Just another head shot - Mellisa

[jetrim]

Something interesting I found when reviewing the shots from last night's session with Melissa (a local TV personality). I shot RAW + JPG as I usually do, but the exposures came out wildly different - the following two shots were taken minutes apart under the same lights. The first is more acurate to how she actually looked under ambient studio florescent light, and was processed from the JPG. The second is more accurate to how she looked under the incandescent make-up room light and was processed from the RAW image. No Exposure adjustments were made to either. Wondering which skin tone is more generically appealing?

[clayhaus]

From my limited viewing/exposure to these types of shots, the top image is more in vogue due to its high-key nature. I kind of get tired of seeing so many high-key shots but yours is quite appealing. The bottom image seems a bit too bronzed as in a Coppertone ad. It may partially be due to the background colour as well. Her skin looks good, but again maybe just a bit too warm. A matter of degrees.

[daq7]

I think they are both good. In the first one, however, isn't the slight shadow from the nose generally considered undesirable in this sort of shot?

[PhilF]

wow...is she really that tanned? (#2)

[Mandagrl1]

I prefer the first. It's a softer, more approchable look. I looked at it as "which one do I want to view longer" and it was #1.

[Ridgetop]

The second one, at least on my monitor, is far too artificial looking. The first is far more appealing and I don't feel like I'm looking at one of those tan manequins (sp?) in the clothing stores. I also like her smile more in the first one and her eyes are much more attention grabbing.

[jetrim]

I think they are both good. In the first one, however, isn't the slight shadow from the nose generally considered undesirable in this sort of shot?

Daq,
The first shot is simply a broad lit portrait, it's not attempting to be a "beauty shot". The subject is about 20 yrs too old for beauty shots. I did use a common beauty technique, in that I shot with over/under key lights to minimize the pores/texture on her face (which is why the shadow has the shape it does).

Clayhaus,
I think you may be on to something with the color temp/white balance and I'm thinking that a shade somewhere in between 1 & 2 is where I'll eventually settle.

PhilF,
That's what I'm trying to determine, she looked that tan under incandescent light.

Mandagrl & Ridgetop,
I actually prefer the composition of the first shot myself, it seems more "genuine" but she want some shots with the microphone as well, so we used it... (as for the background color - blue gel on a gray seamless background)

[arne saknussen]

I was going to say that a combo of both would be about perfect. If I had to chose, the first would be my choice, due to the naturalness.
Has she seen them yet? I'm curios as to what she will think.

[GB1]

Hmmm. Nice model. The photos of her seem a little flat, maybe due to the lighting angle and her make up. In the top one her nose seems almost lost because of that, almost no contrast. The bottom one's nicer imo, but that blue is almost overpowering. However, I do like the blue, seems retro, say the 70s Beach Boys or something. That mic needs to be an ice cream cone btw

G