Portrait Sessions week 2

[Corey Thompson]

The setup for this shot is similar to the first shot I posted last weekend in that there's a completely black background and it's a photo of me. The difference is I moved the camera 90 degrees to camera right instead of 45 degrees to camera left. The goal was to create dramatic lighting and shadows that define the lines on my shoulders and chest. Is the lighting effective? Do I basically look like I'm floating in a sea of black? I wanted a dark photo to create more drama. Would it have been more effective if I had a spot light shining on a wall behind me? I only have one light so I don't have a means of doing that. What could I do to this photo to improve it?

One thing I wish I could have done is power the strobe down a bit more and add a subtle fill light on the dark side of my face.

exif
focal length: 50mm
aperture: f/8
shutter: 1/250
iso:100

Speedlite:
50mm
1/8 power
rogue flash bender folded as a snoot
silver reflector to serve as fill light

[3bayjunkie]

wow you look like a statue! thats crazy dude! good job

[Doug Sundseth]

You're getting good definition on features and you look like you're floating in black, so those goals have been met.

You have very nice sharpness throughout and your catchlights work fairly well.

I like gradation in backgrounds, so I'd add a light, but that's a style thing. If you want to do that with a single flash, use a goose-neck desk lamp (or other lamp that you can easily adjust) and aim it so that it gives a nice gradation on the background. You'll need to drag your shutter, of course, probably to around 1/30th (adjust by chimping).

For fill, place a white card just out of frame in the path of the flash and adjust its position until you get the right ratio of key to fill.

One thing I don't like is the shadow you have across your right shoulder. Because it's so dark, it's a bit awkward.

[MeAgain]

Let me preface this by saying I have no taste and no skill. I can only comment on what I see and feel.

I can't get past the eyes. They seem bugged and a bit creepy.

[Corey Thompson]

Originally Posted by Doug Sundseth

You're getting good definition on features and you look like you're floating in black, so those goals have been met.

You have very nice sharpness throughout and your catchlights work fairly well.

I like gradation in backgrounds, so I'd add a light, but that's a style thing. If you want to do that with a single flash, use a goose-neck desk lamp (or other lamp that you can easily adjust) and aim it so that it gives a nice gradation on the background. You'll need to drag your shutter, of course, probably to around 1/30th (adjust by chimping).

For fill, place a white card just out of frame in the path of the flash and adjust its position until you get the right ratio of key to fill.

One thing I don't like is the shadow you have across your right shoulder. Because it's so dark, it's a bit awkward.

When I was setting up the shot, I kept going back and forth about adding a background light or not. I didn't have a light source suitable enough to do a background light so I decided to leave it out. A goose-neck desk lamp is good idea, thank you. I think I'll stop by ikea and pick up a cheap one. When you say "adjust by chimping", what does that mean?

I tried having my fiance hold a silver reflector for fill. When I cut the power down to the next lower stop from 1/8 to 1/16, the left side of my face wasn't lit enough and the right side of my face was completely black. Maybe I should have tried adjusting the power 1/3 stop at a time instead? When I went back up to 1/8 power, I was happy with the amount of fill that the silver reflector was providing on the right side of my face but the left side of my face was too bright. I found myself stuck and not knowing what to do from there, so I ended the shoot and took what I got.

I don't like the shadow on my right shoulder either. Glad you brought that up and that I'm not being overly picky. I was curious to see if anyone would say something about it.

Originally Posted by MeAgain

Let me preface this by saying I have no taste and no skill. I can only comment on what I see and feel.

I can't get past the eyes. They seem bugged and a bit creepy.

I see what you mean. I'll experiment in lightroom with the adjustment brush to see if I can tone them down a bit.

Thank you all for the feedback

[Doug Sundseth]

Originally Posted by Corey Thompson

When I was setting up the shot, I kept going back and forth about adding a background light or not. I didn't have a light source suitable enough to do a background light so I decided to leave it out. A goose-neck desk lamp is good idea, thank you. I think I'll stop by ikea and pick up a cheap one. When you say "adjust by chimping", what does that mean?

"Chimping" is staring at the display on the back of your camera, often accompanied by uttering things like, "Ooh, ooh, ah, ah."

Remember that flash lighting is unaffected by shutter speed (so long as you're below the maximum synch speed), so you can adjust the ambient contribution to the lighting by adjusting only the shutter speed. So that was shorthand for looking at your display and adjusting the shutter speed until things look right.

I should probably mention that as long as you are shooting for B&W, the type of bulb you use doesn't matter much. If you go for color, you'll want to match the lamp and flash light color. This can be done with bulb choice or by gelling the flash.

Originally Posted by Corey Thompson

I tried having my fiance hold a silver reflector for fill. When I cut the power down to the next lower stop from 1/8 to 1/16, the left side of my face wasn't lit enough and the right side of my face was completely black. Maybe I should have tried adjusting the power 1/3 stop at a time instead? When I went back up to 1/8 power, I was happy with the amount of fill that the silver reflector was providing on the right side of my face but the left side of my face was too bright. I found myself stuck and not knowing what to do from there, so I ended the shoot and took what I got.

You can adjust the ratio of key (from the flash) to fill light by adjusting the distance the flash and bounce card are from the subject. If you move the flash back and raise its power to compensate, the relative contribution of the bounce card will become greater. If you move the flash closer, the relative contribution of the bounce card will drop. For the bounce card, the closer it is to the subject, the more it will contribute.

If you have the bounce card right outside of the frame and you're still getting a poor ratio, aim the center of the flash beam at the bounce card (so only the less-intense edge hits the subject). This will increase the reflected light while reducing the direct light, thereby adjusting the ratio.

Note that with a silver reflector, the exact angle the reflector is held at will have a very strong impact on how much light hits the subject. This is less true of a white reflector, though a white reflector is less efficient, so you need more total light to use white than to use a perfectly aimed silver reflector. If you're trying to keep your background black, silver will scatter less light, so that's another thing to think about.

Once the ratio is good, you can adjust the exposure by adjusting the flash power (which will only affect the flash contribution to the image) or by adjusting the aperture or ISO (which will affect both flash and continuous contributions).

[Corey Thompson]

Ahh ok I get what chimping is now. I tend do that a lot

I'm not on a mission to only shoot b&w. I don't have a preference really. I never know how to process portraits so I usually just convert it to b&w to hopefully make it look a little more creative. I need to learn a good workflow for processing color portraits.

It's interesting what you mentioned about the angle of the silver reflector. I noticed that when my fiancee held the silver reflector parallel with my body, the fill light on the side of my face was basically non-existent. If she angled the top of silver reflector slightly up towards the ceiling and away from me, it contributed much more fill light on my face.

If I move the flash back and raise its power to compensate, why will the relative contribution of the bounce card become greater if the flash is further back? If I move the flash further back but increase the power to compensate, that'll help keep the proper amount of light on the broad side of my face? Will light falling off due to the flash being further back prevent the bounce card from contributing too much, even if the flash power is increased?

I'm assuming if I move the flash in closer, I adjust the power down as well to compensate? Why will the bounce card contribution drop if I move the flash closer to the bounce card? Is the reason the contribution of the bounce card will drop because I'm also powering the flash down as I'm moving it closer to the subject?

I think I will experiment with this for my third week's shot to hopefully perfect a shot of me with a completely dark background. Then on the subsequent week I'll start moving on to Rembrandt lighting, environmental portraits, etc.

Thanks again for all of your help. This is very valuable information for me (and anyone else here looking to learn a thing or two about lighting).

[Doug Sundseth]

Originally Posted by Corey Thompson

Ahh ok I get what chimping is now. I tend do that a lot

I'm not on a mission to only shoot b&w. I don't have a preference really. I never know how to process portraits so I usually just convert it to b&w to hopefully make it look a little more creative. I need to learn a good workflow for processing color portraits.

Originally Posted by Corey Thompson

It's interesting what you mentioned about the angle of the silver reflector. I noticed that when my fiancee held the silver reflector parallel with my body, the fill light on the side of my face was basically non-existent. If she angled the top of silver reflector slightly up towards the ceiling and away from me, it contributed much more fill light on my face.

For a specular reflector (a reflector that is shiny in appearance), you're pretty much playing billiards/pool with light. If the light is high (as here) and bounces off of a vertical surface, it will continue down and light your knees (or whatever). Now if lighting your knees is your goal, that's great, but ....

Originally Posted by Corey Thompson

If I move the flash back and raise its power to compensate, why will the relative contribution of the bounce card become greater if the flash is further back? If I move the flash further back but increase the power to compensate, that'll help keep the proper amount of light on the broad side of my face? Will light falling off due to the flash being further back prevent the bounce card from contributing too much, even if the flash power is increased?

I'm assuming if I move the flash in closer, I adjust the power down as well to compensate? Why will the bounce card contribution drop if I move the flash closer to the bounce card? Is the reason the contribution of the bounce card will drop because I'm also powering the flash down as I'm moving it closer to the subject?

Light falls off with the square of the distance. If the distance from the light to the subject is 1m and the reflector is 1m on the far side of the subject, the light will travel 1m for the direct light on the subject, but 3m for the reflected light (1m to the subject plus 1m to the reflector plus 1m back to the subject). Thus the reflected light will 1/3*1/3 = 1/9 as strong as the direct light (minus the amount eaten by the reflector. With a perfect reflector, you would have a ratio of 1/9 or just over three stops. In the real world, the reflector will probably eat around a stop of light as well, so you'll have a 4 stop falloff from key to fill, which is nearly black when the key is well exposed.

If the light is 4m from the subject, the direct light will be only 1/16 as strong as in the previous example (1/4 * 1/4), and the fill light will be 1/36 as strong since the path from light to reflector to subject is 4m + 1m + 1m (1/6 * 1/6). That's a one stop falloff ideally (1/16 ÷ 1/36 is pretty close to 2) or about a two-stop falloff in the real world.

If you move the flash closer, the reverse will happen. The ratio of flash-to-subject-distance/flash-reflector-subject-distance is what controls the ratio. This also means that changing the reflector distance will have a major effect on the reflector light contribution (close = brighter).

You can control the effect of the total amount of light from the flash by adjusting the flash power, the ISO, or the aperture or some combination. (Note: Not the shutter speed, which only affects the ambient/continuous light.) But there's nothing you can do about the ratio with camera adjustments or flash power adjustments. Get your ratio right, then adjust exposure to the right level.

Originally Posted by Corey Thompson

Thanks again for all of your help. This is very valuable information for me (and anyone else here looking to learn a thing or two about lighting).

I'm happy it's useful. The physics are interesting and once you have a feel for how they work, they're really not that hard to understand. Getting that feel is the tricky part.

[Corey Thompson]

The calculations are still a bit puzzling but I think I'm understanding the concept.

If flash to subject is 1m and bounce card to subject is 1m, that's a total distance of 3m. The inverse of 3m is 1/3, then when you square 1/3 it becomes 1/9. So when the flash is 1m away from the subject and bounce card is 1m away from subject, the fill light will be 1/9th as powerful because the light travels a total distance of 3m and the inverse square of that is 1/9. What's puzzling me the most is how did you determine that a ratio of 1/9 would be just over three stops? I'm not sure I understand how to determine the number of stops the fall out will be when you place the key light and bounce reflector at specific distances from the subject.

When flash to subject is 4m away and bounce card to subject is 1m away, the fill light travels a distance of 6m. The inverse of 6m is 1/6, then when you square 1/6 it becomes 1/36. The fill light is 1/36th as powerful as the flash, which is 1/16 as powerful at 4m away compared to when it was 1m away. How did you determine that the fallout is two stops? Did you arrive at two stops by dividing 36/16? Since the fallout is 2 stops, would that make the ratio between key and fill 4:1 (4/2 = 2 stops)?

I apologize for all the questions. I wish I were better at math

[Doug Sundseth]

Stops are exponential. One stop is 1/2 the light or 2x the light. Two stops is 1/4 or 4x. Three stops is 1/8 or 8x. 1/9 is (for our inexact purposes here) pretty much the same as 1/8, so an ideal reflector would give you a three-stop falloff and a real-world reflector won't give you better than a four-stop falloff.

With a perfect reflector, falloff with 4m flash and 1m opposite reflector would be about 1 stop (half the power). Since the reflector will eat at least a stop of light, the best you could hope for in the real world would be about a 2 stop falloff.

It might help to understand that stops can just be added. If you add a filter that eats a stop of light and a flash modifier that eats two stops of light, you need to pick up three stops from ISO or aperture. If you then double the distance from flash to subject, the power will drop to 1/4, or two stops. With the other things you already have in the equation, that would be a total of 5 stops you would need to pick up somehow.

So you're actually darned close to understanding.