Dana : A Fine Line Between Beauty & Glamour. Blamour?

Robert Mitchell

Senior Member
The always beautiful Dana. Of course I retouch all my images but I have to say that as a retoucher, Dana's skin was so much fun to retouch.

Camera & Lens:
Nikon D700 & Nikon 70-200m f/2.8 VRII

Settings:
200mm, ISO 200, f/16, 1/125s

Lighting:
22" Beauty dish w/silver deflector [positioned on axis and just above the lens]

p1409321318-5.jpg
 

fotojack

Senior Member
Robert.....stunning photo, as usual. :) What I would have liked to see is the same pose....but with her eyes looking right into the lens. I think that would make a great shot. Just my opinion. :)
 

Cowboybillybob1

Senior Member
Too much eye make up but the photo is awsome. Her skin just glows.
The whole image just sticks in your mind long after you have stopped looking at it.
The make up just bugs me a bit.
 

Robert Mitchell

Senior Member
Robert.....stunning photo, as usual. :) What I would have liked to see is the same pose....but with her eyes looking right into the lens. I think that would make a great shot. Just my opinion. :)


We got lots of those shots, too, Jack. I'm big on eyes and 99% of my work has the subject looking straight into the lens. It's nice to change things up once in a while and when shooting glamour, the eyes don't always come at the lens as they would a standard portrait.
 
Last edited:

Robert Mitchell

Senior Member
Too much eye make up but the photo is awsome. Her skin just glows.
The whole image just sticks in your mind long after you have stopped looking at it.
The make up just bugs me a bit.

That's cool Paul. Keep in mind that it is glamour. I could show you thousands if glamour images that make this makeup look like normal makeup.. but seriously, shots like this are intentionally overdone when it comes to makeup. I've got shots where the hair and makeup would make you go blind.

It's all relative to the genre and intent, but thank you for the comment and compliment.
 
I am not normally a fan of lots of makeup but in this image I believe it works pretty good.

WE have a new group of people where I work and I still can't get used to going into the men's room and seeing a guy there putting on his makeup.

(I work in a TV studio and the guys are on air talent so not a weird as it sounds)

CBS 8, ABC Montgomery, CW Montgomery and ME TV
 

Robert Mitchell

Senior Member
Shame we're professionals and retouching is limited to PP :p

Who decides on the type of makeup in your shots?
Do the models do it themselves or have you got a make up artist too?

Might have to add a visit to your studio if I make it to NY


Usually, the makeup is discussed ahead of time between myself, the makeup artist and the model. If the model is sent by an agency, we may have some direction from them but usually not. There is a concept, a genre and an intent and based on those things we create the look.
 

Eye-level

Banned
You used the longest end of the zoom. What sort of distance was involved there?

I like the photo especially the lighting. Some of your snaps look to bright and white for my eyes and I assume those are the ones where you are using a ton of lighting. This picture however doesn't do that. (I seen another of your's the other day that didn't "go white" so to speak also) It is likely not a technical defect but probably more about my preoccupation here lately with highlights and transitions to white.
 

Robert Mitchell

Senior Member
Hi Jeff,

At 200m and about 7 feet from the subject, I still only have about 1/3 foot (4 inches) as my depth of field at f/16, and the wonderful thing about a lens like the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is that you can work at f/16 without any loss of acuity.

You'll have to point out what you mean by 'going white'. All my images retain detail in highlights and rarely do I have clipping so I'm not sure what you mean exactly. White is white when it should be white. Otherwise, my highlights typically do not clip. Please show me what you're referring to, and just out of curiosity, are you viewing things on a calibrated monitor.

I ask because exposure is something I'm very picky about and I do all my post work on a calibrated monitlor.

Lighting only affects contrast, not exposure. I still have full control over exposure, whether technical or creative.
 
Last edited:

Eye-level

Banned
7 feet makes sense now that you say that because with the 105 to get a head shot I stand about 4 feet away. I'm with you on that lens it must be something to work with. It is good to see people shooting portraits and the such at the smaller apertures. I want to do some of that myself but I need a tripod, better lighting, or a faster lens or a combination of all of them.

Definitely not a calibrated monitor...I'll have to go back over some of your photos and find something that shows you what I am talking about. I'll say it again I'm sure it is not you or your technique it probably has to do with what has been occupying my mind for sometime. (and that is not always a good thing I might add...LOL)
 

Eye-level

Banned
OK here we go...

Let me start out saying I am really not trying to critique you as your photos are outstanding. Much more proficient than mine BTW. Here is what I mean about the whites...sometimes...maybe perhaps on your glam stuff done with lots of light...you seem to lose the whites...#1 post second shot is a good example of this tendency...look at her left leg it turns to white and is lost. Her arm/shoulder does the same thing. Now please don't misunderstand me, I believe in artistic license, and I only half ass know what I am talking about...LOL Like I said most of your snaps are great and I admire them.

http://nikonites.com/portrait/9390-laurel-studio-glamour.html
 
Last edited:

Robert Mitchell

Senior Member
If I'm shooting pure white then I allow some wrap to come back to the subject. That wrap is the light reflecting from an enormous white background and exposed skin will see some of that light returning. In that situation, unless the subject is 12 or more feet from the background, the wrap will appear but it is intentional and the subject is still properly exposed. If I were to underexpose so as not to have the wrap then my subject would be a full stop underexposed.

Losing the whites is an odd way to put it, though. The subject lighting never loses detail and I don't think you'll find that in any of my photos. If my subject lighting is where I want it then I will allow some wrap from the background for effect.

It's a valid nit pick. I don't have a problem with it, though.

I love perfection and I get things as close to perfect as often as possible but don't see those types of things as anything to be concerned about or go crazy to eliminate. It's a reality of shooting on a large pure white background but I don't think it's a common problem, as you initially described it.

EDIT: I do want to point out that if you're seeing the white on the leg with no detail then you're monitor may need calibration. While there is the wrap and a significant highlight, there is still detail and texture can be see in the skin.
 
Last edited:

Robert Mitchell

Senior Member
I don't know if I completely agree with that...I need to think about it...that is what is good about this forum one can learn stuff...

You may not agree but it's absolutely true. If you have control over your exposure then quantity of light doesn't matter. You adjust exposure for quantity of light. Lighting does only affect contrast. You add and subtract light to control contrast.
 

Eye-level

Banned
Contrast is apparently the biggest most important part of it I gather. Maybe even more so than the light! :)

I appreciate the discussion sir I am learning stuff from you and it is really hard for me to learn new stuff nowadays from just any source.
 
Top