Baby Bump

[Leon]

I can only post one picture of this lady (she's a teacher so I cant name her either) as the others are more personal to her and her Hubby.

 

 

Critique away peoples, I do have permission to use this by the way.

 

very surreal doing something so personal, I enjoyed it and she loves the pictures.

[bugmeister]

There's a slight softness to this that ordinarily would attract some criticism (from me anyway ) but here, with the subtle mono conversion and the general warmth and  obvious emotion of the moment, it's working very well.

 

My only real criticism would be the lighting. I know you wanted to use just window light, but a small light behind her to outline her hair would have given just a little lift.

Other than that, I think this is lovely. She has a look that says she's trusting you for the picture and since you say she likes them, I reckon you have done a very nice job for them.

[NannyFerret]

Beautifully done, Mr W. 

It's discreet while still showing the bump. 
They will treasure this and the other pics.

[Leon]

I had no room for anything lighting wise really, small corner of the bedroom. it's not that soft and grainy really it's the upload has reduced the quality.(not perfect though I agree)

 

thanks, for the comments, I was more nervous than she was!!

[Leon]

Beautifully done, Mr W. 

It's discreet while still showing the bump. 

They will treasure this and the other pics.

she's only 7 weeks to go, you can hardly tell she's expecting, I said if she wants in a few weeks I'd go back and do it again

[Guest DaveW]

Slightly underexposed for me in this case. I would pull the skin tone up a bit more in post processing. The black background and white sheet have fooled your meter into rendering the skin tone near mid grey. White Caucasian skin is one stop above mid grey in the Zone System. She at the moment is about right for Asian skin colour.

 

The white sheet too is a little on the grey side. You could pull it up to just before the highlights on it burn out. Note in your Avatar the whites on your shirt and compare with the whites on the sheet.

 

Nice pose anyway.

[Leon]

thanks Dave,I wanted Honest comments  I remembered to  take these in RAW too for editing, the mistake I did make id the aperture I forgot to adjust it!! 

 

 

hmmm, raised the highlights, darkened the black but her dark roots in her hair now blend with the background, how do I stop that??

[Dennyboy]

Dave is right reference exposure and skin tones. Something i learnt years ago that amazed me is if you shoot a Black card and let the camera expose for it comes out grey. Then shoot a white card doing the same and let the camera expose again it's the same grey shade. So white things need to dial a bit of exposure in, black under expose to make keep it black. Not commenting on the pose and stuff because portraits aren't my thing really. 

 

PS if it was my missus i would really like the picture , so nice one

[Dennyboy]

Reference the dark roots, in Lightroom i would just use the adjustment brush to raise the exposure slightly. But i don't know what image editor you use. 

[Leon]

Reference the dark roots, in Lightroom i would just use the adjustment brush to raise the exposure slightly. But i don't know what image editor you use. 

I only have CS2, 

[Dennyboy]

Could never get on with Photoshop, sure you could mask part of the image with a layer adjustment? How? Not sure, haven't used for years

[ChrisLumix]

I only have CS2, 

 

"Only" CS2? LOL. You can do just about anything with that! 

 

If it was me, I'd add an Adjustment Layer and use the Dodge tool with low opacity and a soft brush, around the area of her roots. But I can't honestly see any difference between them and the background in either shot. I personally don't think it makes any difference to the shot, which is lovely by the way. As for any slight softness (is there?? don't see it!) this is one type of subject where it enhances rather than spoils. 

[NannyFerret]

People aren't made with sharp skin and I think it's lovely.
I think the cover is slightly bleached in the middle.
You could just lighten the highlights a bit less or the original, and leave the background alone as Chris said, the background looks Ok.

[Guest DaveW]

The rule of thumb I was taught when taking a reading of the brightly lit side of human skin was:-

 

Caucasian ("white") skin = plus one stop

 

Asian skin = meter reading

 

Black African skin = minus one stop

 

You can take a "spot" skin reading with a camera even if it does not have a spot metering function, but you have to get close enough so the bright side of the skin fills the viewfinder (about a foot away at most).  The camera does not need to focus that close since you are simply taking a brightness reading, so an out of focus image makes no difference. If your camera has a spot meter it is still better to get closer since in-camera spot meters angle of view depends on the lens fitted, therefore you want to be sure you are only measuring the skin highlights. Then apply the exposure corrections above to the meter reading.

 

These days with digital you can then also adjust the exposure using the histogram on either the camera's monitor screen or in post processing.  See:-
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kexgmv7LU-w

[Jon]

You've done a grand job there - well done - All that really matters, of course, is whether she liked them - so pat on the back for Mr Wall :-)

[NannyFerret]

You've done a grand job there - well done - All that really matters, of course, is whether she liked them - so pat on the back for Mr Wall :-)

I agree. I like the first one as the cover isn't to bright and still leaves a bit of mystery to the shot. After all, a baby is a  mystery until it is born.

I bet it will be hard to choose between the two if you showed both pictures to them.

[Guest DaveW]

Should have added you could have also used a grey card to get correct exposure. Few know about them these days, but they are far more accurate on all occasions than even the most sophisticated metering patterns in todays top of the line DSLR's.

 
Whilst correct exposure can often be a matter of opinion for the viewer Nanny, to the photographic industry it was often a matter of science such as using densitometers to determine the correct density for negatives in film days for correct exposure, or histograms showing whether the highlights have burnt out and if there is detail in the shadows etc etc in the present digital era.  If you try sending photo's to a national competition or to a stock agency you will find complying with such requirements becomes necessary.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/determining-exposure.shtml

[NannyFerret]

I understand all that. Perhaps it would be better for Mr W to use the highlight's setting so that he can see which area's are blown out or under-exposed.

As you may have found out by now, I never stick to rules.     but  know that Professionals do.

I take one shot at the settings that I want ie. blurred or sharp background etc.

If it isn't what I want then I adjust the settings according to my own taste or which the scene in question requires. DOP, brightness etc.

When I have to resort to rules for every photograph that I take, then I might as well give up, as for me, it just won't be fun.

That doesn't me that I am unwilling to have a go at different things and advice on improving is gratefully accepted.

 

e
 

[ChrisLumix]

Should have added you could have also used a grey card to get correct exposure. Few know about them these days, but they are far more accurate on all occasions than even the most sophisticated metering patterns in todays top of the line DSLR's.

 

 

I watched that video with great interest. It really did work using that grey card in the first setup he did. But I thought that in the second one - the subject against a bright background - where his first shot was underexposed, it was actually better than the 'correct' exposure which looked washed out to me. That was crying out for fill flash if you ask me.

[Guest DaveW]

That is one advantage of digital over film Nanny, instant feedback plus the histogram and blinkies.  In film days you had to wait until it was developed to see if you had the exposure correct.  As an instance one of my friends regularly goes to habitat to photograph plants.  In the past he had to wait until he got home and send his Kodachrome's for processing and get them back before he knew if he had the image he wanted.
 
Now he just takes a shot and sees if it is framed properly on the cameras monitor screen then consults the histogram to see if the exposure is correct and if not takes how many he needs until it is correct. With film it was impractical if later it had not come out to go back half way around the world again and take another shot.
 
Even filming weddings you can't really go back and restage again them again if the film was dud, whereas you can keep taking additional images at the time with digital.  I don't think too many of us would now want to go back to the restrictions film placed on photography after enjoying the freedoms of digital?
 
Remember he was trying to get the most important part, the exposure of the face correct using the existing light Chris.  Fill in flash would have helped the shot by reducing the dynamic range of the scene and so the background would have not been so washed out:-

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/09/12/dynamic-range-what-you-need-to-know-about-capturing-all-the-tones-in-a-scene/3/

You can always reduce dynamic range by adding lights or reflectors, but then you are not simply relying on unmodified available light.

[Leon]

hows this for a downer, but chuffed at the same time, while I was at the house Chris my friend was very interested in what I was doing, he asked about my test shots, why the Black background ect ect.......then after I left they had a play with thier own point and shoot, the result was pretty impressive.....

 

think I'll go back to modifying cars and running a car forum for a hobby!!!!     

 

 

oh and thanks again for all the replies

 

 

[ChrisLumix]

That is one advantage of digital over film Nanny, instant feedback plus the histogram and blinkies.  In film days you had to wait until it was developed to see if you had the exposure correct.  As an instance one of my friends regularly goes to habitat to photograph plants.  In the past he had to wait until he got home and send his Kodachrome's for processing and get them back before he knew if he had the image he wanted.

 

Now he just takes a shot and sees if it is framed properly on the cameras monitor screen then consults the histogram to see if the exposure is correct and if not takes how many he needs until it is correct. With film it was impractical if later it had not come out to go back half way around the world again and take another shot.

 

Even filming weddings you can't really go back and restage again them again if the film was dud, whereas you can keep taking additional images at the time with digital.  I don't think too many of us would now want to go back to the restrictions film placed on photography after enjoying the freedoms of digital?

 

Remember he was trying to get the most important part, the exposure of the face correct using the existing light Chris.  Fill in flash would have helped the shot by reducing the dynamic range of the scene and so the background would have not been so washed out:-

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/09/12/dynamic-range-what-you-need-to-know-about-capturing-all-the-tones-in-a-scene/3/

You can always reduce dynamic range by adding lights or reflectors, but then you are not simply relying on unmodified available light.

 

Not if he was a pro or semi-pro - he/she'd have used Ektachrome and got same-day processing.

 

Yes, I understand what the guy was doing, but I think he could at least have made the point about fill flash so his viewers would know there was more than one way to skin a cat? After all, it's a technique that goes back further than I do, and that's saying something!

[Guest DaveW]

Still preferred Kodachrome to Ektachrome for projection since most of our use was for projection at club meetings and our plants seemed to look better on it.  Ektachrome stands up better to regular projection but fades quicker in storage, meaning all the older stuff we took on similar emulsions have now faded but the Kodachrome is still good.

 

You don't get same day processing in middle of the Atacama desert in Chile I am afraid and if you had ever seen film commercially processed in S. America at that time you would certainly wait until you got back to the UK. There was always debates as to which was the best reversal film, but Fuji caught up in later years.

 

http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00UorA

Kodak does not make slide film anymore I gather.

[NannyFerret]

My first Slr was film camera and I tended to use the S.A or Auto settings to make sure that I got it right as many of my pics those days were of family and occasions.

I know how much it cost in those days to have decent sized prints done.

I got some nice pics with the camera, a Canon eos500n.
Now, with digital, I use mainly Manual setting.

[colinb]

edited in 'only Cs2'

 

Leon let me have a phone number I'm always happy to talk anyone through some basics which I think would help you.

 

I should add this was a quick 5 min effort before I went to work this morning .

 

The levels are off on your original and if you are doing any editing I would always suggest that where you start before making any other adjustments. 

 

 

 

 

 

Original

?