Here's Karen lit with a beauty dish :

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

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

I would have to agree. It is overexposed.

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

Pablo,

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

Well, blown out then

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

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

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

You're joking. Please tell me your joking.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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 ...

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:

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

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.

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.

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

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