Amature needs feedback on portrait lighting
DeanB
and the generally unprepared I-just-dont-care hairstyle, can some here
take a look at the lighting in this portrait and tell me what you
think?
http://i11.tinypic.com/2colx5e.jpg
I had the flash (sb800) pointing up around 45 degrees and around to
the right also 45 degrees, so there was no direct flash onto her face.
Above the flash was a 2' reflector, about 2 feet above the camera and
to the right, angled to reflect onto her.
This is my first ever evening with the flash and reflector, so I
openly welcome all criticism.
50mm f/1.4 @ f4, distance 4', wb(flash), ev 0.0
Dean
David Dyer-Bennet
First of all, definitely underexposed.
If you get her further from the backdrop, the shadow there will be
thrown further from her (probably out of the photo entirely, which is good).
See how sharp a shadow the chin is casting on the neck? *Something* is
sending hard light her way; quite possibly the head is spreading the
beam wider than you expect, or something, and it's reaching her direct
in addition to off the reflector. (That's the first, very dark, shadow,
not the second, larger, lighter, softer-edged one.)
Aside from the strictly technical, I like her expression and head
position. The contrast of the relatively formal pose and relatively
careful lighting does contrast somewhat strangely with the amount of
dinner visible :-).
DeanB
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi David - thanks for the reply!
I noticed after I posted that the sharp shadow was there, seems that
the flash was definitely providing some direct light, just a few
degrees it seems, now I look at the setup. There are two lights in
here eyes too.
Is it coming out underexposed because of the white background? I had
the camera set to matrix metering centered on her face so I thought it
would be ok, but it seems not. There was no real ambient light, so
should I just increase the flash ev up a little, maybe 1/3 or 2/3
stop? (She's asleep now, so I'll have to wait till tomorrow:)
bugbear
>
> Is it coming out underexposed because of the white background? I had
> the camera set to matrix metering centered on her face so I thought it
> would be ok, but it seems not. There was no real ambient light, so
> should I just increase the flash ev up a little, maybe 1/3 or 2/3
> stop? (She's asleep now, so I'll have to wait till tomorrow:)
>
I know "little" of this, but I don't see how a camera
can "meter" for flash light, which doesn't exist
until you hit the shutter
BugBear
(who had a Pentax LX film camera that actually did meter
*during* exposure, but it couldn't do flash that way)
ASAAR
> I know "little" of this, but I don't see how a camera
> can "meter" for flash light, which doesn't exist
> until you hit the shutter
From the SB-800's manual:
> Monitor Preflashes
> Just before the flash fires, the SB-800 fires a series of
> imperceptible preflashes that are detected by the camera’s
> TTL Multi-Sensor and analyzed for brightness and contrast
> • i-TTL mode
> This is a TTL auto flash mode in the Nikon Creative Lighting System.
> Monitor Preflashes are fired at all times. The subject is correctly
> exposed by the light from the flash lighting and the exposure is less
> affected by the ambient light (p. 37).
For the OP's picture, if more ambient light was used the
under-chin shadows would have been lightened. But that would be
difficult as 1/60 sec, f/4 was used for the exposure. Brighter room
lighting or an additional flash could help, and possibly by also
reducing the SB-800's output level.
> (who had a Pentax LX film camera that actually did meter
> *during* exposure, but it couldn't do flash that way)
It would be nice if metering could be done off the sensor as it
was done off the film, as the preflashes can present problems, but I
think that the occurrences of such problems are pretty rare.
DeanB
Ok thanks for that, I will look at increasing the ambient. (Sleeping
moms hate bright lights in the living room though, so it will be
tricky).
Any comments on the under-exposure? Is it the white background? The
dark hair?
David Dyer-Bennet
> Hi David - thanks for the reply!
>
> I noticed after I posted that the sharp shadow was there, seems that
> the flash was definitely providing some direct light, just a few
> degrees it seems, now I look at the setup. There are two lights in
> here eyes too.
True, that's another useful clue (and they're quite small).
> Is it coming out underexposed because of the white background? I had
> the camera set to matrix metering centered on her face so I thought it
> would be ok, but it seems not. There was no real ambient light, so
> should I just increase the flash ev up a little, maybe 1/3 or 2/3
> stop? (She's asleep now, so I'll have to wait till tomorrow:)
I find iTTL remarkably disappointing. It doesn't come *close* to what
my N90+SB28 could do for exposure accuracy. Perhaps a lot of that is
simply due to the differences between color negative and digital; the
color neg can tolerate lots of overexposure, whereas the digital is more
like slide film and blows out the highlights fairly easily, and iTTL has
to take account of that. Its reputation is that its better than Canon's
system; and if neither of the top DSLR makers, each of which brought out
a new flash system to handle digital, can get it to work as well as the
old one did with film, it's almost certainly because it's *hard* :-).
Basically, you have to fine-tune exposures manually by reference to the
histogram, or adjust later (your particular photo is well within range
to be adjusted later to look perfect for overall exposure, I think,
though I haven't actually tried to do so).
David Dyer-Bennet
> It would be nice if metering could be done off the sensor as it
> was done off the film, as the preflashes can present problems, but I
> think that the occurrences of such problems are pretty rare.
One of our cats reacts fast enough to *always* have her eyes closed when
I use the preflashes; I've had to resort to manual exposure to get
decent pictures of her.
It seems to work with some people, too. I guess they find it convenient
to get a clear signal when it's time to blink :-).
David Dyer-Bennet
> bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>> I know "little" of this, but I don't see how a camera
>> can "meter" for flash light, which doesn't exist
>> until you hit the shutter
>
> intervals are so short that most eyes can't perceive it. The first
> ("pre-flash") is used for metering.
It's certainly obvious to me!
When I'm using full CLS with multiple flashes, it feels like the
sequence of pre-flashes goes on a LONG time (you get flashes from the
master, then flashes from the first slave group, then flashes from the
master, then flashes from the second slave group...). It's really only
a small fraction of a second, but I can certainly see it.
ASAAR
>> For the OP's picture, if more ambient light was used the
>> under-chin shadows would have been lightened. But that would be
>> difficult as 1/60 sec, f/4 was used for the exposure. Brighter room
>> lighting or an additional flash could help, and possibly by also
>> reducing the SB-800's output level.
>>
. . .
>
> Ok thanks for that, I will look at increasing the ambient. (Sleeping
> moms hate bright lights in the living room though, so it will be tricky).
>
> Any comments on the under-exposure? Is it the white background?
> The dark hair?
The background should be moved further into the background, which
could help by reducing the shadows and making it darker, if that's
what you want. It will also soften the background's vertical
pattern if it can be nudged out of the DOF. The shadows below the
face could probably be reduced by moving the camera much further
away from the subject. Normally you'd step further back and use a
greater focal length, but lacking that you could just step back
anyway as far as the bounce flash allows (which should be a
considerable amount given the SB-800's output and several more
available stops to increase the ISO) and you might have enough
resolution to crop and make a good print. Even if cropping would
use too little of the sensor's pixels, it would still show you the
results that you'd get if you used a longer lens. As for the hair,
maybe mom has something for her hair that can be applied that will
allow it to glisten or show some highlights? Or get somebody to
hold a focused flashlight to see if it will produce some hair
highlights. It might help, but I don't think that you'd want to dye
your daughter's hair a lighter shade. She's adorable enough as is
that I'd happily hug her in spite of the well distributed food. <g>
Neil Harrington
"DeanB" <deanb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174625088.5...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it *is* underexposed. The shadow
detail in her dark hair looks pretty good; since it's very dark hair I don't
know if you'd want more than there is.
I have found 45 degrees tilt to be too direct for bounce flash, and I
generally use 60 degrees. How much (or if) the 45 degrees of swivel would
change that I don't know, but the hard shadow under her chin and the second
darker shadow close behind her head indicates she's getting too much direct
light somehow. I think the double highlights in her eyes indicate that too.
As David says she is too close to the backdrop, and I think those regular
vertical stripes are somewhat distracting. I believe it would be much better
with a more natural room setting behind her rather than a background of that
kind.
Have you considered swiveling the flash so that it points *backward* and to
one side and up toward the reflector? If your reflector is not too small,
and it's not inconvenient for you to get it in that position, you might want
to try it.
But anyway, you have a cute picture of a really cute little girl there.
Neil
ASAAR
> One of our cats reacts fast enough to *always* have her eyes closed
> when I use the preflashes; I've had to resort to manual exposure
> to get decent pictures of her.
Would the greater delay after a P&S's preflash help with you cat
photos, or would it just allow more time for the cats to move out of
the frame? :) The manual for one of Metz's little wireless flashes
mentions that its default delay after detecting a preflash is 45ms,
as most cameras have a preflash delay that is greater than this.
For "problem" cameras the flash's delay can be adjusted to anything
from 5 to 255ms. I can't imagine any decent camera having a 1/4
second preflash delay, but it might be needed for some of the under
$100 no-name digital cameras.
bugbear
Cool - I stand corrected, and better informed to boot!
BugBear
DeanB
>
> I don't like the shadow under her chin - looks like she's wearing a
> choker.
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Its a vertical blind. I was actually trying to keep the background
white, as in not dull gray.
I thank all of you for your most valuable input, I appreciate it very
much. I have a 100mm f/4.0 Nikon Micro lense, maybe I will try that
and take the camera back. I assume it is capable of magnificent
portraits, even if I am not!
Allen
<snip>
> One of our cats reacts fast enough to *always* have her eyes closed when
> I use the preflashes; I've had to resort to manual exposure to get
> decent pictures of her.
>
> It seems to work with some people, too. I guess they find it convenient
> to get a clear signal when it's time to blink :-).
when it does happen. Several years ago we had six cats; our son loves
cats, so we decided that we would get a picture of us with all six of
them. Our son-in-law came over and took 25 exposures (back in 35mm
days). Of those 25, one showed _parts_ of all six cats. It was an
experience that we never tried again.
David Dyer-Bennet
Yes, I know exactly what you mean!
(only one cat)
Jim
<snip>
>
> I thank all of you for your most valuable input, I appreciate it very
> much. I have a 100mm f/4.0 Nikon Micro lense, maybe I will try that
> and take the camera back. I assume it is capable of magnificent
> portraits, even if I am not!
>
>
than any other lens.
The 105 f2.5 AIS lens would be the one to use anyway.
Secondly, all the lens and camera do is record the scene that the
photographer setup.
So, you need to study the lighting of your photographs and determine how to
change your lighting for the better.
Jim
Bill K
David, you always have good advice and offer excellent critiques. I
learned a lot from your post. I think Dean did pretty well for the
first time out.
--
Gator Bait