[Critique]: My first studio portfolio shoot [Archive]

Sunny

01-05-2009, 12:12 PM

Aryan

01-05-2009, 12:17 PM

@Sunny: Some nice portraits there. One thing I would love to know is, why have you used such small aperture settings for the shots ( f11 and f14)? Is it because you were shooting in a studio and hence weren't worried about light, or is it simply because to bring the whole image in focus?

I ask because I have absolutely no idea about studio shoots. :o

manav

01-05-2009, 12:19 PM

To be very honest, I just liked the first one. I've seen a studio shoot happen and I think its tougher then outdoor because everything is in your control and you cant blame it on anything. But still awesome nevertheless can I post some of the pictures I took in a studio here?

powerslave

01-05-2009, 12:19 PM

Nice!!! Couple of quick questions:

1. What was the Elinchrom set up like?
2. What legal documents/model release did you face? If you didn't, are you planning to, so that you could use these photos without legal hassles.

Great shots.

Sunny

01-05-2009, 12:35 PM

Thanks everyone.

@Aryan: The studio was with me for less than an hour. I spent the first 10 minutes figuring out why my half frame was black. it was a flash synchronization issue. There was no one there I could ask what exactly were the settings, but hit and trial showed me that I have to stay between 1/160 and 1/200 shutter speed to get the full frame. Also to contraol hoe much light was getting in (elinchroms fire on shutter release) so I could not actually meter it pre-flash.

Setting the shutter at 1/200 and Aperture at f14-f20 gave me good histograms and that is what i stuck with.

An added advantage of the small aperture was obviously the sharpness.

@manav: I had done lots of outdoors (though no portfolio except Ashish's in Melbourne). I wanted to have a first hand experience in a studio, something which I have always been fascinated. I understood it there how they get all the click photos in the magazines. Outdoors are obviously more difficult.

Please do post your pictures as well.

@powerslave: There was no one to ask except a overly done model with a couple of make up artists trying to hide her underneath layers of makeup. The lightboy just gave me a wireless transponder which went on the flash hotshoe on the 400D. It was plug and play. There were two umbrella and one more rectangular light. The umbrella lights were fill lights I guess because they were very low in intensity. There was only one Elinchrom (the rectangular). The background was, as you see, white.

Next time around i will go when the studio is free for more time and someone technical is present there.

KrishnenduKes

01-05-2009, 01:07 PM

Setting the shutter at 1/200 and Aperture at f14-f20 gave me good histograms and that is what i stuck with.

Thanks for exposing us to studio work.

Could you/someone tells us what is actually a "good histogram"?

Aryan

01-05-2009, 01:11 PM

Could you/someone tells us what is actually a "good histogram"?
http://www.livingroom.org.au/photolog/images/thumbnails/histogram.gif

By "good histogram", I think Sunny means that the picture is neither under exposed, nor over exposed. The ideal histogram should not indicate any over exposure ( or the highlights are lost). Also, it should not underexpose as you may lose shadow details but also most importantly get more noise.

I hope I am correct here.. :p

KrishnenduKes

01-05-2009, 01:18 PM

http://www.livingroom.org.au/photolog/images/thumbnails/histogram.gif

By "good histogram", I think Sunny means that the picture is neither under exposed, nor over exposed. The ideal histogram should not indicate any over exposure ( or the highlights are lost). Also, it should not underexpose as you may lose shadow details but also most importantly get more noise.

I hope I am correct here.. :p

Wow! Is that what a good histogram looks like? I had NO idea! Is it advisable to keep histogram display in B/W or in RGB?

Sunny

01-05-2009, 01:28 PM

In this scenario what I meant by a good histogram is the subject was not overexposed, the background being white of course will always be and is required to be.

At post processing I have deliberately increased the contrast levels too. Aryan is correct otherwise.

Powerslave;Iit was a friend, of course I cannot use it for print or professional use other than including it in my photography portfolio.

Psycho_McCrazy

01-05-2009, 05:33 PM

good shoot there, great sharpness in some of the shots, though all could have been razor if not for the too small apertures that kill the sharpness as diffraction starts creeping in.

flash sync is 1/200 on the rebels so anwhere above that will result in those partial dark frames. lotsa shutter mechanicals involved - (will be a good tech topic to post - hint@sunny - be quick and i can help with things like this)

you coulda reduced the power of the strobe system to be able to use the larger apertures, but I guess that it will slowly come with more time spent with the equipment.

as for the histograms, it is a distrubution of the number of pixels for different levels of exposure
if the graph spread is good, as in the figure by aryan(slightly shadow dominated image) - it would ideally result in a good exposure, but that depends a lot on the subject. In case of a white studio background, the "correctly" exposed histogram would tend to the right (highlights), especially for #2 and #7 that have LARGE white areas. an "ideal" looking histogram would be an underexposed image.

to get a general idea of the image exposure, the overall histogram is decent - to match with the scene type and see whether it is correctly exposed or not (bright scene - bright highlights wanted - right heavy histo; darker scene - shadow areas wanted - left heavy histo)
in case of brightly colored scenes, you may try for RGB histograms to check for individual channel clipping

KrishnenduKes

01-05-2009, 05:45 PM

@Psycho: Thanks for the details on the info. Maybe you can start a techie discussion on the aspects of lights, studio elements, histos to be taken care of... etc. This would help other people and we might even get together to hire a studio for an hour, to try out our hand if there are 5 of us to offset the cost.

shailay

01-05-2009, 05:46 PM

Not so bad...(though not as good as what he clicks outdoor)
But fine to start with!!
Hope to see better photos
Nice try anyhow!!

an33sh

01-06-2009, 09:40 AM

To be very honest, I just liked the first one.

Me too..
You could've gone in for some single light setups to emphasize the facial features in some shots..

And the PP doesn't work for me atleast..

Makeup will work wonders! So will some softness, its a bit too much details in some closeups!

But good jobs none-the-less, I've shot some studio shots using just two wireless 420EX slaves + accessories and boy is it tough getting it the way you want...
But Outdoors are definately tougher I say..

v_310

01-06-2009, 11:45 AM

nice shots there...!! loved the close up of the eye :).

Any specific reason you used a macro lens for the photo shoot?

Slight OT - the 85mm f1.2 is considered to be the best portrait lens among the canon line up? has anyone used it in the photo shoots?

KrishnenduKes

01-06-2009, 01:24 PM

Slight OT - the 85mm f1.2 is considered to be the best portrait lens among the canon line up? has anyone used it in the photo shoots?

Not this one. But I do use the 85mm f1.8 quite often and I do feel that it is the best lens I have ever used!

Bibudesh

01-06-2009, 01:25 PM

@Sunny the fotos are good as far considering it was the first studio shot.

There is a major aspect to portfolio shots other than technical we have been discussing here. The expression and poises of the model matters more than the technicals.

To be very honest , the model has to give better poise and natural expression so that it dont look like enacted. Given the time frame I can understand the prob.

Also hiding few details gives a diff feel. A change of FL to 50mm/85mm wud have given that feel.

U have shared fotos from all the angles, thats good, I mean for critique bcoz not all angles suits all models. In this case the lower angle shot is not giving a right feel.
ur intentions shud be to hide the ill-effects. A girlfriend/wife looks beautiful from all angles if the eye beholder is her boyfrend/husband (happens with me honestly), but things are diff in general.

But in general I shud say it was a fantastic trial.

Sunny

01-07-2009, 07:32 AM

Very nice critiques. Something which I would prefer than 'nice photo' comments, helps learn.

@v3: I feel the 100mm Macro is one of the best portfolio lenses available for less than 30k and which obviously also doubles up as a Macro, so it is terrific VFM. It gives you terrific background blur with very sharp focus and the colors are fantastic.

I would also like to believe the 50mm f1.8 (plastic mount) is also worth its salt as a portrait lens.

@pujari: Yes, its more about the expressions rather than anything else. She was extremely conscious at the shoot and I had to really tell her each and every move or expression I wanted. But it end it was a very good experience for all of us.

KrishnenduKes

01-07-2009, 07:52 AM

I have been meaning to post constructively here for some time but have been unable to for lack of correct syntax!

To me, these photographs just look good. But beyond that... I do not find an objective. They do not portray anything. It seems that you just wanted to shoot good, well focussed, shart, contrasty images.

When you are doing a studioshoot in a controlled environment for a portfolio, I guess one has to have an objective to make it look really good: like to make a model look outstanding, or to make the apparel look outstanding on the model, or a terrific mood... etc... which are not getting conveyed. Only the photographs are looking good. But the photographs are not doing anything to me in terms of the points that I mentionned.

Sunny

01-07-2009, 08:04 AM

^Indeed. My first objective in this one was to have an experience and to make the photos look good, specially in 15-20 minutes. That is the first I learn as a graphic designer - what looks good is looks good. It would be great if you can advise on specific point rather than 'I just not found it good'. I would like to benefit from your immense experience. :)

Also what I feel is that people have this general sense of belief that studio is easy to shoot since we have a controlled environment. Since the past two days of reading up I will say No, it is not. In fact since you control everything in theory you should come out with outstanding images. But as you see my shoot, that is hardly the case even if you account for the limited time.

I feel that studio photography requires a whole of technical knowledge, light placements, making the model comfortable and choosing the right equipment.

'Outdoor shots are easier' is just a misconception. It is like saying is is easier on a track to ride because it is a controlled environment rather than outdoor. But we all know the technicalities of track riding, dont we?

Keep on the critiques coming, love them!

sandeep_vgl

01-07-2009, 11:15 AM

People learn only from experience and i feel it's a nice start Sunny. Keep it going.

As a novice i would not comment on the technical aspects, but as an enthusiast, i would say the photos lack that "softness" feel like in magazines where portfolio sections have sharp pictures, but then it has a soft feel too.
(it's my personal opinion)

Like Manav, i liked first one the most over the rest.

(Also the "cool early morning photos of Delhi" are still fresh in my mind :) I just cannot get over it. Probably the "feel" of those photos has made a long lasting impact)

All the very best Sunny.

Bibudesh

01-07-2009, 12:08 PM

@Sunny- why dont u pick up the better photography dec issue. They have lots about indoor natural light portraiture and expressions.

leon_nerd

01-07-2009, 01:14 PM

I liked the series. It is good to start with. 1,3 & 6 are my fav shots.

I am a novice in this matter but I believe that a little bit of facial makeup should help up in enhacing the overall outcome (or atleast PP for that matter). Natural Facial artifacts do take away your attention from the whole frame. It is something present on every face and very natural. Everyone has them. Just a little bit of touch up should help toning them down and create an overall more focussed shot.

Just a thought you might want to think for the forthcoming sessions :).

KrishnenduKes

01-07-2009, 01:26 PM

I am a novice in this matter but I believe that a little bit of facial makeup should help up in enhacing the overall outcome

I think there IS makeup! We cannot see it.

leon_nerd

01-07-2009, 01:28 PM

IF its there it needs to be better then. I can still see facial artifacts.

Sunny

01-07-2009, 05:21 PM

@ken: Although you know women better than all of us put together here :D but you are wrong on this account! There was no makeup whatsoever (she came in Metro and after that she sprayed herself with water for some photos). There is only a slight Mascara which is standard for every second girl on the street these days.

Bibudesh

01-07-2009, 05:46 PM

then some more PP is required for facials.

KrishnenduKes

01-07-2009, 06:50 PM

@Sunny: The lady has gloss on her lips, eyeliner on her eyes, mascara as well, for me there is some makeup. But as Leon says, it is not enough to hide the minor blemishes that most human faces have and that can cause problems to some viewers.

Maybe as SP says, some more PP. Or if one has the equipment, some transparent gel on a neutral filter during the shoot. But such things have been forgotten now with the advent of PP. One can produce the gel soft focus look sitting at the workstation in front of the monitor with the PS CS3.

Vicky

01-07-2009, 07:14 PM

A friend wanted to know if I could shoot her for a print modeling portfolio. I saw it as a good opportunity to add a studio experience to my resume.

Got a studio in Delhi from a friend for an hour and shot some quick shots.

Equipment: Canon 400D with Canon 100mm Macro USM f2.8

Elinchrom light setup used with wireless trigger on the hotshoe.

Post processing in Lightroom and PS.

I think, the major issues with this set of photos are:

-Over Exposure : All of the shots have serious blown highlights (highlight clipping) on the models face / hands.

-Too Much Dynamic Range: It was a bad idea to use a black dress in this shoot as it creates too much of a dynamic range against the pure white background for the camera to capture. If you expose for the blacks and want to have detail of the knitting visible, you will end up blowing out the facial details. And if you expose for the face, there will be serious shadow clipping and absolutely no detail in the black dress.

-Need for Skin Smoothing: All studio portrait work need skin smoothing in Post Processing and so do these shots.

-Very Small Apertures: Shooting at apertures like f/14-f/18, you are way below the peak resolution of your lens. At f/16 its already lost around 30% of its sharpness. Simple solution - reduce the power of the strobes.

Canon EF 100mm 2.8 Macro - Photozone MTF (Resolution) Test Report

Typical for most macro lenses the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro performed highly impressive in the lab. The lens is already very good in the center at wide-open aperture with marginally worse corners. The lens reaches its peak performance at f/5.6. You shouldn't stop down beyond f/16 due to the limiting effects of light diffraction.

http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100_28/mtf.gif

Source : www.photozone.de

Disclaimer: I have absolutely zero studio experience, so take this feedback with a large pinch of salt:)

Sunny

01-07-2009, 09:22 PM

^Vicky: Very nice. Thanks for the inputs, I believe they were the most constructive in this thread from an improvement and technical POV. Will try and apply these the next time.

But I wonder how do we accommodate black clothes with a white BG then? Also, I agree overexposed highlights, this was intentional, I had greatly increased the contrast in Lightroom and PS.

Also I don't believe make up is a necessity in studio shoots. It depends on what you want as the final output and where you want to use it, in other words it is purely optional though I am not discounting the fact that it will make a world of difference. It is my shortcoming that I could not make her look good with her natural blemishes, and that where a good photographer with studio experience would have scored way above.

Sunny

01-07-2009, 09:33 PM

As a graphic designer overblown highlights, black and white contrast excites me. Look at a self portrait below in the same studio, i think its got a natural semi formal pose, something which i can use as the cover page of my resume :D :

http://www.thephotographer.in/galleries/data/500/me2.jpg

Sarao

01-07-2009, 10:41 PM

Sorry Gajjar bro, I did not want to comment here. But just to sharpen my knowledge, I am asking you some questions.

As I have seen the colored version of the portraits, They arent as sharp as they should be, then I read that you have used aperture of f/14-16 As far as I know, going beyond f/11 reduces the sharpness.

WE can also use Manual mode for having control over the light. So rather going to that apertures, why did not you opt for Manual Mode shooting?

Sunny

01-08-2009, 07:14 AM

My friend, I wouldn't know why you would be sorry to comment here. :D

Secondly I did use the Manual mode. Manual mode shooting allows you control over Apertures and Shutter speed (you are probably confusing the A priority mode).

Sarao

01-09-2009, 01:18 PM

No I am not getting confused, I have read in the previous post that you have used f16, I was saying, to have more control over the l ight, you can use the Manual (you know it already).

My point was, rather going of small apertures, you could have used faster shutter speeds with some apertures at f11 or so

Vicky

01-09-2009, 01:59 PM

rather going of small apertures, you could have used faster shutter speeds with some apertures at f11 or so

Most studio strobes would not sync above 1/200 ss. So, his SS was fixed at that. He was already at ISO 100, so he was fixed there too... the only remaining options to reduce exposure was either use smaller apertures or reduce the power of the strobes. Since it was his first time using the strobes and he was not familiar with them, he chose to use smaller apertures:)

KrishnenduKes

01-09-2009, 02:42 PM

Most studio strobes would not sync above 1/200 ss. So, his SS was fixed at that. He was already at ISO 100, so he was fixed there too... the only remaining options to reduce exposure was either use smaller apertures or reduce the power of the strobes. Since it was his first time using the strobes and he was not familiar with them, he chose to use smaller apertures:)

Perfect explanation. Only yesterday did I learn to reduce the power of Elinchromes.