Would you remove the bra marks ?
- Thread starter gerfoto
- Start date
It is a judgment call, I might ask her what SHE wanted regarding the bathing suit tan lines. Removing them is not all that difficult but you have to match skin tones perfectly or it will look worse than before you did anything.
If that was a copy of the final I was doing for MY portfolio, yes, they would be gone in a Noo Yawk second!
If that was a copy of the final I was doing for MY portfolio, yes, they would be gone in a Noo Yawk second!
Of course it is too late now but if I might make a few suggestions. First off, I love the shallow depth of field. I wish I had a dollar for every good portrait I have seen ruined by sharp and distracting backgrounds. I also like that you did not have the sun in their faces. This is a portraiture faux pas, especially if it creates harsh shadows or causes them to squint.
I wish the image was a little darker with richer tonality. Of course doing that also presents some of its own problems. That is where fill flash saves the day. I use off camera fill exclusively, sometimes bouncing my lights into umbrellas. All of my fill exposures are done manually. I shoot for between a 20-25% contribution of the flash to the total exposure. It lightens up the faces, adds catch lights and just adds more pop to the couple.
Below is a shot of a couple Liz and Jesse I did about a year or so ago. I used one flash bounced into a white umbrella from about 8 feet away and about 20% contribution. It is barely perceptible that any flash was used, but it adds catchlights to both of their eyes and adds some more "pop" to their faces. It also helps separate them from the background, which I underexposed about a half stop intentionally. If I had it to do over again, I would also have placed a second one over her left shoulder to separate her hair from the dark background.
I wish the image was a little darker with richer tonality. Of course doing that also presents some of its own problems. That is where fill flash saves the day. I use off camera fill exclusively, sometimes bouncing my lights into umbrellas. All of my fill exposures are done manually. I shoot for between a 20-25% contribution of the flash to the total exposure. It lightens up the faces, adds catch lights and just adds more pop to the couple.
Below is a shot of a couple Liz and Jesse I did about a year or so ago. I used one flash bounced into a white umbrella from about 8 feet away and about 20% contribution. It is barely perceptible that any flash was used, but it adds catchlights to both of their eyes and adds some more "pop" to their faces. It also helps separate them from the background, which I underexposed about a half stop intentionally. If I had it to do over again, I would also have placed a second one over her left shoulder to separate her hair from the dark background.
Last edited:
Sure, you did fine. And you can richen up the image in Photoshop and dodge their faces a little bit. I would tighten the crop somewhat too. Look at every single shoot you do as a learning process. The more you shoot, the more you learn and the better your stuff gets! And the better your stuff gets, the more you can experiment with other techniques. NEVER STOP LEARNING!
You're very welcome! Here is another example of just how a little bit of flash can really add some snap to the image. Same setup, D700, 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS Nikkor @ f/4 with the single flash in the umbrella. Just the right mix and you barely realize any flash was used at all. It was a late winter day and overcast and with no fill, the images would have come out looking kind of flat and blah.
Thank you for your advice.Fat Fingers
Banned
Personally I find the bench in the background most annoying .......