Hi there,

Some pics from the first shoot in studio:






other batch:

[Gooshin]

you have some sort of protection lock on your images

they only work if you right click them, take the raw code, and punch it in the address bar.

go check if you have anything enabled in terms of protection.


the first 3 have really good lighting, the only thing i would suggest from my own experience is not to shoot people so close with wide angle lenses, it distorts them in unfavorable ways if your studio allows it just take a step back.

[Zewrak]

In my taste they are a bit too bright with the face light. All of them except the one with the lady in red and the second shot in batch one. It also works well in the shot with white background and white clothes, because of the overall white motif. But I would turn the light down a stop or so. But that's me. In the last it almost looks as if your overexposure a bit.

[Martynas]

you have some sort of protection lock on your images

they only work if you right click them, take the raw code, and punch it in the address bar.

go check if you have anything enabled in terms of protection.


the first 3 have really good lighting, the only thing i would suggest from my own experience is not to shoot people so close with wide angle lenses, it distorts them in unfavorable ways if your studio allows it just take a step back.

Edited a little bit, now they should sow up Thanks for comment, I tried using at least 50mm focal length all the time. But yes indeed it worth trying more as well we got plenty of room in studio (at least for one person )

[Martynas]

In my taste they are a bit too bright with the face light. All of them except the one with the lady in red and the second shot in batch one. It also works well in the shot with white background and white clothes, because of the overall white motif. But I would turn the light down a stop or so. But that's me. In the last it almost looks as if your overexposure a bit.

In order to get smooth skin (it was supposed to look so ) used direct light and even added about +0,7 EV in PP.

[Zewrak]

In order to get smooth skin (it was supposed to look so ) used direct light and even added about +0,7 EV in PP.

Well as I said, it's my opinion . And my opinion is usually that smooth skin is evil too, so.

[Martynas]

Well as I said, it's my opinion . And my opinion is usually that smooth skin is evil too, so.

xe I don't like at all when I see applied smoothing with some plugins etc., but if it is with a light - then different story

[Peter Zack]

For a first shoot, this is a very good series. Since you asked, I will offer a few thoughts.
1) if you are going to do a lot of this in the future, add a flash meter to your kit if you don't have one now. It's a great tool that will save a ton of time and missed exposures.

1st shot is good but seems like there is too much light coming from everywhere. There is almost no shadow detail on the face and thus lacks detail and depth.

2nd is much better and with just the 2 lights, the face and body has much better detail. I might dial it back to +1/3 Ev

3rd I like this shot. The washed out look is good and for me, works here. If you can keep the 'washed out' look and add just a bit more colour to the skin it might be better but not much.

4th. Great just as is.

5th Not sure I like the crop off the top of the head. also a bit bright. dial it back a bit. There are other ways to smooth the skin.

6th. Same as above. Good shot and shadow detail, just a little too bright.

I make the comments on exposure the same as Zewrak because if the customer wants to enlarge these and print them, you'll have large areas with blown out highlights. It won't look good in a printed form. Overexposing is a simple fast way to smooth the skin but you'd do better to expose correctly and use a PP brush to smooth blemishes as needed. It takes more time but is worth the effort.

[Martynas]

For a first shoot, this is a very good series. Since you asked, I will offer a few thoughts.

Thanks for such informative and useful post but neither my monitor neither histogram shows that there are blown out areas, close to that, but not blown out

[Peter Zack]

Well everyones monitor is slightly different and even though mine is calibrated, I may see something different than you are. Plus don't rely too much on a histogram. Look at what you actually see.

I would suggest you print #5 in something larger than 8x10 and see what you get. My bet is the pant legs (thigh area) will be totally washed out and have no detail. Possibly the chest and cheek areas as well.