Karen with beauty dish

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Rules: One new topic per day

FM Forums | People Photography | Join Image Upload

2 end

Pablo Vicente
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · Karen with beauty dish

Here's Karen lit with a beauty dish :

This image is copyrighted by the owner

video fragments of this set and a softbox set :

http://www.digitalpixels.net/index.php/2008/03/beauty-dish-sample-photo-and-video-fragments/

greetings,

Pablo

www.pablovicente.com
www.digitalpixels.net

Edited on Mar 27, 2008 at 01:33 PM

Mar 27, 2008 at 01:27 PM

Geo31
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #2 · Karen with beauty dish

Ouch. Way over exposed. The skin is totally blown out.

Mar 28, 2008 at 12:37 AM

Pablo Vicente
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · Karen with beauty dish

Not at all, check your info palette in PS, no 255 255 255 anywhere

Mar 28, 2008 at 12:38 AM

Eric Schwab
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #4 · Karen with beauty dish

I would have to agree. It is overexposed.

Mar 28, 2008 at 12:53 AM

Andre Goli
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #5 · Karen with beauty dish

Yep, it is overexposed, but I love it that way

Mar 28, 2008 at 12:58 AM

j.curtis
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #6 · Karen with beauty dish

Pablo,

Something doesn't need to reach 255 to be overexposed.

Mar 28, 2008 at 01:04 AM

Pablo Vicente
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #7 · Karen with beauty dish

Well, blown out then

and yep it's pushed to the right, but 'way over' and 'totally', not to me

Mar 28, 2008 at 01:16 AM

FranchiseJuan
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #8 · Karen with beauty dish

Hello! This is high key. It is not over exposed.

Mar 28, 2008 at 01:19 AM

j.curtis
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #9 · Karen with beauty dish

FranchiseJuan wrote:
Hello! This is high key. It is not over exposed.

You're joking. Please tell me your joking.

Mar 28, 2008 at 02:43 AM

DrewFos
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #10 · Karen with beauty dish

To the beauty dish users-

Isn't the dish typically used for more closeup work, like faces or tight body shots? It seems to me that a shot like this nullifies the desired effect of the beauty dish. Just wondering.

Mar 28, 2008 at 03:02 AM

mark petri
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #11 · Karen with beauty dish

While I an not fond of the look, there are plenty of folks who seem to like high key images with mid tones pushed a stop or 2...

Mar 28, 2008 at 03:12 AM

Justin Berman
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #12 · Karen with beauty dish

DrewFos wrote:
To the beauty dish users-

Isn't the dish typically used for more closeup work, like faces or tight body shots? It seems to me that a shot like this nullifies the desired effect of the beauty dish. Just wondering.

My opinion of course, but I love the contrasty light a dish produces at all lengths, I especially like it in close up, but I think it also performs at distance. It is like a gigantic reflector, and you can grid it.

Mar 28, 2008 at 03:43 AM

jerryreed
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #13 · Karen with beauty dish

As light modifiers go, beauty dishes grew from other smaller polished reflectors in an effort (prior to softboxes and umbrellas) to achieve a larger light source. But, large is only relative to the distance the light is from the subject. Thus, a beauty dish performs it design function best placed as close to the subject as possible since most are smaller that 24 inches, to achieve maximum soft light effect they need to be about 2 feet from the subject.

Mar 28, 2008 at 09:51 AM

rhyder
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #14 · Karen with beauty dish

It's not overexposed.
It's not High Key either.
It's not a flattering light.

Mar 28, 2008 at 04:40 PM

cgardner
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #15 · Karen with beauty dish

Pablo Vicente wrote:
Not at all, check your info palette in PS, no 255 255 255 anywhere

Sorry but you are not correct, at least not in the file you posted.

Check the file you posted in Levels. Hold down the alt/opt key and click the highlight slider. You'll see something similar to this (from a previous thread) any part of the image you see in color is clipping. Yours is clipping in red in the skintones and blue in the background.

The reds normally don't start clipping in a skintone until a point about 1/3 stop below where the whites start clipping. Clipping in the red obliterates the detail in the highlights of the skin which is why it wind up looking flat and burned out, even though the color seems to looks OK and the whites also look neutral.

If you look at your image in Levels you will note that at the same time your skintones are clipping in the red channel the background behind the model is clipping only in the blue channel. That situation is very common if you use a softbox or white umbrella to light the model and direct light to light the background - there is about a 600K difference in color temp. Even when the color temp of the lighting is identical a background containing any fluorescent brighteners can cause the background to clip the blue channel before green and red.

The clipping may be occurring while making the jpg screen image...

Edited on Mar 28, 2008 at 05:07 PM

Mar 28, 2008 at 05:02 PM

tdl2920
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #16 · Karen with beauty dish

Love it! I'm a big fan of using the dish like this and do it myself a lot. Nice work man :-)

Mar 28, 2008 at 06:24 PM

Pablo Vicente
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #17 · Karen with beauty dish

thanks

really, nice to see those pointers, I'm not that 'technical' so it's good to see those

We could go on for ages of course, I'm more of a "what-pleases-the-eye" guy ... on the other hand, we get to see enough 'clipping' on enough covers here, and I don't like to do my 'safe shots' all the time

The highlight slider alt thing is something I remember, we could 'mulpliply' the highlights or push the slider down ... what then ?

Then again, I like it when people really like something while others really do not, don't ask me why tho ... but this is the feedback I look for so thanks again

saludos,

Pablo

www.pablovicente.com
www.digitalpixels.net

Edited by Pablo Vicente on Mar 28, 2008 at 10:20 PM GMT

Edited by Pablo Vicente on Mar 28, 2008 at 10:39 PM GMT

Edited on Mar 28, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Mar 28, 2008 at 09:53 PM

canondoc
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #18 · Karen with beauty dish

It looks like the first shot of a shoot where you were testing the lights. In a sense that the lighting isn't the best (no I don't think everything should be exposed a certain way, it just doesn't look all that great here), and her expression just looks like shes waiting on you.

Just my honest opinion.

Mar 28, 2008 at 10:03 PM

Pablo Vicente
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #19 · Karen with beauty dish

thanks for it, honest opinions are best

No warnings in my histograms while shooting, but I tend to push everything up with curves in post ...

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Edited on Mar 28, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Mar 28, 2008 at 10:21 PM

cgardner
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #20 · Karen with beauty dish

With regards to exposure and clipping, its a bell that can't be un-rung if it occurs in the camera. Highlight detail which is blown in any channel cannot be recovered in post processing.

But there is really no penalty at all from being conservative when shooting and keeping everything except mirror reflections, below the point of clipping. If you want them clipped intentionally a slight tweek in levels is all that is needed. The huge difference adjusting during editing vs shooting on the bleeding edge of clipping in the camera is DETAIL in the highlights just below the point of clipping, esp. in the red channel which is the brightest one of RGB in a skin tone.

If you open a file in Levels, hold down alt/opt, then move the highlight slider to the right you will see the reds on the face clip first, followed by the green channel (making the highlights turn yellow on screen) and finally the blue channel (making the highlights white in the alt levels display). When red starts to clip above about 240 on the numeric scale the overall appearance of the skintone usually will be patching and burned out looking in the highlights due to the lack detail in red channel which carries most of the detail in the lightest areas.

Simply cut back exposure by about 1/3 stop from how you are currently exposing and compare the difference. I use a white terry towel as an exposure guide. I raise exposure to the point where the brightest parts of the towel begin to clip and black out in the overexposure warning, then back off 1/3 stop. This is a test shot used to calibrate my L-358 meter which shows my target values:

These are my target values for the files out of the camera when shooting white:

Here's a typical test shot with the subject holding the towel. When the towel looks like a towel should, white with texture, the file is optimally exposed:

Mar 28, 2008 at 10:49 PM

Pablo Vicente
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #21 · Karen with beauty dish

Nice text, I'd like to put that on my blog if I may ... thanks for taking the time

Edited on Mar 28, 2008 at 10:51 PM

Mar 28, 2008 at 10:51 PM

canondoc
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #22 · Karen with beauty dish

Some people don't seem to get this, but at times under exposing and over exposing are perfectly acceptable and in fact superior when done right and on purpose.

Mar 28, 2008 at 11:21 PM

tdl2920
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #23 · Karen with beauty dish

canondoc wrote:
Some people don't seem to get this, but at times under exposing and over exposing are perfectly acceptable and in fact superior when done right and on purpose.

exactly.

Mar 29, 2008 at 01:22 AM

ksmahgrts
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #24 · Karen with beauty dish

tdl2920 wrote:
canondoc wrote:
Some people don't seem to get this, but at times under exposing and over exposing are perfectly acceptable and in fact superior when done right and on purpose.

exactly.

if you're planning to print your images, absolute black and absolute white just don't fly. at 255+ you're laying down no ink at all on the paper, leaving some really unflattering donuts in the over-exposed portions. also depends on the use of the print - no way you're laying down full black in a newspaper for example.

my goal in camera is to shoot to the right, keeping both highlight and shadow within the histogram for optimal exposure. that way, my post processing options are wide open. over/underexpose in camera and you're out of luck recovering detail in many instances.

pablo - great model, like the contrast, but of course, keep an eye on those levels

Edited on Mar 29, 2008 at 01:39 AM

Mar 29, 2008 at 01:36 AM

jerryreed
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #25 · Karen with beauty dish

You may want to consider soft-proofing your files, just to satisfy yourself about the points that Chuck was making earlier. Since the intention is likely to be to use the image file at some point to make a print, by soft proofing you will, on a well calibrated monitor, save yourself money and also create a feedback loop to help you to fine tune your exposure practices so that when it come time to make a print that you know that you have a digital file with detail in the luminance rages that are important to you. To soft-proof you just need to know what surface you will be printing on and to enter the surface in the CUSTOM dialog box. You will need to have a profile for your printer with that surface. If you do not have a profile, you can buy one or have one made for you.

VIEW>PROOF SET UP>CUSTOM then also check gamut warning to get a reliable indication of what colors may be out of gamut.

Chuck, thanks as usual for your always helpful tips beautifully illustrated.

Jerry

Mar 29, 2008 at 11:09 AM


FM Forums \| People Photography \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end