Light reflections in eyes

[=ReBeL=]

Jeremy is going to send them over to me. You've reinforced the point that I keep making myself - if people produce the so-called "high key" portraits with seriously flat lighting , blitzed background etc then it really doesn't matter if the model has moved a bit (or a lot) because there's nothing much to ruin, but in a shot that relies on one key light and correct exposure, small changes make big differences.

I agree with Jonathan 100% on this, which is unusual . PP is an essential part of the finished result, but if people are trying to help you with your lighting then you need to post images that are straight out of the camera, which is what I do in the tutorials on the Lencarta Lighting blog.

Also, use PP to turn a first class shot into an outstanding one, it's an enhancement tool, not a rescue one, so don't try to use it to rescue poor images.

All previous ones are pretty much SOOC, just this one was retouched a bit. I'll be posting retouched ones in feedback section and keep this thread with SOOC photos

 

[JonathanRyan]

Not sure what zebra reflector is TBH. There was a white reflector on the right side of the picture, just outside of the frame. I'll try converting it to B&W, good idea

Zebra - aka sunfire. It has alternating strips of silver and gold. Not as bling as silver and so more forgiving to "real" skin, not as horridly colour shifting as gold. Sometimes called "semi St Tropez" - but I think only by me

Can't see any real evidence of your white reflector which suggests it wasn't close enough, at the wrong angle or just too subtle for web.

I'm sorry Jonathan, I'm not sure what are you telling me to do here.

Hairspray. Will sort out the whispy bits on camera left.

 

[Cistron]

She looks like a different girl in that one above. You're well on the way

+1. It shows that for portraits, poses and lighting are equally important. If she's not comfortable, it shows - usually by an expression of fear or disgust. Fool around, tickle her, get some real smiles out. Small tilts or head and shoulders, little squints, tiny smiles, they all make massive differences to the impression of a portrait.

I also wouldn't hide her neck. Jaw-lines are important.

 

[=ReBeL=]

Thanks. I don't have that one, Jonathan. I have a standard 5in1 reflector and you probably right about it being badly positioned. I had it set up at the begining, but never re-positioned after.



I also plan to shoot tethered to a laptop today to see instant results. The LCD on the back of my camera makes every shot too contrasty and it does not look good at all (even though I have my profile set to neutral and contrast set on 0).

 

[=ReBeL=]

+1. It shows that for portraits, poses and lighting are equally important. If she's not comfortable, it shows - usually by an expression of fear or disgust. Fool around, tickle her, get some real smiles out. Small tilts or head and shoulders, little squints, tiny smiles, they all make massive differences to the impression of a portrait.

I also wouldn't hide her neck. Jaw-lines are important.

I'd like to imporove posing, both me and her have no idea about posing. I have a website link to lots of model shots with some basic poses, I'll try her to copy some of them today.

Maybe it will help somebody, here is the link:
http://www.victoriassecret.com/clothing/dresses?pageAt=all

The tip about the neck is noted. I'll ask her to repeat the hair from day 1 today.

Thanks for the input Mike

 

[Garry Edwards]

I'd like to imporove posing, both me and her have no idea about posing. I have a website link to lots of model shots with some basic poses, I'll try her to copy some of them today.

Maybe it will help somebody, here is the link:
http://www.victoriassecret.com/clothing/dresses?pageAt=all

The tip about the neck is noted. I'll ask her to repeat the hair from day 1 today.

Thanks for the input Mike

You need to put posing on the back burner for now.You're not a fashion photographer and your better half isn't a model, so getting poses that work will be a bit of a struggle for both of you. You need to concentrate on the lighting, because that's something that you can easily improve - and you've already improved on it dramatically!

Why do I say that when posing is such an important ingredient?

Think back to when you learned to drive...
At first, it was virtually impossible to move off smoothly. All it took was a good combination of clutch and accelerator, but until you could master that bit you couldn't think about anything else.
Next came changing gear and getting the thing to go in a straight line. If you were watching the road at all, you were only looking a few feet ahead.
It was only when things like clutch control, gear changes and steering became second nature that you were able to look ahead and think about pedestrians who might try to kill themselves, cars that might pull out in front of you and the rest of it.

It's exactly the same with photography. Nail one problem at a time, it's only when the technical side becomes second nature and requires no concious thought that we can look ahead and deal with the other stuff.

 

[=ReBeL=]

Wise words Garry, thanks. It's often a problem with me that I try to run before I can walk. It was the same when I was starting with the photography. I stuck the camera on M and refused to change it. For weeks and weeks I was taking blurry photos, overexposed, underexposed, bad composition because I was fiddling with settings and not concentrating on composing photos, missed lots of shots, etc. In the end I think it was a good thing, as right now the M mode is like a second nature to me. I don't use any other mode (sometimes Bulb for night shots), but it would probably be easier if I mastered AV and Tv modes first.

Anyway, back to lighting. I agree 100%. I don't plan on spending my 30 min on trying to find a perfect pose. I just would like to get one, simple pose, which would not be boring and I can use that as a base for my photos.

I already made a similar decision few days ago. I have two UltraPro flashes and some umbrellas. I could easily set two lights up and struggle with two, but I decided to only use one with the softbox. Learn one and only then add another one. Second light would just add to the confusion. I have a better understanding how to use my one light + softbox already, after few days. If there were 2 of them, I don't think I could learn it so quickly. Don't get me wrong, I know that there is still long way to go

 

[HoppyUK]

You're doing great Rebel. It's good to see, and with you're examples

The one thing you haven't done with the shot above is crop it, but I wonder if you might try this.

Crop it hard on the right, close to her ear. Crop it at the bottom, at her shoulder line. Take a bit off the top and a bit off the left hand side.

Turn it black and white, push the contrast up a bit, and add a very subtle vignette. See what you think

 

[=ReBeL=]

Thank you Richard. I already started working on B&W version after Jonathan mentioned it I got distracted though, because my portrait glass just arrived. Nothing crazy, as I'm really out of money. Inexpensive 85 1.8. Also I'll be setting it all up in about half an hour time.

I'll post the finished version of that shot in portrait feedback section here on TP and post a link here in case you want to have a look. I'll keep SOOC pictures here in this thread. It will be easier to concentrate on lighting issues.

 

[HoppyUK]

Thank you Richard. I already started working on B&W version after Jonathan mentioned it I got distracted though, because my portrait glass just arrived. Nothing crazy, as I'm really out of money. Inexpensive 85 1.8. Also I'll be setting it all up in about half an hour time.

I'll post the finished version of that shot in portrait feedback section here on TP and post a link here in case you want to have a look. I'll keep SOOC pictures here in this thread. It will be easier to concentrate on lighting issues.

Looking forward to it.

In the final image, I'm thinking that her nose would be close to the horizontal third, and her eyes on the vertical third. Trendy crop, but embracing classical rules

 

[=ReBeL=]

Looking forward to it.

In the final image, I'm thinking that her nose would be close to the horizontal third, and her eyes on the vertical third. Trendy crop, but embracing classical rules

Glad you mentioned it, just looking at various crop options

 

[=ReBeL=]

Something like this?

 

[HoppyUK]

Not so sure now! LOL

Not so tight, more contrast, vignette on the left.

It's a style I often pull out of a portrait session, if you have a more-moody and less-smiley shot. Adds a bit of variety and strangley enough mums seem to love it with kids.

Edit: ignore me. It was just a thought. Might have worked but has turned into a distraction from the point of this (rather good) thread. Or you could turn it hard black/white and pop-colour her lips red! Noooo!

 

[=ReBeL=]

No worries, I'll work so more on this a bit later. I need to start setting it all up now

 

[domino1999]

I need to start setting it all up now

That's the part I hate! If only I could click my fingers and it was all setup or packed away iin an instant

 

[=ReBeL=]

I'm getting rather good at setting it all up now. I think I managed to cut about 10 min comparing to the first few times



OK, all done now. Few words before I post the pictures up.

Today we had a lot less time than usual. Basically the reason why I'm so limited time-wise, is that we have a small baby. The only time when both of us can do something together is when he's napping. Today, it was shorter than usual. Much shorter. In the end we got him downstairs to add few more clicks, but he's not well at the moment, plus he's teething, so yeah. Instead of what I had in mind, I had to cut everything down by half.

Few things I wanted to test today:

1. new lens - boy, this is sharp! I love the 85 already. The images even straight from the camera do pop and they have this 3d feeling to them. Love it, but more testing needed.
2. tethering to laptop - works good, but I need a longer cable. Also as this was the first time, I had to go through all the options to set it up as I wanted. Lost few minutes there. 2 things though - for me it's good just for the initial testing, after that, not really. Also my model got distracted by it almost straight away, asking to see the images, she even was peeking during the shoot. Note to myslef: turn the laptop so she can't see the pictures live on the screen
3. after all my talking about how I go step-by-step, how smart I am by only working with one light, blah blah, I went downstairs and set up two lights :bang: I wanted to test out my DIY snoot (which basically is my large mouse pad rolled around the light and few laundry clips to hold it down ). Useless test, with no real value, as I did not know exactly where to point it, I was very limited with space and time. It works, but I need more time to test. Also it was set waaaay to low and it's almost unvisable in the pictures.
4. there was no time for pose testing, so whatever she came up with I shot

OK, here are 2 shots from today. I'll let you decide whether this is any better


_MG_3853 by =ReBeL=, on Flickr


_MG_3841 by =ReBeL=, on Flickr

 

[CrazeUK]

What camera and lens are you using?

 

[Garry Edwards]

OK, a way to go on the posing/cropping but what an improvement to the lighting!
The shadow on her cheek has given her cheekbones, that little shadow under her lower lip has made her look very attractive.

In your very first example, she looked fat. Now she looks sexy.

If you're shooting with a laptop you have a choice of 2 solutions, either place it where the model can't see it at all or have a second monitor where the model can see it without moving. Even pro models will break a pose to try to look at the shots, in fact they're probably the worst subjects there are for vanity.

How are you finding your flashy new UltraPro BTW?

 

[=ReBeL=]

What camera and lens are you using?

The main camera is Canon 5d mk2. The lens I was using up until today was Canon 70-200 f4 L. Today I got Canon 85 1.8 and most likely this will be my main portrait lens from now on.

OK, a way to go on the posing/cropping but what an improvement to the lighting!
The shadow on her cheek has given her cheekbones, that little shadow under her lower lip has made her look very attractive.

In your very first example, she looked fat. Now she looks sexy.

If you're shooting with a laptop you have a choice of 2 solutions, either place it where the model can't see it at all or have a second monitor where the model can see it without moving. Even pro models will break a pose to try to look at the shots, in fact they're probably the worst subjects there are for vanity.

How are you finding your flashy new UltraPro BTW?

Yes, as I said those were all rushed, we were constantly distracted by the baby. There was no time to look at the page with the poses today. I did not even give any instructions whatsoever (except on the very begining). Posing is definitely something I need to practice more. I will have few even more unenxperienced girls than my missus soon to shoot. I need to give them some sort of instructions and have a clear idea in my head what do I want.

I think I'll just keep the image previews for myself. She can see them all after the session. Otherwise she is distractring herself and me as well.

I think I have an idea now how to do a basic setup with large softbox now. I know this is still far from ideal, but even I thought that this is better. She also commented that this is better than before. Also today I have her standing. I found it a bit akward for myself and my model when I had her sitted low, just to be able to put my softbox higher. It largely reduce posing possibilities I think.

I really like those flashes. The light is very good and there is also a nice consistency in light temperature, even when the power is reduced. I would like to include the commander to my setup. It's not ideal, when I have my light up close to the ceiling and I want to reduce the power, but this is problem with most flashes I believe.

I have a question about the snoot. How powerful should it be when I want to direct it at the hair. Is there some sort of rule, how to use it. Or is it just, judge it first then shoot. If you look very hard in those pictures, there is a bit of light coming from my snoot light, but I had it on the lowest power possible, as I really did not wanted to introduce any light to her cheek.

Thanks very much for comment

 

[Garry Edwards]

I'm glad you like the UltraPros, their development was a big investment for Lencarta but the sales and comments from users are very encouraging.

Your home made snoot may or may not work. What a snoot really needs is a honeycomb fitted to it, so that it can face more or less towards the lens without causing flare. The Lencarta one only costs £25...

There are no rules, basically you just set the power to whatever gives you the result you want. As well as the different power needed for different effects, hair varies enormously, natural blond hair in good condition needs very little light, afro hair needs an unbelievable amount - it's all just trial and error

 

[=ReBeL=]

Thanks for the tips Garry, I'll experiment a bit next time.

I know it's only £25, but this is just a one of the things I still need. Snoot £25, black background £40, 2 books £40, commander £50, etc. It's a never wnding story, isnt

I also added one more photo from today. It's been retouched so it's in the feedback section, click here to see it. Not sure about it, but I need to keep practising my retouching skills as well

 

[JonathanRyan]

2. tethering to laptop - works good, but I need a longer cable. Also as this was the first time, I had to go through all the options to set it up as I wanted. Lost few minutes there. 2 things though - for me it's good just for the initial testing, after that, not really. Also my model got distracted by it almost straight away, asking to see the images, she even was peeking during the shoot.

Opps. That's kind of my fault. When I said "try shooting tethered" I meant "if you think anything else you could possible do is hard, then try shooting tethered..." Don't enjoy shooting tethered myself for all the reasons you list - plus it's slow. I have to pause for 2 seconds between each shot to see what's happening and I'd rather not.

If you do want to shoot tethered then I'd recommend a 5m ACTIVE extension cable and just plug your camera cable in there. The 20 quid one from Maplin works well.

Like the first shot a lot. Second not so much

 

[=ReBeL=]

I think tethering is great for setting up and checking lights. I have an instant feedback on bigger tanh 3 in monitor. i can see what kind of shadow I get, also in general how does it look. I think that's how I'll be using it. Connect, check, disconnect, shoot away

On the beginning it was as you say, 2-3 s after each shot where I had to wait for my RAW to be transferred, so I changed it. I set in cxamera to shoot RAW + small JPEG and in EOS Utility to transfer only small JPEG to the laptop. This way the pictures were almost instantly on my screen, there were also big enough to fill the laptop screen.

I'll have a look on the cable you mentioned about. Many thanks Jonathan

 

[=ReBeL=]

May I resurrect this few weeks old thread as I'm after some more advice.

After few practice sessions since my last post here, the results are just not getting any better. I know it's still very early days for me, but every time I upload pictures to my PC, I'm disappointed

Here are 2 shots from today. Both with different lighting setups.

First one. I saw many times on tutorial videos I watched similar set up to this. Very often used with female models, so I fancied giving it a try. The key light is in front and above the subject, the fill light is in front and below (both fitted with reflective umbrellas). I wanted to accent the cheek bones and create a nice shadow underneath. I believe it's called 'clam shell' setup and it's good for beauty shots... well, there is nothing beautiful about this one. I failed and I would like to know what have I done wrong. Looks like my subject is just completely swamped with light, there are almost no shadows. The picture is very flat and the model looks fat.

I suspect that I had my lights a bit to far away and as per inverse square law, the light was just to even. Second thing, is I believe the pose is all wrong. My initial idea was to place her facing the camera and the lights, but this looked even worse than this example. No shadows whatsoever, flat and boring.

Here is the picture:


test by =ReBeL=, on Flickr


Second setup is the traditional setup I do often, ie key light 45 degrees to the left of camera and above. I also added a fill light in front of the model, under the camera. Both with reflective 100cm umberallas fitted. Again, it looks flat and more like a passport photo than a beauty shot. The framing is wrong as well, too much space above the model, but I didn't want to crop it and left it as it is.


test by =ReBeL=, on Flickr

Please note that there was no artistic edit involved in any of those shots. Just very basic edit. The pictures would possibly look a bit better if I convert them to B&W or do split tonning, etc., but that's not the point here.

Also I know about her hair taking 1/3 of the whole frame in both pictures. My bad for failing to notice that during the shoot :bonk:

All feedback, comments or/and critique very welcome

 

[Garry Edwards]

Actually you're doing better than you seem to think...

Before I go into any detail, a general point: A white reflective umbrella may not be your best tool for this. It controls the light reasonably well but it's a fairly harsh light because of the distance from light source to subject, and it's pretty unforgiving on the skin, causing unwanted reflections (glare if you like) that can detract from the final effect. It isn't necessarily a bad choice because it flatters the hair, but for it to work well on the face requires very good matt makeup - and amateur models don't really do matt makeup...

The first shot would be much better if the light(s) were a little further back, lighting just the left side of her face and so producing short lighting, which would have slimmed her face. Also, the light needs to be higher, to emphasise her cheekbones. And it looks a bit overexposed to me.

And the same comments apply to the second shot, although in reverse of course, the light needs to be further back to light only the right side of her face. Personally I wouldn't have used a fill light for this, I would have tried it with just one light (which is what I always do, and would have added a reflector, only if needed.

 

[=ReBeL=]

My thoughts on improving the first shot.

Have the model facing the camera.
Take both lights much closer to the model. This should give me more contrast (light fall off) in the image and also a slight shadow under the cheek bones. In the example posted here the lights were about 4-5 feet away from the subject. Thinking about it now, I suspect they should be much closer and the key light high above the subject to creat a nice vertical shadows. Fill light slightly below subject and low power to reduce the intensity of the shadows.

Shoot with wide opened aperture. Both of those rubbish photos were taken with f9, I think if I had it at something like 2-2.8 should provide more impact and emphasise the eyes even more.

The second one is a complete failure IMO and I don't even have a clear idea what could I do to improve it (except for not taking it at all).

I'm also very annoyed at myself. I read a lot about lighting, posing, studio tips etc. I have lots of ideas that I want to test out and everything seems crystal clear when I'm in front of my PC. But the minute I set my lights up, my brain goes blank. Like today I set the lights up and sat down for 10 min (while waiting for my model to change) trying to remember what was I trying to achieve here, how to pose my model to get nice shadows, etc. Argh :bang:

 

[=ReBeL=]

Actually you're doing better than you seem to think...

Before I go into any detail, a general point: A white reflective umbrella may not be your best tool for this. It controls the light reasonably well but it's a fairly harsh light because of the distance from light source to subject, and it's pretty unforgiving on the skin, causing unwanted reflections (glare if you like) that can detract from the final effect. It isn't necessarily a bad choice because it flatters the hair, but for it to work well on the face requires very good matt makeup - and amateur models don't really do matt makeup...

The first shot would be much better if the light(s) were a little further back, lighting just the left side of her face and so producing short lighting, which would have slimmed her face. Also, the light needs to be higher, to emphasise her cheekbones. And it looks a bit overexposed to me.

And the same comments apply to the second shot, although in reverse of course, the light needs to be further back to light only the right side of her face. Personally I wouldn't have used a fill light for this, I would have tried it with just one light (which is what I always do, and would have added a reflector, only if needed.

My previous post I wrote while you posted yours Garry. So apologies.

I must say I'm surprised that you said I should take my lights further back in the first set up. I think this will completely fill my subject's face with light and I won't get any shadows at all.

I had my blinkies enabled also checked histogram but failed to notice the overexposure, I'm pretty sure blinkies didn't showed up on my LCD, but I agree that I thought I had my lights on too much power after I uploaded it to my PC.

Of course! The second would look much better without the fill light. It's so obvious now that you mentioned it Garry. The fill light makes the photo flat and uninteresting.

This was first time I used two umbrellas at the same time when lighting a single person. Will rememeber to use my softbox instead next time.

As usual, great advice. Thanks very much Garry

EDIT: great tip about the matte makeup fundation BTW She is absolutely useless with makeup, as she doesn't use any on day to day basis (only when going out and still very little). I'll buy her a matte fundation tomorrow.

 

[=ReBeL=]

I also tried something completely new to me - hard light. This is one with bare reclector fitted onto UltraPro above the model and I think had my fill light switched off for this shot. I quite like the contrast in this picture and how harsh shadow on her jawline is making her look thinner, but again, I think it is a bit overexposed and the reflections on her skin are a bit too bright and annoying. Alsoeyes are a bit in shadow (only noticed that now). The reflector was as high as possible in my studio (around 7-7.5 feet high) and about 4-5 feet away.


_MG_5370 by =ReBeL=, on Flickr

I had to switch the modeling lamp off as she was complaining that it's blinding her. Tough!

 

[Garry Edwards]

My previous post I wrote while you posted yours Garry. So apologies.

I must say I'm surprised that you said I should take my lights further back in the first set up. I think this will completely fill my subject's face with light and I won't get any shadows at all.

I had my blinkies enabled also checked histogram but failed to notice the overexposure, I'm pretty sure blinkies didn't showed up on my LCD, but I agree that I thought I had my lights on too much power after I uploaded it to my PC.

Of course! The second would look much better without the fill light. It's so obvious now that you mentioned it Garry. The fill light makes the photo flat and uninteresting.

This was first time I used two umbrellas at the same time when lighting a single person. Will rememeber to use my softbox instead next time.

As usual, great advice. Thanks very much Garry

EDIT: great tip about the matte makeup fundation BTW She is absolutely useless with makeup, as she doesn't use any on day to day basis (only when going out and still very little). I'll buy her a matte fundation tomorrow.

Oops...
By further back I meant further away from you, further towards her, so that the light was close and at the side of her face, not further away from her.

Latest shot - I like the effect, but again the shine on her face and the overexposure is causing the problem here.

 

[domino1999]

EDIT: great tip about the matte makeup fundation BTW She is absolutely useless with makeup, as she doesn't use any on day to day basis (only when going out and still very little). I'll buy her a matte fundation tomorrow.

Just make sure you let her choose which one, otherwise you might just make her mad and be without a model

Good to see you trying things out. I still haven't started to attempt any portraits, since my wife is not as willing as yours Like you, I've read the books, read the forums, watched the YouTube videos....so in my head I think I know the theory, but that's useless unless I can try it out in practice! I'd try some self-portraits, but I've read that this can be pretty much impossible, trying to get the lighting right....:bang:

 

[Garry Edwards]

I had to switch the modeling lamp off as she was complaining that it's blinding her. Tough!

great tip about the matte makeup fundation BTW She is absolutely useless with makeup, as she doesn't use any on day to day basis (only when going out and still very little). I'll buy her a matte fundation tomorrow.

You're a real romantic
Don't forget to explain why you've bought it for her..

"I've bought this for you because you're crap at makeup and your greasy skin is ruining my photos"

 

[=ReBeL=]

Oops...
By further back I meant further away from you, further towards her, so that the light was close and at the side of her face, not further away from her.

Latest shot - I like the effect, but again the shine on her face and the overexposure is causing the problem here.

That's what I thought, thanks Garry. I'll try that next time. I need to watch closely the exposure. Light meter is on my 'to buy' list, very high. It should help me controlling the exposure even better and not rely on my eyes only (blinkies and histogram).

Just make sure you let her choose which one, otherwise you might just make her mad and be without a model

Good to see you trying things out. I still haven't started to attempt any portraits, since my wife is not as willing as yours Like you, I've read the books, read the forums, watched the YouTube videos....so in my head I think I know the theory, but that's useless unless I can try it out in practice! I'd try some self-portraits, but I've read that this can be pretty much impossible, trying to get the lighting right....:bang:

Thanks Darren. Yes, I'm a master of theory (well, almost ), but failing hard to put that into practice. I wish I had more time to play around with lights, but as I use my living room as the studio, I can only do that when my wee boy is asleep and when she's willing to model for me.

I was also thinking about self-portraits just to try out few different lighting setups, but I trully hate being on the other side of the camera, so will beg around for models rather than take pictures of me She has few nice looking girlfriends, so maybe I'll have somebody else I can use

There is a video I watched few days ago, with some tips for selfportraits. How to focus and few other tricks, I'll try to dig it out for you.

EDIT: Here is the video Darren

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdbO1bzpoQo&feature=related

You're a real romantic
Don't forget to explain why you've bought it for her..

"I've bought this for you because you're crap at makeup and your greasy skin is ruining my photos"

I know, I'm well known for being very romantic And as for the second one, I told her few times already that she's crap at makeup

Well the deal already has been struck. I let her go out shopping with her girlfriend tomorrow (that means I'll be babysitting), but she must buy matte fundation. She told me 'I know nothing about matte fundation', so I snapped 'read about it on the net, I don't care' Not sure I'm the winner in this deal, as she will go out, buy few things for her and I'll be at home changing nappies, but hey ho

Does it matter which matte fundation, or any will do (I don't belive I'm asking for makeup tips on a photography forum)

 

[=ReBeL=]

Here is the lighting setup from few days ago that I really like and I think I'll be using more often.

Black background (doh! ), key light at 45 degrees camera left with 100x100cm softbox fitted. Rim light directly opposite to the key light, 45 degrees behind the model camera right fitted with reflective umbrella. The rim light was a little bit too hot I believe and I lost a bit of detail on the top of her head, but other than that I'm quite happy with the result. What do you think?

Here is full photo:


and the 'arty-farty' crop

 

[domino1999]

Light meter is on my 'to buy' list, very high. It should help me controlling the exposure even better and not rely on my eyes only (blinkies and histogram).

After that debacle of dodgy light meter I bought on fleabay, I finally got my money back and bought a brand new L308-S and I can highly recommend it! It helps a lot when using UltraPro and speedlites indoors, though these things aren't cheap, I was shocked!

I wish I had more time to play around with lights, but as I use my living room as the studio, I can only do that when my wee boy is asleep and when she's willing to model for me.

Exactly the same situation with me!

There is a video I watched few days ago, with some tips for selfportraits. How to focus and few other tricks, I'll try to dig it out for you.

EDIT: Here is the video Darren

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdbO1bzpoQo&feature=related

Much appreciated. Will watch it when I get home. I've seen dozens of videos on YouTube, but not watched any about self-portraits yet

Darren

 

[domino1999]

Here is the lighting setup from few days ago that I really like and I think I'll be using more often.

Black background (doh! ), key light at 45 degrees camera left with 100x100cm softbox fitted. Rim light directly opposite to the key light, 45 degrees behind the model camera right fitted with reflective umbrella. The rim light was a little bit too hot I believe and I lost a bit of detail on the top of her head, but other than that I'm quite happy with the result. What do you think?

I really like those Not sure if there's a slight hotspot on her forehead, might just be my crappy work monitor....also not so sure about the hand/pose...looks a bit awkward, if you know what I mean.

Darren

 

[=ReBeL=]

I really like those Not sure if there's a slight hotspot on her forehead, might just be my crappy work monitor....also not so sure about the hand/pose...looks a bit awkward, if you know what I mean.

Darren

It's the famous 'oh my tooth!' pose which I saw somewhere before the shoot, but probably messed it up anyway

On my monitor here I cannot see the forehead hotspot, all is even, but I'm having problems with my monitor calibration, so not 100% sure.

Thanks Darren I need to start using the black background more often. So much better than the white one IMO.

 

[HoppyUK]

It's the famous 'oh my tooth!' pose which I saw somewhere before the shoot, but probably messed it up anyway

On my monitor here I cannot see the forehead hotspot, all is even, but I'm having problems with my monitor calibration, so not 100% sure.

Thanks Darren I need to start using the black background more often. So much better than the white one IMO.

Forehead is well blown on my monitor, right from eyebrows to hair line. Nose too, and cheek, hand, hair!

I think it's just over exposed a stop, though it might pull back with the recovery slider in Lightroom. Or with different make up, but that wouldn't help the hand or hair.

What does the histogram show?

 

[=ReBeL=]

Right, looks like I definitely have issues with my calibration.

That's the histogram taken from Lightroom 4

but the image was actually edited in Photoshop before I bought Lightroom. I need to look at it in Photoshop to look what have I done. IIRC my PS edit workflow for this shot I edited levels, so I might have introduced that problem myself with incorrectly calibrated monitor.

That's the histogram for the crop version

again no sign of the clipped highlights.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Forehead is well blown on my monitor, right from eyebrows to hair line. Nose too, and cheek, hand, hair!

I think it's just over exposed a stop, though it might pull back with the recovery slider in Lightroom. Or with different make up, but that wouldn't help the hand or hair.

What does the histogram show?

I think that Richard has hit the nail on the head, I'm getting exactly the same impression on my monitor. Over exposure is creating a 'lighting problem' that isn't actually there.

but the image was actually edited in Photoshop before I bought Lightroom. I need to look at it in Photoshop to look what have I done. IIRC my PS edit workflow for this shot I edited levels, so I might have introduced that problem myself with incorrectly calibrated monitor.

I've said it before, more politely last time though...
DO NOT EDIT SHOTS BEFORE POSTING THEM IF YOU WANT USEFUL ADVICE ON LIGHTING:bang:

 

[=ReBeL=]

I think that Richard has hit the nail on the head, I'm getting exactly the same impression on my monitor. Over exposure is creating a 'lighting problem' that isn't actually there.

I've said it before, more politely last time though...
DO NOT EDIT SHOTS BEFORE POSTING THEM IF YOU WANT USEFUL ADVICE ON LIGHTING:bang:

When I was editing it, I wasn't actually thinking about posting it here TBH. I was just playing with photoshop and posted it on the flickr (I posted only the crop version on the flickr few weeks ago as well, the full one I posted on flickr today). I probably shouldn't actually posted it here, but I just wanted to show an example of the lighting setup I like and will shoot more of.

Sorry, please ignore those two shots then. I will take them down from this thread in the minute as well.

I plan to use this setup again (but this time reversing the key and fill light, ie key behind 45 degrees, fill in front left 45 degrees and model facing right looking from the camera perspective) and again replicate this lighting setup again next time I get some shooting time.

I also plan to make sure she has the full bottle of matte fundation on her face beforehand /joke