This picture, due to the choice of lighting and perspective, shows all skin imperfections. I guess that is intentional, isn't it?

I mean you could have taken a different picture of this model, making her look like a supermodel.

Alfred Molon wrote:
> This picture, due to the choice of lighting and perspective, shows all skin imperfections.
> I guess that is intentional, isn't it?
>
> I mean you could have taken a different picture of this model, making her look like a supermodel.
>
Yes, you're quite right. Sometimes I prefer to show the subject in a more "realistic" way.

Hi Greg, Love the model's pose and your choice of camera angle, not so wild about the rather flat lighting IMO.
Perhaps Butterfly or 8.1 ratio would make your image pop as oposed to the model getting the lions share of credit that makes this shot work.
Hey, it did get my attention, good work.

Hi Greg, Love the model's pose and your choice of camera angle, not so wild about the rather flat lighting IMO.
Perhaps Butterfly or 8.1 ratio would make your image pop as oposed to the model getting the lions share of credit that makes this shot work.
Hey, it did get my attention, good work.

Randall Beaudin wrote:
> Hi Greg, Love the model's pose and your choice of camera angle, not so wild about the rather
> flat lighting IMO.
> Perhaps Butterfly or 8.1 ratio would make your image pop as oposed to the model getting the
> lions share of credit that makes this shot work.
> Hey, it did get my attention, good work.
>
Randall,

Thanks for the feedback. Lighting was a single beauty dish with a grid. The intent was to isolate the subject in a room with a distracting background. There are many shadows on the model and her face, which would not typically be considered "flat" lighting. The light could have been placed higher for a butterfly look, but the shadows would have been very hard with a single light. Interesting observations.

Greg Mennegar wrote:
> Randall Beaudin wrote:
> > Hi Greg, Love the model's pose and your choice of camera angle, not so wild about the rather
> > flat lighting IMO.
> > Perhaps Butterfly or 8.1 ratio would make your image pop as oposed to the model getting the
> > lions share of credit that makes this shot work.
> > Hey, it did get my attention, good work.
> >
> Randall,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Lighting was a single beauty dish with a grid. The intent was to
> isolate the subject in a room with a distracting background. There are many shadows on the
> model and her face, which would not typically be considered "flat" lighting. The light could
> have been placed higher for a butterfly look, but the shadows would have been very hard with
> a single light. Interesting observations.
>
Hi again Greg,
I guess this is one that we will agree to disagree on.
Still like the angle and pose.
I personally have never been a big fan of single source lighting, guess my years at Stratford show through. One could argue that the sun is single source, however with all the bouncing around both outside and inside what we see is mixed lighting! Perhaps that single beauty dish with a grid may have been augmented with a hair or kicker light IMO. This would have also created separation from BG.