How to deal with make up shine ?

mikeyw

mikeyw

Messages
1,370
Edit My Images
Yes
Sometimes when ladies have a lot of makeup on especially a more oily type i really struggle to avoid forehead flash shine.

DSC_6004.jpg
DSC_6004.jpg
[/IMG]
DSC_6004.jpg" alt="DSC_6004" border="0">


If i dial the flash right down to avoid it the shot is too underexposed. How do people work around this problem ? - is it just a case of tidying up as best you can in post processing

What methods work best for toning it down ?

Is any acceptable or should it never really be visible ?

Thanks in advance,
Mike.
 
Last edited:
In what setting are you working? if studio then model needs to powder after doing the makeup as you do with TV or film work. It was the last thing you do before going on stage as well ( having been 30yrs in entertainment) ps I think there are ow sprays for this
 
Last edited:
•


Proper diffusion is the tool to use in such case.

For camera work, pros are using special makeup
that will "dull" the hot spots but, off camera, they
make one look rather dead. Ordinary makeup will
not cut it —like here— but more pleasing "live".

Large++ diffusion is the way out.
 
Cheers Guys - this was just in a workplace so not appropriate to start asking to change make up.

I used off camera SB-900 with a 40" shoot through umbrella to diffuse. Maybe taking the umbrella closer (was about 1.5M away) and reducing output might help.
 
No sure what software you are using to process the image, but with Lightroom you could try down the whites and highlights just a bit if you are working in RAW. Ideally a professional make-up such as Mac would help but as I found out earlier this year it's not just a question of powder it's also the foundation as well. So probably not really suitable in your case. I don't think moving the flash would make that much difference as it's the reflection off the skin that's the problem. I've never tried it but I wonder if a polarising filter on the camera may help
 
In Lightroom, clone a section of non-shiny forehead over the shiny bit, then reduce the opacity so that it shows some of the shine through but is significantly reduced.

This technique will also work with the bags under her eyes. Always reduce those, as it's the first thing women see in their headshots.
 
19170-1507816569-f8a47f8940ddaaf8de9238cd03d7e7d4.jpg



In Photoshop,

Open image – copy background layer, (Click on it and drag it down to the new layer icon, it looks like a piece of paper with the bottom left corner turned up)



Zoom in to 300%



Pick up the mixer brush it’s in the brush tools.

Use a soft setting.



On the top bar click on where it says custom and set to wet, the rest of the bar should read 50% - 50% - 50% - 100%

Hold down the Alt key and click on the face near to the hot spot, release the alt key, paint on the hot spot, resample and keep changing the brush size.



With a small brush paint over the under eye, sample from close by.

Flatten and save.

This is only a patch up, it's best to use a deffuser at the shoot even if its bog paper over the flash. (y)

Rhodese.
 
mikeyw said:
Sometimes when ladies have a lot of makeup on especially a more oily type i really struggle to avoid forehead flash shine.

If i dial the flash right down to avoid it the shot is too underexposed. How do people work around this problem ? - is it just a case of tidying up as best you can in post processing

What methods work best for toning it down ?

Is any acceptable or should it never really be visible ?

Thanks in advance,
Mike.
Click to expand...
Basically, you're stuck... Your only hope is to eliminate any direct lighting by bouncing your lights off the walls/ceilings, basically turning the room into a giant light tent. This will require a suitable room (no heavily colored walls/ceiling) and probably a lot more power. And it will result in a flat image with little/no sculpting (which might be more suitable I guess). You could also shoot natural light only if that's suitable.

In order to make a highlight translucent to where the color shows through and it is very soft, the modifier has to be *very* close with the power greatly reduced (w/in ~2ft). But this will introduce a large amount of falloff into the image which isn't really suitable here. In that case you would need to add additional light sources for fill and to light the BG separately... basically taking the job/task to a much more complex and time consuming level. The size of the modifier is irrelevant in this context; the size only relates to the area affected by the lighting. Because you are using a shoot through umbrella, moving it closer and reducing the power is going to have an even greater effect on the image overall (in mostly negative ways).
If this had been shot with a softbox and the fill/BG/ambient levels largely independent, then moving the softbox much closer would be the answer.

Because the face is curved in so many areas, there's nowhere you could place the light that wouldn't create the reflection somewhere on her face.

IMO, highlights are acceptable/necessary... blown out skin/reflections are not.
 
Last edited:
I personally find a shoot through brolly to still be fairly harsh. A large (3ft+) softbox very close to the subject would help to reduce the hotspots.
 
I keep some of this in one of my lighting bags.. https://goo.gl/kjLQdm
Dab it on lightly with a tissue; takes seconds. Works on baldies too.

It is translucent but I'm not sure how it would work on dark skin.

Kodiak Qc said:
•

Proper diffusion is the tool to use in such case.
Large++ diffusion is the way out.
Click to expand...

.. but completely changes the lighting pattern so isn't always appropriate.

sk66 said:
IMO, highlights are acceptable/necessary... blown out skin/reflections are not.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top