Are these any better?
- Thread starter Wheels
- Start date
adam-gardner
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 134
- Edit My Images
- No
they not doing anything for me im afraid, but you do have the black background and the subject almost spot on. people with oily skin is always difficult
Flash In The Pan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Direct, on-camera flash, it's a :nono:, m8, sorry
I think they could all do with the model turning slightly at an angle to camera. Also number 1 would help with a little bit of light behind the model for some seperation from the background.
Do 2 & 3 have bounced flash, with the little white card up on the flash ?
Do 2 & 3 have bounced flash, with the little white card up on the flash ?
Julian,
The colour temperature looks a little off on my monitor, the images appear to have a slight orange cast. What white balance were you using? You could alter this if they are RAW files.
I tend to agree with Legacy that the direct front approach is not as flattering as when the model turns at a slight angle with a slight tilt of the head to get her eyes at a slight angle.
Mick
The colour temperature looks a little off on my monitor, the images appear to have a slight orange cast. What white balance were you using? You could alter this if they are RAW files.
I tend to agree with Legacy that the direct front approach is not as flattering as when the model turns at a slight angle with a slight tilt of the head to get her eyes at a slight angle.
Mick
It's more a question of whether you're lighting with emphasis and/or sympathy or illuminating to the correct exposure for everything infront of you.
In the above, you've gone for the latter but would have been better with a main light to one side to avoid the flatness you're getting and not shooting straight on
In the above, you've gone for the latter but would have been better with a main light to one side to avoid the flatness you're getting and not shooting straight on
- Messages
- 19,708
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Some tips to experiment with if I may...
- Have her sit at a 45 degree angle with her right shoulder closer to the camera, preferably sitting lower so you can shoot from a bit higher angle
- Head turned towards the camera and then just a bit "over" towards the shoulder so she's facing a bit left of camera but lock eyes with the camera lens
- Place the SB900 well to the left for "short lighting" so that the side of her face that's NOT towards the camera is lit more. Fill in with another flash (camera's own in a pinch) to remove the harshness from shadows.
- Get the exposure time up to 1/160s to kill ambient light. You are now mixing flash and room lighting and it'll be a nightmare to get the white balance right. Flash exposure is not controlled by shutter speed, only by aperture.
- No sleeveless clothing in head & shoulder shots.. The skin of the arms detracts from the face. Try to choose clothing that blends in more with the background, that way the viewer will be focusing on her face.
Lots of things to try out but I think they'd be worth a shot.. or two
- Have her sit at a 45 degree angle with her right shoulder closer to the camera, preferably sitting lower so you can shoot from a bit higher angle
- Head turned towards the camera and then just a bit "over" towards the shoulder so she's facing a bit left of camera but lock eyes with the camera lens
- Place the SB900 well to the left for "short lighting" so that the side of her face that's NOT towards the camera is lit more. Fill in with another flash (camera's own in a pinch) to remove the harshness from shadows.
- Get the exposure time up to 1/160s to kill ambient light. You are now mixing flash and room lighting and it'll be a nightmare to get the white balance right. Flash exposure is not controlled by shutter speed, only by aperture.
- No sleeveless clothing in head & shoulder shots.. The skin of the arms detracts from the face. Try to choose clothing that blends in more with the background, that way the viewer will be focusing on her face.
Lots of things to try out but I think they'd be worth a shot.. or two
Err, nope
Continuous really is not the best route and your models will hate you.
I saw this mentioned in another thread by a different poster and struggling to understand why people think that. I've lit portraits with flash lighting, continuous lighting, ambient...hell I've even used car headlamps on full beam and got results I'm happy with
To me it's a question of being able to put light where you want it and using it's qualities for the effect you're after.
- Messages
- 19,708
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But you clearly have not done hours of shooting in a studio using continuous lighting. Just having the modelling lights on for ten minutes makes the place too hot to work in comfortably but having 3 continuous 600W lights or something similar is a problem. Also continuous lights make the pupils shrink to nothing giving you models a very strange look. Why do you think professionals do not use it! It really is a poor substitute for correct flash lighting.
How you know that then?
Which gives a very different effect and can alter the tone of the shot.
My point wasnt that continuous should always be used over flash, it was that you can use and shape both the source and quality of light for effect to match the type of shot you're after.
A video projector could also be considered a lightsource, as could a candle or a PC monitor
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
As someone who once shot everything in the studio with continuous light (because there was no flash then) and who also lights TV commercials, perhaps I can add to this...
Back in the day, when we only had continuous lighting, it was acceptable - just as a 1956 Ford Popular was acceptable in 1956 - but the world has moved on. We no longer want to produce the rigid, stiff portraits of the pre-flash era, where people sat still during a long exposure and smiled grimly at the camera, we now notice if the pupils have all but disappeared because of the bright lights shining in the eyes and we now worry much more about the fire safety risks of using hot lighting.
Of course, lights don't have to be hot anymore, fluorescent lighting can be fine, but the fluorescent lights available at a price to suit the home user are pretty poor and don't even begin to compare with the ones used in TV studios, and are a joke compared with HMI lighting. Even the professional lights used in film and TV are extremely uncomfortable to work under, but at least most of the studio spaces are massive, with very good ventilation/extraction, and most of the people filmed are pros who are used to working under very bright lights, and they've been made up professionally too - very different from home studios.
But the biggest single problem with continuous lighting is that a lot of the lights can't be adjusted for power, and even those that can don't have a massive range of adjustment and as there is never enough power to start with there are even more power problems when the lights are turned down...
Add in the fact that there are limited or no light shapers/modifiers available and it should be clear why nearly everyone has moved over to flash. In fact, it's almost certainly true to say that only complete beginners normally buy continuous lighting, these are the people who don't understand the issues I've mentioned above, but mostly they move on very quickly, either giving up studio photography of moving to flash.
BTW, this reply from vaizki is 100% right
Back in the day, when we only had continuous lighting, it was acceptable - just as a 1956 Ford Popular was acceptable in 1956 - but the world has moved on. We no longer want to produce the rigid, stiff portraits of the pre-flash era, where people sat still during a long exposure and smiled grimly at the camera, we now notice if the pupils have all but disappeared because of the bright lights shining in the eyes and we now worry much more about the fire safety risks of using hot lighting.
Of course, lights don't have to be hot anymore, fluorescent lighting can be fine, but the fluorescent lights available at a price to suit the home user are pretty poor and don't even begin to compare with the ones used in TV studios, and are a joke compared with HMI lighting. Even the professional lights used in film and TV are extremely uncomfortable to work under, but at least most of the studio spaces are massive, with very good ventilation/extraction, and most of the people filmed are pros who are used to working under very bright lights, and they've been made up professionally too - very different from home studios.
But the biggest single problem with continuous lighting is that a lot of the lights can't be adjusted for power, and even those that can don't have a massive range of adjustment and as there is never enough power to start with there are even more power problems when the lights are turned down...
Add in the fact that there are limited or no light shapers/modifiers available and it should be clear why nearly everyone has moved over to flash. In fact, it's almost certainly true to say that only complete beginners normally buy continuous lighting, these are the people who don't understand the issues I've mentioned above, but mostly they move on very quickly, either giving up studio photography of moving to flash.
BTW, this reply from vaizki is 100% right