Fashion Shoot - Post pro style advice

melekalikimaka

looking for views of style, fashion shoot theme, aimed and magazine spread





or






tis a work in progress so keeping the flickr links private for now

artyeva

#1 is good as it shows off the shape and style of the dress better, but #2 is good as it shows some attitude - also the backround is better in #2, you get a sense of place.

fashion mags aren't summat i read very often though, so others are free to disagree

[edit: just noticed the model's expression is identical in both - but her eyes make her look a bit scared in #2?!]

melekalikimaka

the poses and clothes aside, they were just two at random i chucked up to pp, its more about the contrast, skin tone, skin texture... to vignette or not, to blow out back a bit... or not that sorta stuff

stcstc

i prefer the second, but the vingette seems to have created the illusion of a halo around the model

the issue with the first one is although i like the brightness is overall looks a bit to washed out, if that makes sense

melekalikimaka

stcstc wrote: »

i prefer the second, but the vingette seems to have created the illusion of a halo around the model

the issue with the first one is although i like the brightness is overall looks a bit to washed out, if that makes sense

yes i do get ya, i just feel the vignetting is a tad out of place of a fashion spread no? maybe a contrast boost on the 1st?

Fajitas!

First one:
You're cutting off the bottom of her hand in the pocket, crop a bit lower, your background lighting is a bit all over the place. The skin tone looks like the had the 300 preset thrown at it, and then desaturated, I'd go for more of a fleshy tone, and a bigger difference between herself and the background.

Second one:
Skin tones are awful in it I'm afraid, again, they look like the 300 preset! If you're shooting again, use a make up artist - I don't care how much a model knows about her own makeup, it'll make a huge difference. MUA's know how to get skin tones working well, and will give a lot more depth to the face, nevermind the fact that they'll save you so much time post processing. The angle of the bricks in the second are kinda distracting too - I'd have her further away from the wall and shoot level. Personally, I don't think the vignette is working for it.

For both of them, could you pop a reflector under the model, you're getting a shadow beneath the nose, moreso in the second. It'd really lift her face out of it.

Ballyman

I'd prefer the first one. Maybe it would be even a little better if it was underexposed a little more as it looks like there are blown spots on her forehead and cheeks.

She's a little oompah loompah'ish in the second one for me though.

melekalikimaka

Fajitas! wrote: »

First one:
You're cutting off the bottom of her hand in the pocket, crop a bit lower, your background lighting is a bit all over the place. The skin tone looks like the had the 300 preset thrown at it, and then desaturated, I'd go for more of a fleshy tone, and a bigger difference between herself and the background.

indeed they were the final set from a long day shooting and the white backdrop was abandoned to untilise - the 'wall', not my idea, so the sh1tty floor was visable so i had to cut when it got to there, she had to be a good bit away to avoid the shadows, i went for the light skin tone cos the mua wasnt exactly experienced ( classmate) and it kinda showed, required a bit of cloning and such, i ended up blowing out the face a bit to cover up stuff, so ya think maybe upping the saturation would work?

Fajitas! wrote: »

Second one:
Skin tones are awful in it I'm afraid, again, they look like the 300 preset! If you're shooting again, use a make up artist - I don't care how much a model knows about her own makeup, it'll make a huge difference. MUA's know how to get skin tones working well, and will give a lot more depth to the face, nevermind the fact that they'll save you so much time post processing. The angle of the bricks in the second are kinda distracting too - I'd have her further away from the wall and shoot level. Personally, I don't think the vignette is working for it.

i did think it was a bit tanned, we were constrained in the room but i do agree bout the wall, the second wasnt by choice of pp, i chose the first style, also agree bout the vignetting, not really suitable.

so if i lasso yer one and pump up the saturation/hue on the the lasses face, it might work better?

Fajitas!

Jaysis, don't go lasso'ing nor pumping anything!

Right, this is where adjustment layers come in to play moreso than anything else, if hue/sat is where you're most comfortable with at the moment, create a layer adjustment mask for hue/sat, get a nice pinky tone, and start reducing the saturation of it to sit in nicely. Next, fill the entire layer mask with black, and slowly, (SLOWLY) start painting in the skin tones. Not sure what the quality of the RAW's are like, so don't know how much there is to get out of what's already there!

thebaz

2nd one for me by far, the first one is just plain, the second one has life and I like -

melekalikimaka

Fajitas! wrote: »

Jaysis, don't go lasso'ing nor pumping anything!

Right, this is where adjustment layers come in to play moreso than anything else, if hue/sat is where you're most comfortable with at the moment, create a layer adjustment mask for hue/sat, get a nice pinky tone, and start reducing the saturation of it to sit in nicely. Next, fill the entire layer mask with black, and slowly, (SLOWLY) start painting in the skin tones. Not sure what the quality of the RAW's are like, so don't know how much there is to get out of what's already there!

cool cool, exposure was spot on so theres plenty there to work with... too much detail in some places if ya get me...

sNarah

In my (non - technical) opinion, I prefer the first one.

It depends as well what the (if there is one) 'client' is looking for:

- If they need the focus on the clothes, I would prefer set-up n°1

- If however, they are looking for a more 'arty' approach, which magazines such as Vogue, Elle, ect usually do, I would choose n°2, but then I would also dramatise the make-up and make the hair a bit 'wilder'.

The whiter blackground works better for me, and I prefer the pose of the model in n°1 and how it accentuates the dress.

shepthedog

Both are very different images, what 'look' were you going for?

I like the pose in the 2nd, but if its for a fashion spread then 1st displays the clothes nicely.

melekalikimaka

any better?

Fajitas!

No.

:pac:

Shadows and lighting are all over the place. The stool does nothing than give an impression it was shot in a college studio (Which it was, but that's not the point). Your not doing her body any favors with the angle you're shooting at - Try getting in closer.

Kudos though, for not getting big glaring catchlights in the sunglasses.

melekalikimaka

Fajitas! wrote: »

No.

:pac:

Shadows and lighting are all over the place. The stool does nothing than give an impression it was shot in a college studio (Which it was, but that's not the point). Your not doing her body any favors with the angle you're shooting at - Try getting in closer.

Kudos though, for not getting big glaring catchlights in the sunglasses.

i understand the shadows... in ps i couldnt see them but converted to jpeg and uploaded to flickr they popped up, currently ridding them now, how is the lighting wrong?

Fajitas!

Not wrong, just all over the place.

The shadows beneath the stool legs are just a small part, but I'd consider the shadow from her left knee to right leg to be quite distracting - If you're going to have one shadow like that, where are the rest of 'em?

When you first import them to Photoshop (Or Lightroom with the exposure slider) create a levels adjustment layer, and bring out all the darker midtones to see where you're going to have problems with shadows. You can delete it or make it invisible straight after, but it's handy to remind you where they are.

If it was for a mag spread, assuming you're going for an editorial style as opposed to catalogue or high fashion, I'd get more creative with the actual shoots themselves...

melekalikimaka

yeah i know, sure there was ... no joke 15 gig of photos shot, i am getting them in dribs and drabs... suprisingly hard to get 15 gig off a mac onto a vista lappy when the mac dont got toast :-), so i'm getting a few at a time and working on the style of post pro before i do the selection of the nice shots... only got 2 gig so far . I do agree bout the shadows, it was a group effort, this was not my set up or my direction... mine was the previous set up... tho that is not without its problems... awful tough area to photograph right...

Fajitas!

Ah.

Problem 1; A group shooting in a studio.

Problem 2; Getting all the files, get 2 of those 7.whatever Gb DVD's and throw it across in minutes.

Could you go back and reshoot on your own?

melekalikimaka

Fajitas! wrote: »

Ah.

Problem 1; A group shooting in a studio.

Problem 2; Getting all the files, get 2 of those 7.whatever Gb DVD's and throw it across in minutes.

Could you go back and reshoot on your own?

oh i full intend to... after i get two wonderfully complicated still life shoots done.

yeah 30 people in the studio isnt good, studio very small... also i got dupped into modelling for 8 hours, and as a reward i got to **** everyone but a few out and shoot myself, the revious shots. She hasnt got toast on her macbookpro for some reason, so cant dvd it... also cant figure out how to delete data off a memory stick on the macbook so copying data is slow.....

Fajitas!

When you're deleting the USB on a mac, drop everything into the trash then empty it, otherwise it keeps it all on it, even when you switch computers. Annoying, I know.

Shouldn't need Toast, just stick in the DVD, opt Open In Finder when it autoplays, open up the folder with the images in, and drag/drop them into the DVD's empty folder, there's a little nuclear symbol you can click, or just press Burn at the top of the DVD's folder - Simple!

and as a reward i got to **** everyone

I never knew Griffith had such an open mind. :pac:

melekalikimaka

oops i didnt mean to curse... figure of speech... I swear :rolleyes:

melekalikimaka

any better?