Glen

It is a spectrum problem and white balance cannot fix it. Cheap LEDs have spiky, discontinuous output — a big blue peak and a broad phosphor hump with a hole where deep red should be. White balance applies one global shift, so you can neutralise the average and still have skin, which depends heavily on red reflectance, land in the wrong place. Options roughly in order of effectiveness: bring one good light and overpower the room, gel the panels with minus green if you can reach them, or shoot a colour checker in one frame and build a camera profile in your raw converter. That last one gets you surprisingly far and costs the price of a card.

Each lighting situation, yes. It is one frame at the start and then applies to the whole set, so once it is a habit it costs nothing.

That is an ordinary hit rate and for plenty of good photographers it is worse. What matters is whether this month's two are better than last month's two, not the ratio. One thing I would change: look at the other 298 for patterns instead of deleting them. Are they all from the first hour? All at one focal length? All missing a foreground? The rejects are the only free feedback you get, and going through them once a month taught me more than any tutorial.

I keep a near-miss folder and revisit it every few months. About one in ten turns out to be fine and I was simply tired the day I culled.

The bounce being too close was it. Moved it a metre and it is a completely different image.

The metadata check is the real answer. I was convinced I was a 35 person and the histogram of my focal lengths had a giant spike at 50. Buy the lens you already use.

Ruler test shows focus landing about 3cm behind the target. So the lens then?

I did switch to raw about two months ago, which lines up suspiciously well.

A cracked cable near the connector also gives a noise that changes with movement. Wiggle test before you blame the room.

Check for flare as well. Sun behind the subject hitting the front element washes the whole frame out and no exposure setting fixes that. Flag the lens with your hand just outside the frame and see how much contrast comes back — it is often dramatic.

Flags first, then a small second light, and skip the giant bounce entirely. In a small white room your problem is not too little light, it is too much bounce — the walls are already filling your shadow side whether you want them to or not. A couple of black flags, or even a moving blanket on a stand, gives you contrast you currently cannot buy at any price. Once you can control the spill, a cheap second light on a shoulder or the background does the separation job.

White walls in a 3 by 4 are basically a giant softbox you did not ask for. Negative fill is the cheapest upgrade in the whole hobby.