Specific portrait lighting assignment question

=ReBeL=

=ReBeL=

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,095
Name
Adrian
Edit My Images
No
Actually I have a question too. It is not a technical question per se, but more of a lighting compositional problem.

The story is simply. I have a client who wants a headshot. She is a book writer, the photo is for her books. She is in her mid 30's. She is also self concious about her "wrinkles" and "bags under eyes". She is also my wife.

I don't have a problem with operating lights or camera or triggers or anything like that, what I would like to ask is what would be the best lighting setup to minimise the visibility of "wrinkles" and "bags".

I am thinking about soft light, clamshell lighting - large softbox (100x100cm) up in front roughly 45 degrees up, reflector below. Then 2 stripboxes behind (left and right) as rim lights. Sadly I don't have a white beautydish, because I think that would be better.

BTW I know I can soften and retouch the skin in Photoshop, I can also reduce or remove bags in there, but I would prefer to do it right in camera as much as I can first.

So the question is, what would be your lighting choice for this assignment?
 
Last edited:
Big flat lighting will lose most of them depending upon number and depth. Contrasty lighting will highlight them.
 
Clamshell with a large octobox (only because this is the largest soft light I have) above and large white reflector below, plain background unlit so it would fade to grey.

I personally wouldn't use a beauty dish as the light can still be a little harsh on the skin.
 
So along the same lines then. Octa would be nice, but I only have square softboxes and few stripboxes.

I could try shoot-through umbrella instead of softbox too.
 
I'd start with the square softbox on axis with the camera as close as practical + reflector. But it really should depend on the look you want to create overall rather than trying to hide perceived problems. What's better no wrinkles and bags but a image that doesn't suit the brief or a shot that does, wrinkles and all. Not saying it's not possible to achieve both a good image with no issues but i'd be trying to get a large variety of shots that cover everything and if done right she may approve one that has the wrinkles ;)
 
Sharky said:
I'd start with the square softbox on axis with the camera as close as practical + reflector. But it really should depend on the look you want to create overall rather than trying to hide perceived problems. What's better no wrinkles and bags but a image that doesn't suit the brief or a shot that does, wrinkles and all. Not saying it's not possible to achieve both a good image with no issues but i'd be trying to get a large variety of shots that cover everything and if done right she may approve one that has the wrinkles ;)
Click to expand...
She might... and then force me to spend hours Photoshopping it all out ;)

There are no specific requirement as such, other then I want her to look professional and intelligent. It would be also great if she loved it (and reducing mentioned-above "faults" would be a massive part of that). It will be used as an "author" photo on her books.
 
The difference between an octa softbox and any other shape is just the shape of the catchlights in the eyes, it's really just about the positioning of the light sources and their size, relative to the size of your subject.
The larger/closer the light source is to your subject, the softer the light can be.
And the softer the light, the more your wife is likely to like it - but with the trade off that it's very hard to get an eye-catching portrait that is very softly lit.
A half-way workable compromise might be to get soft lighting on her face and pretty dramatic rimlighting to add interest
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
The difference between an octa softbox and any other shape is just the shape of the catchlights in the eyes, it's really just about the positioning of the light sources and their size, relative to the size of your subject.
The larger/closer the light source is to your subject, the softer the light can be.
And the softer the light, the more your wife is likely to like it - but with the trade off that it's very hard to get an eye-catching portrait that is very softly lit.
A half-way workable compromise might be to get soft lighting on her face and pretty dramatic rimlighting to add interest
Click to expand...
That was my thinking about adding two stripboxes behind her, to add some more "drama" / contrast and of course to separate from the background. In that instance the background would be either dark grey or completely black.

I know very soft lighting is probably not a best thing for such a portrait, but I know her well too and I know how much she dislikes those "faults". To be perfectly honest it is not as bad as she makes it out too.
 
I would go the large Octa softbox route, only because that's the largest I have too, however it wouldn't bother me to much to skin smooth in Photoshop, it's very easy to do it very subtlety by using a soft spot healing brush, and bringing the opacity right down , you would never know it has been retouched, and literally takes a couple of minutes.
 
mike weeks said:
of course you could always resort to portrait professional which can sort the bags and help with lighting

Mikw
Click to expand...

She is more than welcome to use somebody else if she wants to. However, I would like to think I have this one covered.

TG. said:
I would go the large Octa softbox route, only because that's the largest I have too, however it wouldn't bother me to much to skin smooth in Photoshop, it's very easy to do it very subtlety by using a soft spot healing brush, and bringing the opacity right down , you would never know it has been retouched, and literally takes a couple of minutes.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong I'm sure I will be forced to spend hours in photoshop anyway. Even if the picture comes out near perfect in-camera, there will be always "one or two" things she would want me to do. I don't have a problem with PS, I love editing photos.
 
=ReBeL= said:
She is more than welcome to use somebody else if she wants to. However, I would like to think I have this one covered.

Not sure if that was said tongue in cheek, lol, but portrait professional is a skin softening type program, and not a great one at that I might add http://www.portraitprofessional.com/?gclid=CKfR0-PCv8MCFULKtAodt0gAPg



Don't get me wrong I'm sure I will be forced to spend hours in photoshop anyway. Even if the picture comes out near perfect in-camera, there will be always "one or two" things she would want me to do. I don't have a problem with PS, I love editing photos.
Click to expand...

See what you mean, but I was just making the point you don't need to spend hours on it :)
 
TG. said:
See what you mean, but I was just making the point you don't need to spend hours on it :)
Click to expand...
I did read it as to use a professional portrait photographer (where is that facepalm emote)

Anyway I do all my skin retouching manually. It takes rather longer than using a filter based software, but I don't mind it. Thanks anway :)
 
mike weeks said:
The trouble with the latest version of Portrait Professional is not the Software but the users, do it right and it is a great bit of software - unfortunately many bad users blame their tools

Mike
Click to expand...
It's not helped by the awful shots they use in their advertising. I've never seen one of their 'after' shots that looks human.
 
The finished product is below.

There are few things I am not 100% happy with, but overall I think it came out OK. She is quite happy which is the most important thing.
 
Last edited:
Not bad at all, the only quick suggestions I'd offer would be to remove some of the loose strands of hair and don't crop the top of her hair out.
 
simonbarker said:
Not bad at all, the only quick suggestions I'd offer would be to remove some of the loose strands of hair and don't crop the top of her hair out.
Click to expand...

Thank you Simon.

I left those stray hair on top of the head on purpose. I didn't want it to look too clean and clinical (not sure if it makes sense). I have removed many of them from the neck area and right side of the head near forehead. Is it really catching your eye? I might remove more if they are annoying.

Initially I intended to crop much tighter and chop the top of the head completely (I like those), but in the end I opted for this, more conservative way, instead. That's the way I framed it in-camera BTW (with the intention to crop tighter).
 
=ReBeL= said:
I left those stray hair on top of the head on purpose. I didn't want it to look too clean and clinical (not sure if it makes sense). I have removed many of them from the neck area and right side of the head near forehead. Is it really catching your eye? I might remove more if they are annoying.
Click to expand...

No that makes perfect sense but they jumped out at me as the shot is otherwise very clean and bright. I initially thought it looked a little sharp but I think it's actually more that to me everything besides the hair looks fully arranged.

=ReBeL= said:
Initially I intended to crop much tighter and chop the top of the head completely (I like those), but in the end I opted for this, more conservative way, instead. That's the way I framed it in-camera BTW (with the intention to crop tighter).
Click to expand...

With tighter cropping that pose may work better, as it's just the very tip of the hair I found it a little distracting. Anyway very minor points.
 
simonbarker said:
No that makes perfect sense but they jumped out at me as the shot is otherwise very clean and bright. I initially thought it looked a little sharp but I think it's actually more that to me everything besides the hair looks fully arranged.



With tighter cropping that pose may work better, as it's just the very tip of the hair I found it a little distracting. Anyway very minor points.
Click to expand...
Thanks Simon. All points dully noted and I'll have another look later on (I'm working on my sons portrait now). The initial idea for this was just a headshot for books, but I think she plans to use it elsewhere as well now. So I want it to look good.

I'm a little bit surprised about the sharpness comment as I added just a tiny bit of sharpness on the output stage, much less than usual. Are talking about the version posted here on TP or the larger one on my website (after you click it in this thread)?
 
Last edited:
=ReBeL= said:
I'm a little bit surprised about the sharpness comment as I added just a tiny bit of sharpness on the output stage, much less than usual. Are talking about the version posted here on TP or the larger one on my website (after you click it in this thread)?
Click to expand...

I can't quite put my finger on why that sprang to mind, there's something about the smooth/blemish free skin/eyes with the detail on the lips and the shirt pattern that's distracting me.
 
simonbarker said:
I can't quite put my finger on why that sprang to mind, there's something about the smooth/blemish free skin/eyes with the detail on the lips and the shirt pattern that's distracting me.
Click to expand...
Hmm interesting. I can't say I see it myself. My mrs never mentioned anything either. It would be interesting to see if anybody else think there is something distracting in that photo.

BTW the skin is not blemish-free. I left few blemishes and also left few wrinkles here and there as well. Obviously they are not as visible as in original, but they are still there :)

Thanks Simon :)
 
Done few more tweaks to it and darkened the background and the shirt a bit.

Also noticed that the version here on TP looks over-sharpened but the one on my website looks fine (at least to me).

I still think the rim lights were a tiny bit too hot and am not a massive fan of the highlights on the side of her face. Ideally I would like them to be smaller and less hot, but I think I'll leave them as they are. Just something to remember next time. I had them one stop more than the key light. In the hindsight I think it was a mistake. However, first few shots (my son was first) I noticed how hot they are and moved them back a bit. Never measured again and they looked fine on my tethered laptop, but on my main monitor they look a bit hot across the whole set.
 
please delete this post
 
Last edited:
Hmm something is not right here. In the version on TP the skin is much more pale and the whole shot looks brighter. Is there any processing enabled on TP??
 
mike weeks said:
Adrian,

the image here is a PNG, what are you exporting the image as and from what software? Images also need to be sRGB to be shown on the web and not Adobe RGB etc.

Mike
Click to expand...
Thanks Mike.

All my images posted on the web are sRGB Jpeg's. This must be some kind of preview created by my website then. All makes sense now. If you click on the photo here you should be able to see the original srgb jpeg (if you want to of course).

Thanks for pointing it out Mike. I'll know next time to post it directly to TP instead of embedding it straight from my website.

Cheers :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top