Opinions Wanted

[tillencik]

Let me know what you guys think of these photos, good or bad.  Any potential for stock?

[Sean Locke Photography]

White balance is off and they're overexposed.

[Magnum]

Try white sheets next time...  Just kidding. The happy man above is right.

I�d overexpose the background and not her.

Try again and show us

[null]

Tight crop on the right which limits use. The background in the skin color makes the subject-background isolation more difficult for the eye, so why not isolate overwhite?

[Dreamframer]

I will start with what I think it's good. Basically, subject is nice, composition too... If focus is OK and there is no noise, your images are stock worthy.
What I don't like is white balance and clipped colors due to long exposition or too much light.
Regarding white balance: I guess your camera couldn't find clear white spot to adjust white balance correctly. Your background is similar to skin tone, and that can confuse your camera. Try to use background with different color.
Regarding clipped colors: Look at the brightest parts of girls cheeks and forehead, and at her fingers on the image where she uses headset. You see how texture of her skin is not visible? Try to shorten the exposition just a bit, or to increase f number in your camera.

I don't know which camera you use, but I use NIKON. I noticed that when I use Photoshop for processing my RAW files I always get yellowish or reddish pictures. That's why I use Capture NX for that purpose. After processing RAW files in CNX, I export them as TIFF and continue my work in Photoshop.
I hope this helps.

[tillencik]

The background was a pure white wall and the white balance was set for strobe lights, which I was using.  That's what the 'expert' who owned the studio told me to do since it was my first shoot.

There's no way for me to select the model and change the background without making it look like crap.  Each time I try in photoshop it looks terrible.

[Sean Locke Photography]

This is why you shoot in RAW, so you can set the white point later, if you aren't sure of what you are doing.

[batman]

if you did not shoot in Raw and is unable to redo the shoot, i guess you can try using layers and work on each (background) (subject) individually , then merge once you get them to where it should be.

[null]

There's no way for me to select the model and change the background without making it look like crap.  Each time I try in photoshop it looks terrible.

You can make a layer below and make the saturation zero > b&w version. Then selectively erase the top layer over the (gray) background. That will solve the fringe problem on the hair too, and it will preserve the skin tone as it is. When all is flattened, you can dodge the edges easily to white. But it will add an hour at least to each shot, so it's not very productive.

[batman]

you'll still have that dark shadow under her hair, chin,etc... to contend with. your lighting is uneven (ratio: 1:3 , guesswork here) , so careful with the placement of the model.
from your catchlight , too small to really see from your image here, but it looks like an umbrella or window . but you said flash, so i assume that it's a brolly.

looks like you're using one source of light to light both the subject and background,  (telltale  45 degree shadow incline on her nose to chin).
 try adding another light to lighten the background to get separation from the model. adding another to fill the shadow side, or use a reflector to fill the shadow side.  careful here too, in this case, you may have to watch the spill does not create lens flare.  use a go between to contain the spill.
ok, i think you have enough on your hands here, lol.. gotta go ! good luck. keep practising. you'll get the hang of it ! (wink)
at least you have a headstart with a lovely model. (smile)

[RT]

There's no way for me to select the model and change the background without making it look like crap.  Each time I try in photoshop it looks terrible.

tillencik, You can pretty much do anything in Photoshop if you spend a little time and know what you're doing, however it helps to have the information there in the first place, on this shot all I've done to your image is adjust the colour balance and played with the levels, took about 15 seconds, one side of her face is overexposed which means it's never going to be perfect, but if you were prepared to spend some time on it you could get a reasonable result.

Next time just set your background lights one stop more, and move the light on the right side of her face further back (or lower the power) and the reflector on her left closer. Look up portrait lighting using the 'butterfly' or 'rembrandt' techniques on Google, shadows are a good thing they add definition.

[batman]

i think before you go into more ambitious lighting like rembrandt, butterful,
you need first to learn to balance your lighting ratio. sort of trying to run before oyu walk is not exactly advisable. 
from the look of the image , you can tell there is only one point source.
to do butterfly you need more than one. to create the butterfly there is one overhead kicker. so i think before you try something like that, get to be able to light your subject and background separately. 
i am not sure if microstock is looking for rembrandt lighting either. as most of them are flat lighting and to a limited extent , high key.

[batman]

i think before you go into more ambitious lighting like rembrandt, butterful,
you need first to learn to balance your lighting ratio. sort of trying to run before oyu walk is not exactly advisable. 
from the look of the image , you can tell there is only one point source.
to do butterfly you need more than one. to create the butterfly there is one overhead kicker.
same for the rembrandt, you need to be able to create modeling without clipping the highlight and add enough details to maintain the shadow from blocking. all of which requires more than umbrella .
before you go into doing such classical lighting, you need to master lighting ratio. not getting a separation between your model and background, shows that you've still lacking that ability .
so i think before you try something like that, get to be able to light your subject and background separately. 
moreover, i am not even  sure if microstock is looking for rembrandt or butterfly lighting either. as most of them are flat lighting and to a limited extent , high key. low key lighting and chiaroscuro
i haven't seen too many of that in microstock.

[Dreamframer]

The background was a pure white wall and the white balance was set for strobe lights, which I was using.  That's what the 'expert' who owned the studio told me to do since it was my first shoot.

There's no way for me to select the model and change the background without making it look like crap.  Each time I try in photoshop it looks terrible.

Always make few test shots to decide what's best for the current photo session. If background was pure white it has to look pure white on your shots, or at least very close to pure white. Once you set your camera properly, everything will be much much easier and you will enjoy shooting.

[anton9]

With the background as pure white then they are both definately stock worthy especially the first one its a great pic with a great subject

[goldenangel]

If you shot in RAW, you could adjust the whie balance, RT did a great job on your picture. You could even try to clone out the completely white places on her face. For that you can use the clone tool set to the Darken mode and opacity of 20% or so. You may spend a lot of Photoshop time with these pictures but you can also learn new things..

[RT]

i think before you go into more ambitious lighting like rembrandt, butterful,
you need first to learn to balance your lighting ratio. sort of trying to run before oyu walk is not exactly advisable. 

Batman I'd love to see what you describe as a more simplistic approach to portrait lighting - using a torch? 

For the OP, Butterfly lighting is one of the most basic portrait lighting techniques you can use, but like most things in life simple sometimes works out best, here's a link I found by searching google for basic portrait lighting techniques: http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleedawson/id11.html

The most important thing in portrait photography is the interaction between you and the subject, I think you're off to a very good start, any idiot can learn lighting techniques.

[batman]

Batman I'd love to see what you describe as a more simplistic approach to portrait lighting - using a torch? 

no RT, a candle 

[tillencik]

There's no way for me to select the model and change the background without making it look like crap.  Each time I try in photoshop it looks terrible.

tillencik, You can pretty much do anything in Photoshop if you spend a little time and know what you're doing, however it helps to have the information there in the first place, on this shot all I've done to your image is adjust the colour balance and played with the levels, took about 15 seconds, one side of her face is overexposed which means it's never going to be perfect, but if you were prepared to spend some time on it you could get a reasonable result.

Next time just set your background lights one stop more, and move the light on the right side of her face further back (or lower the power) and the reflector on her left closer. Look up portrait lighting using the 'butterfly' or 'rembrandt' techniques on Google, shadows are a good thing they add definition.

I was able to make the picture look the same as you did using the automatic functions in Photoshop, but istockphoto still rejected some of them.

I paid an 'expert' who owns a studio to help me set up the lights, and I guess I wasted my money.  I only shot in JPGs, but now that you guys have mentioned it I learned to adjust my camera to shoot both JPG and Raw pictures.  I took around 200 shots, so I don't feel like spending an hour on each of them.. especially when my first batch of 12 pictures has yet to be viewed by anyone on fotolia.

Thanks for the help!

[batman]

I was able to make the picture look the same as you did using the automatic functions in Photoshop, but istockphoto still rejected some of them.

White balance is off and they're overexposed.

the man already told you the reason .

[Magnum]

You paid a man to set up the lighting?  And you have barely learn to control your camera.?? You don�t sound so interested??  If I got my hand on a studio setup. I�d try different settings and positions til my fingers bled.   where�s your learning curve?

[tillencik]

You paid a man to set up the lighting?  And you have barely learn to control your camera.?? You don�t sound so interested??  If I got my hand on a studio setup. I�d try different settings and positions til my fingers bled.   where�s your learning curve?

Why so ignorant?

I just got my camera two weeks ago and I've never done serious photography before.  I read through the manual a couple times and I got most of it, but I didn't see the benefit of shooting RAW pictures.

I rented a studio because I don't have any room in my apartment and I don't have $50,000 to spend on equipment.  Lighting is very complicated so I needed some help.  He helped me with the lights and our test pictures looked good, but I don't think he turned on the same lights when my model arrived.

I also work full time and I'm working on a Masters degree, so I don't have all the time in the world go learn every technical detail.. but I'm trying.

[Magnum]

It�s awesome you are trying.  Sorry if I sounded harsh.    But you said it yourself, You got the camera two weeks ago.  And have already started with studio shots.     What about basic photography?   

[tillencik]

I take a ton of pictures of family members and pets, which are useless as stock.  What do you mean by basic photography?  I can try and take pictures of meaningful objects, but I'd still have to get some kind of background and lighting.

[RT]

Batman I'd love to see what you describe as a more simplistic approach to portrait lighting - using a torch? 

no RT, a candle 

Watch out for singed eyebrows 

[Magnum]

The basics is all about photography.   How the camera works. wich lenses to use. aperture/shutterspeed.  composition etc etc

You seems pretty eager to get a portfolio up and running at Istock.  I�d cool down a bit and get it right first, and save some temper and acceptance rate if I were you.   I know, I�m also the eager type

Good luck

[null]

I take a ton of pictures of family members and pets, which are useless as stock.

Not at all. Family and generation images in a natural environment are sought after in stock. You just have to "direct" your models well, so they look cheering and happy, or inclusive and caring. Just go to any stock site and look for "family" and check the best selling shots for ideas.

Everybody has to start, but you might try some easier subjects before people shots, where you have to divide your attention between your cam and the people. Your cam mastering should be automatic in people's situations. Or you can try all possible settings in the environment when the models are not there yet, then just keep those settings. Look carefully at the histogram and zoom in to 100% on the LCD (if your cam has one) to check for lighting and focus. If not, just halt the shoot, and look at a laptop at 100%, then adjust if necessary.

You also need some basic digital photography tutorials, like cambridgeincolour and Photoshop tutorials. There are many online if you Google for it.

There are a lot of good stuff, how to handle/guide models, and Photoshop tricks on Youtube too.

[tillencik]

The basics is all about photography.   How the camera works. wich lenses to use. aperture/shutterspeed.  composition etc etc

You seems pretty eager to get a portfolio up and running at Istock.  I�d cool down a bit and get it right first, and save some temper and acceptance rate if I were you.   I know, I�m also the eager type

Good luck

I read the manual, Scott Kelby's The Digital Photography Book, and Michal Henron's Digital Stock Photography: How to Shoot and Sell.  I didn't just jump in, and 7/10 of my photos that were initially submitted to istock and shutterstock would have been accepted if I downloaded a better model release.  Just here for some opinions on how to improve.

[tillencik]

I take a ton of pictures of family members and pets, which are useless as stock.

Not at all. Family and generation images in a natural environment are sought after in stock. You just have to "direct" your models well, so they look cheering and happy, or inclusive and caring. Just go to any stock site and look for "family" and check the best selling shots for ideas.

Everybody has to start, but you might try some easier subjects before people shots, where you have to divide your attention between your cam and the people. Your cam mastering should be automatic in people's situations. Or you can try all possible settings in the environment when the models are not there yet, then just keep those settings. Look carefully at the histogram and zoom in to 100% on the LCD (if your cam has one) to check for lighting and focus. If not, just halt the shoot, and look at a laptop at 100%, then adjust if necessary.

You also need some basic digital photography tutorials, like cambridgeincolour and Photoshop tutorials. There are many online if you Google for it.

There are a lot of good stuff, how to handle/guide models, and Photoshop tricks on Youtube too.

My family members won't sign model releases because they're paranoid about having their pictures for sale on the internet.  I doubt my dog would object though.

[Magnum]

 Show some nice family/baby shots.   And how much there is to earn    They�ll see what it�s all about.   I got the same reaction here     

[Dreamframer]

tillencik, I know how you feel and I understand your desire to take professional shots immediately. But don't waste your money paying to some other photographers for lighting. There are tons of tutorials and movies on internet about this. Also, I am sure you can take good enough photos outside, without any artificial lighting. You can take a look at my portfolio. You will see there that most of my images are taken outside. After one year and few months in microstock I still consider my self beginner, and I enjoy learning and experimenting. Don't rush...take your time. Take your camera and learn setting by setting. Soon you will see that you are starting to do it easily. Experiment with aperture priority mode, and shutter priority mode on your camera. There is no recipe for instant success. The main point is to enjoy while learning and success will come naturally.... Ask people, search internet, learn from rejections and don't take them too hard. Don't take anyones comment too hard....

[batman]

You paid a man to set up the lighting?  And you have barely learn to control your camera.?? You don�t sound so interested??  If I got my hand on a studio setup. I�d try different settings and positions til my fingers bled.   where�s your learning curve?

Why so ignorant?

i don't think magnum was being ignorant, but rather being honest. you seem to be in a big hurry to get good without the effort. the old saying still applies, for earning a masters or learning the ropes of any skill, it's 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration. you seem to get it the other way around.

no one here is out to offend you, just being realistic . remember we were there before.
you need to apply yourself more, and stop taking every word we say personally. it isn't about you, it's just means you have to make the effort to work at it. one session does not make you a pro.
paying a "pro" to set up your lights does not make you any better either, only poorer.
i hope you understand what we are all trying to tell you.

Watch out for singed eyebrows 

ouch, too late RT. why do you think i am wearing a mask?

[madelaide]

My family members won't sign model releases because they're paranoid about having their pictures for sale on the internet.  I doubt my dog would object though.

They would still be a good means of learning before you spend money in studio and models. Natural lighting may lead to great portraits.

What people are suggesting is that you learn photography well before. Learn your camera settings. Learn lighting. Know your lenses, their strengths and weaknesses. Your time is already limited, and it's much worse if you get on a trial-and-error process.

I think someone mentioned here a while ago that there is a niche for images in university environment. Maybe this is something to explore better than studio. I for one don't take studio shots (nor people shots, as a matter of fact).

[tillencik]

i don't think magnum was being ignorant, but rather being honest. you seem to be in a big hurry to get good without the effort. the old saying still applies, for earning a masters or learning the ropes of any skill, it's 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration. you seem to get it the other way around.

no one here is out to offend you, just being realistic . remember we were there before.
you need to apply yourself more, and stop taking every word we say personally. it isn't about you, it's just means you have to make the effort to work at it. one session does not make you a pro.
paying a "pro" to set up your lights does not make you any better either, only poorer.
i hope you understand what we are all trying to tell you.
o you think i am wearing a mask?

Well it sounded ignorant.  I paid a professional to help me achieve the proper lighting and let me use his equipment.  I know how to control my camera.. maybe not as well as most of you.. but I'm not some idiot who opened the box and immediately scheduled a shoot.  I do my homework.

[tillencik]

Show some nice family/baby shots.   And how much there is to earn    They�ll see what it�s all about.   I got the same reaction here     

Tried.. still nothing.  I posted on craiglist looking for families that might be interested in helping and got a great response, but haven't had time to meet up with any of them yet.

[batman]

i don't think magnum was being ignorant, but rather being honest. you seem to be in a big hurry to get good without the effort. the old saying still applies, for earning a masters or learning the ropes of any skill, it's 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration. you seem to get it the other way around.

no one here is out to offend you, just being realistic . remember we were there before.
you need to apply yourself more, and stop taking every word we say personally. it isn't about you, it's just means you have to make the effort to work at it. one session does not make you a pro.
paying a "pro" to set up your lights does not make you any better either, only poorer.
i hope you understand what we are all trying to tell you.
o you think i am wearing a mask?

Well it sounded ignorant.  I paid a professional to help me achieve the proper lighting and let me use his equipment.  I know how to control my camera.. maybe not as well as most of you.. but I'm not some idiot who opened the box and immediately scheduled a shoot.  I do my homework.

with this sort of "cup full" attitude you 're in the wrong perspective to gain any help from any of us.
i think you are wasting your time and our time if you post threads asking people for help and then
calling their comments idiotic.  if it's adulation rather than help that you wanted, why not come right out and say it.

finally, if you are find  magnum's comment idiotic, oh believe me, compared to some reviewers like Atilla, magnum's a pussycat.

[tillencik]

with this sort of "cup full" attitude you 're in the wrong perspective to gain any help from any of us.
i think you are wasting your time and our time if you post threads asking people for help and then
calling their comments idiotic.  if it's adulation rather than help that you wanted, why not come right out and say it.

finally, if you are find  magnum's comment idiotic, oh believe me, compared to some reviewers like Atilla, magnum's a pussycat.

I want opinions.. good or bad.. about THE PICTURES.  I don't want assumptions being made about my personality, attitude, or motives.

[batman]

I want opinions.. good or bad.. about THE PICTURES.  I don't want assumptions being made about my personality, attitude, or motives.

take care 

[Dreamframer]

OK tillencik, calm down. Don't be mad at us. I hope you understand that when you mention you didn't know benefits of shooting in RAW you really sound like a complete beginner. I guess that's the main reason why everybody started to give you advices, including me.
We didn't understand what you need and sorry for that.

About the images:
White balance isn't correct. Always shoot in RAW because it helps a lot if you need to correct white balance on your computer after shooting. It also helps a bit if you need to correct improper exposure. You should achieve natural look of your subjects, unless you didn't make it look unnatural with purpose. Every unnatural look that isn't with clear purpose looks odd, and won't be accepted by most agencies.
I hope this helps.

[tillencik]

About the images:
White balance isn't correct. Always shoot in RAW because it helps a lot if you need to correct white balance on your computer after shooting. It also helps a bit if you need to correct improper exposure. You should achieve natural look of your subjects, unless you didn't make it look unnatural with purpose. Every unnatural look that isn't with clear purpose looks odd, and won't be accepted by most agencies.
I hope this helps.

I didn't plan on correction the white balance because I thought the lighting would be right.  I know there are sensors to test the balance of the background while shooting.. do many people invest in those?

[RT]

I didn't plan on correction the white balance because I thought the lighting would be right. 

The lighting had nothing to do with your white balance error, please try and understand nobody expects you to get it right first time, you're constantly blaming the poor guy that set the studio up for you, the white balance problem you've got is because of the way YOU set your camera.

Now I suggest if you want to learn how to do it right next time listen to people who have tried to help you, I presume the sensor you mention is a colour temperature gauge, and the answer would be no I doubt anybody here uses one because you don't need one, you've mentioned you've read your manual - go back and read it again because in there it will explain how to set a custom white balance.

[hqimages]

Hi there! With reference to the original post, yes, you have a good idea of stock photography concepts, the model looks great and very natural, so well done!

When it comes to microstock, manual setting are best, so you need to learn how to do a custom white balance, and then in Photoshop levels and curves are v.useful.. unfortunately one of the worst things you can do for a stock portrait is to blow out highlights, as it is almost impossible to get detail back, but you could get these images up to scratch to get accepted by some of the microstock sites (There's a chance istock will always have issues with the blown highlights no matter how much you improve it with ps).. but well done, great model, nice poses, all you need is white balance, some more teaching about lighting, and definately lots of playtime in photoshop!!

[madelaide]

Is it my uncalibrated monitor, is it hq's edition too cyan?

Regards,
Adelaide

[hqimages]

Is it my uncalibrated monitor, is it hq's edition too cyan?

Regards,
Adelaide

Hi Adelaide, I don't want approval from anyone for that edit, it's just an example of what can be done with some experimentation on an image that may seem hopeless (In fact you can make an image that started off yellow, look blue ).. but I do not want approval or a critique from anyone for that, thanks all!

[madelaide]

hq,

I meant no critique, but as it was an edited version and I was seeing it with a cyan hue, I was wondering if my uncalibrated monitor was too off.