Studio lighting help, I hate the softbox reflection in the eyes!

amumonamission

amumonamission

Suspended / Banned
Messages
790
Name
Sarah
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm starting to get on fairly well with my lights now and I am happy with the results except one thing, the reflection in the eyes from the softbox.

I obviously understand that it's down to the position of the lights but wondering if anyone had any suggestions? I currently use one or two lights placed at a 45 degree angle to the subject(s) I wonder if I had them each side of the subject instead would I still have enough light on the faces? I run a mobile studio so this isn't something I can setup quickly at home to try so wondering if anyone could give me any pointers please :)
 
The 2 lights at 45 degrees isn't a great choice, key light at an angle and fill from camera position is better. But there'll still be 2 catchlights, what is it about the catchlights you don't like?

That there's 2? Use one light and a low reflector as a kicker to partially fill the shadows

The shape? Get an octobox
 
Phil V said:
The 2 lights at 45 degrees isn't a great choice, key light at an angle and fill from camera position is better. But there'll still be 2 catchlights, what is it about the catchlights you don't like?

That there's 2? Use one light and a low reflector as a kicker to partially fill the shadows

The shape? Get an octobox
Click to expand...

Yeah both really, the shape and the fact that there is two.

Would one light with a reflector be enough light for a family/group shot?

Is there no way of lighting without getting the catch light at all?
 
amumonamission said:
Yeah both really, the shape and the fact that there is two.
Click to expand...
AN Octobox bor the shape, careful positioning can remove the catchlight, but not something I think could work in a fast moving family shoot.

amumonamission said:
Would one light with a reflector be enough light for a family/group shot?
Click to expand...
It could be, but you'd have to be careful with your positioning, the 2 diagonal lights is 'quick and dirty', it's giving you the benefit of even illumination, but with all the drawbacks inherent in 'even illumination'. There's little modelling, but you're not constantly changing things because of inconvenient shadows.

amumonamission said:
Is there no way of lighting without getting the catch light at all?
Click to expand...
You need a catchlight (try photoshopping it our and see how much your pictures lose) so a 'round' one looks nicer, and as above, you can place lights so they don't reflect back - but it's more difficult to manage than your current lighting.

If you feel it's necessary (and these details bother us to distraction, when customers never care), you could use an Octobox for the keylight and dodge the 2nd catchlight a little.
 
Phil V said:
AN Octobox bor the shape, careful positioning can remove the catchlight, but not something I think could work in a fast moving family shoot.


It could be, but you'd have to be careful with your positioning, the 2 diagonal lights is 'quick and dirty', it's giving you the benefit of even illumination, but with all the drawbacks inherent in 'even illumination'. There's little modelling, but you're not constantly changing things because of inconvenient shadows.


You need a catchlight (try photoshopping it our and see how much your pictures lose) so a 'round' one looks nicer, and as above, you can place lights so they don't reflect back - but it's more difficult to manage than your current lighting.

If you feel it's necessary (and these details bother us to distraction, when customers never care), you could use an Octobox for the keylight and dodge the 2nd catchlight a little.
Click to expand...

Thanks Phil,

I actually have an octobox, it's quite big though at 120cm so not ideal in the average house but will certainly consider using it more. I am running a Mini shoot day at a local hall, plenty of room there so will be an ideal time to use it.

I think I will try having the octobox as the keylight then and either use, a reflector or maybe use a light with an umbrella as a fill light as at least that will be round.
I wonder what lighting from at an angle and slightly above the subject plus a fill light at the camera position would achieve? Would I still get two lights in the eyes do you think?
 
I also stopped using my Square softboxes for the same reasons...
The Octo's are much nicer....

Be aware that reflector's can also leave 'undesirable' catchlights in the eyes if badly placed...
 
mike weeks said:
Light could be closer but use the tape cross trick i.e. at the moment it looks like a big white light, if you use some tape to make a cross it will look like a window reflection or for babies like this bounce the light off of the ceiling to diffuse the light further.

Mike
Click to expand...
Thank you Mike, I hadn't considered bouncing the light. I will definitely try this. Thanks for your help :)
 
It isn't about the "best" shape for the catchlights, it's really just a case of what you personally prefer for a given subject.

Up to a point you can change the shape of the catchlight simply by masking the front of the softbox to a different shape, using Cinefoil or similar. And most of the Lencarta octa softboxes include a perfectly circular mask, this produces a perfectly circular catchlight when fitted.

And it shouldn't be about positioning the light to produce the required catchlights, we should really be positioning the light to produce the required effect in terms of creating the right shadows in the right places; and bouncing the light off of a ceiling just to avoid catchlights is just bad, lazy lighting:)

As others have said, the way of getting rid of or minimising unwanted catchlights is simply to deal with them in PP
 
Catchlights are also considered to be the best way to give 'life' to your subjects eyes. A subject without catchlights can look a bit dead and lifeless. Change your modifiers, keep the catchlights. :-)
 
Am I slightly weird, 'cos I like rectangular catchlights?

They show a nice curve to the eye and give the impression of indoor window light.

I guess if you're a purist, then you shouldn't have a square catchlight when lighting outside, but then the sun is never going to be more than a pin prick on the eyeball so an octabox is just as wrong.

But as Phil says, the only people who really notice catchlights are nitpicking photographers! :)
(I think punters would miss them if they're not present, but not realise what it is that's actually missing - if that sentence makes any kind of sense.)

It's all personal taste and I think we obsess a little too much about this minutiae.

Cheers!
 
TonyHall said:
...
(I think punters would miss them if they're not present, but not realise what it is that's actually missing - if that sentence makes any kind of sense.)
Click to expand...
Looks like one of my posts :D. Punters can usually tell the difference between 'right' and 'wrong' but would rarely be able to say why. It's why I can't understand photographers who think they can get away with sloppy PP like fake background blur and dodgy selective colour. They're convincing no-one
 
Garry Edwards said:
It isn't about the "best" shape for the catchlights, it's really just a case of what you personally prefer for a given subject.

Up to a point you can change the shape of the catchlight simply by masking the front of the softbox to a different shape, using Cinefoil or similar. And most of the Lencarta octa softboxes include a perfectly circular mask, this produces a perfectly circular catchlight when fitted.

And it shouldn't be about positioning the light to produce the required catchlights, we should really be positioning the light to produce the required effect in terms of creating the right shadows in the right places; and bouncing the light off of a ceiling just to avoid catchlights is just bad, lazy lighting:)

As others have said, the way of getting rid of or minimising unwanted catchlights is simply to deal with them in PP
Click to expand...

Ok thanks Garry, advice much appreciated as always.

I did a shoot this weekend and I positioned one light at 45 degrees and the other light next to me (at the camera position. I was much more pleased with the results and only had one catch light :)
 
CharlotteM said:
Catchlights are also considered to be the best way to give 'life' to your subjects eyes. A subject without catchlights can look a bit dead and lifeless. Change your modifiers, keep the catchlights. :)
Click to expand...

Yes after thinking about it I do agree :). I'm going to keep the catch light but just position my light so that I get pleasing lighting but only one catch light :)
 
TonyHall said:
Am I slightly weird, 'cos I like rectangular catchlights?

They show a nice curve to the eye and give the impression of indoor window light.

I guess if you're a purist, then you shouldn't have a square catchlight when lighting outside, but then the sun is never going to be more than a pin prick on the eyeball so an octabox is just as wrong.

But as Phil says, the only people who really notice catchlights are nitpicking photographers! :)
(I think punters would miss them if they're not present, but not realise what it is that's actually missing - if that sentence makes any kind of sense.)

It's all personal taste and I think we obsess a little too much about this minutiae.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

I suppose yes you're right it comes down to taste. The shoot I did at the weekend with my light in a different position to usual, I had much more pleasing results, only one square catch light looks so much different than two squares and because the light by the side of me was further away from the subject the catch light was smaller, looking more natural in my opinion.

Yeah I understand what you mean about customers probably don't notice it but I do! I can be a bit of a perfectionist at times! Perhaps that's not a bad thing though. :)
 
Phil V said:
Looks like one of my posts :D. Punters can usually tell the difference between 'right' and 'wrong' but would rarely be able to say why. It's why I can't understand photographers who think they can get away with sloppy PP like fake background blur and dodgy selective colour. They're convincing no-one
Click to expand...
Especially other photographers will notice this :)

I try to do a little pp as I can. I would rather get it all right at the time of taking the photo! Don't get me wrong though I do what I feel is needed to make the photo look it's best but just like to get it as right as I can at the time of taking it. Hopefully that makes sense!
 
amumonamission said:
Especially other photographers will notice this :)

I try to do a little pp as I can. I would rather get it all right at the time of taking the photo! Don't get me wrong though I do what I feel is needed to make the photo look it's best but just like to get it as right as I can at the time of taking it. Hopefully that makes sense!
Click to expand...
Not only does it make sense, it's the only way to work IMO. I always say it takes less than 1/100sec to take a picture, fixing a badly taken one takes at least ten minutes (often much more). Anyone doing this as a business is literally wasting money by not getting it as right as possible in camera.
 
Phil V said:
Not only does it make sense, it's the only way to work IMO. I always say it takes less than 1/100sec to take a picture, fixing a badly taken one takes at least ten minutes (often much more). Anyone doing this as a business is literally wasting money by not getting it as right as possible in camera.
Click to expand...
I'm getting something right then :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top