A Christmas Tale

[Barney]

Its easy to get carried away adjusting stuff, when you do not know what effect the slightest little movement will have. I have tried to take on board previous comments.

I found it very difficult to get the light on low enough power for the side/back and ended up putting two sheets of kitchen roll in front of the flash, that negated some of the chiaroscuro effect though.

All advice gratefully received!


Tears of a Tree

 

[Barney]

Messed about a bit more and took off the kitchen roll and taped a bit of cardboard to the side of the reflector for a kind of flag, I think I got the background a bit better but somehow have lost detail in the tree trunk.



I will keep playing until I get it how I want.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I'm not quite sure why you've photographed my ex-wife, or what you're trying to achieve, but I feel that you've done well.
The chiaroscuro effect is more pronounced and better in the second shot, but I personally prefer the darker look of the first shot.

That probably doesn't help, but it's all I've got

 

[Barney]

I'm not quite sure why you've photographed my ex-wife, or what you're trying to achieve, but I feel that you've done well.
The chiaroscuro effect is more pronounced and better in the second shot, but I personally prefer the darker look of the first shot.

That probably doesn't help, but it's all I've got

I hope that she has not got access to your computer,

anyway its all your fault, in a discussion on Rembrandt light I recall one of your comments that the OP would be better off with a rugby ball or coconut, I didn't have a coconut so used a lump of wood instead. Ha Ha.

I will consider that an A+ , it the first time you have not given me a bollocking.

 

[Barney]

But seriously,,,,,

Is there perhaps a reason that can be expressed in terms an idot like me can understand why the face in the first shot, which had two layers of kitchen roll on (8 inch reflector), the tears on left cheek below the eye are so much better defined than in the second shot where I had removed the tissues and used the bare reflector?

Is just luck because it was moved to a different position or something or, my overworked brain came up with a solution that the tissue must have had the effect of increasing the distance from the subject?

 

[Garry Edwards]

I hope that she has not got access to your computer,

No, she definitely won't be reading this, see https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/tutorials/portraits-as-they-used-to-be.151/. It might be of some interest to you, shot on a half-plate camera, pre-polaroids, and with no light meter.

But seriously,,,,,

Is there perhaps a reason that can be expressed in terms an idot like me can understand why the face in the first shot, which had two layers of kitchen roll on (8 inch reflector), the tears on left cheek below the eye are so much better defined than in the second shot where I had removed the tissues and used the bare reflector?

Is just luck because it was moved to a different position or something or, my overworked brain came up with a solution that the tissue must have had the effect of increasing the distance from the subject?

It's because of the different position and angle. Actually, your extravagant addition of 2 layers of kitchen roll can't have made much if any difference to the effect of the light. It would be more diffused, evening out hotspots, and would have reduced the effective light output, but diffusion doesn't make the light source bigger, so makes little difference to the quality of the light. That's why the marketing claims for flashgun etc diffusers are so deceptive.