Amature needs feedback on portrait lighting

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by DeanB, Mar 23, 2007.

  1. DeanB

    DeanB Guest

    Ok, aside from the dinner around her face, and spilt on her sweater,
    and the generally unprepared I-just-dont-care hairstyle, can some here
    take a look at the lighting in this portrait and tell me what you
    think?

    http://i11.tinypic.com/2colx5e.jpg

    I had the flash (sb800) pointing up around 45 degrees and around to
    the right also 45 degrees, so there was no direct flash onto her face.
    Above the flash was a 2' reflector, about 2 feet above the camera and
    to the right, angled to reflect onto her.

    This is my first ever evening with the flash and reflector, so I
    openly welcome all criticism.

    50mm f/1.4 @ f4, distance 4', wb(flash), ev 0.0

    Dean
    DeanB, Mar 23, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. DeanB wrote:
    > Ok, aside from the dinner around her face, and spilt on her sweater,
    > and the generally unprepared I-just-dont-care hairstyle, can some here
    > take a look at the lighting in this portrait and tell me what you
    > think?
    >
    > http://i11.tinypic.com/2colx5e.jpg
    >
    > I had the flash (sb800) pointing up around 45 degrees and around to
    > the right also 45 degrees, so there was no direct flash onto her face.
    > Above the flash was a 2' reflector, about 2 feet above the camera and
    > to the right, angled to reflect onto her.
    >
    > This is my first ever evening with the flash and reflector, so I
    > openly welcome all criticism.
    >
    > 50mm f/1.4 @ f4, distance 4', wb(flash), ev 0.0


    First of all, definitely underexposed.

    If you get her further from the backdrop, the shadow there will be
    thrown further from her (probably out of the photo entirely, which is good).

    See how sharp a shadow the chin is casting on the neck? *Something* is
    sending hard light her way; quite possibly the head is spreading the
    beam wider than you expect, or something, and it's reaching her direct
    in addition to off the reflector. (That's the first, very dark, shadow,
    not the second, larger, lighter, softer-edged one.)

    Aside from the strictly technical, I like her expression and head
    position. The contrast of the relatively formal pose and relatively
    careful lighting does contrast somewhat strangely with the amount of
    dinner visible :).
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. DeanB

    DeanB Guest

    On Mar 23, 12:20 am, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > DeanB wrote:
    > > Ok, aside from the dinner around her face, and spilt on her sweater,
    > > and the generally unprepared I-just-dont-care hairstyle, can some here
    > > take a look at the lighting in this portrait and tell me what you
    > > think?

    >
    > >http://i11.tinypic.com/2colx5e.jpg

    >
    > > I had the flash (sb800) pointing up around 45 degrees and around to
    > > the right also 45 degrees, so there was no direct flash onto her face.
    > > Above the flash was a 2' reflector, about 2 feet above the camera and
    > > to the right, angled to reflect onto her.

    >
    > > This is my first ever evening with the flash and reflector, so I
    > > openly welcome all criticism.

    >
    > > 50mm f/1.4 @ f4, distance 4', wb(flash), ev 0.0

    >
    > First of all, definitely underexposed.
    >
    > If you get her further from the backdrop, the shadow there will be
    > thrown further from her (probably out of the photo entirely, which is good).
    >
    > See how sharp a shadow the chin is casting on the neck? *Something* is
    > sending hard light her way; quite possibly the head is spreading the
    > beam wider than you expect, or something, and it's reaching her direct
    > in addition to off the reflector. (That's the first, very dark, shadow,
    > not the second, larger, lighter, softer-edged one.)
    >
    > Aside from the strictly technical, I like her expression and head
    > position. The contrast of the relatively formal pose and relatively
    > careful lighting does contrast somewhat strangely with the amount of
    > dinner visible :).- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Hi David - thanks for the reply!

    I noticed after I posted that the sharp shadow was there, seems that
    the flash was definitely providing some direct light, just a few
    degrees it seems, now I look at the setup. There are two lights in
    here eyes too.

    Is it coming out underexposed because of the white background? I had
    the camera set to matrix metering centered on her face so I thought it
    would be ok, but it seems not. There was no real ambient light, so
    should I just increase the flash ev up a little, maybe 1/3 or 2/3
    stop? (She's asleep now, so I'll have to wait till tomorrow:)
    DeanB, Mar 23, 2007
    #3
  4. DeanB

    bugbear Guest

    DeanB wrote:
    >
    > Is it coming out underexposed because of the white background? I had
    > the camera set to matrix metering centered on her face so I thought it
    > would be ok, but it seems not. There was no real ambient light, so
    > should I just increase the flash ev up a little, maybe 1/3 or 2/3
    > stop? (She's asleep now, so I'll have to wait till tomorrow:)
    >


    I know "little" of this, but I don't see how a camera
    can "meter" for flash light, which doesn't exist
    until you hit the shutter

    BugBear

    (who had a Pentax LX film camera that actually did meter
    *during* exposure, but it couldn't do flash that way)
    bugbear, Mar 23, 2007
    #4
  5. DeanB

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:00:21 +0000, bugbear wrote:

    > I know "little" of this, but I don't see how a camera
    > can "meter" for flash light, which doesn't exist
    > until you hit the shutter


    From the SB-800's manual:

    > Monitor Preflashes
    > Just before the flash fires, the SB-800 fires a series of
    > imperceptible preflashes that are detected by the camera’s
    > TTL Multi-Sensor and analyzed for brightness and contrast


    > • i-TTL mode
    > This is a TTL auto flash mode in the Nikon Creative Lighting System.
    > Monitor Preflashes are fired at all times. The subject is correctly
    > exposed by the light from the flash lighting and the exposure is less
    > affected by the ambient light (p. 37).



    For the OP's picture, if more ambient light was used the
    under-chin shadows would have been lightened. But that would be
    difficult as 1/60 sec, f/4 was used for the exposure. Brighter room
    lighting or an additional flash could help, and possibly by also
    reducing the SB-800's output level.


    > (who had a Pentax LX film camera that actually did meter
    > *during* exposure, but it couldn't do flash that way)


    It would be nice if metering could be done off the sensor as it
    was done off the film, as the preflashes can present problems, but I
    think that the occurrences of such problems are pretty rare.
    ASAAR, Mar 23, 2007
    #5
  6. DeanB

    DeanB Guest

    On Mar 23, 8:06 am, ASAAR <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:00:21 +0000, bugbear wrote:
    > > I know "little" of this, but I don't see how a camera
    > > can "meter" for flash light, which doesn't exist
    > > until you hit the shutter

    >
    > From the SB-800's manual:
    >
    > > Monitor Preflashes
    > > Just before the flash fires, the SB-800 fires a series of
    > > imperceptible preflashes that are detected by the camera's
    > > TTL Multi-Sensor and analyzed for brightness and contrast
    > > · i-TTL mode
    > > This is a TTL auto flash mode in the Nikon Creative Lighting System.
    > > Monitor Preflashes are fired at all times. The subject is correctly
    > > exposed by the light from the flash lighting and the exposure is less
    > > affected by the ambient light (p. 37).

    >
    > For the OP's picture, if more ambient light was used the
    > under-chin shadows would have been lightened. But that would be
    > difficult as 1/60 sec, f/4 was used for the exposure. Brighter room
    > lighting or an additional flash could help, and possibly by also
    > reducing the SB-800's output level.
    >
    > > (who had a Pentax LX film camera that actually did meter
    > > *during* exposure, but it couldn't do flash that way)

    >
    > It would be nice if metering could be done off the sensor as it
    > was done off the film, as the preflashes can present problems, but I
    > think that the occurrences of such problems are pretty rare.


    Ok thanks for that, I will look at increasing the ambient. (Sleeping
    moms hate bright lights in the living room though, so it will be
    tricky).

    Any comments on the under-exposure? Is it the white background? The
    dark hair?
    DeanB, Mar 23, 2007
    #6
  7. DeanB

    Zed Pobre Guest

    bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    >
    > I know "little" of this, but I don't see how a camera
    > can "meter" for flash light, which doesn't exist
    > until you hit the shutter


    Not true, actually. Modern flashes flash at least twice, though the
    intervals are so short that most eyes can't perceive it. The first
    ("pre-flash") is used for metering.

    --
    Zed Pobre <> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <>
    PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
    Zed Pobre, Mar 23, 2007
    #7
  8. DeanB wrote:

    > Hi David - thanks for the reply!
    >
    > I noticed after I posted that the sharp shadow was there, seems that
    > the flash was definitely providing some direct light, just a few
    > degrees it seems, now I look at the setup. There are two lights in
    > here eyes too.


    True, that's another useful clue (and they're quite small).

    > Is it coming out underexposed because of the white background? I had
    > the camera set to matrix metering centered on her face so I thought it
    > would be ok, but it seems not. There was no real ambient light, so
    > should I just increase the flash ev up a little, maybe 1/3 or 2/3
    > stop? (She's asleep now, so I'll have to wait till tomorrow:)


    I find iTTL remarkably disappointing. It doesn't come *close* to what
    my N90+SB28 could do for exposure accuracy. Perhaps a lot of that is
    simply due to the differences between color negative and digital; the
    color neg can tolerate lots of overexposure, whereas the digital is more
    like slide film and blows out the highlights fairly easily, and iTTL has
    to take account of that. Its reputation is that its better than Canon's
    system; and if neither of the top DSLR makers, each of which brought out
    a new flash system to handle digital, can get it to work as well as the
    old one did with film, it's almost certainly because it's *hard* :).

    Basically, you have to fine-tune exposures manually by reference to the
    histogram, or adjust later (your particular photo is well within range
    to be adjusted later to look perfect for overall exposure, I think,
    though I haven't actually tried to do so).
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 23, 2007
    #8
  9. ASAAR wrote:

    > It would be nice if metering could be done off the sensor as it
    > was done off the film, as the preflashes can present problems, but I
    > think that the occurrences of such problems are pretty rare.


    One of our cats reacts fast enough to *always* have her eyes closed when
    I use the preflashes; I've had to resort to manual exposure to get
    decent pictures of her.

    It seems to work with some people, too. I guess they find it convenient
    to get a clear signal when it's time to blink :).
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 23, 2007
    #9
  10. Zed Pobre wrote:
    > bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    >> I know "little" of this, but I don't see how a camera
    >> can "meter" for flash light, which doesn't exist
    >> until you hit the shutter

    >
    > Not true, actually. Modern flashes flash at least twice, though the
    > intervals are so short that most eyes can't perceive it. The first
    > ("pre-flash") is used for metering.


    It's certainly obvious to me!

    When I'm using full CLS with multiple flashes, it feels like the
    sequence of pre-flashes goes on a LONG time (you get flashes from the
    master, then flashes from the first slave group, then flashes from the
    master, then flashes from the second slave group...). It's really only
    a small fraction of a second, but I can certainly see it.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 23, 2007
    #10
  11. DeanB

    ASAAR Guest

    On 23 Mar 2007 08:00:44 -0700, DeanB wrote:

    >> For the OP's picture, if more ambient light was used the
    >> under-chin shadows would have been lightened. But that would be
    >> difficult as 1/60 sec, f/4 was used for the exposure. Brighter room
    >> lighting or an additional flash could help, and possibly by also
    >> reducing the SB-800's output level.
    >>

    . . .

    >
    > Ok thanks for that, I will look at increasing the ambient. (Sleeping
    > moms hate bright lights in the living room though, so it will be tricky).
    >
    > Any comments on the under-exposure? Is it the white background?
    > The dark hair?


    The background should be moved further into the background, which
    could help by reducing the shadows and making it darker, if that's
    what you want. It will also soften the background's vertical
    pattern if it can be nudged out of the DOF. The shadows below the
    face could probably be reduced by moving the camera much further
    away from the subject. Normally you'd step further back and use a
    greater focal length, but lacking that you could just step back
    anyway as far as the bounce flash allows (which should be a
    considerable amount given the SB-800's output and several more
    available stops to increase the ISO) and you might have enough
    resolution to crop and make a good print. Even if cropping would
    use too little of the sensor's pixels, it would still show you the
    results that you'd get if you used a longer lens. As for the hair,
    maybe mom has something for her hair that can be applied that will
    allow it to glisten or show some highlights? Or get somebody to
    hold a focused flashlight to see if it will produce some hair
    highlights. It might help, but I don't think that you'd want to dye
    your daughter's hair a lighter shade. She's adorable enough as is
    that I'd happily hug her in spite of the well distributed food. <g>
    ASAAR, Mar 23, 2007
    #11
  12. "DeanB" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mar 23, 12:20 am, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >> DeanB wrote:
    >> > Ok, aside from the dinner around her face, and spilt on her sweater,
    >> > and the generally unprepared I-just-dont-care hairstyle, can some here
    >> > take a look at the lighting in this portrait and tell me what you
    >> > think?

    >>
    >> >http://i11.tinypic.com/2colx5e.jpg

    >>
    >> > I had the flash (sb800) pointing up around 45 degrees and around to
    >> > the right also 45 degrees, so there was no direct flash onto her face.
    >> > Above the flash was a 2' reflector, about 2 feet above the camera and
    >> > to the right, angled to reflect onto her.

    >>
    >> > This is my first ever evening with the flash and reflector, so I
    >> > openly welcome all criticism.

    >>
    >> > 50mm f/1.4 @ f4, distance 4', wb(flash), ev 0.0

    >>
    >> First of all, definitely underexposed.
    >>
    >> If you get her further from the backdrop, the shadow there will be
    >> thrown further from her (probably out of the photo entirely, which is
    >> good).
    >>
    >> See how sharp a shadow the chin is casting on the neck? *Something* is
    >> sending hard light her way; quite possibly the head is spreading the
    >> beam wider than you expect, or something, and it's reaching her direct
    >> in addition to off the reflector. (That's the first, very dark, shadow,
    >> not the second, larger, lighter, softer-edged one.)
    >>
    >> Aside from the strictly technical, I like her expression and head
    >> position. The contrast of the relatively formal pose and relatively
    >> careful lighting does contrast somewhat strangely with the amount of
    >> dinner visible :).- Hide quoted text -
    >>
    >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    > Hi David - thanks for the reply!
    >
    > I noticed after I posted that the sharp shadow was there, seems that
    > the flash was definitely providing some direct light, just a few
    > degrees it seems, now I look at the setup. There are two lights in
    > here eyes too.
    >
    > Is it coming out underexposed because of the white background? I had
    > the camera set to matrix metering centered on her face so I thought it
    > would be ok, but it seems not. There was no real ambient light, so
    > should I just increase the flash ev up a little, maybe 1/3 or 2/3
    > stop? (She's asleep now, so I'll have to wait till tomorrow:)


    Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it *is* underexposed. The shadow
    detail in her dark hair looks pretty good; since it's very dark hair I don't
    know if you'd want more than there is.

    I have found 45 degrees tilt to be too direct for bounce flash, and I
    generally use 60 degrees. How much (or if) the 45 degrees of swivel would
    change that I don't know, but the hard shadow under her chin and the second
    darker shadow close behind her head indicates she's getting too much direct
    light somehow. I think the double highlights in her eyes indicate that too.
    As David says she is too close to the backdrop, and I think those regular
    vertical stripes are somewhat distracting. I believe it would be much better
    with a more natural room setting behind her rather than a background of that
    kind.

    Have you considered swiveling the flash so that it points *backward* and to
    one side and up toward the reflector? If your reflector is not too small,
    and it's not inconvenient for you to get it in that position, you might want
    to try it.

    But anyway, you have a cute picture of a really cute little girl there.

    Neil
    Neil Harrington, Mar 23, 2007
    #12
  13. DeanB

    Signal Guest

    "DeanB" <> wrote:

    >Ok, aside from the dinner around her face, and spilt on her sweater,
    >and the generally unprepared I-just-dont-care hairstyle, can some here
    >take a look at the lighting in this portrait and tell me what you
    >think?
    >
    >http://i11.tinypic.com/2colx5e.jpg
    >
    >I had the flash (sb800) pointing up around 45 degrees and around to
    >the right also 45 degrees, so there was no direct flash onto her face.
    >Above the flash was a 2' reflector, about 2 feet above the camera and
    >to the right, angled to reflect onto her.
    >
    >This is my first ever evening with the flash and reflector, so I
    >openly welcome all criticism.
    >
    >50mm f/1.4 @ f4, distance 4', wb(flash), ev 0.0


    Is that a radiator she's sat in front of?

    I don't like the shadow under her chin - looks like she's wearing a
    choker.





    --
    S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
    Signal, Mar 23, 2007
    #13
  14. DeanB

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:31:18 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    > One of our cats reacts fast enough to *always* have her eyes closed
    > when I use the preflashes; I've had to resort to manual exposure
    > to get decent pictures of her.


    Would the greater delay after a P&S's preflash help with you cat
    photos, or would it just allow more time for the cats to move out of
    the frame? :) The manual for one of Metz's little wireless flashes
    mentions that its default delay after detecting a preflash is 45ms,
    as most cameras have a preflash delay that is greater than this.
    For "problem" cameras the flash's delay can be adjusted to anything
    from 5 to 255ms. I can't imagine any decent camera having a 1/4
    second preflash delay, but it might be needed for some of the under
    $100 no-name digital cameras.
    ASAAR, Mar 23, 2007
    #14
  15. DeanB

    bugbear Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:00:21 +0000, bugbear wrote:
    >
    >> I know "little" of this, but I don't see how a camera
    >> can "meter" for flash light, which doesn't exist
    >> until you hit the shutter

    >
    > From the SB-800's manual:
    >
    >> Monitor Preflashes
    >> Just before the flash fires, the SB-800 fires a series of
    >> imperceptible preflashes that are detected by the camera’s
    >> TTL Multi-Sensor and analyzed for brightness and contrast

    >
    >> • i-TTL mode
    >> This is a TTL auto flash mode in the Nikon Creative Lighting System.
    >> Monitor Preflashes are fired at all times. The subject is correctly
    >> exposed by the light from the flash lighting and the exposure is less
    >> affected by the ambient light (p. 37).

    >
    >
    > For the OP's picture, if more ambient light was used the
    > under-chin shadows would have been lightened. But that would be
    > difficult as 1/60 sec, f/4 was used for the exposure. Brighter room
    > lighting or an additional flash could help, and possibly by also
    > reducing the SB-800's output level.
    >
    >
    >> (who had a Pentax LX film camera that actually did meter
    >> *during* exposure, but it couldn't do flash that way)

    >
    > It would be nice if metering could be done off the sensor as it
    > was done off the film, as the preflashes can present problems, but I
    > think that the occurrences of such problems are pretty rare.
    >



    Cool - I stand corrected, and better informed to boot!

    BugBear
    bugbear, Mar 23, 2007
    #15
  16. DeanB

    DeanB Guest

    On Mar 23, 11:17 am, Signal <> wrote:
    > "DeanB" <> wrote:
    > >Ok, aside from the dinner around her face, and spilt on her sweater,
    > >and the generally unprepared I-just-dont-care hairstyle, can some here
    > >take a look at the lighting in this portrait and tell me what you
    > >think?

    >
    > >http://i11.tinypic.com/2colx5e.jpg

    >
    > >I had the flash (sb800) pointing up around 45 degrees and around to
    > >the right also 45 degrees, so there was no direct flash onto her face.
    > >Above the flash was a 2' reflector, about 2 feet above the camera and
    > >to the right, angled to reflect onto her.

    >
    > >This is my first ever evening with the flash and reflector, so I
    > >openly welcome all criticism.

    >
    > >50mm f/1.4 @ f4, distance 4', wb(flash), ev 0.0

    >
    > Is that a radiator she's sat in front of?
    >
    > I don't like the shadow under her chin - looks like she's wearing a
    > choker.
    >
    > --
    > S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Its a vertical blind. I was actually trying to keep the background
    white, as in not dull gray.

    I thank all of you for your most valuable input, I appreciate it very
    much. I have a 100mm f/4.0 Nikon Micro lense, maybe I will try that
    and take the camera back. I assume it is capable of magnificent
    portraits, even if I am not!
    DeanB, Mar 23, 2007
    #16
  17. DeanB

    Allen Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    <snip>
    > One of our cats reacts fast enough to *always* have her eyes closed when
    > I use the preflashes; I've had to resort to manual exposure to get
    > decent pictures of her.
    >
    > It seems to work with some people, too. I guess they find it convenient
    > to get a clear signal when it's time to blink :).

    Cats seem to sense instantly when _anything_ is about to happen, not
    when it does happen. Several years ago we had six cats; our son loves
    cats, so we decided that we would get a picture of us with all six of
    them. Our son-in-law came over and took 25 exposures (back in 35mm
    days). Of those 25, one showed _parts_ of all six cats. It was an
    experience that we never tried again.
    Allen, Mar 23, 2007
    #17
  18. Allen wrote:
    > David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > <snip>
    >> One of our cats reacts fast enough to *always* have her eyes closed
    >> when I use the preflashes; I've had to resort to manual exposure to
    >> get decent pictures of her.
    >>
    >> It seems to work with some people, too. I guess they find it
    >> convenient to get a clear signal when it's time to blink :).

    > Cats seem to sense instantly when _anything_ is about to happen, not
    > when it does happen. Several years ago we had six cats; our son loves
    > cats, so we decided that we would get a picture of us with all six of
    > them. Our son-in-law came over and took 25 exposures (back in 35mm
    > days). Of those 25, one showed _parts_ of all six cats. It was an
    > experience that we never tried again.


    Yes, I know exactly what you mean!

    <http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/photography/gallery/Lois%20McMaster%20Bujold%201996?pic=ddb%20199603%20042-15>

    (only one cat)
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 23, 2007
    #18
  19. DeanB

    Jim Guest

    "DeanB" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    <snip>
    >
    > I thank all of you for your most valuable input, I appreciate it very
    > much. I have a 100mm f/4.0 Nikon Micro lense, maybe I will try that
    > and take the camera back. I assume it is capable of magnificent
    > portraits, even if I am not!
    >
    >

    First of all, a micro lens is not necessarily any better at normal distances
    than any other lens.
    The 105 f2.5 AIS lens would be the one to use anyway.
    Secondly, all the lens and camera do is record the scene that the
    photographer setup.
    So, you need to study the lighting of your photographs and determine how to
    change your lighting for the better.
    Jim
    Jim, Mar 23, 2007
    #19
  20. DeanB

    Bill K Guest

    On Mar 22, 11:20 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > DeanB wrote:
    > > Ok, aside from the dinner around her face, and spilt on her sweater,
    > > and the generally unprepared I-just-dont-care hairstyle, can some here
    > > take a look at the lighting in this portrait and tell me what you
    > > think?

    >
    > >http://i11.tinypic.com/2colx5e.jpg

    >
    > > I had the flash (sb800) pointing up around 45 degrees and around to
    > > the right also 45 degrees, so there was no direct flash onto her face.
    > > Above the flash was a 2' reflector, about 2 feet above the camera and
    > > to the right, angled to reflect onto her.

    >
    > > This is my first ever evening with the flash and reflector, so I
    > > openly welcome all criticism.

    >
    > > 50mm f/1.4 @ f4, distance 4', wb(flash), ev 0.0

    >
    > First of all, definitely underexposed.
    >
    > If you get her further from the backdrop, the shadow there will be
    > thrown further from her (probably out of the photo entirely, which is good).
    >
    > See how sharp a shadow the chin is casting on the neck? *Something* is
    > sending hard light her way; quite possibly the head is spreading the
    > beam wider than you expect, or something, and it's reaching her direct
    > in addition to off the reflector. (That's the first, very dark, shadow,
    > not the second, larger, lighter, softer-edged one.)
    >
    > Aside from the strictly technical, I like her expression and head
    > position. The contrast of the relatively formal pose and relatively
    > careful lighting does contrast somewhat strangely with the amount of
    > dinner visible :).


    David, you always have good advice and offer excellent critiques. I
    learned a lot from your post. I think Dean did pretty well for the
    first time out.
    --
    Gator Bait
    Bill K, Mar 24, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paul Miller

    New Amature Picture Gallery

    Paul Miller, Dec 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    20,539
    Larry CdeBaca
    Dec 13, 2003
  2. DaveC

    portrait lighting

    DaveC, Feb 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,554
    Mike Kohary
    Mar 1, 2004
  3. Mike Henley

    Portrait Portrait Portrait (you gotta see this!)

    Mike Henley, Jul 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    378
    Mike Henley
    Jul 3, 2005
  4. BD

    Lighting temperature for a portrait shoot

    BD, Sep 25, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    70
    Views:
    1,425
  5. BD
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    627
    Sam I am
    Jul 14, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page