RockyNH 1st portrait attempt!

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
Well, it was a learning experience... :cool: and I had fun, so thats half the battle....
Gear available...
2 light stands with umbrella's...
1 SB 700
1 Yongnuo 560 II Manual speedlight
Obiously my camera, D5100 and for today I had the 35mm f/1.8 on as I was doing several different things today..
Background - Black bed sheet (also had a white sheet but did not use today)
Model - My patient and understanding wife (not sure how much more if there are more days like today!)
Tripod - Available but did not use today...


Ok, I had no clue... so as a baseline... I shot with the pop up flash... (Left)
Then a single flash on 1/2 power with umbrella at 45/45 (SB-700)
It took a couple trys with aperture to adjust as I stopped down too much, then opened 1/2 way back. (right photo)

DSC_4582.jpg DSC_4588.jpg


Then I started playing with a reflector for fill. I used an 18 x 24 white poster board. It was a bit awkward as I had no good way to position it. I ended up holding it, or my wife did awkward at best.... Best success was up close and just in front of me and slightly to her left. (with me holding and shooting one hand.

DSC_4594.jpg DSC_4595.jpg

We then took a 2nd speedlight and played around with it as fill. Used the Yougnuo at 1/8 power bare. Light was harsh and too direct, even set for wide and could not get all shadows, making some worse. I had also experienced some issues with getting a decent catchlight through the wifes glasses.. made a final adjust to the key light (a little lower and more towards the camera (more in front of model). Added the umbrella to the fill and it was all good... filled the shadows just fine (still 1/8). Only took 3 shots and we had to break down for dinner so I did not get to fine tune the lighting... BUT, it is getting there! For the very 1st try, I was pleased with all I learned!

DSC_4623.jpg DSC_4624.jpg

Going forward, need to get something for a hair light.. could use my 2nd speedlight if I rig a good reflector on a stand so I can adjust it and not hold it. Those will be for another day.. I was impressed with what you can do with a reflector!! Or, I could buy another speedlight (Yougnuo manuals are cheap enough)

Note: all finished shots (last 4) were 1/200 at f/ 8.0 ISO 100.

Pat in NH

ps: I do not expect to take pro portraits, I want to be able to do very good portraits for family and friends.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
The lighting in the last group looked the best and I think when you get the hair light you'll be in good shape. I've found as you saw in my attempts that we need more light to seperate from the black background. What ISO were you using?
 

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
Rick, thanks! Agreed on the seperation.. I was actually pleased for just 2 lights... realizing there was lots of room for improvement!!
All of the shots were at ISO 100

Pat in NH
 

STM

Senior Member
Rocky I think the lighting in the very last ones are probably the best of all of them. The others have some more hard edged lighting with some less than flattering shadows. I would add a hair light to produce some highlights in the hair and provide some separation from the background. If you are using a ligher background, you should use a separate light there as well. Until you get a lot more experience, I would not use more than 4 lights, as things can get very complicated after that! When photographing someone who is older and has some lines on their face, the flatter and more even the lighting the better. I always get a good chuckle at the commercials on TV pitching beauty products touted to remove wrinkles and they show a "before and after" photo where the before has angled, direct lighting that shows every single pore and wrinkle and the after one which is very flat lighting which magically makes the 60 year old woman look like she's in her 30's. For this kind of shoot, having two strobes at 45 degrees to the model and angled about 30 degrees down works fine. If she wears glasses, as she did here, make sure you are not getting reflections of the lights in them, very bad form! Also, be careful of people who are far sighted as she is, as their lenses can actually form an out of focus image "hotspot" on the cheek. For someone with a smoother complexion, it is best to vary the light intensity of one strobe over the other to give some modeling. A 2:1 lighing ratio is usually pleasing but you can go higher depending on the subject and what you want to do with it. 2:1 means that the key light's intensity is twice (1 stop) brighter than the fill light. Always meter off your main, or key. light.

What kind of umbrellas are you using? Are they silver or white, opaque or translucent, square or rounded? The light characteristics of all of these can be VERY different. Silver umbrellas, though they may reflect more light, produce much more contrasty light and produce harder shadows. Translucent white ones, though they have a lot more in the way of light loss, will produce much softer light. I will sometimes shoot THROUGH a white umbrella rather than bounce the light off of it, depending on the effect I want to get. Shooting through actually gives a slightly softer effect. An umbrella, believe it or not, has a focal length just like a lens. In other words, being concave, it will actually focus light to a point based on the radius of curvature of the umbrella. The more concave, the closer the focal point will be from the umbrella, and vice versa. The closer the umbrella is to the subject, the further "out of focus" the light will be, and the softer the effect. Most people, when just starting out, get the impression that the farther away the umbrella is, the softer the light. In practice this is often not the case, and by moving the umbrella farther away all you do is reduce the amount of light reaching the subject by the inverse square law (when you double the distance you quarter, or -2 stops, the light). If you position the umbrella so that the subject is at the focal length, then the light will be the most focused and the shadows the most sharp. There is a formula to figure out what that distance is, but being a Microbiologist rather than a mathematician or physicist, I could honestly give a rat's butt about learning it. Shooting through a white umbrella eliminates this as the convex shape actually spreads the light out rather than focusing it. That is why it will produce a softer effect.

The informal portrait below was just such an occasion. It was a very hasty setup and I was really cramped for space so I chose to use one of my white umbrellas and just shoot a 150 WS head through it. The lighting is even and fairly soft. She was young and had a beautiful smooth and flawless complexion so I did not have to do much of anything with it.

traynese_zps958d4ab8.jpg


I had taken a portrait of my next door neighbor a few months back, who has what I call a "Rand McNally" face because of all the lines on it (don't tell her I said that!), but I can't find it right now. I used two lights in softboxes with a 1:1 lighting ratio and the light was very flattering. I really did not have to do much at all in the way of post processing on it and she was very pleased. If I can find it, I will post it as an example of how to handle people with older or ruddy complexions.

The key here is to just keep shooting and don't get discouraged if your first attempts will not be good enough to be used for a cover of Vogue or Cosmo. The more the better and digital, unlike film, is essentially free. Experience is always the best teacher and it is a real advantage to have digital because you can see the results nearly instantaneously. And keep them posting here so we can continue to beat you up and talk about you behind your back over them! :)
 
Last edited:

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
Scott, thank you for the long and complete reply. There is so much included in there that I will need to read it a few times to digest it all...

Umbrella's were white translucent shoot through.... I have a backing that will make them opaque and reflective but that is not the mode I used. I wanted to try it to see what it did but ran out of time. It also sounds like it would be less flattering on an "older" subject.. I had the umbrellas fairly close in my setup today.

Concensus seems to be hair light for seperation and I agree... That will be a future addition.

I have read of the 2 light setup at 45deg that you mentioned. So, if I understand, that would give a flatter (and more flattering on an older subject) than what I had today.. Everything is still setup so I may just make a slight adjustment and try that tomorrow.

Back to the setup I had today... a question... reading what you said a 2:1 ration would be flatter and more flattering than say a 4:1? It is obvious that I need to study a bit more on ratio's... Thats ok too, I enjoy learning! :)

I really liked the "informal" example... it looks so naturally lit, not artificial... where was the light positioned as there is very little shadow. I was impressed for just one light. If you find it, I would love to see your "Rand Mcnally" example with the 1:1 ratio..

Ok, past my bedtime... will read again tomorrow and see what else I can learn. Again, Thank You for taking that amount of time to teach this old dog a new trick or two!

Pat in NH
 

STM

Senior Member
Scott, thank you for the long and complete reply. There is so much included in there that I will need to read it a few times to digest it all...

Umbrella's were white translucent shoot through.... I have a backing that will make them opaque and reflective but that is not the mode I used. I wanted to try it to see what it did but ran out of time. It also sounds like it would be less flattering on an "older" subject.. I had the umbrellas fairly close in my setup today.

Concensus seems to be hair light for seperation and I agree... That will be a future addition.

I have read of the 2 light setup at 45deg that you mentioned. So, if I understand, that would give a flatter (and more flattering on an older subject) than what I had today.. Everything is still setup so I may just make a slight adjustment and try that tomorrow.

Back to the setup I had today... a question... reading what you said a 2:1 ration would be flatter and more flattering than say a 4:1? It is obvious that I need to study a bit more on ratio's... Thats ok too, I enjoy learning! :)

I really liked the "informal" example... it looks so naturally lit, not artificial... where was the light positioned as there is very little shadow. I was impressed for just one light. If you find it, I would love to see your "Rand Mcnally" example with the 1:1 ratio..

Ok, past my bedtime... will read again tomorrow and see what else I can learn. Again, Thank You for taking that amount of time to teach this old dog a new trick or two!

Pat in NH

The single strobe on Treynese (where do they come up with these names???) was slightly to my left and at about a 30 degree downward angle. You can always get a good idea of where the light was by looking at the direction of the shadows under their chin (if you are not balancing them out with a reflector, which I did not do).


A 4:1 ratio would be pretty extreme and not recommended for regular photography. Also, especially for women, you should turn their shoulders a little. It is more flattering. I might be getting a little into portraiture 201 here, but when using lighting ratios, you can slim a chubbier face and accentuate a thinner face depending on which side of the face you have the greater light. For someone with a narrower face, lighting the side of the face closest to the camera with the highest ratio, also called broad lighting, helps to give the face the impression of being a little fuller. For someone with a chubbier face, you would light the side of the face away from the camera with the main light, This is called narrow lighting. A technique I really like to use, especially with models and headshots is something called "glamour" ( or butterfly, or even "Paramount" lighting, after the movie studio that initially started using it) lighting. "Glamour Shots" uses this kind of lighting, though badly at times. I am not particularly impressed by the quality of their work; it is too "cookie cutter" for my tastes. It is a very simple set up. You place a single light above the model's head, a couple of feet above and in front, and use a reflector (or a very weak "kicker" light) to fill in the shadows under the chin. The name "butterfly" lighting comes from the fact that it leaves a shadow under the nose which resembles a butterfly. Below is an excellent example of Glamour lighting. I used a single strobe in a softbox and had someone hold a flat reflector under her chin to fill in the shadows. I used a white vignette in this image to kind of draw attention to her, since it is a very high key image. Notice only one catch light in her eyes from the strobe above and how her shoulders are turned just a little bit. Often you will get a reflection in her eyes from the reflector under her chin. I find this kind of distracting, and usually clone it out in Photoshop.

Monicahighkey-1000_zpscdef76c8.jpg
 
Last edited:

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
The single strobe on Treynese (where do they come up with these names???) was slightly to my left and at about a 30 degree downward angle. You can always get a good idea of where the light was by looking at the direction of the shadows under their chin (if you are not balancing them out with a reflector, which I did not do).


A 4:1 ratio would be pretty extreme and not recommended for regular photography. Also, especially for women, you should turn their shoulders a little. It is more flattering. I might be getting a little into portraiture 201 here, but when using lighting ratios, you can slim a chubbier face and accentuate a thinner face depending on which side of the face you have the greater light. For someone with a narrower face, lighting the side of the face closest to the camera with the highest ratio, also called broad lighting, helps to give the face the impression of being a little fuller. For someone with a chubbier face, you would light the side of the face away from the camera with the main light, This is called narrow lighting. A technique I really like to use, especially with models and headshots is something called "glamour" ( or butterfly, or even "Paramount" lighting, after the movie studio that initially started using it) lighting. "Glamour Shots" uses this kind of lighting, though badly at times. I am not particularly impressed by the quality of their work; it is too "cookie cutter" for my tastes. It is a very simple set up. You place a single light above the model's head, a couple of feet above and in front, and use a reflector (or a very weak "kicker" light) to fill in the shadows under the chin. The name "butterfly" lighting comes from the fact that it leaves a shadow under the nose which resembles a butterfly. Below is an excellent example of Glamour lighting. I used a single strobe in a softbox and had someone hold a flat reflector under her chin to fill in the shadows. I used a white vignette in this image to kind of draw attention to her, since it is a very high key image. Notice only one catch light in her eyes from the strobe above and how her shoulders are turned just a little bit. Often you will get a reflection in her eyes from the reflector under her chin. I find this kind of distracting, and usually clone it out in Photoshop.

Scott, thanks for the followup and explanations... Yes, it may be Portraits 201 but I follow most of it and can always come back and read again as I advance. I appreciate the time and detail you put into these...

Today I want to sneak in a try of the 2 lights at 45 deg front... (if I can catch her today as she has some running around to do!)

Lots to learn but that is the fun... and practice practice practice!!

Pat in NH
 
Last edited:

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
Pat, I like the last set also. Good job!

Thanks Marilynne.. I am gonna try a couple things today from the tips.. though I cannot add the extra light yet for seperation I may be able to make a couple other improvements, Scott has fed me a whole book of info! :)

Pat in NH
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
Good work with the portrait light study Pat. I'm not sure how far was your umbrella from the subject, but, from the light reflections I see, you could try to bring it closer and reducing the power of the flash to compensate for the more light output you'd get. For portraits, you can open up the aperture to soften up the skin textures. As long as the eyes are in focus, all is well.

Thanks for posting your experiment.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
... (if I can catch her today as she has some running around to do!) Pat in NH[/QUOTE said:
Lol Pat, my subjects are starting to run away now, as soon as they see my umbrellas they roll their eyes and run for the hills :)
 

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
Good work with the portrait light study Pat. I'm not sure how far was your umbrella from the subject, but, from the light reflections I see, you could try to bring it closer and reducing the power of the flash to compensate for the more light output you'd get. For portraits, you can open up the aperture to soften up the skin textures. As long as the eyes are in focus, all is well.

Thanks for posting your experiment.

Marcel,

Thanks for jumping in with your comments.... they are always appreciated as I am all about learning. It's funny, but I do like sharing how I do these various things as I believe there are others out there who may appreciate knowing how someone else works at learning.. maybe they will inspire someone else!!

Great comment on the open aperture to soften the textures... I know that but did not think of it during these tests. In fact I used aperture to reduce the exposure. I could have have left open and turned down the light power instead. I will remember that for the next round of tests.

Umbrellas were fairly close but I am sure I could have moved in more and reduced light power... does that tend to produce a softer light?

I will be playing with these options next test session... (I already shot a couple tests with scott's comments this morning and my wife has run away for the day!!! ) :)

Again, thanks Marcel!

Pat in NH
 

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
Lol Pat, my subjects are starting to run away now, as soon as they see my umbrellas they roll their eyes and run for the hills :)

Hahahaha.. I hear ya Rick! I caught my wife this morning and got a couple more test shots (musch improved I think) and then she bolted.. off shopping at the Outlet Malls! May not see her till supper!! :friendly_wink:


Pat in NH
 

STM

Senior Member
Scott, thanks for the followup and explanations... Yes, it may be Portraits 201 but I follow most of it and can always come back and read again as I advance. I appreciate the time and detail you put into these...

Today I want to sneak in a try of the 2 lights at 45 deg front... (if I can catch her today as she has some running around to do!)

Lots to learn but that is the fun... and practice practice practice!!

Pat in NH

You have lots of resources available to you on the web as well!
 

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
You have lots of resources available to you on the web as well!

Absolutely correct Scott... and I have been there and will be going back!!! It is nice when I get comments like you provided and then I can can go and research it further...

I have a couple new ones to post in a minute... (based on your setup tips)

Pat in NH
 

Dave_W

The Dude
I like your approach to this, Rocky. It's one thing to read about lighting and the various effects you can achieve but when you do it yourself things don't always work out as expected. So doing a light study like this is an excellent way to understand you own system. Good job!!
 

STM

Senior Member
Absolutely correct Scott... and I have been there and will be going back!!! It is nice when I get comments like you provided and then I can can go and research it further...

I have a couple new ones to post in a minute... (based on your setup tips)

Pat in NH

Looking forward to seeing them! Folks today have so much more information available at their fingertips than we did back in the 70's and 80's so your learning curves will be considerably shorter than they were for us. Thank God for the articles in Modern and Popular and Peterson's Photography magazines! Plus, before digital you had to process and print your stuff before you realized how badly you had hosed it up. And by then you could not remember what you did! I remember waaaay back in the mid 70's, before I could afford a flash meter, which were primative back then compared to today, I had to figure out empirically what the guide number was for my flash when bounced into a Reflectasol umbrella. That meant taking numerous photos at 1/2 stop intervals and looking at a proof sheet, printed to "maximum black" and figuring out which one looked that best. Once I had done that, I had to go back through the calciulations to figure out what the actual guide number was so when I took photos in the future, I knew how far from the subject the light needed to be. That was worth HOURS of work and I was learning as I went. With digital you now get essentially instantaneous feedback. Nowadays, with a sophisticated flash meter like my Sekonic L-358, that information is available at the click of a button. What would have taken me an hour or more to set up with 4 lights. I can do in 10 minutes or less.
 
Last edited:

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
Looking forward to seeing them! Folks today have so much more information available at their fingertips than we did back in the 70's and 80's so your learning curves will be considerably shorter than they were for us. Plus, before digital you had to process and print your stuff before you realized how badly you had hosed it up! And by then you could not remember what you did! I remember waaaay back in the mid 70's, before I could afford a flash meter, which were primative back then compared to today, I had to figure out empirically what the guide number was for my flash when bounced into a Reflectasol umbrella. That meant taking numerous photos at 1/2 stop intervals and looking at a proof sheet, printed to "maximum black" and figuring out which one looked that best. Once I had done that, I had to go back through the calciulations to figure out what the actual guide number was so when I took photos in the future, I knew how far from the subject the light needed to be. That was worth HOURS of work. With digital you now get essentially instantaneous feedback. Nowadays, with a sophisticated flash meter like my Sekonic L-358, that information is available at the click of a button. What would have taken me an hour or more to set up with 4 lights. I can do in 10 minutes or less.

I remember owning this one:

103142338-260x260-0-0_Wein+Wein+WP+500B+Standard+Analog+Incident+Flash+M.jpg
 

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
Ok, here are a few more samples from today, lighting positions as suggested by Scott (STM) (Thank you!)

Again, still no hair light...

1st ones are the 2 lights through umbrella's as 45 degree left and right and angled down at about 30 deg
These are much more softer (flattering) lighting as Scott suggested.


DSC_4643.jpg DSC_4646.jpg

I had 2 issues with this set. (see Below)
One was dble catchlights as Scott mentioned and the other was depending
on head position, a large umbrella reflection (see right eye)
2nd Catch light was edited out above.

DSC_4641.jpg


This last was what Scott referred to as Butterfly Lighting, a single light/umbrella
directly in front and above model. I did not have a good method (or time) to experiment
with a reflector in front under the chin to reduce shadows but I was really trying to see the
lighting affects compared to yesterday.. This was a more 3d effect than the 1st set (and I liked it) while
the 1st was definately flatter and also more flattering to my wife.

DSC_4647.jpg

Both affects were improvements on yesterday... so I am pleased so far. Several more suggestions
are out there from others and I will play with them the next shoot... My wife has gone shopping, not sure she
coming home before I go to work!!!! ;)

Pat in NH
 
Top