Testing The Softbox

[SteveMc]

I'm after a bit of C&C please on these shots please.

Decided after getting my new soft box i'd like to try some portrait shots so the wife reluctantly agreed to model.

 

[Broric]

Good start but the facial shadows are a bit unflattering, especially on the last (dark eye sockets). It might be useful to post your setup, is it one light with no reflectors or anything?

 

[SteveMc]

Thanks, I thought the same with the 3rd image too.

Yes it's just one speed light in a Calumet 48 soft box taken with D7100 and a 35mm

 

[Broric]

I'd start off a bit simpler, maybe bring the softbox lower and make sure the face is filled a bit better before bringing in a reflector or another light.

 

[Phil V]

As a first attempt they're a good start.

1 and 2 the lighting is fine, they're a bit underexposed and the poses need some work (1st one has an 'up the nose' view, and the 2nd emphasises the wrong part of the body - hips away from the camera and weight on back foot would improve it 200%).
The pose on 3 is a winner, I'd like to see her hands but can see why you framed it the way you did. The softbox is a little too close and far back, the light falloff from shoulder to shoulder is the big clue there.

Much that this is the opposite to my general advice; they would all be improved with some careful PP, some skin smoothing and fixing the exposure.

 

[mrtoad]

i like 1 the best with its softish light and highlights

lighting2_zpsfogzxz95 by mrcrow_uk, on Flickr

i would have lost the shoulder on the rhs and went squar-ish...and no writing
is it possible to do a copywright cypher which doesnt show...more a secret mark almost unseen
cheers
geof

 

[Phil V]

...

i would have lost the shoulder on the rhs and went squar-ish...and no writing
is it possible to do a copywright cypher which doesnt show...more a secret mark almost unseen
cheers
geof

The point of a watermark is that it's visible, it's unnecessary other than its visibility. Copyright belongs to the photographer (almost certainly) and doesn't need any visible proof for that.

The reason photographers use a watermark is to discourage people from using it without permission (which rarely works, you need an ugly central watermark to be truly effective)

 

[Fatheadedlizard]

As a first attempt they're a good start.

1 and 2 the lighting is fine, they're a bit underexposed and the poses need some work (1st one has an 'up the nose' view, and the 2nd emphasises the wrong part of the body - hips away from the camera and weight on back foot would improve it 200%).
The pose on 3 is a winner, I'd like to see her hands but can see why you framed it the way you did. The softbox is a little too close and far back, the light falloff from shoulder to shoulder is the big clue there.

Much that this is the opposite to my general advice; they would all be improved with some careful PP, some skin smoothing and fixing the exposure.

What Phil said, just keep at it. posing people takes time to master (unless you have a knowledgable model) as the most flattering poses are generally unnatural.

 

[SteveMc]

Thanks guys thats great advice.

I've never instructed anyone on the posing so i'll have to work on that too.

I've lightened and cropped the first image:


Also just smoothed the skin on the face here a little, just didn't want to go too far and make it look over done:

(cropped just to highlight easier)

 

[mrtoad]

that crop and pp on no1 is spot on for me...there can always be a case for pp imho

well done!

 

[Phil V]

Well

Thanks guys thats great advice.

I've never instructed anyone on the posing so i'll have to work on that too.
...

They're both massive improvements.

Thirty years from picking up my first SLR and the posing is still the thing I feel I need to master.