Christina 1696

[gahspidy]

Christina is not a model, but wanted some fun glamour type shots. this was one of a bunch from a shoot.
What do you think?
thanks

[Greg McCary]

For some reason her teeth looks a little blown out but I am also not on my monitor. But I think it is very good from what I can tell.

[draymorton]

Yeah, I was wondering where the line is usually drawn between blown out in a good way and blown out in a bad way.

Looks good to me, but I'm undecided on the teeth.

I also might try cropping in tighter.

Love the lighting. Usual litany: what and where?

[gahspidy]

Thanks for the comments, Greg and Dray. I reposted another version here that has a slightly tighter crop and the teeth were brought back down from high exposure, although there was no blowout showing in the histogram. There is some diffused lighting added and that sometimes adds to the look of details lost in bright areas.
I like the tighter crop too.
btw, Dray, i'm doing these in my apartment using a 5x7' flex out back drop, gray hit with a magenta gel. I have a working space of about 10x8' Only capable of limite waist up and headshots at this spot.
thanks for the comments

[draymorton]

although there was no blowout showing in the histogram.

That's what counts. If there are no blowouts showing on the histogram, then there are no blowouts.

Thanks for the setup info!

[OldClicker]

How would you know that there are no peaks off the histogram that you cannot see? - TF

[GB1]

Gary - I really like her pose. There's a lot of energy here. Others have touched on the blow out. While it's not extreme, with this generally tight crop it forces the viewer's attention to her face and there is general lack of detail because of it. I can't see any detail at all on her cheeks, etc, even her hands look detail-less (if that's a word) too. The background is wild but I am not sure if works in this particular model and clothing.

Lighting is just so hard to get right. I really wonder if digital has a lot to do with it. I didn't see this much blow out that I am seeing as of late back when film was king. Hmm. Perhaps digital's first reaction to exposure variance is to wash out details.

G

[BlueRob]

Ha! nice shot Gary! seems it was a fun session. I like the overall color idea and the BD is nice.
I will also like a tighter crop...either that or the other way around...to have some slack between the elbows and the edge of the frame.

:thumbsup:

[gahspidy]

Thanks Terry, GB for the time.
Terry, while the histogram in LR of the original dng file shows nothing going off the high end, there was only a sliver on one tooth and her ring that showed a bit of clipping. It was eliminated with a slight adjustment of the recovery slider. However, one can still lose detail without going off the chart as there are other variables that come into play such as lighting angle, and brightness of the areas in question to begin with. most of the loss in detail came from my difused light effect in PP, which has a tendancy to reduce and soften detail in highlights.
GB, here is the original file merely cropped the same as the first posted. Most detail is there, it really has to do with my post processing and it was an artistic choice really to have the washed out areas left. I felt it offered on the whole the effect I was after.
I may consider then doing something a bit less dramtic with the PP, but I rather thought it worked.
Thanks, I appreciate the thoughts and suggestions

[gahspidy]

Ha! nice shot Gary! seems it was a fun session. I like the overall color idea and the BD is nice.
I will also like a tighter crop...either that or the other way around...to have some slack between the elbows and the edge of the frame.

:thumbsup:

Thank you for the comment, Rob Did you mean BG? Yep, it was fun and that is basically what this shot was about.

[BlueRob]

Thank you for the comment, Rob Did you mean BG? Yep, it was fun and that is basically what this shot was about.

yeah sorry BG