Basic Portrait Lighting Setup?
greg
also publicity shots that can be reproduced in magazines, newspapers,
programs, etc.
We'll have some fun with the CD photos - he's seen my work with various
MF cameras (lots of old crappy Dianaesque models as well as high quality
but uncoated lenses, Pentax 6x7, Rollei, etc). He will probably end up
having the publicity shots done by someone who does lots of headshots
but I'd like to take a shot at it as an excuse to set up a small studio
area with a couple of lights.
I've got books on lighting for portraiture that I'm reviewing - what I
can't find is something I've seen before about how to use different
lighting positions for different facial types. Any references to that
would be appreciated.
Also, I'm looking advice on equipment for a basic lighting setup and
whether I should be thinking tungsten lights or flash - I assume the
latter would be a lot more expensive but is all-tungsten workable?
People's experiences would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.
Timothy Francisco
electricity, use a tripod. Lots cheaper.
Remember, no tungsten color print film in 35mm, only 120 and up...
Try Lowell tota-lites in chimera boxes, 500 watt ok for regular photo
ones. Just be a bit careful.
tim n mpls
Bruce William Johnson
I believe what you are referring to is Short, Broad, and Butterfly
Lighting. I don't know if I can describe it well enough to help you but I
will give it a shot.
Short Lighting - The shadow side of the face is towards the camera. This
will have the effect of slimming a persons face so if they have a round face
or a double chin it can be used to help hide it in the photographs.
Broad Lighting - The illuminated side of the face is towards the camera.
This will have the effect making persons face wider so if they have a thin
face it can be used to help their face look broader in the photographs.
Butterfly Lighting - Lighting from directly in front of and above the
subject. Called Butterfly Lighting because of the shadow that it causes
below the subject's nose that looks like a butterfly. Used on people with a
nice oval face.
I will try to send you a small jpeg file that should help you with a
visual. It will just be something that I created real quick so if you have
a question feel free to ask.
Bruce
zeitgeist
>
> A musician friend of mine needs new photos - mostly for a new CD but
> also publicity shots that can be reproduced in magazines, newspapers,
> programs, etc.
>
> We'll have some fun with the CD photos - he's seen my work with various
> MF cameras (lots of old crappy Dianaesque models as well as high quality
> but uncoated lenses, Pentax 6x7, Rollei, etc). He will probably end up
> having the publicity shots done by someone who does lots of headshots
> but I'd like to take a shot at it as an excuse to set up a small studio
> area with a couple of lights.
>
> I've got books on lighting for portraiture that I'm reviewing - what I
> can't find is something I've seen before about how to use different
> lighting positions for different facial types. Any references to that
> would be appreciated.
>
> Also, I'm looking advice on equipment for a basic lighting setup and
> whether I should be thinking tungsten lights or flash - I assume the
> latter would be a lot more expensive but is all-tungsten workable?
>
> People's experiences would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.
most people's results 'out of the box' using studio lighting is
typically disappointing, usually looking like a passport photo or some
cheesy kiddie pix like shiny wet face look. I usually go on for pages
about why studio lighting doesn't look like natural light (why the
spectral highlights tend to look completely alien, cross lighting etc)
and what to do about it, most of it is probably available on deja.com
or other news archives or the z-prophoto mailing list at egroups.com
The simplest 'nice' light you can find is to open your garage door and
shoot, either straight in for a super flat glamour light, or diagonally
for a northlight effect (may want to block bounce from the floor) or
open your front door, use a window light with a reflector, find an over
hang like a porch.
Since its a musician who probably wants something interesting or weird,
take a reflector flood and some highspeed film and hang it almost
straight down and just play with what's in the light or not, take two
lights from opposite directions, have more fun...
greg
zeitgeist wrote:
> most people's results 'out of the box' using studio lighting is
> typically disappointing, usually looking like a passport photo or some
> cheesy kiddie pix like shiny wet face look. I usually go on for pages
> about why studio lighting doesn't look like natural light (why the
> spectral highlights tend to look completely alien, cross lighting etc)
> and what to do about it, most of it is probably available on deja.com
> or other news archives or the z-prophoto mailing list at egroups.com
I'll look for it, thanks.
> The simplest 'nice' light you can find is to open your garage door and
> shoot, either straight in for a super flat glamour light, or diagonally
> for a northlight effect (may want to block bounce from the floor) or
> open your front door, use a window light with a reflector, find an over
> hang like a porch.
I don't have a garage but I do have some rooms with with large windows.
I really do prefer natural light and have done some work with using it for
portraiture. I think what I need to do is find out the requirements for the
photos - they will need to be used for publication in less-than-high-quality
publications like newspapers and festival programs - and work from that
restriction.
> Since its a musician who probably wants something interesting or weird,
> take a reflector flood and some highspeed film and hang it almost
> straight down and just play with what's in the light or not, take two
> lights from opposite directions, have more fun...
That's a good suggestion. I'm looking forward to the photos to be used for
the
CD, we don't have a tight deadline and he's into trying all sorts of things.
zeitgeist
> >
> > The simplest 'nice' light you can find is to open your garage door and
> > shoot, either straight in for a super flat glamour light, or diagonally
> > for a northlight effect (may want to block bounce from the floor) or
> > open your front door, use a window light with a reflector, find an over
> > hang like a porch.
>
> I don't have a garage but I do have some rooms with with large windows.
There you go, use a reflector, don't place the subject right in the
window, move them out to the point just as the light starts to fade, I
usually recommend that the window gets 'placed' just like you place a
softbox, so move the subject from the window at a diagonal, and the
camera will probably find it's best angle is with the photographer
smushed against the wall. Most folks seem to think you have to keep
things at right angles and t-squared cause that's the way the walls and
windows are.
> I really do prefer natural light and have done some work with using it for
> portraiture.
Most photog's 'out of the box' experience with flash is rather horrid,
much like the early computer users. I compare the typical flash usage
for portraits to have a similar distortive effect as using a wide angle
lens, there are perceputal problems that are much easier to accept than
a 20mm on that "hey vern' guy, but they are there. And unless they are
using a good softbox with a modeling light, there is little visual clues
as to what the lighting effect may be. Few photographers think about
the qualities of the natural light they like and how they could possibly
duplicate that experience with a flash with the consistency and
controlability of the studio environment.
TW406
much like the early computer users."
I don't agree. Its not that hard. Portraits or computers.
greg
zeitgeist wrote:
> greg wrote:
> [...]
>
>
> > I really do prefer natural light and have done some work with using it for
> > portraiture.
>
> Most photog's 'out of the box' experience with flash is rather horrid,
> much like the early computer users. I compare the typical flash usage
> for portraits to have a similar distortive effect as using a wide angle
> lens, there are perceputal problems that are much easier to accept than
> a 20mm on that "hey vern' guy, but they are there. And unless they are
> using a good softbox with a modeling light, there is little visual clues
> as to what the lighting effect may be.
What I've been noticing as I've looked at photos is the ability to wash out
skin features and leave defining features - eyes, eyebrows, lips - in place.
At this point I'm going to suggest to my subject that he prepare for
a professional headshot photographer to do the standard shots but that
he can go into that with shots that we've worked on to show his best angles,
etc. So there's not pressure on me, and we/I can experiment away without
the requirements he has for the reprintable (as opposed to CD-cover) shots.
> Few photographers think about
> the qualities of the natural light they like and how they could possibly
> duplicate that experience with a flash with the consistency and
> controlability of the studio environment.
There's a huge amount to learn. Have to start somewhere!