How is this lighting?

T

Treesie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
982
Name
Teresa
Edit My Images
Yes
Following on from my thread regarding gray background and lighting issues, I have painted the studio ceiling today and here are two images of my lovely model (no edit).:D

This images has key light and fill light, set on a white vinyl b/g
showphoto.php
[/url][/IMG]

This image has the addition on a background light with a red gel.


I thought the hair in the first image was casting shadows around her forehead, so moved the key light slightly forward which resulted in the second image. Lights are set at their minimum. The key light was to her left and had a strip softbox and the fill light with a square softbox. The more I look at them I'm not sure if I should be moving the lights further foward away from the model?

My aim is to get overall decent lighting without 8 o'clock shadows or a dark mask;) I would appreciate c&c to see if I'm not too far off and how I can improve this.:)
 
When setting up it is easier to see what's happening with just one light, so I would remove the fill light for now. Then introduce the fill light to lighten the shadows to suit. Fill lights are usually close to the lens axis rather than to one side - minimises any influence on the key light. Fill lights are generally intended to be invisible, if you see what I mean. Or use a reflector to the left (model's right) - I prefer reflectors for filling shadows, white or silver, but that's a personal thing.

Moving the lights closer softens shadows (makes the light source bigger relative to the subject) and further away makes them harder. Softer is generally more flattering, especially for females.

Key light should generally be above the eye line. Yours is too low IMO.
 
Thanks for the comments Hoppy. The fill light is only about 2ft from the subject and the fill about 3 but they are both more or less at 45 degreee to the subject. You'll see I have to get used to working with what limitations I have. I'll move the strip light up a bit and as you suggest introduce the fill light. Fingers crossed :)


 
I agree with Hoppy. He knows what he's talking about and is very polite.
I know what I'm talking about too but I'm not polite, so I'll say what I think he is saying in my own way - don't take it personally:)

First of all, mannequins are useful as tools but you won't get the same results from them that you'll get from real people. In particular, the hair is very different and the light has a much 'greater' effect on it than on real hair, and the 'skin' usually shows glare that won't show on a real person - don't worry about glare when you're lighting, a real person with good makeup doesn't show the same faults in the same way, so don't worry about glare.

What you've done here - and TRIED to do - is to create a very flat, boring effect with no shadows. Now, that's a style of photography that some people like and there's nothing wrong with having it in your lighting armoury, but it's actually pretty crappy lighting because it makes the face look uninteresting and also makes it look fat.


One way of judging a photographer is by his shadows, because the shadows are a vital part of lighting. They help to define and shape the face, they make it look interesting, they make it look sexy. Look in any fashion mag and try to find just ONE photo that DOESN'T have strong shadows...
Soft, shadowless lighting isn't always bad, but if you're photographing a young and beautiful model with good features and good skin you should consider using very hard lighting to bring out those qualities. Reach for your softbox when you're photographing her mother...

As Hoppy says, use just one light, forget about a fill light for now. Place that one light in a variety of different positions and at different heights and different distances, note in each case what it creates in terms of modelling, shadows, sex appeal and so on. When you've run out of all possible variations (which will take a long time) repeat the excercise with a different modifier, then another, and so on. only add a fill once you've exhausted ALL of the possibilities with one light.

And when you do add a fill light, put it in the right place (on the camera axis) and keep it very subtle.

Mentioning your gelled background light very briefly, you needed more distance between subject and background (to make the background darker and to stop light from the background affecting your subject) and you needed much less lighting power on the background.

See this page on the Lencarta website, which also uses a mannequin as a subject. You don't have to like the way I've lit her with the various tools but at least you can see the effect that they have had on her.

Edit:
You posted your reply while I was typing mine.
That lighting arrangement, with the lights more or less fixed in position, will have to go if you want to improve.
 
Hi Garry
I like nice and I like to the point :)
Yes, now that you say it, thats what I've created a flat image!:cuckoo:
I had the poles to create more space but I can what you are saying:razz:
I know you have mentioned backround to subject distance before and the mannequin is about 10ft off the background already and that light is at its lowest setting with a barn door attached. :thinking:
Back to the drawing board.
 
Treesie said:
I know you have mentioned backround to subject distance before and the mannequin is about 10ft off the background already and that light is at its lowest setting with a barn door attached
Click to expand...
Well, if you've got a distance of 10' then forget what I said, the problem will be primarily too much light hitting the background from your frontal lighting.
If your light from the backgroundis at its minimum setting you can always cut it down more by adding a neutral density gel to it - or if you're colouring the background anyway and not concerned about the integrity of the light colour you could put a bit a white sheet over the front to cut down the light - but I don't think that should be necessary.
The example I pointed you too were all at the same distance and my background is VERY dark in the shots where the frontal lighting was close to the subject.
 
Trees, what Garry says is right, but I'm not sure I agree with him. Or at least, that isn't how I generally approach portrait lighting. And generally, I don't think you will find the style he often advocates is most popular.

Popular portrait lighting is very soft. Check out the cover of a TV listings mag, which invariably has a picture of some soap star or other. The lighting is very bland. There is usually no attempt to create shadows or to show shape and texture. Big softbox and huge reflectors. Bright, colourful, happy looking, big smile, eyes to camera, works with one, two or three people, job done. I think most non-photographers regard this as good - you can 'see' everything and it's a pleasant likeness. Whether you like it or not depends more on the subject and their expression rather than the lighting technique used as it's so unintrusive.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all, and that's pretty much the way I set up the lights for kids as, frankly, fancy lighting is the last of your worries and this style is generally much less critical of subject position. They can turn right or left or even move around a bit and you'll still get a decent result.

What you might describe as a more fashion or editorial style, is often more moody than that. More directional, more shadows to reveal shape in clothes or create a bit more mood. Smaller softbox, less reflectors or even none. Darker background with some effect or other on it, maybe a cookie casting an interesting shape or shadow, that sort of thing.

And taking that a step further is more complex 'character' lighting. It's much more contrived, treating the subject more like a still life, as a human scultpure if you like. A more directional and harder key light, maybe an effect light off to one side, and third hair light, and yet another light or even two for the background, all very carefully positioned and skillfully controlled. The pose will also quite likely be unsmiling, eyes off to one side, hands in shot or including some other characterful prop. Altogther a lot more visually interesting, but much harder to set up and often very position critical. You also need the right subject for this treatment.

Back to your test shots, the way you have the light stands is very restricting, and everywhere is white. You cannot avoid loads of spill-fill there which will inevitably dilute whatever lighting effect you are trying to create. For the 'popular' style with lots of light and fill everywhere that might be fine but if you want to do more with shadows you'll need some tall screens at least. It looks like a very workable space you've got though :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Trees, what Garry says is right, but I'm not sure I agree with him. Or at least, that isn't how I generally approach portrait lighting. And generally, I don't think you will find the style he often advocates is most popular.

Popular portrait lighting is very soft.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
I try to show people what can be done and I try not to tell them what should be done - that's a matter of personal taste and style.

Happy, smiling faces do need lighting that's both pretty soft and bland, and so do groups. Happy faces need it because we all have 'character lines' that show up badly when we're smiling and just jump out and hit us if hard lighting is used. Much the same thing happens with groups, but this time it's shadows from one person falling on to another that causes the problem - which is probably the reason why so many people seem to believe that flat lighting is good and hard lighting is bad, and simply plonk 1 softbox each side of the subject, even though that lighting always looks false and unnatural.

But don't let Hoppy's love of soft lighting or my grudging acceptance that a lot of people like soft lighting stop you from using harder, well-positioned lighting to define the shape of the face - experiment and learn, and then decide which type of lighting you like and which type suits a particular subject and/or purpose.
 
Haha, yes I do tend to like soft lighting for most portraits, and I make no apology for that. I'm not a great 'character' portrait photographer and only shoot stuff for friends and family that they think is nice. I like to have a go with something a bit more arty now and then, usually something to do with make-up, hair and props etc, and that is very different.

But I will say that Garry has a very good point and sometime I look at my pictures and wish I'd been a bit more adventurous. In my defense, I will say absolutely that whatever lighting technique is used is no substitute for capturing a good likeness and however you do it the right pose and particularly the right expression are paramount.

That's pretty obvious really but I think we often get carried away with our tools and toys and tricks, and forget what it's actually all about. I well remember when my mother in law commented on some family portraits I was rather pleased with, lots of mood and character so I thought, and she just said "why are they so dark?" :eek:

The other thing is, I don't have a custom studio and generally speaking if you have several lights on the go you need a lot of space - far more space than you get in an average front room. Not that you necessarily need a lot of lights, but sometimes you do. And also you often have light coloured walls close by or, even worse, ambient light streaming through the windows so you have to make do and soft is more versatile in those situations.

That doesn't mean that harder lighting and stronger shadows are bad though; often they are better. I think Garry's comment about many people thinking harder lighting is bad lighting is interesting. Probably true, but wrong. More directional lighting is harder to do, and so it is much easier to get wrong which is obviously bad, but that's not the same thing. I'll just say it's more challenging, but that's usually a good thing isn't it?
 
Thanks for the comments & help. Hoppy, Garry interesting thoughts. I didn't realise this lighting thing would be so difficult.... or is it an overthought subject?:thinking:

I armed myself with your comments and took some images in the studio today. The autopoles can be moved easily so I moved them! I started with the main light and then introduced a second light. I'll post a result in the nude section as soon as I have got the images from the camera. Garry, Hoppy..... I'll be ready for a barage of nice and honest comments.;):D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top