WGRII

A low key portrait, original and close up.
This was taken with a Nikon D90, f5.6, 1/60,
29mm, ISO200 and on camera flash.
Opinions please.

(Download)


(Download)

Doddy Loc: Barnard Castle-England

Very nice (if a bit dark) shots of a beautiful Bride.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Since you requested comments on these portraits I am in a very humble way to offer mine. I seldom shoot portraits of people looking straight into the camera but that is me. In this particular case it is beyond my imagination how you used an in camera flash to obtain the vision of using a snoot. Such a case could usually be handled with a lens of a short focal length with a dark background using an external flash at the maximum tele setting. Straight flash is not a favorite among professionals because of the harsh light and its tendency to create contrasty images with dark shadows behind the subject like the one present in your first shot. A light modifier like an umbrella or a soft box when using off camera flash is what is routinely used but in this case the light can be made softer using something like a paper tissue over the flash to cut down on the intensity of the light.

The second image appears to be a crop of the original.

dat2ra Loc: Sacramento

Pretty girl and lovely expression, but I would avoid on-camera flash for portraits because of the narrow harshness and overly high contrast it produces, and the specular highlights (on her nose and chin). Most of the light is on her chin and rapidly declines towards her eyes, which customarily are the most important part of a portrait. Also, by not using a modifier, her dress shows as gray rather than white which I assume it actually is. Also, the shadow of her head to CR is distracting as are the silver things over her right shoulder.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

I like the attempt a lot. My preference would be to move the light up on her face a little. It seems to me the brightest part of the light falls on her teeth. I would rather see it on the eyes. The light seems to draw the attention to her teeth where as you definitely want to draw the attention to her eyes. I do like what you were going for. As others have said on camera flash is not ideal however I think you did as good a job as you could have with it.

WGRII

Thanks for all of your comments. I also prefer off camera flashes, but this particular situation did not permit another option.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

The light on the subject face is uneven and leaving her eyes and hair in semi-shadow. The colour balance is too red.

I realize you can change the lighting in post-processing but you can improve on it somewhat by simulating off-camera lighting.

A black background alone does not make for a low-key portrait and if the lighting is not compatible all the dark background does is cause a lack of depth. If there a little tonal or colour mass in the background the image takes on more of a third dimension.

If you are confined to an on-camera light, partial or side-bounce can produce better results. Aim the Speedlight partially up the ceiling and allow the edge of the beam to strike the subject or bounce it off a nearby side wall.

Nice expression and eye contact on your shot- see edit.

WGRII

Thank you, I look forward to your critiques.

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

Did you have a diffuser on the flash? There are always options on light modifiers that will improve this greatly.

PaulG Loc: Western Australia

I like the idea but the image has a rather over-processed washed-out look. I'd be really keen to see a moderation somewhere between this and the original.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Yes, you are correct, however, there is a problem. If you read into my critique, it mentions there is a problem with the lighting and background management in the original file. It also states that the edit is only an "idea" of what a more even lighting would look like. When attempting to simulate lighting that really doesn't exist in the original file an "overprocessed" effect will usually result. Several hours of work by a highly skilled retoucher could have added shadows and highlight and related the catchlights in the eyes. I encourage photographers to attend to these matters in SHOOTING and the level of skin retouching can be simply controlled in post-processing as to taste and the client's requirements.

In this section, folks are allowed to re-edit work to illustrate their suggestions and ideas- take a stab at it if you like.

In the original file, the light is flat and there is no shadow being projected by the subject's nose. Creating the effect of an off-camera light is in and of itself overprocessing. The original file is underexposed and color biased toward red. The deficits in lighting and exposure have given the subject's makeup/skin texture a very uneven look so the skin-softening and blending are rather extreme This is called re-shooting a job (used to be in the darkroom) nowadays it is re-shooting a job on the computer. It's a trend I never encouraged- get the lighting and exposure right in the firstplace- is the best approach.

Hodge Loc: England

Bit late I know - only just got here.

Pretty girl with nice pose and I quite like the dark background. Shame about the lighting. Looks like the flash was zoomed in?

Even from the jpeg a lot can be fixed. I am a bit red/green colorblind so skin tones are a bit guess work, hope it looks about right.

(Download)