Sabrina

[JimH]

As promised, no more shots of my sons. This is the 16 yr old daughter of my neighbor. She and a friend (hers still to come) came by on Friday.

Still attempting to get the lighting right, posing being secondary (back of hands, uncomfortable shoulder etc). In addition, most of these i left zero crop room - making it tough to get a decent 8x10 without whacking some of the image, body parts etc.

As always, pick them apart, let me know your true thoughts.

[PetersenPhotography]

Great Captures! #1 looks a little uncomfortable, but I really have no critiques on the others. I like them a lot!!

[KellyL]

The basic pose you have chosen is a traditionally masculine pose. Having the body facing the mainlight creates a broader body with less definition. The femine body should be turned away from the light, allowing for some cross lighting which will add some definition. The head then comes back towards the light to create the short lighting.

Body needs to be turned more towards the camera.

Poses look nicer if the weight is on the back foot and the front foot is pointing at the camera.

Tall straight back. Push out the small of the back. Slight head tilt to the back shoulder helps elongate the neck and make the model appear more graceful.

These are just a few tips I have learned.

[KellyL]

As far as the lighting is concerned, it looks pretty good. I want to see a vignette, I don't like my backgrounds lit so flatly, I like a hot spot on them, and the images seem just a tad overexposed.

[JimH]

Originally Posted by PetersenPhotography

Great Captures! #1 looks a little uncomfortable, but I really have no critiques on the others. I like them a lot!!

Thanks!

Originally Posted by KellyL

The basic pose you have chosen is a traditionally masculine pose.!!

dammit

Originally Posted by KellyL

Poses look nicer if the weight is on the back foot and the front foot is pointing at the camera.

Isn't that what i have? Please elaborate ... kinda confuzzeled.

Originally Posted by KellyL

I want to see a vignette

Any one in particular?

Originally Posted by KellyL

I don't like my backgrounds lit so flatly, I like a hot spot on them

Typically use a light foot or so behind subject with a shovel scoop. On the bench and full length, the cords get in the image. Set the light at a 45 degree angle with honeycomb at the backdrop camera left. What would you suggest?

Originally Posted by KellyL

and the images seem just a tad overexposed.

Agreed on the first two ... but we won't go there ... some moron that didn't check his manual settings before he shot - who woulda thought they would change all by themselves?

[Rain Lily]

Jim, I really like that last one. Really comfortable and relaxed looking subject.

The only suggestion I have is to maybe open up your aperture a bit to soften the background wrinkles?

Very inexperienced here with studio photography, so that was just an uninformed suggestion. I think Kelly had some great input.

[k9ofkaos]

I kind of dig the last one. The background is soft. She looks relaxed. and I like the pose.

But didn't someone say that it is okay to use masculine poses with girls, but never feminine poses with boys?

[JimH]

Originally Posted by Rain Lily

Jim, I really like that last one. Really comfortable and relaxed looking subject.

The only suggestion I have is to maybe open up your aperture a bit to soften the background wrinkles?

Thanks Sis ... believe it or not it was pressed not once, but twice. Looking straight on under regular lighting you can't seem them. When i was using hot lights, i did stop the exposures down and that was the effect - may have to play around with some metering if i can't get my presser to do better!

Originally Posted by k9ofkaos

I kind of dig the last one. The background is soft. She looks relaxed. and I like the pose.

But didn't someone say that it is okay to use masculine poses with girls, but never feminine poses with boys?

Thanks MoJo! I nit'd it myself for the subjects right shoulder and of course the back of the hands .. but heading in the right direction. Oh .. and i think it was just the head tilt ... not the subject direction. I miffed it on that one.

[Athena]

I like the last one best too, for all the same reasons mentioned.

[KellyL]

Jim,

Yes, the weight is on the back foot, but the leg cutting across the front is a bit of a distraction. I have learned that when I have the girls pose, I ask them to point one foot about 45 degrees across the plane of the floor, perpindicular to the main light. I then have them place their other leg in front of their back leg with the toes pointing towards the camera. For a little more zing, they can throw their hip out and create a nice curve that way. Then we go for the hand placement, then the shoulder placement, then the head placement. I explain to the girls that by posing them the way I am they are going to look a tad slimmer than if I were to pose them square into the camera. Once I tell them that, I can do anything I want.

I prefer oval vignettes. I create a oval, hit the mask button, blur about 200, hit the mask button, invert the selection, choose levels and move the middle slider to taste. Usually between 80 - 90.

[harryd]

Put me in for the last one too. Kelly I love reading your C&C it helps more than just the original poster .

[JimH]

Originally Posted by Athena

I like the last one best too, for all the same reasons mentioned.

Thank you Athena!

Originally Posted by harryd

Put me in for the last one too. Kelly I love reading your C&C it helps more than just the original poster .

Thank you Harry - i love learning from his C&C too.

[JimH]

Originally Posted by KellyL

Yes, the weight is on the back foot, but the leg cutting across the front is a bit of a distraction. I have learned that when I have the girls pose, I ask them to point one foot about 45 degrees across the plane of the floor, perpindicular to the main light. I then have them place their other leg in front of their back leg with the toes pointing towards the camera. For a little more zing, they can throw their hip out and create a nice curve that way. Then we go for the hand placement, then the shoulder placement, then the head placement. I explain to the girls that by posing them the way I am they are going to look a tad slimmer than if I were to pose them square into the camera. Once I tell them that, I can do anything I want.

gotcha .. ok .. was going for the S-curve .. understand what you are saying now. And thanks for the tip ... very crafty!

Originally Posted by KellyL

I prefer oval vignettes. I create a oval, hit the mask button, blur about 200, hit the mask button, invert the selection, choose levels and move the middle slider to taste. Usually between 80 - 90.

Like this?

[rossken]

Nice photos, but I agree, the last one is the best and most comfortable pose.

rossken

[euglan]

hi
i like #2 she looks nice #4is probably the most comfortable and natural looking pose, but they do seem a tad overexposed? skin seems very bright espec. 1&2 all my monitors are calibrated, can anyone else tell this from your end?

[nldunne]

My screen shows them just a tad bright for what I think studio light should be - or maybe what I would do them myself.

[Benji]

Jim,

Here we go!

Image 1. LIGHTING: Fill light too weak. I know because the dark area behind her left ear reads 1 (Photoshop "Info") and it should read about 32. The highlights (on her forehead) read 246. They should read 240, meaning the main light was too powerful for the aperture used. Also the main light should have been higher (catchlights at 11 or 1 o'clock) and it should have been feathered away from her. Feathering will eliminate that "pasty" look these images have. The main light should NEVER be pointed directly at the subject because it will blast them rather than kiss them. POSE: She slumped over. Had she been standing tall, her tummy would be absolutely flat (every woman wants a flat tummy) and her breasts would have appeared fuller (every woman wants fuller breasts.) She is turned too far away from the camera. I can tell because her eyes are crammed too far into the sockets where there are no whites showing on one side. You should always have some whites showing on all sides. A 45 degree turn to the body is ideal. The left arm and hand are just hanging there. The main light should have been at camera right skimming across her body. Note how bright her chest area is. Had the main been at camera right, her face would have still been well lit, but her chest would have been in shadow and a whole lot less HERE I AM. Kelly is right about the lighting is more masculine than feminine.

Image # 2. See # 1. Just because the feet and or hips are not in the image they still must be posed correctly. Just because the concrete foundation of a building will be covered up with dirt doesn't mean it can be poured sloppily. If the foundation isn't right the rest of the building (image) will suffer.

Image # 3. See 1 and 2.

Image # 4. Now you posed her flat to the camera making her look wide. If you position the prop at a 45 degree angle prior to her being seated on it, her torso will automatically be at a 45 degree angle to the camera. Also a 45 degree turn would have mostly eliminated the huge hands we see in this image. Usually clasping hands don't look good. See my "Rules of Good Portraiture" tutorial.

Benji

[JimH]

Originally Posted by rossken

Nice photos, but I agree, the last one is the best and most comfortable pose.

thanks rossken!

Originally Posted by euglan

hi
i like #2 she looks nice #4is probably the most comfortable and natural looking pose, but they do seem a tad overexposed?

Looking at the exif data - my inattention did not catch the shutter speed changing on my camera.

Originally Posted by nldunne

My screen shows them just a tad bright for what I think studio light should be - or maybe what I would do them myself.

Thanks for stopping by Norm. Yes they were a bit bright.

[JimH]

Originally Posted by Benji

Jim,

Here we go!

Image 1. LIGHTING: Fill light too weak. I know because the dark area behind her left ear reads 1 (Photoshop "Info") and it should read about 32. The highlights (on her forehead) read 246. They should read 240, meaning the main light was too powerful for the aperture used. Also the main light should have been higher (catchlights at 11 or 1 o'clock) and it should have been feathered away from her. Feathering will eliminate that "pasty" look these images have. The main light should NEVER be pointed directly at the subject because it will blast them rather than kiss them. POSE: She slumped over. Had she been standing tall, her tummy would be absolutely flat (every woman wants a flat tummy) and her breasts would have appeared fuller (every woman wants fuller breasts.) She is turned too far away from the camera. I can tell because her eyes are crammed too far into the sockets where there are no whites showing on one side. You should always have some whites showing on all sides. A 45 degree turn to the body is ideal. The left arm and hand are just hanging there. The main light should have been at camera right skimming across her body. Note how bright her chest area is. Had the main been at camera right, her face would have still been well lit, but her chest would have been in shadow and a whole lot less HERE I AM. Kelly is right about the lighting is more masculine than feminine.

Image # 2. See # 1. Just because the feet and or hips are not in the image they still must be posed correctly. Just because the concrete foundation of a building will be covered up with dirt doesn't mean it can be poured sloppily. If the foundation isn't right the rest of the building (image) will suffer.

Image # 3. See 1 and 2.

Image # 4. Now you posed her flat to the camera making her look wide. If you position the prop at a 45 degree angle prior to her being seated on it, her torso will automatically be at a 45 degree angle to the camera. Also a 45 degree turn would have mostly eliminated the huge hands we see in this image. Usually clasping hands don't look good. See my "Rules of Good Portraiture" tutorial.

Benji

Thank you SO much for stopping by Ben. i really appreciate it. Yes, some very terrible mistakes were made. I did try to learn from them and tried again here. But as you will notice - even though the subject is facing the right way this time - it is not a very comfortable looking pose.

I might just post a "progression post" later on showing the progress made thanks to the help from you and the many others that have prodded me along. Thanks!

[Songman45]

JIm,
What was the effect on the lighting you were going for? On those first three images it looks like you lit the away side of the face and shot into the shadow side. The most visible side of her face is in shadow with some spill on her ear, that sort of makes the ear stand out. Did you keep pretty much the same kind of arrangement for the last pose? The angle is reversed and the lighting come closer that direction.

I read your post so nothing to say on the posing, other than matching the main light to the strong side of the photograph is pretty much conventional. Do we still light the side we see?