Catchlights..... always essential?

Marcus Geezer · 29 Dec 2012

Hiya.

Having completed a set of images for a pro boxer and his entourage, I chose after some extensive research to light some of the shots in such a way that the catchlights were reduced, and in some instances not included at all. The intent was to add some menace to the shot, but I've had a few very valid comments that catchlights should always be included.

I've always looked to include catchlights and to take care of the size and position in every shot I take to give that light and life to the windows of the soul, the eyes, but as I progress and look to producing more specific and specialist type of portraits I'm thinking that catchlights should sometimes be avoided to add rather than reduce the quality of the shot.

I would like to hear opinions of the peeps on TP to see what you think? Always catchlights? Or sometimes not?

For reference here's a few of the shots I took with reduced catchlights...

http://www.charterphotography.co.uk/southern-light-middleweight-boxing-champ

And here....

http://www.charterphotography.co.uk/photo16980990.html

HoppyUK · 29 Dec 2012

Not sure I agree with your rationale, and there's no denying the power of catchlights. Eyes look dead without, rather than menacing IMHO. Maybe try a small steely glint?

But do it in post. Simple job, much more control, and would certainly make the lighting easier. Then see what you think.

cargo · 29 Dec 2012

Sorry I can't offer any professional advice but purely from a viewer of the images you linked to I would prefer more catchlights.

Gaz

bryan elliott · 29 Dec 2012

From the images you have shown I'd say catchlights would be desirable, however you have asked if there should be catchlights all the time? The answer is it depends on what you are looking to achieve, if you don't want catchlights in an image then they shouldn't be there???

However I'd say most of the time catchlights should be included , as happy said drop them
In post, some small peircings ones would look mean and gritty

Marcus Geezer · 29 Dec 2012

But the question I'm asking myself is are we including catchlights because we always do, or always because we believe we should, or truly because we feel the image benefits from always having catchlights. I'm not trying to re-invent portraiture by any means, but just trying to take a step back and ask myself whether sometimes the essence of the image we are trying to capture benefits from them.

Steely glint. Think I like the sound of that!

Steve T · 29 Dec 2012

Steely Dan sounds better though

bryan elliott · 29 Dec 2012

Technically, catchlights should be present, artistically ???? The world is your oyster

Cagey75 · 29 Dec 2012

IMHO, eyes look dead without a bit of catchlight in them. Be it natural light, or from softboxes/brollies - the light adds depth, they look flat without.

Marcus Geezer · 2 Jan 2013

Appreciate everyone's comments however found this portrait here from someone I consider 'high end' and is one of my inspirations.

In my opinion it is a strong portrait and for me I would like to hope that some point I'll have the ability and opportunity to capture an image like this, but it has no catchlights. Would catchlights add to the image, or would they add an unnecessary highlight to an otherwise well lit and processed image?

http://www.crismanphoto.com/#/Portfolio/Portfolio/10

Richard King · 2 Jan 2013

In the real world, you don't always get a catch light.

The better question is "what are we trying to achieve with studio lighting"

Realism?
A look and feel?
Something unreal?

Garry Edwards · 2 Jan 2013

Marcus Geezer said:
Appreciate everyone's comments however found this portrait here from someone I consider 'high end' and is one of my inspirations.

In my opinion it is a strong portrait and for me I would like to hope that some point I'll have the ability and opportunity to capture an image like this, but it has no catchlights. Would catchlights add to the image, or would they add an unnecessary highlight to an otherwise well lit and processed image?

http://www.crismanphoto.com/#/Portfolio/Portfolio/10

That portrait doesn't need catchlights, but IMO the vast majority do.
The catchlights not only add 'life' to most subjects, the also make the eyes look larger, assuming that the lighting is high, putting the catchlights into the top of they eyes.

Sometimes though, the light is too high for the catchlight to appear. In that situation, it's normal to add them in post.

Adam_M · 2 Jan 2013

Marcus Geezer said:
Appreciate everyone's comments however found this portrait here from someone I consider 'high end' and is one of my inspirations.

In my opinion it is a strong portrait and for me I would like to hope that some point I'll have the ability and opportunity to capture an image like this, but it has no catchlights. Would catchlights add to the image, or would they add an unnecessary highlight to an otherwise well lit and processed image?

http://www.crismanphoto.com/#/Portfolio/Portfolio/10

I am a massive Chrisman fan, got one of his postcard promo things a while back

Just like the rules of thirds, these 'rules' that people take far too seriously are derived from analysing the most successful art of our history. It doesn't mean it's right, though it usually looks strange without one.

However look at that Chrisman photo very closely, look at the eye closest to camera. There's a tiny, tiny hint of a catch light. The other eye is entirely dead but the one you look at isn't, there's just enough light in it to give it the tiniest bit of life. And I think that's all photos really need, to be able to see the eye, rather than a big blob of light in it.