"" pp'd for deep shadows ""?
I assume you mean photoshopped?
Great remarks..thx for input
Had a look at how much detail was on the forehead where it meets the background. Can't see any detail there, but move away slightly from edge and you can see skin pores.
Raccoon eyes! damn...So right.
Main exposure done with a single soft box of course. If I had moved him back a few inches the light ratio would have been better.
Don't have studio lights and since pic was done I prefer ( if TTL ) to set speedlight to -1/3rd under. Manual with exposure meter
Ed, your setup sounds fine! "PP" is just shorthand for Post Processing. It's not necessarily Photoshop or Lightroom. Any application used to digitally alter a picture file is "PP." I mostly use Lightroom these days but before that I was using Photoshop Elements in various iterations. It's sometimes called "Photoshop Lite" because it does not have the full power of Photoshop but most photographers don't need all that power. Elements has all the key "elements" used mostly by photographers and can work fine as a standalone. It is purchased outright; you don't need a subscription. Lightroom also comes in a standalone that can be purchased. Linda uses different apps but I can't recall which, and it doesn't matter really; there are plenty of workers who shoot jpegs straight from the camera partly because they'd rather spend hours making new pictures than sitting at a computer.
I'm not sure if you are doing any "post" (more shorthand) but whether you are or not also doesn't matter. I bet I needn't tell you
that in analog days there was so much less we could do at all, especially in color. Darkroom tricks such as "dodging" or "burning" were harder to do in color. For one thing it was easy to overdo and get a color shift, and you wouldn't know about it until you wet-processed a print and had to go back and do it again. And again.
There is a school of digital thought that PP represents "lazy photography," that you should be "getting it right" in the camera. I spent 30-odd years doing my level best to get it right in the camera, but honestly, since discovering digital and the ability to adjust parameters after the fact---I think digital is just awesome!
That "Get It Right" school sometimes asserts that "lazy" photographers just shoot willy-nilly and figure "I'll fix it later in post." Indeed, there may be some who do, but I don't. I get it as right as I can in camera, then "righter"
in Post (I hope).
pop511 wrote:""Raccoon eyes! damn...So right.""
""raise his gaze just enough to make a catchlight from the keylight,""
Had to come back to this
Frankly at the angle of main light, I don't think you will see a catchlight. There is one there. It's on the right side of his pupil. The softbox is directly in front, but at an acute angle
"" lighting on the back of his head as I think I'd rather see the light fall off and the image fade to black.""
It never ceases to amaze me. I do those shots Steve and guess what??
" I don't like that picture as there is no detail behind his/her head"
Not criticizing you, Steve.
A general observation.
Ed, don't overlook that all "criticism" is subjective. I always try to couch it in "If I had made it" terms. 'Pete' remains a terrific picture!
I think his forehead is a little hot and had I made it I'd take it into Lightroom and try to reduce it but that's me. I bet if you take 10 (or 20 or 200) people into a museum or gallery and ask them what they think of a single picture (painting, photo) you'll get about as many opinions as there are people. Some will absolutely despise it. Some will love it. Some will be "meh," so on and so forth. Something I think I've noticed about [professional
critics is that (my perception anyway) they seem to criticize a work more than praise it. Picky picky picky. But I always figure they get paid to criticize. I seriously don't know much about art but I knows what I likes! I likes this pitcher!