Model Shoot - Emma Jayne - C&C Welcome

paulkellypix · 30-08-2009 7:07pm #1

Hi All,

I was in Belfast at the weekend and shot model Emma Jayne.

I'm not a fashion photographer so would welcome comments from anyone used to working in studio etc.

All other comments welcome too.

Paul

pixbyjohn · 30-08-2009 7:13pm

I am not an expert photographer by any means but I think your photos are not sharp enough for studio shots.

dudara · 30-08-2009 7:28pm

Purely a comment from an observer, but your lighting setup does nothing for her features - makes her look gaunt.

paulkellypix · 30-08-2009 7:50pm

dudara wrote: »

Purely a comment from an observer, but your lighting setup does nothing for her features - makes her look gaunt.

Thanks for the feedback - she is a very thin girl and I was not looking to hide that.

The images are processed to look soft - maybe I could go the other way and sharpen them?

I have loads more but thought it might be nice to get feedback on the first few before I process the rest!

Paul

Cabaal · 30-08-2009 7:51pm

Too soft for my liking

Tallon · 30-08-2009 8:32pm

Very poor lighting I think, Can't see any of her features
They're also very very soft
Third one looks like you just caught her about to pose

AnCatDubh · 30-08-2009 9:21pm

quite like the second one paul. best of the three for me. to add critique I would feel that more light on the face would be appropriate.

The eyes are very dark throughout - I appreciate a lot of eye makeup appears to be the reason. This creates an interesting little challenge for the photographer. How / where did you meter? Did the eyes stand out so stark when you were shooting or did they become a causality of the post processing?

In #1, the proportions of the torso to head look very unusual. I know you said the model was quite thin but I don't think that is quite what i'm seeing. It maybe the pose / poise of the model or was there anything particular about the shooting conditions on this one?

Also in #1 the crop is unusual at the elbow joint / lack of hands.

smelltheglove · 30-08-2009 9:24pm

I agree witht what Tommy has said, I really do like the second one.

CabanSail · 30-08-2009 9:52pm

The lighting set up does not seem to bring out the best in the model. You should really be aiming to be engaging the eyes.

In the post production you should be aiming to have the skin tones soft but sharpen the features like eyes, hair & lips.

It's not easy. Good first attempt.

What light set up did you use?

Borderfox · 30-08-2009 11:34pm

Back to the drawing board with these Paul, as said above skin tones should be soft and features sharp. Start off with the subject well lit and work from there on.

AnimalRights · 31-08-2009 8:00am

#1 looks like she's a survivor from a concentration camp, as the others said, very soft, not mad on the model at all tbh.

paulkellypix · 31-08-2009 9:08am

AnimalRights wrote: »

#1 looks like she's a survivor from a concentration camp, as the others said, very soft, not mad on the model at all tbh.

Thanks for all the feedback - the post processing I used softened the images a lot - too much obviously.

These are only the first of five sets shot on the day, so will do some work on those and post results when done.

This forum is proving to be an excellent resource!

CabanSail · 31-08-2009 9:24am

What set up did you use for the light?

How many? Where were they postioned? What accessories on the Lights? Soft Boxes, Brollies, Snoots, Barn Doors etc?

What "look" were you going for?

It helps to get the shots right in the camera with a view to the techniques you will be using in Post Production, rather than thinking they will be perfect from the RAW file. I am working of some images at present which are for a MUA. We had three models as Brides in the studio. I used the 85mm & 50mm primes as they are very sharp. The problem there is that they show every slight flaw in the skin, each spot, wrinkle or patch of dried skin is there in the RAW files. Using less than flat light will also show up any imperfections on the skin, but the rest of the features are well defined. I have then used a series of Masks to process each element in the images individually. The methods I used are based on the techniques taught by Guy Gowan in the Cosmetic Techniques DVD.

paulkellypix · 31-08-2009 12:28pm

Ok - so I've quickly done a few more - different lighting etc.

Are these getting there?

AnimalRights · 31-08-2009 12:43pm

I prefer the 2nd set but I still don't like this soft look your going for, out of the 6 pics #6 is the best, purely for her eyes.
Also in pose #5 she is too skinny to be positioning her left shoulder the way she is.(she also does this shoulder thing in #1)

humberklog · 31-08-2009 12:51pm

I think there's a problem with the style you're trying to achieve and the model your using. There is a stong creeping sense of uneasiness in each shot.
Perhaps try a different style of shoot that'll suit the natural physicalities and acting abilities of the model or try a different model?
Good looking girl and good photography skills but there is a big disconnect between both in my eyes anyway.

paulkellypix · 31-08-2009 12:55pm

humberklog wrote: »

Good looking girl and good photography skills but there is a big disconnect between both in my eyes anyway.

Thanks for the positive comment - I'm not into studio photography with humans really - I've shot a lot of pets in my home studio.

I like the softness in the shots - but take on board the comments of all posters here.

Hmm.....where's that drawing board?

humberklog · 31-08-2009 1:16pm

Before you throw the baby and bathwater out why not invest in a back scratcher and attach it to a broom handle (a ticklestick?). Then tease the model with it as you're snapping away? I think darker clothes of a deeper material would suit her better too.

I do think that your model needs busier surrounds though, like a sitting room with a busy mantle piece of ornaments or outdoors even.

smelltheglove · 31-08-2009 4:41pm

I am getting by your softness that you may be looking for a more glamour finish to the shots. I think you would perfect the shots by going back to the original and sharpening and then doing a skin smoothing on them so you will end up with the soft skin but retain the sharpness in the features rather than make the images look too edited.

I much prefer the second set. I would prefer if there was more ditance between the model and the background although this is not always possible. I am getting a bit of a yellow hint off these images so colour balance may be off, then again if this is just my screen I would appreciate being told where to go so I can get my ass into gear and do that callibration which is overdue.

oshead · 31-08-2009 5:14pm

Paul. Good to see you are putting it out there for people to C&C. I never really do on this site. I find it's easier to get good honest C&C from strangers. So what ever I mention here is not cos I having a dig at you or your style. It's just my POV and my comments are intended as constructive criticism to help you.

I don't get what you are trying to achieve with these pix. To tell you the truth, they look god awful..... :eek: Out of focus in some, the whites are clipped in others, No catch light in the eyes. Colors looks off and the attempts at retouching by bluring the models skin looks amaterurish. There's lots more I could say but won't here. It's back to the drawing board with these me thinks.

The second batch is a better. But only cos you didn't try to muck around with them too much in PP. Maybe you should try and learn specific lighting styles, and nail them. Afterwards learn specific retouching techniques and nail those too.

I'm a big believer in the KISS :rolleyes: philosopy when starting out with new styles, lighting and technique. It's not until you do the simple stuff well can you move on to more advanced stuff.

David OS

paulkellypix · 31-08-2009 7:22pm

oshead wrote: »

Paul. Good to see you are putting it out there for people to C&C. I never really do on this site. I find it's easier to get good honest C&C from strangers. So what ever I mention here is not cos I having a dig at you or your style. It's just my POV and my comments are intended as constructive criticism to help you.

Thanks for the honesty - however I do feel that you don't quite get "constructive" criticism! Saying something is "god awful" is not constructive and if I were not thick skinned, could be very hurtful.

I have stated that I was in an unfamiliar setting - a studio is not my first choice for work - so I welcome your comments on nailing some simple techniques first.

What's surprising me is that I've sent these images to the model and she loves them! - I've also posted them to Flickr and one comment left for me in particular describes the softest image of them all as "awesome".

Untrained eyes seem to think that the images are good - but by posting them here I hope to learn more from experts in this area.

Paul

humberklog · 31-08-2009 7:31pm

You did pimp it across 45 groups and tagged it with a few saucey words on flickr so with those kind of numbers and tags I'd say the response was very small
I've an untrained eye btw.

Borderfox · 31-08-2009 7:36pm

I think in a lot of respects its the end user opinions that matter the most, there is no point in making pictures for photographers as that always ends up with a divergence in opinion, at the end of the day if your happy with your work and the customer is also then thats all that matters.

Keith

paulkellypix wrote: »

Thanks for the honesty - however I do feel that you don't quite get "constructive" criticism! Saying something is "god awful" is not constructive and if I were not thick skinned, could be very hurtful.

I have stated that I was in an unfamiliar setting - a studio is not my first choice for work - so I welcome your comments on nailing some simple techniques first.

What's surprising me is that I've sent these images to the model and she loves them! - I've also posted them to Flickr and one comment left for me in particular describes the softest image of them all as "awesome".

Untrained eyes seem to think that the images are good - but by posting them here I hope to learn more from experts in this area.

Paul

paulkellypix · 31-08-2009 7:38pm

humberklog wrote: »

You did pimp it across 45 groups.

OOOPS!

I copied the tags from another image on Flickr - will correct!

Thanks

Ballyman · 31-08-2009 7:40pm

I can't offer you any advice as I have no experience in this but as far as I can see, the second set is better than the first. She is however very very orange looking in the second set so you might have some colour balance issues going on there.

smelltheglove · 31-08-2009 7:43pm

Ballyman wrote: »

I can't offer you any advice as I have no experience in this but as far as I can see, the second set is better than the first. She is however very very orange looking in the second set so you might have some colour balance issues going on there.

At least its not just my screen so.

As Keith says if you are happy then all is good!!!

democrates · 31-08-2009 8:08pm

Some non-expert impressions:
First set might not be typical model/actor headshot or portrait, but I could see them working within an arty application.

The second set:
#1 has my favourite skin tones, the others seem over saturated for my taste esp. #3 with the red tinge on her arm (lens ca?)

Love the smokey eye shadow on #1, like the engaging eye contact and leaning forward in #2, #3 the catchlight covers the black hole in the iris, would be ideal if it was to the side so the contrast makes the eyes look fresher - I've only seen that result by fluke but it's striking in close-up.

Did you try #3 but with her looking at the camera? That slightly open mouth thing she does/has works, maybe darker lipstick for full on sultry would be worth a try, and without competition from messages on the clothes. Damn pretty girl, well worth the effort so fair play to you overall.

oshead · 31-08-2009 11:59pm

paulkellypix wrote: »

Thanks for the honesty - however I do feel that you don't quite get "constructive" criticism! Saying something is "god awful" is not constructive and if I were not thick skinned, could be very hurtful.

Paul
You could try and get past the fact that I think the images are God awful and address the fact that I high-lighted some of the problems with these images. Out of focus in some, the whites are clipped in others, No catch light in the eyes. Colors looks off and the attempts at retouching by bluring the models skin look amaturish.

Don't get me wrong. I have made plenty of BAD images and PP'd plenty more. More than I'd care to mention. What i've learned is you've got to get ruthless with them and remove any personal sentiment you have with below par shots as you hit the delete key.

Model Shoot - Emma Jayne - C&C Welcome

Comments