Miss Plastik

P

petemc

Messages
9,504
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
No
img_1894.jpg


One of the shots from Saturday’s studio shoot. It was a really enjoyable afternoon. Every one was relaxed and laughing so we were able to get some great shots. She was a total natural. Point cam, take photo. Really cool. Thats not to say the other girls weren’t also great mind. This was my first real go in a studio. I’ve assisted a few times but its never been me in control. Me trying to come up with ideas, convey them to the model and get the photos. All in all I’m really happy with the results and I can’t wait to do more.

Camera: Canon 30D // Flash Used: No // Focal Length: 50.0mm // Exposure Time: 1/125 // Aperture: f/11.0 // ISO equiv: 100 // Exposure: Manual

vanilla cykhdrShare This
146463572


More...
 
Yup, thats a really great shot. Like the pose and the B&W processing. Top stuff :clap:
 
A great shot indeed.(y) You should certainly do more!
 
Plastik Fantastik imgo ... (y)


Super 'first go' Pete ... :clap:


Shame one cannot see any eye detail behind the shades though ... :shrug:



:p
 
Like this a lot, think this is the first time I seen studio photos from yourself and rather different from your usual output. Any background to what the shoot was for?
 
Lovely shot Pete and the model looks totally relaxed (y)
 
Am really liking this shot - the mono treatment suits it well, although I'm guessing that she was actually very colourful!
 
I like the clarity of this shot Pete although it does look a tad overexposed on the face maybe. Do you have any of this colourful girl in colour and perhaps with her limbs showing? I imagine she is colourful by those snazzy socks she's wearing ;)
 
Marianne said:
I like the clarity of this shot Pete although it does look a tad overexposed on the face maybe. Do you have any of this colourful girl in colour and perhaps with her limbs showing? I imagine she is colourful by those snazzy socks she's wearing ;)
Click to expand...

The exposure is spot on.

histogram-20070821-235517.jpg


I have none in colour :) I shoot on B&W CF ;)
 
was the histogram taken before you processed the shot Pete? I still think the face looks too pale..sorry :shrug: You shoot in B&W on your digital camera? what does CF mean? Compact flash?
 
Marianne said:
was the histogram taken before you processed the shot Pete? I still think the face looks too pale..sorry :shrug: You shoot in B&W on your digital camera? what does CF mean? Compact flash?
Click to expand...

Thats the histogram for the shot as you see it. It may look over-exposed due to the black and white channels used. I shoot B&W on the camera, in RAW and then convert to B&W in Lightroom. I treat it as if I'm shooting B&W film, hence B&W CF :) I believe that if I convert them to colour I'll be going "Hmmm colour or b&w...... hmmmmm." This way there is no issue. Its simply "Yes, awesome!"
 
I can understand you shooting in RAW in B&W because I really have a problem deciding which of the wedding photos to change to B&W...at least that way you have no decision to make. I thought that some of the depth of the shot was lost if you used B&W in camera? Not that you have lost depth, just some detail in the fce/skin. I still don't know what CF stands for...obviously something Film, but what does the 'C' stand for? :LOL:
 
Oh sorry, CF does mean Compact Flash. It was a joke. I shoot B&W memory card ;) With the 30D I have picture styles so certain settings are saved with the image. The camera understands them and shows the preview in my custom B&W mode. Lightroom doesn't so it reverts back to colour and then I apply my B&W preset to them all. I still shoot RAW so if need be everything can be converted back to colour. Its just so that I think in B&W and can work with the tones in that respect.
 
petemc said:
The exposure is spot on.

histogram-20070821-235517.jpg
Click to expand...
Perhaps the exposure for the whole photo is spot on, but surely the histogram can't be relied on to tell us if one particular area of the photo looks natural to the eye? Personally I agree - the skin on the face and left arm looks too bright, like I should be wearing the shades.
 
The histogram tool will tell you if the highlights in an image have been clipped or not. You can set it to visually show you this.

histogram-20070822-101427.jpg


Fullscreen-20070822-101537.jpg


Its just a style of black and white photography though.
 
You lighting is a little flat (was there a kicker used?), and I would have liked to seen a shot without the glasses, and with the hair a little neater (but I guess it is in keeping with the outfit), but otherwise the shot is nice.

You might have wanted to move the light a little lower for this shot. I got the impression that the light was setup for when she was standing, and then she sat down and you did not adjust the hight of the light accordingly.
 
First go :p A kicker? Flat? We had 2 softboxes and a back light lamp. I turned the right soft box off because I wanted more shadows. More shots here. I don't do studios. I don't know how to manipulate lighting to create things. I do documentary and city/landscapes. But I want to get better at studio.
 
Hmmm!!!!
Id like to learn more about studio too Pete but sometimes it feels like a closed book!

I can see the highlights on the model's face but I wouldnt say she was overexposed, if anything her chest looks brighter than her face ...and yet her beads & necklace do not look too bright!

Wouldnt lowering the light have resulted in reflection on the sunglasses?

Im not picking or questioning anyones input here .... Im trying to learn from it!
 
petemc said:
First go :p A kicker? Flat? We had 2 softboxes and a back light lamp. I turned the right soft box off because I wanted more shadows. More shots here. I don't do studios. I don't know how to manipulate lighting to create things. I do documentary and city/landscapes. But I want to get better at studio.
Click to expand...

Are you using hot lights or strobes? A kicker is a light used to create edge definition. You can use it from the side or behind the subject. Quite often you will find that the kickers is set at a an exposure that can be 1-2 stops over the main light, to create some interesting effects. For more edgy looks, some people like to use two kickers (one on each side) and have no main (or fill) light. The kicker is usually hard light (umbrella, grid or bare bulb), to help with edge definition.

The comment I made about the glasses pertains to the fact that I like to see catch lights in photos like these (really adds something), but the glasses hides that.
 
InaGlo said:
I can see the highlights on the model's face but I wouldnt say she was overexposed, if anything her chest looks brighter than her face ...and yet her beads & necklace do not look too bright!

Wouldnt lowering the light have resulted in reflection on the sunglasses?
Click to expand...

Yes it would result in reflection in the glasses, but this is also the reason why I would like to see the glasses removed, as without the glasses, the reflection would become catchlights in the eyes. Lowering the light would also result in a much more even amount of light on the face and chest.

As far as I can see the exposure is fine on this photo, just that the lighting needs some work.
 
InaGlo said:
Wouldnt lowering the light have resulted in reflection on the sunglasses?
Click to expand...

It would have as you can see over here.

FranchiseJuan said:
Are you using hot lights or strobes? A kicker is a light used to create edge definition. You can use it from the side or behind the subject. Quite often you will find that the kickers is set at a an exposure that can be 1-2 stops over the main light, to create some interesting effects. For more edgy looks, some people like to use two kickers (one on each side) and have no main (or fill) light. The kicker is usually hard light (umbrella, grid or bare bulb), to help with edge definition.
Click to expand...

Um...:thinking: :shrug: One flashed and the other was always on. Like I said, first go! I've assisted a few times but a year ago and I dunno the terminology.

The comment I made about the glasses pertains to the fact that I like to see catch lights in photos like these (really adds something), but the glasses hides that.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Catchlights are great. But I have a thing for shades too :)

FranchiseJuan said:
Yes it would result in reflection in the glasses, but this is also the reason why I would like to see the glasses removed, as without the glasses, the reflection would become catchlights in the eyes. Lowering the light would also result in a much more even amount of light on the face and chest.

As far as I can see the exposure is fine on this photo, just that the lighting needs some work.
Click to expand...

Creative decision. Glasses stayed, other shots have catchlights. I've got plenty of catchlights over here. Lowering the light may have made one thing better but then another thing worse so I feel that in this instance, shades being cool and part of the photo that its the lesser of two evils. Sure I could have removed the shades and if I had known about studio lighting moved the lights but then it wouldn't be *this* shot.
 
It sounds like you were using hot lights in conjunction with strobes, which I think is a no no (mainly cause it makes controling the light difficult). Something to remember for next time. If you don't have enough lights, it is possible to use an EX speed light as a background light or hair light as the colour ballence is about the same as your studio strobes (monoblocks).

Might I sugest you get a book to read up on lighting? I think the strobist bible is "Light: Sience and Magic (3rd Edition)".
 
I often turned off the right hand lamp to increase the shadows. I'm also not really a fan of books. I prefer learning through experience. For this sort of thing I would prefer the experience to get better with models as I feel that is far more important to me than lighting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top