Whats wrong with my studio shots?

wonderer

wonderer

Suspended / Banned
Messages
206
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all

Ok I seem to be having a hard time with my images out of the camera from my home studio shoots.

Here is an example straight from the camera.


DSC_0018 by Wonderer1981, on Flickr

And here is a 100% crop


DSC_0018see by Wonderer1981, on Flickr

The shots just lack sharpness and have that gritty rough look to them ( I know what I mean lol )

Can anyone tell me what they think is wrong with these images and what may be causing it? I cant really put into words what I think the problem is but im sure someone can :p

All my shots from the studio look like this but shots from my D90 on auto or AP etc look fine.

HELP!!
 
Im not sure what the issue is?

I can't really see anything wrong them to be honest :-/

Looks good TBH :D
 
Apart from the subsidence, can you tell us what you think is wrong :thinking:
 
Pics look good I know id be happy with them.. just out of curiosity whats your setup
 
When processing what quality settings are you using when saving, the colour tones look quite blotchy suggesting maybe that they've been saved at a lowish quality setting...just looked on your flickr and downloaded the largest available, that is 2048 x 1360 and that is coming in at 800ish kb that seems very small to me :thinking:
 
Phil V said:
Apart from the subsidence, can you tell us what you think is wrong :thinking:
Click to expand...

I don't know what the technical terms are but at 100% zoom in the second pic it looks overly sharpened while at the same time blurry? Ha that makes no sense but 100% crops don't look very good to me. The second image is just a crop of the first BTW. Images always look flat to me too although that is probably more a lighting position problem ( see below)

leebwfc said:
Pics look good I know id be happy with them.. just out of curiosity whats your setup
Click to expand...

These shots are just using a single interfit EX150 head through an umbrella slightly left of the model facing her. That's pretty much it. I have very limited space in my home studio so she is only about 4-5 foot away from the vinyl background.

chris250 said:
Which camera settings are you using and which lights etc?
Click to expand...

D90 on Manual with just 18-105 kit lens, these shots were iso 400, shutter 160, white balance set to flash, centre weighted.

MWHCVT said:
When processing what quality settings are you using when saving, the colour tones look quite blotchy suggesting maybe that they've been saved at a lowish quality setting...just looked on your flickr and downloaded the largest available, that is 2048 x 1360 and that is coming in at 800ish kb that seems very small to me :thinking:
Click to expand...

I use sRGB for colour although im not professional enough to notice the difference between that and Adobe! Is that a wrong setting?

In a nutshell it seems all my shots appear soft but when zoomed in they look overly sharpened or as if there are a lot of artifacts going on. :shrug:
 
ISO400? why? you should be at 100, or 200 if you have an older nikon.
400 is unnecessary in a studio setting.
 
What quality setting is the camera set to? Are you resizing the images before posting them to Flickr?

While the first image at full size (2000+ pixel long edge) looks fine on screen, that 100% crop show some serious pixelation.... I'd suggest checking the quality settings on the camera. According to the manual, you're smallest JPEG output from the D90 is 2144x1424 but that doesn't match the dimensions of the image on flickr (which is 2148x1360), but that could be done to something in Flickr when you upload.
 
iamtheoneneo said:
ISO400? why? you should be at 100, or 200 if you have an older nikon.
400 is unnecessary in a studio setting.
Click to expand...

Well I put it at 400 because I am working in a pretty small space so I cant bump up the power of the lights any more without blowing the models skin and because I think the shots are soft already I don't want to lower the shutter any more. Surely 400 is low enough to not have noise be an issue even on an older D90? ?:(
 
You are using very soft lighting. This accentuates the softness. You get little tonal range and only the blacks have sufficient edges to look sharp.

This has been the trend in many home studios in recent years.
People have moved away from strong modelling and texture and full tone photographs. they are frightened of showing facial lines and blemishes and shadows so lose all character.
You need to look at some OLD books on portrait lighting to see how traditional lighting is done.
 
specialman said:
What quality setting is the camera set to? Are you resizing the images before posting them to Flickr?

While the first image at full size (2000+ pixel long edge) looks fine on screen, that 100% crop show some serious pixelation.... I'd suggest checking the quality settings on the camera. According to the manual, you're smallest JPEG output from the D90 is 2144x1424 but that doesn't match the dimensions of the image on flickr (which is 2148x1360), but that could be done to something in Flickr when you upload.
Click to expand...

I only ever shoot either raw or JPG fine. This is the latter.



2848 x 4288 dimensions
JPG fine
300 dpi
Bit depth 24
resolution unit 2
compressed bits/pixel 4
focal length 28 mm
Sharpness: hard

Is the pixilation you mention an effect of having the setting of hard on sharpness ( even though I don't remember setting that and would not know how to change it )
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
You are using very soft lighting. This accentuates the softness. You get little tonal range and only the blacks have sufficient edges to look sharp.

This has been the trend in many home studios in recent years.
People have moved away from strong modelling and texture and full tone photographs. they are frightened of showing facial lines and blemishes and shadows so lose all character.
You need to look at some OLD books on portrait lighting to see how traditional lighting is done.
Click to expand...

Ok thank you. I hold my hands up to not being very adventurous with lighting although that is partly due to space restrictions. I need to move the key light around a bit more so it is not so directly facing the model.

So does having the light almost directly in front of a subject have much of an effect on how soft and flat the photo actually is or merely its appearance, if that makes sense?
 
If you're planning on viewing at 100% you'll have to take more control over your shooting to be happy.

Try printing one of those images at 10x8 to judge a SOOC JPG.

Your images at 100% are like you viewing a metre wide print from inches away, the camera and lens aren't designed for that. The sharpening explains your 'soft but oversharpened' description perfectly.

Even if you're shooting jpeg I'd recommend neutral settings in camera and saturation colour and sharpness tweaks in post. Unless you're really not comfortable with PP, in which case, you'll have to experiment with settings and do some rest prints to get the right 'look'.
 
wonderer said:
I use sRGB for colour although im not professional enough to notice the difference between that and Adobe! Is that a wrong setting?

In a nutshell it seems all my shots appear soft but when zoomed in they look overly sharpened or as if there are a lot of artifacts going on. :shrug:
Click to expand...

What I meant is are you saving at best possible quality at the point of saving your file?
 
wonderer said:
I only ever shoot either raw or JPG fine. This is the latter.

2848 x 4288 dimensions
JPG fine
300 dpi
Bit depth 24
resolution unit 2
compressed bits/pixel 4
focal length 28 mm
Sharpness: hard

Is the pixilation you mention an effect of having the setting of hard on sharpness ( even though I don't remember setting that and would not know how to change it )
Click to expand...

It could be down to the in-camera sharpening, that will; have a pronounced effect on the 'look' of the image when you're zooming in.

It might be worth doing a test shot and have the camera set to RAW + JPEG... Would be interesting to see an untouched, SOOC raw file to see if the in-camera processing is causing the pixelation or as Matt says, whether it issomething to do with the save quality on outputting.
 
MWHCVT said:
What I meant is are you saving at best possible quality at the point of saving your file?
Click to expand...

Oh sorry yes. Photoshop quality goes up to 12 which is what I save as. The issue is just the original image before any pp work is done. The images in the op are straight from camera.
 
wonderer said:
Well I put it at 400 because I am working in a pretty small space so I cant bump up the power of the lights any more without blowing the models skin and because I think the shots are soft already I don't want to lower the shutter any more. Surely 400 is low enough to not have noise be an issue even on an older D90? ?:(
Click to expand...

The shutter speed has no effect on the exposure, unless there is some ambient playing a big part in the exposure.

I take it the lights aren't anywhere near full power? Basically, you can drop the ISO down two stops to ISO 100 and at the current power levels, you'll be working with an aperture of about f/5. If you increase the power levels then the aperture can rise and you can get up to f/10 or thereabouts. Turning the lights up has no bearing on burning out the subject's skin, as the exposure is controlled by the flash.

Unless you're on continuous light - you aren't, are you?...
 
wonderer said:
Oh sorry yes. Photoshop quality goes up to 12 which is what I save as. The issue is just the original image before any pp work is done. The images in the op are straight from camera.
Click to expand...

I don't suppose you can post an un-edited SOOC photo could you?
 
wonderer said:
Ok thank you. I hold my hands up to not being very adventurous with lighting although that is partly due to space restrictions. I need to move the key light around a bit more so it is not so directly facing the model.

So does having the light almost directly in front of a subject have much of an effect on how soft and flat the photo actually is or merely its appearance, if that makes sense?
Click to expand...

Lighting is every thing...
It gives both shape and texture.

what the camera records is the light falling on the subject If it is directly in front it is soft. if it is to the side it defines shape and modeling.
What you see is what you get.
The problem with studio flash is that it is mostly used in large reflectors so it is exceptionally soft. and the modeling lamps are usually fairly weak and so ill defined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top