Emm5

Portrait was inspired by rpavich lighting setup.
So here is my question I was told that the first pic looked underexposed and if I went into ps window-info and clicked on the picker tool and then placed it over the nose or forehead that the red level should read between 236-240 to have a good exposure. So I did this in 2nd picture.
Question is there any validity to this and does it only apply to skin tones?

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

I wish I knew enough about portraits to answer your question, I don't, but I do know a beautiful portrait of a beautiful woman when I see one. Good job behind and in front of the camera simultaneously. :thumbup:

Oh, and #2 definitely has more "pop" in my opinion. 8-)

MissStephie Loc: West Virginia

I don't know about portraits either but I do like the 2nd the best.

angler Loc: StHelens England

Like them both.

Wendy2 Loc: California

Very nice! Regarding your question, it sure worked on the second one! Thanks for sharing this info.

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

Ok EMM. Here is my thought.

The lighting is fine. Your lighting flows across the face like a sign wave with no real hard light transitions.
There are many ways to get this type of lighting. Great job.

Where I see the biggest problem in this and every portrait photo posted on the UHH is the lack of capturing an emotion or mood. People get to caught up on the technical details of numbers and camera settings and to a degree lighting and color. Everyone seems to ignore to me what is the most important thing of all... Expression.
The reason why it's not discussed is because its not something you can easily measure. You can't put it in a nice little box and give it a name. Our society is full of the process people. These people have become imprisoned by numbers. It overrides their own ability to accurately judge there own images.

If I could give one bit of advice to everyone here it would be to say stop and step back a few steps.

There is not a dimes worth of variations in either of the two photos. The lighting is fine. You could easily change the outcome in post in about 5 seconds!

I would love to shoot you EMM. I would try to capture something within you that you may not know is even there.
A mood.. A feeling.... Something that may only be true to the viewer but sends a message.

I want you to look at the images of everyone who passes around advice here. All of this technical mumbo jumbo. Don't get lost in it. Your images will end up exactly like the people you listen too. Use your eyes to tell you what is beautiful and appealing. If you do that, your images will look like no others and will be unique to you. If you don't lie to yourself they will be beautiful as well.

One day I hope to be able to make beautiful images.

Russ
P.S. Your avatar has mood!

Emm5

Thanks Bmac!

Emm5

Thank you Miss Steph, and Angler.

Emm5

Thanks Russ for the great advice!!! My avatar was a self portrait with no one around! lol

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I agree with Russ...but running back and forth trying to take a self portrait while also coming up with a good expression is tough!

Perilin Loc: Ohio

I can definitely see the difference in #2. Nice job!

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

It is the hardest thing to do.. To evaluate a picture of yourself.
Have you ever listened to your own voice on a recording? Can you honestly say you like it?
We struggle for the soup.
When it comes down to it, most of us are much harder on ourselves than others.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

I don't think the first one looks underexposed at all. Don't see a big differnce between the two. It's easy to over analyze a portrait shot when there isn't anything to change about the shot. They both look like nice portrait's to me.

tilde531 Loc: Seaford Delaware

_________________________

So's mine...and deliberately "blue" ...for mood. ;)

Russ knows his stuff!

Your self-portrait is enviable for quality, indeed... but like he mentioned already, I personally prefer your avatar because it conveys something about you. There's life in those eyes! ;)

Emm5

thank you.