In a previous post I tested the effect of MAC Mixing Medium used to create beads of sweat and skin textures, and although I liked the tests of this I needed to see how it would look on camera, on a real model with lights and the suitable photography equipment. Will it be visible from afar as a head shot? Can you see it from a full body shot? Will it even show up in the lights? Will the jelly-like product reflect off the lights oddly? These types of tests will carry me through to industry, reminding me to be thorough and prepared in the knowledge of how my products will react in certain scenarios.
I completed three different tests to be thorough. The first (pictured below) tested small round shapes with the mixture. These were my favorite in initial tests but I was worried they wouldn't show on camera. The results are below:
Editing determined how much the "sweat" creations show up. For example, the first has a higher saturation and the small bumps on the forehead are a lot more visible. The second image is cooler, with a higher exposure and this makes the bumps disappear. I don't think they would be distinct enough to use on film in a head shot position.
Next I wanted to make the bumps a bit bigger, so I dragged the mixture in a downwards motion to create a dew-drop shape which resembled sweat more than the first textures:
Again editing determines how visible the mixture is. Although, even in the first photo with a higher exposure, the drops are more visible than in the first set of tests. I think that excess is going to be the key with this, to get the most use out of it on camera.
If this is true then for my next test I wanted to add a lot more, and add some texture to the gel by striking through it with the tail end of a pin-tail comb, to see if maybe added texture would catch the light better. I'm not fond of this technique but I need to see if it looks good on camera. Results are below:
This actually seemed to have the reverse effect. Thank goodness for testing! Once again, I edited them in two different ways to see if that made a difference in how the gel is picked up but I don't think that it makes a big enough difference to warrant using a technique that I'm not as fond of as the first or second tests.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The second test seemed to work the best on camera and I think that I can work with this technique on film. I still really like the idea of the first texture but in order for this to work on film it will need to be used for close up shots only, because it doesn't show up enough for anything other than that. I've come to the conclusion that this technique will have to be used mainly for close ups, which I believe can work on film.
Doing these tests paid off positively because I now know how this new product and technique works on camera. This is important because makeup almost always looks different to the naked eye than it does on film. I like the idea of this gel being an extension of the skin. My next step will be to test it up close on film to double check that it works.
NOTE
I usually have trouble getting that dewy glow on a models cheeks to work effectively on camera but I feel like it was really effective on this shoot. This came from mixing MAC creme highlighter with a Vaseline-like mixing medium, proving that experimenting with products can sometimes be more beneficial than sticking to just one. I'm thinking of using this in an intense way to create hyper-sweaty looks for the project, maybe fitting into the stress theme. However, it has recently occurred to me that the dewey skin could be reflecting light through the sweat beads from behind and therefore causing them to not show as much.
