needs a title

[Mitch]

Ok so it has been a while since my last post, but yet again I find myself having another bash at portraiture ....any advice on how or what I can do to improve?

[colinb]

Quote

 ....any advice on how or what I can do to improve?

 

Nice picture but I think the general processing lets it down with the light looking a little harsh and there seems to be a pink tint? and I am not sure about the tree sticking out the top of her head.

 

 

[Black Pearl]

Three things for me.

* The colour balance is out a little, looks magenta and possibly even a touch cold.
* The lighting and processing are a touch too harsh, there are quite hard and (to me) over exposed areas to her face that would benefit probably from a larger softbox/octabox.
* The pose doesn't work, looks like you've caught her as she was scratching an itch and the open mouth is just the wrong side of slack jawed to be attractive - and yes, clone out that tree.

[Mitch]

Thank you for the feedback gents, can sort the tree but not sure I can alter the lighting in this image....certainly have plenty to be thinking about for next shoot.

[Craftysnapper]

Well I'm going to be the odd one out and say that I like it and that I think the comments are a little harsh.

It's obvious from the position of the hand and twisted hair she is playing with her hair and not scrathing a itch. 

To me it is a portrait of a beautiful woman that is intensly thinking about or focusing on something and it makes me wonder what

Saying that the skin tones are to magenta (it's not a canon camera is it) and with the intensity of the expression I think that B&W may suit it better.

 

[Mitch]

Thanks Paul and yes mono looks better and it is a canon..  are canon known for this problem?

[Craftysnapper]

38 minutes ago, Mitch said:

Thanks Paul and yes mono looks better and it is a canon..  are canon known for this problem?

Mitch to my eye they do seem to favour magenta skin tones under studio light unless adjusted and I have owned Canon saying that Olympus tend to produce red skin tones under studio lights (to warm for my taste) and usually need adjusting.

[Mitch]

So would you adjust for this in camera Paul or just ease the reds back in light room 

[VWGolf]

No - just get yourself a proper camera!  ;-)

 

[CanonChrissy]

I really like this but know nothing about portrait photography so can't critique

 

[Mitch]

Thank you Chrissy....I think half the battle is producing a picture that is nice to look at.....VW I do have a proper Camera and not a bookend like yours ;-) ......you tell em Ron lol :-)

[VWGolf]

3 hours ago, Ron said:

I think Mitch has a proper camera VW, I would guess your a Nikon user..lol

Ron

Don't worry, Ron - Mitch and I are friends and we've spent hours arguing over which is better.  And of course, it's the Nikon!  ;-)

[Black Pearl]

Got rid of all my Nikon gear and bought a Fuji - that trumps you both

[ChrisLumix]

To me, it's not too magenta, but that's because I've calibrated my computer display towards green/yellow and away from the inevitably too-magenta hue of virtually all computers and TVs.

I like the high key approach to it, and I like the pose and the model's slightly pouty but distant expression.

What I REALLY don't like about it is the winter wallpaper she's in front of. I'm not sure what would be better - perhaps a plain background?

[NannyFerret]

11 hours ago, OlympusPaul said:

Well I'm going to be the odd one out and say that I like it and that I think the comments are a little harsh.

It's obvious from the position of the hand and twisted hair she is playing with her hair and not scrathing a itch. 

To me it is a portrait of a beautiful woman that is intensly thinking about or focusing on something and it makes me wonder what

Saying that the skin tones are to magenta (it's not a canon camera is it) and with the intensity of the expression I think that B&W may suit it better.

 

I agree with Paul.    I love this, especially the dreamy look of the whole capture.

 

[Black Pearl]

2 hours ago, ChrisLumix said:

To me, it's not too magenta, but that's because I've calibrated my computer display towards green/yellow and away from the inevitably too-magenta hue of virtually all computers and TVs.

Well I prefer to calibrate my monitor correctly and not to a personal whim - if you see it correctly to your eyes and set-up thats fine but as everyone else see's it magenta we will all have to agree to disagree with you.

[Craftysnapper]

19 hours ago, Mitch said:

So would you adjust for this in camera Paul or just ease the reds back in light room 

Mitch I would certainly set WB to flash but do bear in mind it is a generic setting and all studio flash heads have different WB depending on brand, even the age of the unit can effect the WB output,as they get older the WB changes.

So get as close as you can but be prepared to adjust skin tones,I nearly always do with studio shots, funnily enough in outdoor light the Olympus E-M5mk2 produces great skin tones for my taste.

14 hours ago, Judy said:

Oh dear, not a makers' war. Surely, t's the final image not the camera that's important.

I really like the mono

Very true Judy and to put it to rest let me quote someone.

"Everyone in the world owns a camera but the world is not full of photographers"

[Black Pearl]

To add to Paul's info even the brand of your Softbox/Octabox/Brolly will alter the WB.

A friend and I were shooting a commercial job a few weeks back and we notices a slight difference to the WB from one side of the shot to the other. All the lights were the same Elincrom units and there was no artificial light to interfere with the setup. Turned out that one of the Octaboxes we were using was an off brand while all the rest were genuine Elincrom units. When we swapped out the odd one the WB was perfect. Checking with Elincrom later it turns out all the light modifiers they use have a guaranteed colour consistency and that the white used in other brands of modifiers isn't always the same white.

[ChrisLumix]

On 4 January 2016 at 23:58, Black Pearl said:

Well I prefer to calibrate my monitor correctly and not to a personal whim - if you see it correctly to your eyes and set-up thats fine but as everyone else see's it magenta we will all have to agree to disagree with you.

I wish I had a tenner for...

There's no such thing as "correct" except in absolute scientific terms! We are all colour blind to a greater or lesser extent, and just because people have gotten used to the magenta cast of their computers doesn't mean it's not there. For example, I notice that Fuzzy's posts are often even more biased towards the yellow spectrum than mine, which I could take to indicate that he notices magenta casts even more? All screens should be calibrated to the individual user (as if done by an optician) not some impersonal calibrater which doesn't know what our own colour bias / preferences are. I want my pictures to be correct for MY eyesight as I'm the one who looks at them most often.

By the way - for the record - I've done, more than once, an online test of colour vision which involves grading very subtle changes of hue into the 'correct' sequence. I have more than once scored 100% which is apparently rare.

[Leon]

I like it... but I personally don't like hands in portraits...

[Black Pearl]

2 hours ago, ChrisLumix said:

I wish I had a tenner for...

There's no such thing as "correct" except in absolute scientific terms! We are all colour blind to a greater or lesser extent, and just because people have gotten used to the magenta cast of their computers doesn't mean it's not there. For example, I notice that Fuzzy's posts are often even more biased towards the yellow spectrum than mine, which I could take to indicate that he notices magenta casts even more? All screens should be calibrated to the individual user (as if done by an optician) not some impersonal calibrater which doesn't know what our own colour bias / preferences are. I want my pictures to be correct for MY eyesight as I'm the one who looks at them most often.

By the way - for the record - I've done, more than once, an online test of colour vision which involves grading very subtle changes of hue into the 'correct' sequence. I have more than once scored 100% which is apparently rare.

No, all screen should be set correctly using a scientifically calculated calibration unit and not randomly chosen to suit an individuals wonky bias. I am sorry if I am going to sound harsh on this but you are absolutely, utterly and completely wrong. Your way is not the right way no matter what you think. You may prefer to have your screen set to god only knows what colour balance but it is not the correct one, it is not what others see and it is no use what so ever if you are going to edit an image and let others see it. By all means continue to do as you please, that is your prerogative, but do not for one second believe you are right and the rest of the photographic world is wrong.

[Black Pearl]

The thing is if everyone profiled their monitors correctly (not going to happen so this is hypothetical obviously) we would know what everyone was seeing - within the performance restraints of their actual panel. The problems arise when people alter their screen to suit their own eyes. That is great for them, it is after all their own photography and for the most part it is for them to view and enjoy and I wouldn't tell them not to - but - that still doesn't make it the right way to do it

There are big differences in monitors, the one's in iMac's are very good for colour but tend to be a bit bright, I had to pull the brightness down loads when I profiled mine then tend to run it a bit brighter for day to day working.

[ChrisLumix]

22 hours ago, Black Pearl said:

No, all screen should be set correctly using a scientifically calculated calibration unit and not randomly chosen to suit an individuals wonky bias. I am sorry if I am going to sound harsh on this but you are absolutely, utterly and completely wrong. Your way is not the right way no matter what you think. You may prefer to have your screen set to god only knows what colour balance but it is not the correct one, it is not what others see and it is no use what so ever if you are going to edit an image and let others see it. By all means continue to do as you please, that is your prerogative, but do not for one second believe you are right and the rest of the photographic world is wrong.

I'm sorry, but I take total exception to your absolutist "utterly and completely wrong". We do NOT see things the same way. No two people have the same perception of colour. I can see this readily when I look at certain members who post here, mentioning no names, but they range  from a bias towards magenta to a bias away from it. Admittedly, most do not, but some do, and if that's the way they see the world, then so be it. Yes, I am aware that, like a few others here, I edit to my own personal preferences, but I make no apology for that, and will not be told I am thereby "wrong". [/rant]

[Black Pearl]

1 hour ago, ChrisLumix said:

I'm sorry, but I take total exception to your absolutist "utterly and completely wrong". We do NOT see things the same way. No two people have the same perception of colour. I can see this readily when I look at certain members who post here, mentioning no names, but they range  from a bias towards magenta to a bias away from it. Admittedly, most do not, but some do, and if that's the way they see the world, then so be it. Yes, I am aware that, like a few others here, I edit to my own personal preferences, but I make no apology for that, and will not be told I am thereby "wrong". [/rant]

You are wrong:

Quote

There's no such thing as "correct" except in absolute scientific terms!

Yes there is.

Quote

All screens should be calibrated to the individual user (as if done by an optician) not some impersonal calibrater which doesn't know what our own colour bias / preferences are.

All screen should be calibrated to a scientifically proven formula - bog all to do with your optician - your own personal bias has nothing whatsoever to do with what is actually correct.
By all means set your screen to your preferences but that is right for you, only you and is not the right way to do it - you're wrong and I don't care how good you think your eyes are they are still not as good as a proper calibration device. 

If you chose to set your screen to your own colour preferences - you go for it kidder - knock yourself out - have a banana - that is your prerogative. It is still the wrong way to do it but you're happy and thats all that matter to you. 

[Mitch]

Cor blimey you go away for a couple of days and come back to lots of comments lol.....Thank you to everyone that has commented be it good bad or indifferent..... Paul and Black Pearl, I have another shoot coming up in a couple of weeks, so will be paying closer attention to the WB....would it be better to set it to flash or dial in a colour temp on the K scale? and if so what colour temp would I be looking to aim for? or does that vary depending on light ect ect?