank you very much for your comments! I was using a softbox but I guess I should turn down the power a tad!
It's not the power, it's the placement, I'm guessing it's a fairly small softbox, it's a bit far away (making it effectively smaller), and a bit too far back. Ideally it should be just at the point of imposing on your model to be close enough.

Experiment with the placement before you start shooting, just let your model know they're just test shots so they don't get impatient.

Remember that closer lighting is effectively larger, and the larger the light, the softer the shadows. Think overcast days, where the sky is one large light source, great for taking pictures of your mum, because it fills in all the wrinkles, rubbish for showing texture in landscapes. A clear sky creates a single tiny point source of light which gives nice contrasts landscapes but shows every skin imperfection...
That why they invented softboxes, to mimic the large flattering overcast sky. They stop doing that when they're too far away.
 
It's not the power, it's the placement, I'm guessing it's a fairly small softbox, it's a bit far away (making it effectively smaller), and a bit too far back. Ideally it should be just at the point of imposing on your model to be close enough.

Experiment with the placement before you start shooting, just let your model know they're just test shots so they don't get impatient.

Remember that closer lighting is effectively larger, and the larger the light, the softer the shadows. Think overcast days, where the sky is one large light source, great for taking pictures of your mum, because it fills in all the wrinkles, rubbish for showing texture in landscapes. A clear sky creates a single tiny point source of light which gives nice contrasts landscapes but shows every skin imperfection...
That why they invented softboxes, to mimic the large flattering overcast sky. They stop doing that when they're too far away.
All true, but they are still hot.
 
All true, but they are still hot.
You can turn the modelling lights off.

I forgot the other advantage, putting the light closer to the model helps to reduce the amount of that light hitting the background. Especially if you feather it forward.

The background lighting is easier to control if it's a different light to the subject light.
 
You can turn the modelling lights off.

I forgot the other advantage, putting the light closer to the model helps to reduce the amount of that light hitting the background. Especially if you feather it forward.

The background lighting is easier to control if it's a different light to the subject light.
I didn't mean hot as in heat, Phil. :)
 
Anyway, James has had some excellent advice in the thread.
 
Back
Top