Light reflections in eyes

[=ReBeL=]

Just looking for a simple advice, I'm sure this is basics, but somehow I can't get my head around this.

I have 100 x 100 cm softbox and I love how it lights my subject, but when I try to take a portrait from close (let's say framing just face), the large chunk of iris/eyes takes the sofbox reflection. If I'm not mistaken, the tip is to place the softbox as close to the subject as possible. I'm very limited in vertical space to be honest, as my ceiling is less than 8 feet above (7.5 to be precise), so I can't really take the light + softbox any higher than I did today earilier. I would like to get the same effect, as when the sofbox is cloes, but would like to limit the reflection in eyes. Should I take the sofbox away from my subject but turn the light up?

 

[Garry Edwards]

It's all about relative size, which means that if it's close then the specular reflection (catchlight) will be larger than if it's further away, I don't know any way around that short of getting the light source (softbox) so high that most of the catchlight doesn't show, which you can't do with a low ceiling even if you want to.

Moving the light further away will reduce the size of the catchlight but will also make the light harder - harder light isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a different approach, sometimes it's what's wanted and sometimes it isn't.

 

[HopefulM]

if you took the light further away, the light to subject ratio would decrease, thus making the shadows harder...

In theory though, more distance + more light should = same amount of light hitting the subject.

why not try and show us your results, as I'd like to see how it effects the subject too

 

[=ReBeL=]

Thank you Garry and Maria, I will post example in few minutes.

 

[=ReBeL=]

Example:


_MG_3659 by =ReBeL=, on Flickr

I was just messing aroung with a single light and softbox, testing it and my background. I know I should add some sort of light on the hair. Also as this was just testing, please ignore the pose and framing.

It looks like my only solution would be to get the model sitted and put softbox as high as possible, to avoid the reflections. This was pretty much as high as the softbox would go, in this picture.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I don't want to be critical, but a couple of thoughts...
1. If the softbox can't go higher, can the model go lower? It's all about angle and relative height, not actual height.
2. If the light had been further to your left then the left side of her face would have been in shadow (short lit). As it is, the left side of her face is fully lit, which has made her face a lot broader. Also, with the light further to your left, most of the catchlight would have fallen on the white area of her eyes, which would give you the effect you posted about.
3. If the light had been higher in relative terms then you would have had your hair light. Also, you would have created a gentle shadow under the botttom lip, which would have made her lips look fuller. And if the lips had been slightly apart, this would have added to the effect.

 

[=ReBeL=]

Please be critical, I really don't mind. That's why I'm asking questions, to learn.

Each of your points is now noted and will be tested tomorrow. Thank you, Garry

 

[=ReBeL=]

Just to add a quick question. Are reflections like in the example above acceptable or they are too big? If that was your photo, would you be bothered about the softbox reflection? I'm asking because I'm not sure whether I should be worried about this or not.

 

[domino1999]

I'm liking this thread, learning a lot

I've just ordered a 90x60 profold from Lencarta, having just given up on the lastolite I ordered where they delivered completely the wrong product and it's been returned for refund. Quite frankly, after reading more posts on t'internet, I really couldn't justify the price difference, even if the lastolite does fold smaller.

Anyway, keep up the excellent posts! As someone who's also getting into portraits for the first time, I'm sure I'll have a few questions over the next few weeks

p.s. Just like the OP, I'm also restricted for space, so we have some common ground there!

p.p.s. the reflection in the eyes doesn't really bother me, but I'm no pro!

Darren

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Light always reflect in the eyes. Just as they reflect everything else.
If you disguise a softbox as a window with crossed tape, it can look more natural.
You can even change the shape of the reflecton with thin paper or gauze

 

[HoppyUK]

Just to add a quick question. Are reflections like in the example above acceptable or they are too big? If that was your photo, would you be bothered about the softbox reflection? I'm asking because I'm not sure whether I should be worried about this or not.

They're fine. I like them.

They're an inherant part of that style of lighting. Not sure what the problem is.

 

[=ReBeL=]

Terry, I know the reflections will be there. The reflections as a whole don't bother me. It's just that in my situation with such a large softbox in less than ideal conditions, the reflection takes 1/3 of the whole iris.

I'm not sure whether this is something that bothers only me, or it might bother my clients as well.

----------------------

Thanks Darren

 

[Garry Edwards]

Just to add a quick question. Are reflections like in the example above acceptable or they are too big? If that was your photo, would you be bothered about the softbox reflection? I'm asking because I'm not sure whether I should be worried about this or not.

Personal preference I think, they're unavoidable (almost) so it's really a choice of a small (or distant) light source that creates a small, bright reflection or a larger/closer one that creates a larger but softer reflection.

I'll tell you what I do: I light to show my subject at its best, and sod the reflection. If push comes to shove, it can be altered in PS.

Light always reflect in the eyes. Just as they reflect everything else.
If you disguise a softbox as a window with crossed tape, it can look more natural.

Yes, just stick some black tape to the front of the softbox in the shape of glazing bars and you have a genuine mock window reflecting in the eyes.

 

[=ReBeL=]

Thank you Richard and Garry.

I have one more, a bit more extreme example.

Same session, same light setup. I just moved the model around. As you can see the pupils are now completely gone. Would this bother you?

_MG_3712 by =ReBeL=, on Flickr

 

[Garry Edwards]

Same session, same light setup.

Yes, that does look a bit odd to me, but the same light setup has produced the same problems (light too low and square to where the model is facing) When you try my suggestions tomorrow you'll find that the reflections are in a much less obtrusive place, and more to the point your model will look much better for it.

 

[=ReBeL=]

Thank you for your help Garry. Can't wait to see the results when I test your sugestions tomorrow.

 

[HoppyUK]

Agree with Garry. That looks wrong, completely blanking out the pupils, but mainly because the light is square-on.

I like big soft lights, but usually a little to one side and always a bit above eye-line. The shadows give shape, even if they've very soft and subtle.

If you can't get the light higher, get your subject lower. Cheap trick might be an umbrella - it would get you a bit more height, and distance too if you need that.

 

[=ReBeL=]

All noted, thanks Richard. I have reflective umbrella as well and if I have enough time tomorrow I'll test it out as well.

 

[JonathanRyan]

Re the second shot: shoot in a darker room. Less ambient = larger pupils.

 

[=ReBeL=]

Thanks for your input Jonathan, though it was quite dark in the room. All the curtains were shut and the only light source was the modelling lamp coming through the softbox. It was set to 'relative' though, I'll set it to minumum today. Thanks for the tip

 

[JonathanRyan]

Thanks for your input Jonathan, though it was quite dark in the room. All the curtains were shut and the only light source was the modelling lamp coming through the softbox. It was set to 'relative' though, I'll set it to minumum today. Thanks for the tip

In that case you may already have done all you can. She's looking right into the light so even at low powers it's going to be relatively bright to her.

Further back and slightly higher. I'd also put a bit of a twist on it (push the far edge slightly closer and near edge further from her) but that's just me

 

[=ReBeL=]

Thanks Jonathan. Ill try twisting as well

 

[=ReBeL=]

I carefully followed all the advices, but still somehow I failed.

I got the light with the softbox further to the left, got my model sitted, so the softbox was relatively higher, I got the softbox tilted down and to the side a bit, I turned down the modelling lamp to minimum, so the pupils are bigger. I also added a reflector camera right.

Here is, what I think, is the best one from today


_MG_3780 by =ReBeL=, on Flickr

Why I think I failed? She commented that she much prefered yesterday pictures and that the shadows are not pleasing to her skin.

What I suspect I've done wrong? I think I went OTT with the light positioning, too far to the left, too high and too close to the subject. The softbox was high above tilted down. The bottom of the sofbox was almost leveled with her eyes. I was also struggling with posing my model and model positioning. I wanted a bit of shadow but not too much, what I got in most of my pictures from today was lots of shadows.

The catchlights are much better now, I also like larger pupils.

What do you think? Is that better/worse/same?

 

[OrinB]

It's difficult to compare with your pose being so different, the models hair now down and your camera angle higher.

Did you try any with the same poses camera angle?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Example:


_MG_3659 by =ReBeL=, on Flickr

You've failed?
In your first picture, she looks fat because of the broad lighting, now she's dropped 4 dress sizes, I wouldn't call that a failure.

Yes, it's still not perfect - how could it be when you've just started learning?
The light is just a bit too high IMO.

If you had asked her to look at the light with her eyes (my fault, I didn't tell you to) then her eyes would have been open wider, which would have looked a lot better.

If her complexion (or makeup) was better the very high light would have enhanced the photo, not detracted from it.

If her lips were slightly apart it would have looked 100% better, would have tightened the rather loose skin, made the face longer and slimmer and made her lips look much more attractive, and if the skin had been taut then the light would have created gentle shadows that accentuate the cheekbones (after saying all this, I hope you don't show her this reply and I also hope she's not your daughter)

OK, leaving your poor model alone now, you were pointing the camera down at her. Why did you do that? Camera height is vitally important regardless of subject. If your camera is level with the subject then the subject is an important person in their own right. If you look down on them then you diminish them. If you look up, you make them look important (in my world, we use the term 'Heroic' to describe a shot with the camera lower than the subject, because it makes the subject look like a hero).

Having said some pretty unkind things about both you and your model, I suppose I'd better hope that you're not a Lencarta customer
More seriously, some of the Lencarta lighting workshops have now started again, the only problem is that the ones listed so far are at my studio and if you enroll on one you'll have to put up with me all day...

 

[=ReBeL=]

It's difficult to compare with your pose being so different, the models hair now down and your camera angle higher.

Did you try any with the same poses camera angle?

Your comment made me realise that there was one more thing that changed comparing to yesterday, which I failed to notice before (how stupid of me), and I think this was crucial. Not only the light went further to the left, but she also rotated a bit to the right :bang:

You've failed?
In your first picture, she looks fat because of the broad lighting, now she's dropped 4 dress sizes, I wouldn't call that a failure.

Yes, it's still not perfect - how could it be when you've just started learning?
The light is just a bit too high IMO.

If you had asked her to look at the light with her eyes (my fault, I didn't tell you to) then her eyes would have been open wider, which would have looked a lot better.

If her complexion (or makeup) was better the very high light would have enhanced the photo, not detracted from it.

If her lips were slightly apart it would have looked 100% better, would have tightened the rather loose skin, made the face longer and slimmer and made her lips look much more attractive, and if the skin had been taut then the light would have created gentle shadows that accentuate the cheekbones (after saying all this, I hope you don't show her this reply and I also hope she's not your daughter)

OK, leaving your poor model alone now, you were pointing the camera down at her. Why did you do that? Camera height is vitally important regardless of subject. If your camera is level with the subject then the subject is an important person in their own right. If you look down on them then you diminish them. If you look up, you make them look important (in my world, we use the term 'Heroic' to describe a shot with the camera lower than the subject, because it makes the subject look like a hero).

Having said some pretty unkind things about both you and your model, I suppose I'd better hope that you're not a Lencarta customer
More seriously, some of the Lencarta lighting workshops have now started again, the only problem is that the ones listed so far are at my studio and if you enroll on one you'll have to put up with me all day...

Thanks for the input Garry. I won't show her the reply, so no problem there. She's also not my daugther, but my missus, so fire away and don't worry, I'm not bothered As for the question, am I a Lencarta customer, all I can say is that the Lencarta UltraPro 300 was used here

Anyway, to important things. This was only 1 of 3-4 pictures taken today when I was shooting from slightly above my model. The rest was all from slightly below or levelled.

I'm posting one more from today, which I don't really like, but it might be easier to talk about details if there is more than one picture posted.


_MG_3775 by =ReBeL=, on Flickr

Garry, the picture you quoted was from yesteraday. I'm not sure whether you wanted to quote the one from today or not. In the one from today, which I posted couple of hours ago, her lips are slightly apart, but because the picture was taken from slightly above, it's not as aparent as, probably, should've been. I mentioned to her couple of times about the lips, but it might got lost in the confusion.

At some point I showed her few photos on the camera's LCD and she commented that the shadows make her look older and she much prefered yesterday's pictures, where most of her face was lit.

As I mentioned above, I only just realised that she changed position a little bit when she sat. I should have notice that straight away, but somehow I didn't. By the look of it, because the light was further to the left and she rotated abit more to the right than yesterday, it completely changed the angle of the light hitting her face. I think this is why the sahdows are harsher than they should.

I'd love to attend your workshop Garry, but it's too far away I'm affraid (200+ miles).

Why I said I failed? Well, she told me she didn't like the pictures from today. If my model/client is not happy, that's a fail, isnt?

I don't think I'll be able to practice some more tomorrow, as she doesn't want to :bang: but Ill try to convince her. If not tomorrow then friday

 

[domino1999]

I don't think I'll be able to practice some more tomorrow, as she doesn't want to :bang: but Ill try to convince her. If not tomorrow then friday

I guess your missus prefers more of a hi-key look. I didn't mind the ones from yesterday and the ones from today are okay as well, albeit the composition could be better - I prefer the closer shots.

It's good to see you giving it a go. My missus won't even model for me and a stuffed teddy bear just won't cut it

 

[=ReBeL=]

I guess your missus prefers more of a hi-key look. I didn't mind the ones from yesterday and the ones from today are okay as well, albeit the composition could be better - I prefer the closer shots.

It's good to see you giving it a go. My missus won't even model for me and a stuffed teddy bear just won't cut it

Sorry to hear that Darren. I got mine to pose twice for me and she's already looking for excuses What's funny though is that I have 2 clients booked already for the next weekend (not this one but the one after) Though when I say 'clients' it will be just her friend and her friend's sister. All for free of course. Just so I can try on somebody else than just my missus.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Your comment made me realise that there was one more thing that changed comparing to yesterday, which I failed to notice before (how stupid of me), and I think this was crucial. Not only the light went further to the left, but she also rotated a bit to the right :bang:

It makes a difference, but it's relatively minor IMO

Anyway, to important things. This was only 1 of 3-4 pictures taken today when I was shooting from slightly above my model. The rest was all from slightly below or levelled.

Don't you notice the enormous difference it makes when your camera isn't looking down on her? I'm not saying that all shots need to be square on or heroic, what I am saying is that you need to consider the camera height, it makes an enormous difference to the viewer's perception of the subject, and it makes a big difference too to the shape of the face.

I'm posting one more from today, which I don't really like, but it might be easier to talk about details if there is more than one picture posted.

I don't like it either, you've gone back to flat lighting, which doesn't flatter her.

Garry, the picture you quoted was from yesteraday. I'm not sure whether you wanted to quote the one from today or not. In the one from today, which I posted couple of hours ago, her lips are slightly apart, but because the picture was taken from slightly above, it's not as aparent as, probably, should've been. I mentioned to her couple of times about the lips, but it might got lost in the confusion.

At some point I showed her few photos on the camera's LCD and she commented that the shadows make her look older and she much prefered yesterday's pictures, where most of her face was lit.

I was talking abut the one you posted earlier today, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I quoted your first pic to show how much better the last one was, and why, even though of course there was still room for improvement.

As I mentioned above, I only just realised that she changed position a little bit when she sat. I should have notice that straight away, but somehow I didn't. By the look of it, because the light was further to the left and she rotated abit more to the right than yesterday, it completely changed the angle of the light hitting her face. I think this is why the sahdows are harsher than they should.

You'd get that if she was a pro model and if you were an experienced photographer. Fact: The more precise the lighting, the more precise the position of both the face and the camera needs to be, and the higher the % of "not quite right" shots will be. Personally, when I've shooting a fashion model I reckon on a success ratio of maybe 100:1, partly because the model is always moving her body and face, and I don't care - it's the price we have to pay for something that jumps off the page and hits us rather than a boring, 'pleasant' shot. Let's face it, it isn't a problem when we shoot on digital. When I was shooting on 6 x 7cm tranny film I followed exactly the same process, except that I had 2 or 3 assistants frantically reloading film backs while I shot

I'd love to attend your workshop Garry, but it's too far away I'm affraid (200+ miles).

I'm hoping that there will be courses from Jonathan Ryan too, he's in darkest Kent. But if not, only you can decide whether or not a 400 mile return trip is too much. Many people travel far greater distances.

Why I said I failed? Well, she told me she didn't like the pictures from today. If my model/client is not happy, that's a fail, isnt?

There's a popular view (from both subjects and photographers) that soft lighting is good and hard lighting is bad, to misquote Animal Farm - but I think the real reason for that belief is that soft lighting hides skin defects, hides posing defects and makes people look 'nice'.
OK, so she doesn't like the ones with more directional lighting but you know her - how would she feel about those photos if they were spot on and she looked incredibly sexy in them?

 

[CrazeUK]

Guys i am new to photography, but would a round softbox be better? as its a more natural shape to the eye?

 

[=ReBeL=]

I'll remember next time not to go above her eyes with my camera. When I'm shooting, I'm aware how is my camera positioned in relation to her eyes. I shot those 3-4 shots from a bit higher on purpose, just to see how it'd look from a different angle. I probably shouldn't post it as an example here though.

I must admit, that I feel a bit lost atm. In the second picture I posted today, the light comes from the same direction as in picture #1 from today. The differences are that in picture nr 2 the camera is levelled with her eyes, also her head is slightly rotated more to the right (her left), but somehow those two slight differences produce a very different effect. Like you said, Garry, the first one is OK-ish, the second one is flat.

I convinced her for a short 30 min tomorrow as well. I need all the practice I can get. I also have few books about studio lighting and portrait photography from library, so need to read a bit more.

I also suspect that the reason the light looks flat is because I had it set too strong. Today I had the UltraPro 300 set to 4.2 (out of 6.0). Maybe it was just too strong. I'll play some more tomorrow again

 

[=ReBeL=]

Shouldn't really be polishing a turd, I know. Just wanted to see how it would look like after some minor PPing.


_MG_3779 by =ReBeL=, on Flickr


The catchlight doesn't look that bad in this one, I think.

Craze, people buy octagonal shape softboxes because the shape looks more natural reflected in eyes. Though I've read that they are a bit PITA to fold/unfold.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I also have few books about studio lighting and portrait photography from library, so need to read a bit more.

With my usual modesty unless it's one of my books, don't bother. Most are years out of date and totally lacking in both subject knowledge and imagination. By far the best book you can get is Lightcience & Magic, it's about light and how it works, and refreshingly it doesn't tell you to put the lights in the wrong place.

I also suspect that the reason the light looks flat is because I had it set too strong. Today I had the UltraPro 300 set to 4.2 (out of 6.0). Maybe it was just too strong. I'll play some more tomorrow again

No, unless the ambient light level is extremely high, the only thing that's affected by the power setting of the light is the lens aperture - it doesn't affect the visual effect in any way as long as the exposure is correct, which maybe yours isn't. At Focus, I was shooting with the Safari Li-on at minimum power, about 12.5 Ws, using a beauty dish to produce crisp, hard light. It had enough power for f/9 or so.

 

[=ReBeL=]

Garry, I don't think they have your books in the library, but I'll check

They are not that old. One is from 2004 It's called The Essential Lighting Manual For Digital and Film Photographers. I don't think I'll bother with this one though

The other one is Portrait Photographer's Handbook from 2008. That's the one I read, mostly for tips on posing. I do struggle with that.

I have few others as well, but will look into buying the one you mentioned.

As for the more important part of your post, Garry. The ambient light is zero when I'm shooting. I have really thick curtains covering windows. The only light is coming from the modelling lamp, which today was set to minimum value (1.0). I'm shooting at 1/125, f8, ISO 100. I don't have a light meter though, so it's a pure guesswork. I judge the exposure (well, trying to judge it) by histogram and the rear LCD on my 5dmk2. I know the light meter is essential, but sadly - no more funds at the moment. Usually I fire a couple of test shots, check the histogram, check the highlights and shadows by zooming in and after that I fire away. Not ideal, I know.

 

[HoppyUK]

She looks like a different girl in that one above. You're well on the way

Don't worry too much about ambient light. Unless it's sunlight streaming in, the flash will blitz it anyway, though too much ambient makes it harder to see the modelling light effect and makes it tricky to judge more subtle effects like what a reflector is doing.

You're setting the exposure exactly right by reading off the LCD and histogram. Have blinkies enabled and make sure you're not blowing anything - watch out for shiny foreheads and cheeks etc.

Meters are handy for setting up multiple light ratios, but for ultimate exposure accuracy the way you're doing it is better. What the LCD/histogram/blinkies shows is what you've actually got on the sensor. That's the important thing and what the meter says is not always the same (should be, in theory, but isn't always).

 

[=ReBeL=]

Thanks for the tips Richard. I'll buy a meter sooner or later anyway. Even for measuring background it would be handy to have. First though I have a few things I'd like to buy first (like the book mentioned by Garry yesterday for example).

The photo above was the first I posted here with a bit more of PP. Nothing too extensive, just 30 min in PS. The usual, skin smoothing, removing blemishes, lightening a bit shadows underneath the eyes, defining eyes a bit, levels, curves, etc. I think it made the difference, it made the photo look more complete. We are so used to seeing PPed photos now, that not PPed ones look more like snapshots than complete products... at least that's my theory. I think it is especially important for pictures of people with not so perfect skin, like my model here.

Of course, I want to learn all the lighting tricks first. I'm sure it will all come with experience though. I'm a fast learner

 

[domino1999]

With my usual modesty unless it's one of my books, don't bother. Most are years out of date and totally lacking in both subject knowledge and imagination. By far the best book you can get is Lightcience & Magic, it's about light and how it works, and refreshingly it doesn't tell you to put the lights in the wrong place.

I've bought that book a couple of months ago. A really interesting read (with some boring bits!), but it's opened my eyes to the world of light and I'd recommend it as well. The only problem was that I bought the Kindle version for reading on my Android tablet. I really regret this now and wish I'd bought the paperback version.

I also bought Light It, Shoot It, Retouch It: Learn Step by Step How to Go from Empty Studio to Finished Image (Voices That Matter) by Scott Kelby, which takes you through half a dozen real studio setups, what equipment he used, how he positioned it, various settings he used....through to the pp work he does in photoshop to get to the final image. Really easy to follow and great to have step-by-step examples to follow. Highly recommended!

Darren

p.s. The last shot of your missus is great!

 

[JonathanRyan]

She looks like a different girl in that one above. You're well on the way

+1. Whack a zebra reflector on the right, amp up the light a bit and stick it in B&W and I bet this will be lovely

Oh and a touch of ozone depleting hair spray, obvs.

Fact: The more precise the lighting, the more precise the position of both the face and the camera needs to be, and the higher the % of "not quite right" shots will be.

Somewhere there must be some pics I shot in a demo at Focus. I was getting the model to move her face by about 5 degrees to transform the picture. If there was any justice in the world they would be on the Lencarta blog soon

We are so used to seeing PPed photos now, that not PPed ones look more like snapshots than complete products... at least that's my theory.

Yes and no....

Of course retouching masks lighting issues as well as other imperfections. If you're asking about lighting there's not a lot of point posting edited images.

Try shooting tethered with a client over your shoulder.....

 

[Garry Edwards]

+1. Whack a zebra reflector on the right, amp up the light a bit and stick it in B&W and I bet this will be lovely

Oh and a touch of ozone depleting hair spray, obvs.



Somewhere there must be some pics I shot in a demo at Focus. I was getting the model to move her face by about 5 degrees to transform the picture. If there was any justice in the world they would be on the Lencarta blog soon .

Jeremy is going to send them over to me. You've reinforced the point that I keep making myself - if people produce the so-called "high key" portraits with seriously flat lighting , blitzed background etc then it really doesn't matter if the model has moved a bit (or a lot) because there's nothing much to ruin, but in a shot that relies on one key light and correct exposure, small changes make big differences.

Yes and no....

Of course retouching masks lighting issues as well as other imperfections. If you're asking about lighting there's not a lot of point posting edited images.

Try shooting tethered with a client over your shoulder.....

I agree with Jonathan 100% on this, which is unusual . PP is an essential part of the finished result, but if people are trying to help you with your lighting then you need to post images that are straight out of the camera, which is what I do in the tutorials on the Lencarta Lighting blog.

Also, use PP to turn a first class shot into an outstanding one, it's an enhancement tool, not a rescue one, so don't try to use it to rescue poor images.

 

[=ReBeL=]

I've bought that book a couple of months ago. A really interesting read (with some boring bits!), but it's opened my eyes to the world of light and I'd recommend it as well. The only problem was that I bought the Kindle version for reading on my Android tablet. I really regret this now and wish I'd bought the paperback version.

I also bought Light It, Shoot It, Retouch It: Learn Step by Step How to Go from Empty Studio to Finished Image (Voices That Matter) by Scott Kelby, which takes you through half a dozen real studio setups, what equipment he used, how he positioned it, various settings he used....through to the pp work he does in photoshop to get to the final image. Really easy to follow and great to have step-by-step examples to follow. Highly recommended!

Darren

p.s. The last shot of your missus is great!

Thanks Darren. That book by Scott Kelby looks very interesting. I think I'll go for this as it gives me real-life light positioning ideas/examples. I had a quick peek inside (Amazon lets you to see few pages) and I like it.

+1. Whack a zebra reflector on the right, amp up the light a bit and stick it in B&W and I bet this will be lovely

Not sure what zebra reflector is TBH. There was a white reflector on the right side of the picture, just outside of the frame. I'll try converting it to B&W, good idea

Oh and a touch of ozone depleting hair spray, obvs.

I'm sorry Jonathan, I'm not sure what are you telling me to do here.

Somewhere there must be some pics I shot in a demo at Focus. I was getting the model to move her face by about 5 degrees to transform the picture. If there was any justice in the world they would be on the Lencarta blog soon

I've heard this before - move your light by few inches to tranform your picture. It a good theory, but I fail to put this into practice just yet. More experimenting needed. Thankfully I got my missus to pose for me today again

Yes and no....

Of course retouching masks lighting issues as well as other imperfections. If you're asking about lighting there's not a lot of point posting edited images.

Try shooting tethered with a client over your shoulder.....

Fair point Jonathan. This was first one I posted here that I retouched a bit, but nothing crazy as well. I did not try to transformed the picture in PS, I just improved her skin to make it all look like a complete picture rather than a snapshot. There was nothing done in PS to improve the lighting in the photo, mostly what I've done was improving the complexion (texture) of her skin. This was done because I was bored yesterday evening I'd prefer to have a permanent studio setup and a new model every hour, but all I got atm is setting up equipment for 30 min, then 30 min of taking photos, then taking all down for another 30 min. I guess this is better than nothing though, but outside of those 1.5h of excitement, I'm bored