A few portrait lighting questions

09/12/2006 09:13:37 PM · #1

1) Is there a way to prevent shiny faces? I only tend to see this on adult portraits. (I was using my AB800 w/ a softbox)

2) Hairlight- I used a 20 degree honeycomb filter to light up the woman's dark hair from behind. However, I still had problems with light spilling onto her husbands blond/balding head. Suggestions?

3) I was thinking of ordering a smaller softbox. Why do people say "the bigger the better" when it comes to softboxes? Mine is the 60" one and it is just SO big.

Thanks :)

Baron152

Canon EOS-40D

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0D

09/12/2006 09:26:22 PM · #2

How about posting the pics so we can see.

Nikolai1024

Nikon D300

09/12/2006 09:35:00 PM · #3

Originally posted by JRalston:

1. Make up then photoshop
2. Try repositionning light or using different filter. Mabe you need a snoot.
3. You should be fine. If you want small just move it further away.

Nick

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

09/12/2006 09:42:59 PM · #4

A thread for you:

thread

Message edited by author 2006-09-12 21:54:18.

renefunk

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/12/2006 09:53:40 PM · #5

yeah we need to see

virtuamike

Nikon D2X

Carl Zeiss 35mm ZF f/2.0 Distagon T

09/12/2006 09:54:51 PM · #6

Originally posted by JRalston:

1. Makeup.

2. Snoot. 10 degree grid. Barndoors.

3. Treat your softbox like a window. If you want to light full body, then use a big one. If you're working portraits, then go smaller.

09/12/2006 10:55:12 PM · #7

Originally posted by JRalston:

3) I was thinking of ordering a smaller softbox. Why do people say "the bigger the better" when it comes to softboxes? Mine is the 60" one and it is just SO big.

Man, I wish I had one of those. Wanna trade?!? :-)

I did these pictures with a 36" translucent shoot-through umbrella. But the trouble with that size when shooting kids is that it's hard to keep them in the right spot. The kids want to be mobile and move around. And heck, so do I ... I want them to move around and be natural. But with a 36" light, you can't move far before you're no longer in the optimal lighting position. With a 60" softbox, there is a much greater area in which they can move around.

Well... I can't really speak from experience, but that's my theory and why I want one!

Message edited by author 2006-09-12 22:55:43.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

09/12/2006 11:08:36 PM · #8

Ok, I've begun uploading some of the portraits. They should be up in 10 minutes or so. They are EDITED. Can you see how shiny her face is? That is after toning it down.

Portraits

The backlighting issues can be seen on THIS session. The light hitting his head was toned down in PS. I'll have to see if I have a 10 degree grid. I think 20 is my smallest.

So, with a smaller softbox, I would have to move it further away? I have a fairly small living room and barely have enough space to do portraits as it is. Maybe the big one is my best bet?

Thanks everyone.

wavelength

Nikon D300

09/12/2006 11:25:04 PM · #9

I think you'll need to snoot or bogo the hairlight just perfectly to keep the reflection off his head. Unless you can convince him that he needs to powder it.

On the shinyness, adult skin is more naturally oily of course... dunno, I don't think it's too awful bad. At least they don't have bad teeth that they want you to fix.

BTW - That first gallery you posted is empty.

09/12/2006 11:26:23 PM · #10

Originally posted by JRalston:

So, with a smaller softbox, I would have to move it further away?

No, exact opposite. No matter how big it is, the further away a light source is, the more it becomes a "point source of light" (think "the sun" for an extreme example). So a large softbox means you can move back much further before the lighting becomes harsh. With a small softbox the lighting turns harsh much quicker.

09/12/2006 11:29:48 PM · #11

I've been told that the rule of thumb for softboxes is that the softest light is anywhere up to a distance equal to the diagonal of the softbox.

So... if you have a 36" softbox, the light is soft all the way up to 36" from the subject. It's still soft at 37", obviously. But from 36" on out, the light begins to turn into a point source of light.

So if you have a 60" softbox, you can be anywhere up to 60" away to maintain completely soft light.

Note: none of this is meant to imply that softlight is always what is desirable. If you want a harsher light, i.e. stronger shadows, then you definitely need to move outside of that "diagonal distance rule".

09/12/2006 11:34:08 PM · #12

Wow... just looked at your two galleries. I like 'em! I don't think I have anything to offer, it looks to me like you're doing a great job.

09/12/2006 11:57:06 PM · #13

Originally posted by dwterry:

Originally posted by JRalston:
So, with a smaller softbox, I would have to move it further away?

No, exact opposite. No matter how big it is, the further away a light source is, the more it becomes a "point source of light" (think "the sun" for an extreme example). So a large softbox means you can move back much further before the lighting becomes harsh. With a small softbox the lighting turns harsh much quicker.

Thank you for explaining that. It makes sense.

09/12/2006 11:59:32 PM · #14

Originally posted by dwterry:

Wow... just looked at your two galleries. I like 'em! I don't think I have anything to offer, it looks to me like you're doing a great job.

Thank you :)

So it isn't a bad thing that my softbox is about 4ft from my subject due to my small living room! I have my subjects about 6 ft from the backdrop, especially because a shedding dog lives in the house and I need to disquise any dog hair my lint roller missed...LOL

I was thinking that maybe since the sbox was so close to my subjects, it was making her shiny.

09/13/2006 12:14:38 AM · #15

Originally posted by JRalston:

I was thinking that maybe since the sbox was so close to my subjects, it was making her shiny.

Shiny could be too much oil on the skin. Make-up helps. Or the light is too far away (turning into a point source of light). From your description, it doesn't sound like the distance is the problem. Staying close keeps the light soft.

I noticed that your lighting is just a little bit flat. It could be made less flat by moving the main light more to an angle off the subject. Or, by moving the light further away. HOWEVER, before you do that ... keep in mind that the larger the group of people, the harder it is to get that "3D look" without having shadows from one person spill over onto the other person. What I saw of your group looked great.

09/13/2006 12:34:46 AM · #16

Originally posted by dwterry:

[quote=JRalston]
I noticed that your lighting is just a little bit flat. It could be made less flat by moving the main light more to an angle off the subject. Or, by moving the light further away. HOWEVER, before you do that ... keep in mind that the larger the group of people, the harder it is to get that "3D look" without having shadows from one person spill over onto the other person. What I saw of your group looked great.

Yeah, I am having a hard time getting not-so-flat-lighting with groups. I can manage with one person ok like in this picture. I seem to have problems with shadows falling on other people's faces when I try to move my light more to an angle. I do have a slight fill light, maybe I should just turn that off to see what I come up with.

I really appreciate all your help :) I have very little experience shooting groups of 2 or more. I think Saturday was my 3rd and 4th time or so.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

09/13/2006 12:49:07 AM · #17

Sent you an e-mail.

09/13/2006 01:03:07 AM · #18

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

Sent you an e-mail.

Wassup wit dat?!? (he sez, wanting to eaves-drop)

I think I learn something every time you post Kevin... don't be shy, share with everyone. (especially if you want to contradict and/or improve anything I might have said) :-)

09/13/2006 01:07:59 AM · #19

I have to problem posting his email, if that is ok with Kevin :)

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

09/13/2006 01:41:10 AM · #20

David,

haha, seriously tho . . .

The reason I didn't originally post is that I tend to write a LOT and often times I find a lot of users on DPC aren't interested in "business" type comments so I figured I'd just send Jenn an e-mail. Here's the e-mail:

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

Jennifer,

I looked at the images in your gallery referenced in the DPC thread (//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=463053). The only thing I see that might be what you're commenting on is her left cheek and the side of her forehead closest to her husband in some of the shots. I don't think that's much to be concerned with but it really depends on (A) the quality of work you've done previously, what's out there with your name on it and what has this customer seen already and (B) what are you satisfied putting out with your name on it currently. The work you've shown are definitely more than most people are going to produce for themselves and you've put your time into them so to me they're going to be worth something; you just have to decide what. If you're looking for reassurance that these images are saleable then David or I can tell you all day long that we've either one sold work of this quality but you're going to have to become comfortable with the level of work that you sell. There are a few things in most of the shots that make them easily identifiable as less than the highest level of work but I have the same problems sometimes and so do most other people who are building their business. Consistency of lighting, mastery of tones/shades, development of the dimensions of the shot are all areas that will come to you as you build your experience shooting. I've sold worse shots than those you display and I urge you to remember that if you're looking at this as a business venture then you've easily produced a high enough level of photography for you to be comfortable with your work at this point and now you should turn your focus to confidence and solid business practices. Treat this customer well, don't short-sell your work, be confident and talk with her about the value that these will be to her given the gorgeous smiles and the connection that the family has to one another and you'll help her by not distracting her with some of the technical areas of the shots that you might want to work on as you progress.

From a technical perspective I'd suggest that the shiny spots on her skin are fine and not to sweat them; whatever you've done in editing up to this point looks fine. The reflection in the glasses and the lack of separation between the subjects and the background might be the place that I'd put more work into as you move forward. The reflection can be dealt with next time by doing something David mentioned; move the key light farther to the side. This will create a more dimensional light on the subjects and will help you with the glasses reflection. You can also be conscious of how the reflections on the glasses look through the lens as you take the shots. For the separation you can use a hairlight; not just a combed strobe aimed at the back of someone's head. The comb is one way to try to make a hairlight but it often just becomes a kicker due to the angle and the spillover of the light. To really get a hairlight you might want to try a strip light; kind of like a softbox but longer and thinner. Support than from the ceiling or on a boom and aim that sucker right down at the top of the whole set of family members; drop a little bit of black felt between the light and the backdrop so that you kill the spillover onto the black background and voila, you'll create instant separation in the outline of all three and radically improve the depth of your shot; this has an added effect of softening the shadows that might develop as you move your key light away from your camera more.

I realize room is probably at a premium for you so I'm not saying that you shouldn't shoot any more of these or that you shouldn't charge anyone for this level of work; its worthy of selling; it looks like your customers are very happy in their experience with you. All I'm trying to do is point you towards a positive business image (believe in the quality of your work and the value of it and that'll help your customer to do the same) and then consider some other things that you may want to work on for the next go around. I hope this comes across as positive because that's how its intended.

This business side is a real kick in the seat of the pants. It adds a whole other set of angles to the photography work, doesn't it.

Kevin

Not much to really get from that but in the spirit of sharing.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds