Off camera flash

[Naka]

The area I set up in isn't very big so the flash was quite close to me. I don't like taking photos of myself (almost didn't post these) but I was the only thing available. The background was a white wall.

Reflector (silver) camera left and flash in a softbox camera right

Flash (in a softbox) camera right, no reflector

 

[Kodiak Qc]

•
Naka,

both shots are well exposed and properly focused revealing everything
but your smile… I know you were too concentrated on this test!

The first shot confirms the inverse square law and that your reflector was
of very little use in that test.

Both shot reveal a constant rendition as the highest pixels are at 242/255
and the lowest at 000/255 but the shiniest is not to be seen yet… a smile
now that you know your test is successful.

When will we have the honour?

 

[Naka]

Haha Kodiak...not sure when you'll have the honour. My smile is hard to come by, even with close family. I'll try [emoji4]
Thanks for the pointer re reflector.

 

[Morbid]

Bravo Naka! Firstly, for sharing these and secondly for the quality of the shots. The second shot - wow!! One to be proud of, sharp, good exposure, PP looks spot on.... very well done, can't fault it.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Why must everyone smile? She's already said she rarely smiles, so what's the point of taking a shot of her smiling?

 

[juggler]

They're both charming. Nicely lit, technically competent. In the first one the reflector has added a catch light and has brightened the dark side of the face just enough; I like the fact that it's not more evenly lit.

The second one is good too. It's often said that in portraits you either want to see the whole eye or none at all. It looks slightly strange if an eye doesn't have some skin between it and the background, if that makes sense. A true profile shot may have worked better.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

Why must everyone smile? She's already said she rarely smiles, so what's the point of taking a shot of her smiling?

I am addressing a person I've never seen before and, to hopefully
brake the ice, I tried to provoke a smile. In French we call that
"creating non hostile social contact" I think you call that "small talk"
in English, we have the same politeness in French…
though I may not be good at it in English.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I am addressing a person I've never seen before and, to hopefully
brake the ice, I tried to provoke a smile. In French we call that
"creating non hostile social contact" I think you call that "small talk"
in English, we have the same politeness in French…
though I may not be good at it in English.

Sorry.. I thought you were criticising the photo for not showing a smile

 

[Kodiak Qc]

Sorry.. I thought you were criticising the photo for not showing a smile

•
No need to be, David, as your comment was not felt with an aggressive
attitude but more as an inquisitive one.

 

[Naka]

Bravo Naka! Firstly, for sharing these and secondly for the quality of the shots. The second shot - wow!! One to be proud of, sharp, good exposure, PP looks spot on.... very well done, can't fault it.

Thanks Ian!!

They're both charming. Nicely lit, technically competent. In the first one the reflector has added a catch light and has brightened the dark side of the face just enough; I like the fact that it's not more evenly lit.
I see what you mean about the eye Simon, I'll keep it in mind for future.
The second one is good too. It's often said that in portraits you either want to see the whole eye or none at all. It looks slightly strange if an eye doesn't have some skin between it and the background, if that makes sense. A true profile shot may have worked better.

Sorry.. I thought you were criticising the photo for not showing a smile

I was smiling inwardly when I read the replies!