DSLRUsers.com

...and I am thinking a framed print of her daughter.

This particular image was taken a couple of years ago during a visit. It is one of my favourites from the set but despite that it has always remained in the "hopeful rejects" category. There has always been something not quite right about this image to me. Maybe it is her strange complexion (it is right in this image) against that pink shirt...

Am I being too picky?

Any thoughts on what I could do with this image are welcome.



About the shot:
It is displayed here as shot. The only work done is raw conversion in Capture NX then crop (it is full width), resize and Lab USM in PSCS3.
D70, ModeII, Manual Mode, Spot Metering, sReala curve. All other in camera adjustments set at zero or disabled.
Nikkor 50/1.4D @ F10. SB800 in TTL Mode
The sky to the right of the frame was metered at 0 and dialled in as manual shutter and aperture.
Skin tone was set at +0.3 on the SB800 and manual preflash was locked using FP Lock. Focus on the eyes.

Regards

Andrew

Hi Andrew,
I don't think there's anything wrong with this shot. If it shows your sister's daughter as she is normally, i.e happy, vibrant etc...then I say print/frame.

Two suggestions however;

I think it could do well with a crop, too much pink, so crop from about where her pony tail ends and a little of the sky too.

The image WB(on my uncalibrated work monitor) looks a little cold, so perhaps it could do with some warming up, but not a lot. I also think the eyes could be sharpened just a little bit.

I think its a gorgeous image of the young girl.. she looks natural and relaxed... the real her if you know what I mean... oh and yes as Geoff suggested the crop and eye sharpening would work very well...

Thanks Geoff,

Your feedback is appreciated.

I posted the wrong image (edit - one that I was mucking with a few months ago), but too late, I'll leave it.

I am fiddling around on my laptop which is also uncalibrated and to be honest, is not worth calibrating. I also have (always have had) an issue with desaturation of images when posted to the web and between PS and Imageready, but I get WYSIWIG between my desktop and printer both of which are calibrated. I haven't the faintest clue as to what is happening there. The image above is desaturated 10-15% when viewed in FF at my end using save as jpeg after profile conversion and 8bit conversion. Everyone else's images appear fine. I have no idea of what you are seeing.
It has never been much of an issue because I normally edit for print.

.....

Honest criticism is welcome. People, if you think that is crap, then be honest and call it crap, but tell me what I can do to fix it.

Another go. This time I tweaked the WB (guessing based on the whites of the sleeves - maybe still a little cool) and the crop. Not quite as much as Geoff suggested though.

Thanks Bindii,

That means something coming from you. Love your work.

Andrew

AndyL wrote:Thanks Bindii,

That means something coming from you. Love your work.

Andrew

Awwwww shucks.. thank you... xxx

You niece has a wonderful 'sparkle' to her - I bet she is bubbly in real life
I agree with the comments made - definitely needed a crop, and sharpening of the eye really helps....
this is a composite of your shot with a quick play - I may have gone a little far - but I have found that while it may look a little too sharp on the screen, it actually prints out beautifully ... but anyhow, see what you think.
If you want the shot removed, I'll do so immediately.
Hugs
rel

Oh wow Rel,

I had resisted getting into the crop too much because I wanted to stay away from the passport mug shot look, but the rotate and crop is something else. I had sharpened the image as far as I was willing to go without doing stupid things to her hair, and then sharpened just her eyes a second time to get a little more sparkle, but now I see what you all were getting at.
I guess I tend to be very conservative with my PP approach.

Thankyou

Andrew,

There are two underlying issues I have with this image, and they're (to me) fundamental to the point where I would actually be trying to look for another image.

First of all, the hair bothers me. It's all over the place, and it looks ... just messy. Sure, my hair (what little of it that's left) looks worse, but that's not the point. And even if she sparkles and shines .... it's still all over the place.

Second issue for me is the lighting: you've used fill flash, which is good, but you've (it would seem) used full power, overpowering the available light, which is less good. There's a reason it's called "fill" flash ... You say that you dialed the flash to +0.3 .... I very rarely use any plus values, and often find myself using values around -0.7 through -1.3 ....

There's a very harsh shadow on her neck, caused by the flash. Just below this, on her chest just in front of her left shoulder, you can see (barely) the shadow from the sun. and just below and to our right of where her hair falls down around her right shoulder, we can see another faint shadow, this time from that hair. If you look at the full image, there's also another harsh shadow from the flash on her arm.

If we now turn our attention to the face, the power of the flash has caused the lighting to be very flat: there's no balance, and there's no shaping.

Again, this should be "fill" flash. You have plenty of sunshine around to use as your primary light source, and the goal here is to simply add some light to the shadows, as well as to probably soften those shadows. Had you pulled the flash down by about 1.5 stops - or maybe just used a reflector - I think that would have made a significant difference ....


...

...

I'm actually puzzled by some of your comments about this image. You say

AndyL wrote:The sky to the right of the frame was metered at 0 and dialled in as manual shutter and aperture.

I'm wondering if I am understanding you fully here: the concept of metering for the background is very sound, but I'm confused that you might meter on the "sky"; I'm not convinced of the wisdom of using a light source as a point from which to meter. My guess is that she was standing on some grass or a path, and perhaps something like that may have been a better option from which to meter, making allowances for any variation from 18% grey that your metering source may carry.

Then set the camera to manual, based upon those readings - as you have done - and then dial the flash back from that point, so that you're just adding that little bit of light to counter the backlighting and her own shadow within which she is standing.

Gary,

I am aware of all of the faults with this image (hair, shadows, flattening due to use of light source etc) and is the reason why it is in the "hopeful rejects" category. The hair is not something that is not going to bother me (I am not going to aggravate the issue with sharpening) which btw was wet 5 minutes earlier, but the shadow and lighting yes.

This shot was taken during the middle of a very bright day under the shade of a tree. Nowhere did I mention the use of "fill" flash. I have a fairly good grasp of what fill flash is and normally work on the principle of less is better. Unfortunately this was not a fill flash situation but a very high contrast scene and flash was used to reduce contrast to something that the sensor could handle. The sky (which should be blue, not white) would have been completely blown or she would have been so deep in shadows that the image would have been unusable without flash. A reflector was unusable. As it is the sky has been pulled back about 3 stops, which in hindsight (the source of much wisdom ) was 1 stop too much. This is not something that I would normally do, but I was willing to give it a go.

The flash metering of +0.3 is to my knowledge entirely appropriate for the technique used in placing fair skin where it belongs in the histogram. I assume flash values "-0.7 through -1.3" are in terms of matrix metering, which from my image comments, was not what I was using.

There are many things that could have been done better. I could have brushed her hair and taken her out into full sunlight to get the shot, but have you ever tried pinning down a 9yo who is just having fun. She is a free spirited child and that shot, like every other taken that day was taken as she flashed past.

I did say that if you think it is crap then call it crap. You have managed to get down to the heart of the issues, without influence (through suggestion) and the feedback is appreciated. I am working with three better images and can slip a couple of extras into the back of the frame and let my sister decide what she would prefer to see.

I've got to say that this time, I don't agree with you Gary. Sure the shot has some technical issues - well, a lot of technical issues - but it is also a shot of a gorgeous little girl that is more of a natural shot (if you know what I mean).... personally I prefer these types of shots to the more technically correct but sometimes way toooo staged and occasionally lifeless shots that you would get if her hair was perfect, lighting was perfect etc.

Just my opinion - but keep in mind I really don't know what I'm doing or talking about

Hugs

I couldnt have said it better myself Rel.. its a lovely natural shot of this gorgeous girl.. nothing against Gary's critique cause he was technically right..

but...

sometimes all the technique in the world cannot capture the true essence of a person and I feel that this shot has done it...

Andy,

AndyL wrote:This shot was taken during the middle of a very bright day under the shade of a tree. Nowhere did I mention the use of "fill" flash. I have a fairly good grasp of what fill flash is and normally work on the principle of less is better. Unfortunately this was not a fill flash situation but a very high contrast scene and flash was used to reduce contrast to something that the sensor could handle.

Ok... so, please illuminate me.

What do you think the purpose of "fill" flash might be, if not to reduce the contrast between different elements within the proposed image?

It may be expressed in any number of ways, but at the end of the day, you have elements within the image that have vastly different lighting applied to them, and the idea is that by applying extra lighting to one or more of those elements, you are reducing that disparity and bringing the contrast range under control.

Let's now go back one step, to your lighting situation, about which you state: "the middle of a very bright day under the shade of a tree.". You very clearly already had a very bright and prominent light source: the sun. Even in the shade of a tree, the sun is still your predominant light source, perhaps reduced by two stops.

I'm not sure that I accept the premise that you needed a different primary light source, which is what you're suggesting when you say that your lighting was not a "fill" light.

The sky (which should be blue, not white) would have been completely blown or she would have been so deep in shadows that the image would have been unusable without flash.

Almost correct. "without flash or a reflector" would probably be a more correct statement to make.

A reflector was unusable.

Unusable?

Impractical, perhaps. Difficult, more than likely. Maybe even not at hand. Unusable? No, not from what I'm seeing.

I readily accept that not all situations are ideal. That's a given. Adding a reflector to an image is often very difficult for any number of reasons, none of which I would state to be "unusable".

As it is the sky has been pulled back about 3 stops, which in hindsight (the source of much wisdom ) was 1 stop too much.

So, we're in agreement that shading of the tree was in the order of roughly about two stops.

The flash metering of +0.3 is to my knowledge entirely appropriate for the technique used in placing fair skin where it belongs in the histogram. I assume flash values "-0.7 through -1.3" are in terms of matrix metering, which from my image comments, was not what I was using.

Well, I'm not sure that I'm understanding you here. I suspect that you're confusing the required exposure adjustment when you're metering (reflected) from fair skin in spot metering mode - about +1/3 of a stop is reasonable - whereas my quoted flash values have little to do with metering - matrix or otherwise - at all.

Now, you have, as you stated, started by metering for the background. You metered the sky, and you stated that this was +3 stops, and you also have now stated that you feel that +2 stops would have been a better value. I agree entirely. The upshot of this is that you're starting from a baseline that is one stop overexposed.

But now you have added - not to your shadow reading, but to your +1 stop overexposure baseline - an extra 1/3 stop in your flash, which looks blown and harsh, and flat, and you seem to be accepting that this situation is the case in this image: "I am aware of all of the faults with this image (hair, shadows, flattening due to use of light source etc)".

Clearly something is wrong with this image, but you are defending your technique as correct? I'm rather at a loss to understand how your correct technique could lead to these problems? How does adding even more light to an already overexposed image (again, by your own statement that you started from a base that was one stop over) make an image less overexposed?

My belief is that by reducing the level of flash output, this would have been a much better image. You are free to accept or reject that advice as you see fit, but this is something that I've done once or twice, (or perhaps a few thousand) times before.

And in this realm, please don't overlook the fact that your image appears to be overexposed, blown and has harsh lighting and shadows - a fact which you readily accept. With respect to the power of the flash that you used, there are just three, and only three, basic choices that could be made: you could stick to the same power of the flash output that was used to make this image. That would, obviously, lead to a similar result to that which we're seeing.

You could increase the power of the flash that was used. If the current example is displaying too much flash power - which you agree is the case - what outcome would increasing the flash power produce?

Or you could decrease the power of the flash - my original suggestion. The one that, in defending your original technique as correct, you seem to be rejecting.

but have you ever tried pinning down a 9yo

I think there are laws the preclude this from being something I want to try.

...

As a final observation, your response to me has come across (to me) as you being very defensive of your technique and knowledge. Please understand that at no time am I trying to attack you; I'm simply and only trying to help you to improve your photographic skills, based upon my knowledge and skillset, and what i'm observing in the image presented. You are free to either accept or reject my advice, and please also remember exactly how much you are paying for any of the advice that you get here: it may well be valued at cost.

blacknstormy wrote:Sure the shot has some technical issues - well, a lot of technical issues -

Yep.

And that was the focus of my posts in this thread.

personally I prefer these types of shots to the more technically correct but sometimes way toooo staged and occasionally lifeless shots that you would get if her hair was perfect, lighting was perfect etc.

I agree wrt to shots that are too staged.

But what we have here is an image that I believe could have been significantly improved - significantly improved - with the application of better understanding of how to use the flash in the given situation. In terms of the practicalities of the shoot, it's a very simple lesson, easily learned and applied, and in the practical sense, once the setup is (correctly) done there is no impact whatsoever upon the casual and candid nature of the shoot.

Futzing around with the hair, interrupting the flow of play of the lady etc all have a cost and would have a probably detrimental effect on the final outcome. Getting the lighting balance correct has no cost, and has only a beneficial effect on the outcome.

Where's the problem with getting the fundamentals right?

gstark wrote:Where's the problem with getting the fundamentals

- nothing my sweet

But, I was trying to point out that it was a lovely portrait, that even with the problems still manages to highlight the things that if I was her mother, I would want - a beautiful smiling happy daughter taken 'as is'

I would actually be trying to look for another image

- even with all the fundamentals wrong, I personally still like it If you take a shot that talks to your heart, and the fundamentals are wrong - well, sure try to get the fundamentals right next time, but you can still enjoy the shot that you got

Again, jmho