Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 28, 2005, 2:39 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

Key is 22"x22" softobox with louvers placed left of subject. Fill is bounced from large umbrella 10' above the camera. Hair light is subtle only to hold the hair texture. Background light is bare strobe with barndoors.

RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 28, 2005, 9:48 AM   #2
Member
 
TMacaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 41
Default

Hi Rodney,
No suprise that I feel you did a fine job with this one. No distractions and clear intent. I am biased since spending several days recently trying to get classic Profile lighting done correctly. Many may find this type of portrait a bit 'boring', but it must be in one's repertoire whem the need arises.
Regards,
Tom B. (TMc)
TMacaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2005, 12:13 PM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Rodney:

I looked at this one earlier this morning, but decided to let it grow on me a while before commenting.

The very first thing I noticed in the photowhen I saw it, was the catch light in the subject's eye. It just seemed toobright (my first impression). My eyes seemed immediately drawn to it.

However, looking at it again later, it seems fine. Perhaps it was because the light was too low in my office in the early A.M., and made it seem more prominent on my monitor.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2005, 12:45 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

Quote:
Hi Rodney,
No suprise that I feel you did a fine job with this one. No distractions and clear intent. I am biased since spending several days recently trying to get classic Profile lighting done correctly. Many may find this type of portrait a bit 'boring', but it must be in one's repertoire whem the need arises.
Regards,
Tom B. (TMc)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts wtih me, Tom. Interestingly, I'm one who always said profiles are boring. Now, I've found myself in a situation where I must produce one. I have a performer scheduled for this week and he has requested 2 profile shots. I decided I'd better practice. :-)

Quote:
Rodney:

I looked at this one earlier this morning, but decided to let it grow on me a while before commenting.

The very first thing I noticed in the photo when I saw it, was the catch light in the subject's eye. It just seemed too bright (my first impression). My eyes seemed immediately drawn to it.

However, looking at it again later, it seems fine. Perhaps it was because the light was too low in my office in the early A.M., and made it seem more prominent on my monitor.
Hi Jim,

When placing my key light, I was undecided about the catch light. I wasn't paying attention in class the day we were taught how to render the perfect profile. :-) After some careful thought, I decided that the bright large catch light is needed to draw attention to the eye. I suspect what I have is a bit extreme.

Rodney

RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2005, 1:35 PM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Rodney, it definitely works to draw attention to the subject's eyes (for me anyway)....

A lot probably depends on the intended viewing size (and the medium) as to whether or not it's too much. At most sizes on my monitor, this seems to work as you intended. Of course, in print, I may have a different opinion, and my monitor is not the best. ;-)

When I go a little larger (I played with it some -- doubling viewing size using Lanczos interpolation),it seems a tad too harsh (the brightness/shape of the light in the eye seems to need softening some).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2005, 2:03 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
Rodney, it definitely works to draw attention to the subject's eyes (for me anyway)....

A lot probably depends on the intended viewing size (and the medium) as to whether or not it's too much. At most sizes on my monitor, this seems to work as you intended. Of course, in print, I may have a different opinion, and my monitor is not the best. ;-)

When I go a little larger (I played with it some -- doubling viewing size using Lanczos interpolation), it seems a tad too harsh (the brightness/shape of the light in the eye seems to need softening some).
Hi Jim,

I have my in-camera sharpening turned off so I often selectively sharpen the eyes when I size images this small for web display. Here is how it looks without the additional sharpening.

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2005, 2:11 PM   #7
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Yes -- that's much better on my monitor...

Edit -- that is, at larger viewing sizes (I enlarged it again to take a better look)....

At smaller sizes, now I don't seem drawn to the eyes as much as you probably intended. ;-)

I guess that'sone problem with viewing smallerimages in a forumon screen. Viewing sizes, monitor differences, etc., can be a big factor.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2005, 2:13 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
Yes -- that's much better on my monitor.
Alrighty...Now we are getting somewhere. I'm making a note that I should be careful when selectively sharpening the eyes. :-)

Thank you!

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2005, 2:15 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Actually, I edited my last post to include a note on viewing sizes (something you have no control over in a forum, since viewers are going to have different monitor sizes, resolution settings, etc.).

LOL


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2005, 2:37 PM   #10
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

IOW, you probably had the right idea to begin with (sharpening for web viewing at the size you were posting at).

But, since I was up early this morning looking at it, and tend to lean over the front of my desk some when I'm half asleep (putting my monitor pretty close), the light in the eye seemed a little much (and when I enlarged it I was simply seeing the result of your selective sharpening for web viewing).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:18 AM.