portrait lighting questions
Allan Armstrong
with lighting technique and there's a few things I don't understand.
Perhaps someone from the net could clear it up. BTW, we're doing all our
work in b/w.
The instructor talks about it being important to place the light at the
correct distance from the subject in order to make the skin "come alive."
We are using "Rembrandt"-style lighting in this exercise. I (and most of
the other students) are having trouble making this work (in the instructor's
judgement) in our prints. My interpretation of his lesson is as follows:
When the light is very far away, it approximates a point source and gives
you harsh lighting. When it is very close, it approximates a diffusion
panel and gives you broad highlights and soft lighting. By selecting the
optimum distance, you are aesthetically trading off the size of the highlights
and the reflectivity of the subject's skin. The optimum distance will vary
from subject to subject based on all sorts of factors such as skin texture
and how oily the skin is.
Our instructor insists that it is entirely and aesthetic judgement and that
you have learn to just "see" it, but I'm not clear on what "it" is except
that in his judgement I don't get it. (Actually, he said I got it on one
out of the three shoots, but I think that all three of my shoots/prints
are good in this regard.)
Does anyone have any intuition that could help me?
We've been using floods at school. Since we don't have much light, I'm
typically exposing at f8 1/30 with 400-speed film. I'd much prefer to
use strobes, but the instructor says that the "quality" of the light
varies from the modeling lights to the strobe and that it is very
difficult to learn to judge the quality of stobe lighting at exposure
time. I'm not sure I believe this... What do you think?
I also noticed that my strobes have small reflectors, maybe 6 or 8 inches.
The school floods have a 14" reflector. This means that the school floods
can be placed twice as far away as my strobes for a similar lighting
quality.
Anyone have advice on usable photographic backgrounds? I have a roll of
grey background paper, but it is the narrow width. Being narrow it must
be placed close to the model, which makes background lighting tricky.
Should I spring for a muslim, a bigger roll of paper, or is there some
lower cost option like a sheet or blanket that will give high quality
results. Remember, at home I'm shooting with a strobe at f16 or so, so
the background will be in focus.
Thanks,
Allan
Bruce Barrett
Armstrong) wrote:
>
> I'm taking a class on portrait photography...
> [misc. deleted]
> The instructor talks about it being important to place the light at the
> correct distance from the subject in order to make the skin "come alive."
> We are using "Rembrandt"-style lighting in this exercise.
>
> vs not to close=diffuse.]
>
> Thanks,
>
> Allan
If you have time, film & paper to burn you could try the following...
1) Setup everything, model,... with the flood lights as close at
practical
2) Expose a frame (or more if you want to bracket)
3) Back the light off & repeat #2
4) Continue until the flood is "very" far away.
5) Develop & print normaly.
A. Note the differences see if you can see what the instructor's talking
about.
B. Show the same set to the instructor - either he'll agree with what you
saw
and you'll know you've "got it" or he won't. If he doesn't, ask him what
shot
is "good" or which two bound the effect he's looking for. Try to determine
from that what he's talking about.
Sounds like a fun excercise to me, there may be even more to learn from
this
than the original assignment.
Enjoy...
Bruce B.
Paul Nuber
: When the light is very far away, it approximates a point source and gives
: you harsh lighting. When it is very close, it approximates a diffusion
: panel and gives you broad highlights and soft lighting.
OK so far.
: By selecting the optimum distance, you are aesthetically trading off
: the size of the highlights and the reflectivity of the subject's skin.
I don't understand this sentence. Do you mean you are trading off
the size of the highlights and the specularity of the highlights?
: Our instructor insists that it is entirely and aesthetic judgement and that
: you have learn to just "see" it, but I'm not clear on what "it" is except
: that in his judgement I don't get it.
Maybe the instructor is a raving lunatic :-)
: but the instructor says that the "quality" of the light
: varies from the modeling lights to the strobe and that it is very
: difficult to learn to judge the quality of stobe lighting at exposure
Some strobes have good correlation between modelling lights and flash pattern,
some don't.
: I also noticed that my strobes have small reflectors, maybe 6 or 8 inches.
: The school floods have a 14" reflector. This means that the school floods
: can be placed twice as far away as my strobes for a similar lighting
: quality.
It may be that you can't get your strobes close enough to achieve the
desired effect. You may need bigger reflectors (bigger than a person's
head.)
: grey background paper, but it is the narrow width. Being narrow it must
: be placed close to the model, which makes background lighting tricky.
Black paper is easier to light, since the shadows disappear.
: Should I spring for a muslim, a bigger roll of paper, or is there some
: lower cost option like a sheet or blanket that will give high quality
: results.
The look you desire in your photos dictates which background is best. I
shoot a lot on white paper, but it took me a while to learn how to light
it so it looks "clean". Painted canvas is good for traditional
portraiture, but I don't own any canvas yet.
: Thanks,
: Allan
Thanks for asking interesting questions.
--
Paul Nuber
p...@fc.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard Co.
Fort Collins, CO