PDA

View Full Version : Critique on Image



Sandra_Pearce
05-15-2008, 12:51 PM
Considering this image for competition. What is the general opinion?

Sandra

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh165/sandrapearce/shelbycomp.jpg

Keith_A_Howe
05-15-2008, 01:43 PM
Broad light will probably hold the score lower than you would like, but it's a beautiful client image. Probably would not merit IMO.

Keith

John_Metcalfe
05-15-2008, 01:50 PM
I'm w/ Keith on this, plus I wished to see it a bit longer...

Now...
Try this. Take your wonderful painterly skills and produce a slimline light on the mask of her face, down her shoulder and arm, continuing on her dress. Good examples to view are in Greg Gorman's site where he has a slim line of natural light on the subject.

Mark_Levesque
05-15-2008, 02:12 PM
Yes, I looked at this and the first thought was "how beautiful" and the second was "why didn't you light it from the other side?!!!" With a better lighting pattern this one could go. Do you have another from the same session with short lighting? She's a precious little angel; light her right and you are good to go.

Sandra_Pearce
05-15-2008, 04:30 PM
Thanks for the critique Keith & Mark. I have difficulty seeing where the light should be. No matter how many images I study it just doesn't compute in my brain the right way.

John, is this what you had in mind? I did have more of the dress. Yes, I can add light any place I want to but I need to get it right in the capture.

Is this any better?

Sandra

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh165/sandrapearce/shelbycomp3.jpg

John_Metcalfe
05-15-2008, 05:27 PM
Thanks for the critique Keith & Mark. I have difficulty seeing where the light should be. No matter how many images I study it just doesn't compute in my brain the right way.

John, is this what you had in mind? I did have more of the dress. Yes, I can add light any place I want to but I need to get it right in the capture.

Is this any better?

Sandra

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh165/sandrapearce/shelbycomp3.jpg

it's starting up...
watch your color shift while burning.
try using a soft light paint brush at about 15% with a separate layer and take a look. need more? duplicate.

Tess_Teter
05-16-2008, 07:20 AM
[QUOTE=Sandra Pearce;153524]Thanks for the critique Keith & Mark. I have difficulty seeing where the light should be. No matter how many images I study it just doesn't compute in my brain the right way.


For short lighting just remember "shoot into the shadows." I've heard it so many times that when I see broad lighting it seems "wrong" to my brain.

Might also want to watch photographing the backside of the hand (esp. on girls - it's not feminine).


Beautiful image overall! I'd pay good money for a shot like this. :)

Debra_Collins
05-16-2008, 12:35 PM
I have been wondering about the lighting differences with a portrait for a straight photograph and one for painting. The shorter and more subtle light is harder for me to paint but this would be perfect. Do you think, Sandra, that the problem you are having seeing the light is because you see it as a painter first? I have the same problem and have to switch my brain from painter mode to photographer mode. The lighting on this looks like a Vermeer painting to me.

Heather_L._Smith
05-16-2008, 01:01 PM
I think the general rule of thumb, regardless of the medium you're working in, is that you have to do everything you do on purpose... meaning, if you're using a broad light, it should be because the subject NEEDS it (if they have a very narrow or gaunt face, they would benefit from a broad light because it makes the subject look wider or more full), whereas a short light is generally the most appealing for most faces. So, if we're going to shoot a broad-lit subject, it should absolutely be on purpose (and by "on purpose" I don't mean that we did it because we didn't think to move our light... which I do a lot!!)

If we study the old masters and their lighting styles, they did what they did for specific reasons. That's not to say that a broad-lit subject won't merit or that broad lighting is bad... it just has to be done on purpose.

All that said, I think this is a beautiful image and one that I would, as a mother, purchase in a heartbeat.

The true test, Sandra, would be to take a subject like this, shoot it just as you have it, then move your light around to the other side and shoot again with a short lighting pattern - then compare the two images and see what stands out to you.

D._Craig_Flory
05-16-2008, 01:37 PM
Hi Sandra;

I am chiming in now. I've looked at this a bunch of times. I think lighting her from the other side, for short lighting, might have caused a problem with shadows from the wrought iron (especially on her hands). It might have resulted in not getting the beautiful detail in the fabric. Her face is slim enough that broad light is not a problem. I like it as it is.

Don_Chick
05-16-2008, 01:55 PM
This is a lovely image.

Remember, there is no "wrong" lighting pattern. Maybe one works more successfully than another in a given situation but they all are legitimate patterns and should be used appropriately...

I will qualify the following by imo....

Sandra, I think the image of the girl is lovely. I personally don't mind the broad light, however a narrow pattern would draw less attention to her ear & earring as they would be in shadow.... Also (to me) her fingernail polish is a bit distracting.

What I see with this image is a nice portrait of a young girl, now take her out of the overall composition and what do you have? Is the prop and background (as supporting cast) contributing to the whole is a successful way? If the background had interest in it and the props were lit in a more "exciting/engaging" way, I think collectively they would have contributed (from a print competition perspective) to a successful image.

Also, as I looked again at the image... I asked myself...self... why is she holding that prop the way she is? Is that something she would do w/out a photographer telling her? Does it "look" like a "natural" pose. Just a thought...

Keith_A_Howe
05-16-2008, 03:16 PM
I think the general rule of thumb, regardless of the medium you're working in, is that you have to do everything you do on purpose... meaning, if you're using a broad light, it should be because the subject NEEDS it (if they have a very narrow or gaunt face, they would benefit from a broad light because it makes the subject look wider or more full), whereas a short light is generally the most appealing for most faces. So, if we're going to shoot a broad-lit subject, it should absolutely be on purpose (and by "on purpose" I don't mean that we did it because we didn't think to move our light... which I do a lot!!)

If we study the old masters and their lighting styles, they did what they did for specific reasons. That's not to say that a broad-lit subject won't merit or that broad lighting is bad... it just has to be done on purpose.


I quoted Heather here because we all need to re-read this from time to time.

What I want to add to this is don't move your light, it is fine, simply lean her into the fence and twist her shoulders a bit back toward camera. Then turn her face more into the light (camera right) and you would have sculpted her whole body as well as her face. If you moved the light and left everything else alone, as Heather suggested, you would have had short light on her face but you would have the pattern from the fence as D.Craig pointed out to deal with. BUT the real problem would have been that the main light would then be flat onto her chest. With the ladies (young or mature) we want to bring the main light across them to create the shadows and highlights that give demension to them. Remember the old masters used to say " if it turns, turn it, if it twist, twist it and if it bends bend it and perferably do all 3 with in the image". This would have helped the body, face and hands in this image.



What I see with this image is a nice portrait of a young girl, now take her out of the overall composition and what do you have? Is the prop and background (as supporting cast) contributing to the whole is a successful way? If the background had interest in it and the props were lit in a more "exciting/engaging" way, I think collectively they would have contributed (from a print competition perspective) to a successful image.

Also, as I looked again at the image... I asked myself...self... why is she holding that prop the way she is? Is that something she would do w/out a photographer telling her? Does it "look" like a "natural" pose. Just a thought...

Sandra using Don's idea and your painter skills, take the vine elements from the fence (maybe the whole fence too) and incorperate them into the background to create depth and intrest. Good job Don.

Keith

Sandra_Pearce
05-16-2008, 06:15 PM
thanks for all your comments. I am leaving for Florida School as soon as I can throw everything in the car. I am not ignoring your help. Will review all the comments in Daytona. Will post a new one if I have time to work at night. You are all such a great help. What did I do before the forum?

Sandra