I'd start by removing the injection scar on her shoulder and the weird imprints under her ass meat.

>>4383837
Right. The retouching is no problem, I'm more looking for ideas to make it less sterile/drab. I know the obvious answer is to shoot in a cooler location, but I'm working with what I got for now.

Replace the model with one that isn’t fat
Have her do a better pose than “instinctively hiding phone pocket from would-be mugger”
Look at vogue and bazaar covers for what portraits are meant to look like

I don't think editing can make this much less sterile unless you do something like putting huge sucker in her hand and give her a propeller cap with photoshop.

The background is extemely sterile, her pose is stiff, even the clothing is sterile. If you took the softboxes off your strobes, maybe used just one you could get some drama in there. Try turning the picture monochrome (split toning maybe?) and increasing contrast if editing is all you want to do.

>>4383835
Instruct your model on proper hair care and styling for future shoots

>>4383835
learn2threepointslighting

Yes, especially for latex

>>4384016
two behind at an angle for rim lighting plug one key light at ~45 degrees?

This was taken with two gridded strip boxes, one in the NW corner of the room and one in the SE, facing each other in the middle where the model is.

>>4384153
You would figure out how to configure stuff with 3 lights. Also when shooting latex apply shining liquid to the material. You may create interesting patterns on surface with different shaped light sources - like use one O-shaped lamp and two other or use custom DIY screens with cut off shapes to put in front of lamp to cast different patterns, experiment with different color lighting (gels or adjustable color LED panels), fog machines, etc.

>>4384320
Right. I did shine the latex, perhaps not well enough. I'd love to know how reflective desire lights their scenes, pic related. Is this just studio lights? A lot of their shots seem to use a huge garage door with frosted glass as a massive diffuser.

>>4383835
>>4384341
westerners are so weird. what the fuck are wearing and why

>>4384350
Eros. It's a white thing, you wouldn't understand, Sukhdeep. Your troll-like gutter women are too hairy to into latex

>>4384353
Funny, pajeets are biggest coomers on planet. They wrote Kamasutra

>>4384341
Hard to tell if you shined it enough as there is little light in your set.

This photo reminded me of a popular back in the 00's lighting with stuff like picrel. they were typically set to the sides. they create narrow streaks of white reflection that helps to bring dimension. They may have been used in this setup in photo you posted - take a look at the stripes of light on sides of arm and leg. They also obviousle used a big diffused source further back. As for the ceiling light - I'm not a fan of how you can see ceiling lamps reflected. Do not place stuff between lights and model. Do not take pictures having light behind you or you are going to be visible in reflections. They fucked up big time.

>>4384357
To sum up if you light "sculpting" model with light go for taller than model you are shooting vertical light sources as a support of basic lighting (mentioned 3 points). You can diy some by lighting some long stripes of frosted paper with very strong lamp.

>>4384358
Taller if you are shooting full body suits. For just dress you should be fine with smaller fluorescent bulbs.

>>4384354
nice bobs

>>4384357
Very interesting, I like the series of light poles.

This may be a dumb question, but is there a "standard" 3-light setup? I've done some googling and everyone seems to have their own flavour, which makes sense since it should be set up to make your model look as nice as possible.

>>4384364
Nah, 3 lights is just a concept of using 3 sources of light to "sculpt" the scene. What type of lights is used depends on what you are shooting and own preferences and what you can afford.

And one more thing is subject you are photographing is laying you can of course apply vertical position to fluorescent lamps and/or use some vertical diffusion screen to get wider "reflection stripes".

Closeups on rounder parts like head, eyes, boobs may benefit from arch shaped (good for shoulders area) and ring shaped lamps (you can take pictures trough the ring).

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	www.meitu.com
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4383835
I don't think anyone cares for lighting, etc with this kind of photos. As long as the chick is hot that is.

>>4384371
plus watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsmVL7SDp5Y

>>4384371
Is there a resource to watch/read about lighting principles and setups? It seems like it's just grifters on YouTube, and I haven't really found much value in my first read through of strobist.

>>4384386
plus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPfH3M--224

>>4384390
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29M0_4MWbHc

>>4384386
>>4384390
>>4384391
Thank you. This is rare, actually helpful people on /p/

Example of some setup using two horizontal tubes plus flashlight
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ykiMnA1f6Ao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRB1ghGr-ks

There are also videos from photoshoots of Bianca Beauchamp on Bianca's channel, just search for "shoot" keyword on her profile.

>>4384471
*vertical, not horizontal

It's been a while. Maybe along these lines?

>>4384550
Can you explain what you did? Did you mask the subject/BG or is this all sliders on the base image?

>>4384595
It's a mix of dodge/burn, using luminosity masks to apply curves to specific tonal ranges, then painting them in. I was probably a little too aggressive blacking out the background.

>>4384595
Also, just a little tiny bit of nudge and tuck with liquify and a smidge of aspect compression. I never want to completely change what someone looks like, but sometimes an angle isn't perfectly flattering and a bit of subtle touchup isn't mean-spirited.

>>4384599
Do you have resource for where I can learn this? I like your results.

>>4384600
Not at all. A little retouch isn't mean spirited. Shit like >>4383853 is though :)

wrong board, get out

>>4383835
I don't know why people want to edit so much. take better pictures and you don't need to edit them

>>4385487
This
Better Lighting
Better Model
Better Photographer

>>4383835
The only thing I agree with in regards to the other comments on this board is that the model's hair needs to be done up. Everything else about the photo is pleasing to me. Most of the criticality is coming from jealous people who couldn't get a model to work with if they tried.

Blemishes and scars make the subject unique and interesting IMO, but can also easily be brushed away if you really want that "haute couture" look.

Did a small edit, hope you like it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:17 20:04:06
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1040
Image Height	1560

>>4386199
2016 is back

He, OP. You bott new equipment?

>>4385487
facts

you really like those shadows? you're not quite to the editing stage yet

Is OP still with us?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp1piOme5m0

OP is MIA

>>4388326
>Kid Barrett
lol that's cute. It's always funny that every time I see someone referencing Syd their music is never anything like Barretts unpredictable avant garde whimsical noise art rock, it's just like some normal post punk synthpop sounding stuff from 1995, a decade too late.

>>4389614
[*]

>>4389614
Still here.

Tried a more thoughtful approach this time. Side lit her to get those shadows running up her legs, and threw more light on the scene in general. Still getting the hang of dodging and burning to enhance those light and shadow lines, but I'm happy that I've improved my result.

Any thoughts/feedback on rev 2? I think it's better and I'm having a lot of fun with the whole process - might be a first for /p/

>>4391477

i wished i could get people like this to work with me :(

>>4391477
Meh ass posturing
Unevenly distributing weight between her two legs resulting in right cheek flexing and looking less round/plump than the left.
Noticeable banding
Weird reflection/shadows(?) on the right arm
I think the lighting on the mode looks nice here just not a fan of the floor shadows

>>4391621
model*
Also can't tell cause of the censorship but I think her neck is craning slightly too far forward

>>4391621
Noted on the stance affecting the butt cheeks. I think the banding is just because I screenshotted a larger jpeg to crush down the size in a hurry, it's not present on my originals.

What's weird about the reflection/shadow on the right arm? Looks fine to me, perhaps I just went to heavy on the d&b.

And yes the neck is craned a bit too far, I agree. Easy fix for next time.

>>4391477
Good side lighting but still not enough light in general. Are you saving on electricity or what? You need stronger diffused light that would reach also feet region. This dark near heels is not good. And notice no reflections on one of shoes. This dark would not be acceptable even for full black bodysuit covering all the skin.

>>4392717
If you go far shadows on skin make them at least noticeably warm skin colored rather than blackish/grayish

>>4392718
Notice for example this photo

>>4392721
Or here

>>4392717
Perhaps it's because I have a tiny basement studio? I'm using a 4x6 ft soft box + some 5 ft strip lights, so I have huge diffusers.

I try and get them as close to the model as I can (inverse square root falloff, so most of the intense light hits the model and tapers off by the time it hits the background). She's usually about 5 feet from the backdrop, can't do much more.

I find that any more light starts looking blow out. This picture is perfect and is what I'm looking to achieve btw.

>>4392723
Also addig some shiny surfaces t the scene help adding more sources of diffusion and reflexes on pieces being worn by model

>>4392724
>any more light starts looking blow out
Because you do not have good balance between light sources and your scene lacks diffusion. You have darkness and harsh lighting. You can get diffused light by bouncing it out of walls, reflectors etc.

>>4392717
lmao this is grosss

>>4392726
that background tarp is so fucking tacky. jesus this stuff sucks dick dude

>>4392728
A 4x6 soft box with two diffusion screens (my strip boxes also have two diffusion screens) is still harsh light? Not being a jerk just genuinely curious.

>>4392717
I've got to say that's a fucking horrible pose. She couldn't have held that can in a worse place, it makes her head look smaller than her neck and the angle really brings out her rabbit teeth. I suppose you're only using it as a lighting example but fucking hell is that bad.

>>4392731
I gave you possibilities not orders.

>>4392733
Every source could be harsh. Depends on the way you use it and take picture

>>4392734
It's not the pose that is the point being made

>>4392736
I know it's not the point that you're making but the whole mouth agape, looking up into the mouth and the leading lines making her head look smaller actually makes her look a bit retarded and I can tell she's not bad looking but it's a fucking horrible photo.

>>4392736
>Depends on the way you use it and take picture

I get this, but can we be more substantial and less vague? How would I vary the distance with a reflector vs the soft box etc.

>>4392738
It may be but that's what i an find quickly. I have better things to do than browse pictures of latex models for few hours until I find decent shoots. Quality of latex sets declined dramatically in recent decade. And even back when I consider them looking better they still were hard to make.

>>4392743
light the scene with key light to get decent amount of light so you can see natural skin color of model both in top and bottom part and then adjust additional lights that sculpt edges and key light. By dimming or brigntening each section. It's not a matter of measuring distances with tape. In photography you must just practice and adjust by doing stuff over and over. There is too many variables like even what color is the ceiling etc. I have no idea how many lumens you can get by making your setup dimer or brighter etc. How light diffuses in skin layers of your particular model or how thick is the layer of shine applied to latex. As you can see and I agree with you even dudes shooting latex for living can fuck things up. Latex, glass and metal are among hardest stuff to light.

>>4383853
He's shooting a model who likes this fashion, not a paid to look good

Please don't shit up photo with your porn. 90% of the damn Internet( and women in general) is just that, whores selling their dignity for a quick buck and simps obliging. Sage

>>4393882
it can actually be very artistic, some latex photogs could mog most of /p/ lmao

>>4383835
1°) What ever >>4383853 and >>4383858 said
2°) Learn to expose properly (look at the fucking historgram)
3°) You're never going to make it so forget about everything we're saying and just keep doing your thing

>>4391477
Better! Glad you're continuing to push improvements with this one setup instead of just moving on and learning nothing. See about either lighting her lower half more, or at least doing some local adjustments to even out the exposure on the highlights of the legs. Otherwise I'd say you're on the right track.