Settings For "Model Like" Pictures?

[kemekal_d300]

Howsit' going everyone ? I've been away from here for a while, i was still new when i took off, but im back and i want to get more of this knowledge i've been waitin to 'attain' -

My question is, besides lighting and composition.. AS FAR AS CAMERA SETTINGS GO - whats settings would be best to go with?

Im looking for results similar to the ones of this picture :



i know that the lighting from the behind/above contributes to its "clean" feel..

but for the best pictures, is the obvious quality to go with always RAW?
And just questions as to what ISO's at what distance make up a good picture, or if its basically use as many different setting combinations myself until i get the outcome i want?

Usually i use Aperature setting, ISO of 320..
White Balance, auto ..
etc -

Does anyone have any pre-configured settings for shots like the above? Just looking for a new starting point where i can go off someone elses settings or techniques, because where im at doesnt seem to be where i want to be -

any help is appreciated ! thank you

[JTcooper]

Hi there, what do mean by what setting? as far as my setting go is camera on full manual shoot raw and editing in ps to best fit your taste. It just my thought

[gahspidy]

Welcome back. You may want to start a thread in the "studio and lighting" forum about this.
There is no "one size fits all" setting and it depends on many other variables and conditions. In this shot i can guess that it was a mid range focal length (50mm?) most likely all natural lighting with perhaps a reflector on the camera side of the model to fill in her facial features. Focal point is on the eyes, as it should be and it appears everything beyond the eyes is blurring meaning a fairly wide open aperture. The wide open aperture is giving it the soft dreamy feel as well as the natural lighting.

btw, if it is just camera settings you are after you could get those right off the page where the original image was posted.

[kemekal_d300]

Welcome back. You may want to start a thread in the "studio and lighting" forum about this.
There is no "one size fits all" setting and it depends on many other variables and conditions. In this shot i can guess that it was a mid range focal length (50mm?) most likely all natural lighting with perhaps a reflector on the camera side of the model to fill in her facial features. Focal point is on the eyes, as it should be and it appears everything beyond the eyes is blurring meaning a fairly wide open aperture. The wide open aperture is giving it the soft dreamy feel as well as the natural lighting.

btw, if it is just camera settings you are after you could get those right off the page where the original image was posted.

When i say settings, (i shoulda further ellaborated, my fault) i mean the whole 9 yards.. from Quality, White balance, ISO, Saturation level ( i used ++, i like colors to pop), matrix metering , focal, exp.fine tune, bracketing, and just all the lil' things that make a big difference -

But!
thats mainly what i was referring to, what it was that gives it that dreamy look. So this would be best achieved with a closer range lens ? or anything as long as its in that range? the lowest aperture mine goes is 3.8 , its a 17-200mm .

And one more question, how did you get the photo information like with the image you attached? Thats really handy!

thank you again

[fx101]

When i say settings, (i shoulda further ellaborated, my fault) i mean the whole 9 yards.. from Quality, White balance, ISO, Saturation level ( i used ++, i like colors to pop), matrix metering , focal, exp.fine tune, bracketing, and just all the lil' things that make a big difference -

But!
thats mainly what i was referring to, what it was that gives it that dreamy look. So this would be best achieved with a closer range lens ? or anything as long as its in that range? the lowest aperture mine goes is 3.8 , its a 17-200mm .

And one more question, how did you get the photo information like with the image you attached? Thats really handy!

thank you again

The photo information is called the "EXIF" data. The easiest way to view it is simply to open the image up in photoshop and look at the image properties. If you have windows Vista, simply clicking on "properties" when right clicking on the image file and going to "details" will give you most of the non-manufacturer specific EXIF data.

The dreamy look is due to a large apperture. Generally for that amount of bluriness at that distance (the bluriness is called "Bokeh") you want a lens that'll do f/2.8 or better. You have an 18-200 that'll do f/3.5. Unfortunately, that's not good enough. I would recommend a 50mm f/1.8 (or a f/1.4 if you don't mind paying a bit more) which is a really cheap lens with great performance and a very wide max apperture so you can get the nice blurry Bokeh that gives the image the dreamy look. As for the other setting simply shoot on apperture priority, get a proper white balance using a grey card (for studio shots or serious portraits), shoot RAW+Jpeg so you have jpegs to preview but RAW files for serious editing (or if your white balance is somehow off). This kind of shot is excellent because of its lighting. You have an SB-800 so use bounce flash off of the ceiling and use ambient lighting to help.

[gahspidy]

If you like this specific type of look, get the 50mm 1.8 lens. On your D300, the crop factor of the sensor will make it the equivelant of about 70-75mm, a great portrait focal length.
Shooting wide open or even stopped down a bit for sharpness to 2.5, 2.8 will give you nice results. Practice with natural lighting by a window and the use of a reflector.
As for the photo information, just go to the photographers smugmug site. hko.smugmug.com and look under portrait gallery and the model "Sarah" Once you open a image, look at the right side of the screen and there is a menu that will pop out when you hover your mouse pointer near it. In the menu select photo information. You will see that image that I screen captured. If you notice there is a tab on the photo info window that is called "Details" Selecting that tab gives you even more info than what I showed you here. you will see the WB setting ( it was Auto) and all the other little stuff you refered to.

[kemekal_d300]

fx101 and gahspidy, thanks for the great advice. I know what lens i need to get, how to find out what settings are best to start with and work out from there, and everything i innitially wanted to know.
That site (and all the info u added for it) "HKO" is GREAT. I've never known about finding out a pictures exact settings, etc..

thanks for everything guys, really made my day. Its been something i've been wondering about for a while now

[another view]

Welcome back - one thing though, please don't post any images that aren't yours. In the future it would be best just to provide a link to it.

I think there's a pretty fair amount of Photoshop work done, but you can probably get this idea without. The 50mm fast prime lens is a great thing to start with, and a bargain for that sharpness and lens speed. RAW will give you the best quality and most options for working with it later so I'd recommend using it. I don't do a whole lot to my images, but have been shooting compressed NEF's in my D200 and don't see a need for un-compressed files. White balance is really important but of course it can be changed later in Photoshop (or better yet, check out Nikon Capture NX - and the brand new NX2 which I don't have...).

[kemekal_d300]

I'll make sure to stick to the link rule, thx -

And as soon as i got the advice, i went around lookin' for lens' on the net, and i think i got one picked out, it IS the 50mm 1.8F for around $289 - sounded great in the review, and i really want to start doing some 'dreamy' like pictures and portraits of THAT nature.

And i also want to get my hands on that new Nx2.. i read on it barley yesterday, and im going to get it ASAP. Right now im using Adobe Photoshop CS3, and i've became pretty handy with it. And along with that, Adobe Lightroom.

As far as colors/vividness, fill light, and lil' blemishes go - i think NX2 would be awesome.

[fx101]

I'll make sure to stick to the link rule, thx -

And as soon as i got the advice, i went around lookin' for lens' on the net, and i think i got one picked out, it IS the 50mm 1.8F for around $289 - sounded great in the review, and i really want to start doing some 'dreamy' like pictures and portraits of THAT nature.

And i also want to get my hands on that new Nx2.. i read on it barley yesterday, and im going to get it ASAP. Right now im using Adobe Photoshop CS3, and i've became pretty handy with it. And along with that, Adobe Lightroom.

As far as colors/vividness, fill light, and lil' blemishes go - i think NX2 would be awesome.

FYI there's no better fill light than the real deal. Chances are that this was taken with a softbox to get that nice, "creamy", fill light. I bought a Lumiquest softbox for around $50 and it really does the job nicely. One last thing, to achieve consistent colour like this, you'll want to gel your flash to your light source (in this case to match the daylight color temperature). When I had studio shots taken, my photographer used a "warm" gel that matched the colour temperature of the window light, but he also gelled the window to get the colour temp consistent. For all intensive purposes this is overkill; nonetheless, gelling your flash to match fluorescent or tungsten lighting indoors is essential to not getting pale faces due to flash.

[kemekal_d300]

Gel my flash? Im going to google that, or YouTube that. Im not sure what it is yet, but i'll definitely look it up.
I need to get ahold of some lighting equiptment, Ebay or craigslist good for that ?
(anyone tried em'?)

[another view]

A 50mm f1.8 should cost you around $100 - try B&H, they're a favorite among many people on this site (like me). For lighting, go to the library and look through some books (or surf the web). It doesn't necessarily take a big expense to get great results. The fancy stuff for sale at pro shops makes it easier to set up and break down quickly, but for instance a background stand could be made of PVC pipe from Home Depot for a few dollars versus over $100 or more (for a big one) at Calumet, etc. This isn't my area of expertise, but I remember someone telling me that on a workshop they took everyone to Home Depot to look at all kinds of things to make lighting gear from, for not a lot of money.

[kemekal_d300]

i had heard something about that. it doesnt sound too hard to pull off. im going to do some research as to what lights to use (wattage.. types, etc) and get on that - i'd like to start making money off of portraits as well as just gatherings and what not.
Thanks for the tip!