W/C SIDE FILL?
Lewisvisn
not interesting) intriguing (short or long) answers...
The scenario: Suppose you were photographing a person w/ two lights (or more,
if you want to include background, hair &/or rim lights). In this set-up you
used one light as a main from anywhere from slightly to the side (i.e. loop
lighting) to a full side lighting to give the subject's face some form w/ your
light. Then you decide to use your other light as a fill light to show some
detail in the shadows in the unlit portion of the face (you decide the ratio
depending on how much "drama" you want to add) - you could use a reflector, but
in this illustration, let's just say its a second light that puts out less
light than your main. The subject faces the camera either directly head on or
is turned a bit to the side (2/3 or 3/4 view, anything but a profile).
The Question of Preference: I was curious as to w/c side each of you would put
the fill light - same side as the main or on the opposite side of the camera -
and your rationale as to why/how you chose this side for the fill to be on (for
whatever form of off-axis lighting you would prefer to do; loop, Rembrandt,
side-lighting, etc.).
Personal experience: I have shot fashion as well as portraits but tend to go to
extremes concerning both lighting ratios and main light directions. I tend to
go either very frontal, or, non-directional w/ my lighting direction, a largish
source, and use a small to nil lighting ratio. Or I go to a very
directional/small source having using a standard reflector on my main light and
little or no fill from a second light or a reflector.
In fashion - in the studio, anyway - I've usually used a softbox over the
camera and a silver reflector under the model's chin to give a nice butterfly
lighting w/ some fill under the models chin (admittedly a very standard/basic
fashion set up, but it works). As you know this is a very "frontal" lighting
pattern w/ very little contrast. Other times I've used bounce-lighting w/ a
group of two or three umbrellas around the camera w/c also gives a very frontal
lighting w/ low-no ratio.
Other times I have used a single head off to the side (w/c side depending on
the position of the model) and either used no fill or a reflector on the
opposite side of the camera relative to the main light, but closer in angle to
my camera (so my fill reflector wasn't illuminating his/her ear). This gives
(depending on the distance of the reflector/fill light and the lighting ratio)
a very dramatic effect. Or I have used the late day sun for a similar off to
the side dramatic effect outdoors.
I have read about a photographer who tends to put his fill on the same side as
the main both to avoid getting the effect of a double-main light, as well as
(I'm guessing here) to add a "form fill"/so there is a more gradual fall off in
intensity from the main lit side to the shadow side, revealing the face's
form. Also, I'm guessing he does this same side fill light as main light
technique so that the shadow side doesn't get evenly and flatly "over-filled"
w/ the "flat light" look that would occur if you placed your fill on the
opposite side of the camera relative to the main light.
Perhaps other people photographers (fashion, portrait, etc.) might share their
specific experiences as to what has/hasn't worked when using fill (camera side
or opposite camera side relative to the main light) - either according to the
rules or breaking the rules of "good people lighting." Please no 'halo' jokes
about lighting 'good people'
0:-).
Thanks,
Lewis Lang
"LEWISVISION" - "Fine art and stock photography (conceptual surrealistic people
and still life photography, from the real to the surreal and beyond!)
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Take out the "z" in the e-mail address for anti-spamming.
a_g...@hotmail.com
lewi...@aol.comz (Lewisvisn) wrote:
> This is a long e-mail about a short question, looking for some insightful (if
> not interesting) intriguing (short or long) answers...
This is a thread I could learn a lot from. That said, here's my humble
submission:
For a two-light setup, I think you'd want the two lights on opposite sides of
the camera. As you mentioned, the fill light is to lighten up the shadows
from the main light, and those shadows are all on the side opposite the main.
If the main and the fill are both on the same side, you may reduce some of
the shadows, but you'll also intensify those that are not lit from the other
side.
I haven't shot true "fashion," but my approach to lighting would be similar
to Peter Gowlands approach for glamour. If you didn't know, Peter used up to
four lights, and I beleive all were the same intensity, and they were all
soft-boxes.
The four positions he uses are above the camera and to the left, below the
camera and to the left, above the camera and to the right, and below the
camera and to the right. All are pointed at the subject. Turn them all on,
and you get extremely flat lighting, with a minimum of shadows. You leave
off lighting in the direction you want shadows to appear. It's a simple set
up, but it gives lighting that I, personally, like. Now that you know how he
lights his stuff, you only have to look at his photos and the model's
catchlights to see exactly how he lit the shot (which lights he lit, and
which he kept off).
I'm kind of curious - why are you specifically neglecting reflectors?
All the best,
- Arved
--
Arved Grass Photography * Orange Park, FL * http://photo.onlineexpress.net
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Lewisvisn
Thanks for your insightful reply to my/the question I posed.
First let me say that a lot of the work I do is fine art/surreal so almost
anything goes as long as it works and makes an interesting/arresting image. I
really have nothing against using reflectors, and I have used them on many
occaissions when I used to do a lot of studio fashion, but for outdoor
portraits and fashion too, I guess I just like/want a starker look. I guess I
like a greater contrast ratio because it tends to focus attention on and bring
out the planes of the face/body I want the viewer to focus on. I don't
particularly like the flatly lit/large source(s)/low contrast ratio "catalog
look" although I have used this type of lighting when I thought the subject
required it. An example of this would be my shot "WESTERN MAN" in the WIDE EYE
GALLERY at my LEWISVISION web site. Also, while I'm dropping credits here, and
to go a bit overboard in making my point, in the book PORTRAITS (Pro-Lighting
Series, by Hicks and Schultz), they used a self-portrait of my shadow across
the Santa Barbara court house wall ("DARK ANGEL") as a double spread just
inside the cover in this book. So as you can see - I love shadows - when they
are used well. And I was never overly enamored of what might be considered a
"standard" 1 1/2 stop or there abouts portrait fill ratio. I love both sun and
shadow. I know what bad light looks like and how to control light w/
gobos/reflectors when I need to, but more often than not I'd rather go w/ the
serendipity of the light as it is, using either no reflector fill or going the
oppositte extreme and doing an on-camera fill flash (for a more
photojournalistic look) outside and bouncing a flash off an umbrella to the
side for a more portrait look (usually inside). Part of my lack of using
reflectors a lot of the time may also be "the rebel" in me. I'm not afraid of
using shadows as shapes to make my compositions more powerful. I have nothing
against filling in (a lot or a little) but tend to either look and/or find
outside (what I'd call) "beautiful light" and this beautiful light, on average
(although each situation is unique), tends to be either very contrasty and full
of beautifully shaped cast shadows (and/or I turn the subject to get the
beautiful form shadows I like). Or, particularly when I've done groups/family
portraiture I go for a very flat lighting by either posing my subjects so
they're lit mostly by open sky or, if the light is more hard edged, I'll go for
a slightly more frontal light (and/or more frontally turned subject position)
that lights most of the mask of the face so I din't feel I need a reflector in
that situation. Its a matter of both personal taste and the needs of my shot.
If I'm shooting for someone else (let's say a family portrait) I tend to do a
more conservative light ratio than if I were to shoot for myself.
Sorry for the long-windedness (long-wordedness) of this answer. Hope it answers
your question Arved.
Anybody else care to chime on in and fill-in (sorry, I couldn't resist the pun)
w/ their fill preferences/experiences?
Good shooting to "you all",
Lewis Lang
"LEWISVISION" - "Fine art and stock photography (conceptual surrealistic people
Bruce Brown
>I have read about a photographer who tends to put his fill on the same side as
>the main both to avoid getting the effect of a double-main light, as well as
>(I'm guessing here) to add a "form fill"/so there is a more gradual fall off in
>intensity from the main lit side to the shadow side, revealing the face's
>form. Also, I'm guessing he does this same side fill light as main light
>technique so that the shadow side doesn't get evenly and flatly "over-filled"
>w/ the "flat light" look that would occur if you placed your fill on the
>opposite side of the camera relative to the main light.
It all depends on the effect you are going for. Filling from the same side as
your main light -up to camera axis- gives more of a wrap around effect.
Whereas filling from the opposite side of the main light gives more of a
flattened fill effect (depending on the fill to main ratio). Its personal
taste and vision depending on what result you are trying to achieve.
One thing you might want to consider is what effect either of these fill light
set ups has on your subject's face. Facial structure (thin, oval, broad) and
"closed" or "open" sides of the face often determines which lighting set up
you will use. If you are going for commercial main stream appeal then you
want to try to make your subject's face look as symmetrical as possible using
your lighting set up to hide the nonsymmetrical side or shape of the face.
However, a-typical or artistic styles are purely subjective to the
photographer's vision and therefore . . .it's all up to you --what do you want
to portray in this subject's face?
I've used both fill to main light setups with satisfying results depending on
the look I wanted to achieve.
Bruce
ibeb...@softcom.net
http://www.softcom.net/users/ibebrown/finelight
Lewisvisn
Bruce, thanks for your addtional thoughts.
When you refer to "open and closed" sides of the face in your quote below could
you tell me in a little more detail what this means?
Thanks,
Lewis Lang
"LEWISVISION" - "Fine art and stock photography (conceptual surrealistic people
Curtis Leeds
subject as seen from the camera position. Hence, the fill
belongs as close to camera position as possible. In this
way, it is easy to set-up repeatable lighting methods of
exactly the light ratio that you desire. This method has
always worked for me. Of course, it is up to the
photographer as to where to place the lights, and you're
free to place them anywhere that works for you but -
technically - it's not a "fill light" if it is located off
to one side so that it does not light the entire subject.
--
***************************************************
cle...@idt.net "I stood unwound beneath the skies
And clouds unbound by laws.
The cryin' rain like a trumpet sang
And asked for no applause." (Bob Dylan)
***************************************************
Lewisvisn
Thanks for explaining the difference between open and closed faces. I've never
actually heard this term and/or had it explained (very well) before now.
However, I'm still not sure about one point. You mention "For "Thin" faces I
want my fill to wrap around further to the 'open' side of the face, thus
broadening it out. For "Broad" faces I want my fill to not go as far around
the face on the 'open' side thus thinning it down."
Is there any "rule/guideline" or a correlation between broad and short
lighting, closed and open sides of the face, and thin and broad faces and and
where you put the fill or would these be considered four separate issues that
only slightly touch points w/ one another?
Also, would these "rules/guidelines" be applicable in all circumstances? The
reason I'm asking this is because what happens when you photograph a person w/
a broad face w/ short lighting whose features converge towards a "closed face"
on the side of the face away from the position of the main light? In other
words, suppose I have to go contrary to what you've suggested about "Generally
speaking, you want your main light to be on the "closed" side which helps to
'straighten' out these converging lines and makes them appear to 'balance out.'
This is obviously an illusion but it works. The "open" side of the face away
from the main light is darker (depending on your fill light)" because, in my
scenario, that person's "best side" of their face "demands" that I pose them w/
the closed side of the face facing away from the main light? Would I need more
fill or less fill in this instance? Did I hear someone say silhouette?....:-).
Lens cap???...
Perhaps there are so many factors and directions when considering in lighting
people w/ converging and/or unusual features that I should hire a Pet detective
like Ace Ventura to track down all the clues and permutations of people
lighting. Or perhaps I could convince my subjects to let Jim Carrey substitute
pose for them, whose (Carrey's) best side, we all know, is the side he usually
talks out of - his backside? :-).
In a message dated 1/26/99 2:00:07 PM, you wrote:
<<Surely, DON'T CALL ME "SURELY"!!!!
Most everyone (probably 99% of us) does not have a perfectly
symetrical face --all quadrants being evenly spaced and parrallel or
perpendicular. Its most noticable with the parrallel lines the eyes
and mouth line make. Usually someone has one eye lower than
the other or a sloping/rising mouth line.
Standing square to the subjact's face and following these two lines
you can see that they would interesect (if carried out beyond the
face) on one side of the face or the other. The side they interesect
on is the "closed" side -the other is the "open" side. Generally
speaking, you want your main light to be on the "closed" side
which helps to 'straighten' out these converging lines and makes
them appear to 'balance out.' This is obviously an illusion but it
works. The "open" side of the face away from the main light is
darker (depending on your fill light) and therefore appears to be
further away and our brain tells us (laws of perspective) objects
further away have lines that converge. Thus balancing out the
mouth line and eye line. Obviously you don't want the fill light ratio
to be too close to the main light to benefit from this effect.
Basically I use this as a rule of thumb for deciding which side of
my subject's face I want my main light illuminate. My next
concern is the shape of their face (thin, oval, broad) and that
determins how I'll set up my fill light (to try to compensate for facial
form flaws). For "Thin" faces I want my fill to wrap around further to
the 'open' side of the face, thus broadening it out. For "Broad"
faces I want my fill to not go as far around the face on the 'open'
side thus thinning it down. Oval faces are in the middle so I use
the typical 'glamour' light setup, or a large 'window' light setup
depending on the mood I want to create.
Have fun shooting!
Bruce
ibeb...@softcom.net
Lewisvisn
Curtis Leeds
> However, I'm still not sure about one point. You mention "For "Thin" faces I
> want my fill to wrap around further to the 'open' side of the face, thus
> broadening it out. For "Broad" faces I want my fill to not go as far around
> the face on the 'open' side thus thinning it down."
This is precisely why the best place for the fill light is
as close to the camera axis as possible. The degree of fill
- which is really what you're asking about - is controlled
by adjusting lighting ratio.
For broad faces, use short ("Rembrandt") lighting; for thin
faces, use broad lighting. But the fill stays on-axis either
way.
Bruce Brown
>
>Bruce, thanks for your addtional thoughts.
>
>When you refer to "open and closed" sides of the face in your quote below could
>you tell me in a little more detail what this means?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Lewis Lang
Surely,
Most everyone (probably 99% of us) does not have a perfectly symmetrical face
--all quadrants being evenly spaced and parallel or perpendicular. Its most
noticeable with the parallel lines the eyes and mouth line make. Usually
someone has one eye lower than the other or a sloping/rising mouth line.
Standing square to the subject's face and following these two lines you can
see that they would intersect (if carried out beyond the face) on one side of
the face or the other. The side they intersect on is the "closed" side -the
other is the "open" side. Generally speaking, you want your main light to be
on the "closed" side which helps to 'straighten' out these converging lines
and makes them appear to 'balance out.' This is obviously an illusion but it
works. The "open" side of the face away from the main light is darker
(depending on your fill light) and therefore appears to be further away and
our brain tells us (laws of perspective) objects further away have
lines that converge. Thus balancing out the mouth line and eye line.
Obviously you don't want the fill light ratio to be too close to the main
light to benefit from this effect.
Basically I use this as a rule of thumb for deciding which side of my
subject's face I want my main light illuminate. My next concern is the shape
of their face (thin, oval, broad) and that determines how I'll set up my fill
light (to try to compensate for facial form flaws). For "Thin" faces I want
my fill to wrap around further to the 'open' side of the face, thus broadening
it out. For "Broad" faces I want my fill to not go as far around the face on
the 'open' side thus thinning it down. Oval faces are in the middle so I use
the typical 'glamour' light setup, or a large 'window' light setup depending
on the mood I want to create.
Have fun shooting!
Bruce
>
zeitgeist
>
>
> The Question of Preference: I was curious as to w/c side each of you would put
> the fill light - same side as the main or on the opposite side of the camera -
> and your rationale as to why/how you chose this side for the fill to be on (for
> whatever form of off-axis lighting you would prefer to do; loop, Rembrandt,
> side-lighting, etc.).
When ever you use a second light, you introduce a second set of
highlights. (you can do this with reflectors too.) The place to put a
fill light is next to the camera on the same side as the key light.
then you add a reflector fill.
When they invented photography, portrait photogs used huge northlight
windows, big windows tilted about 30' (degrees) and 11 to 20 feet tall,
and about that wide.
the problems they had was the film speed was sooooo slooooowwwww that
exposures were several minutes.
So someone got the great idea of using this new fangled invention,
incandescent lights, with fresnel lenes to consentrate the beam and
direct it towards the subject. Then they discovered shadows... and fill
lights.
To lessen the problem of double highlights, advanced photographers would
use doubled key lights. A second light was placed between the key
(which would be placed at a 45' angle.) and the camera. this would
cause the highlights to spread smoothly and lessen the need for a
stronger fill.
We have been stuck with the cross light paradym ever since.
Photographers have used many movie set lighting tools as scrims and
diffusion, and invented their own, umbrellas and soft boxes etc. but
the makers of the equipment stick with the basic key fill set up not
because the plan is the best, but thats the way its always been done.
and they get to sell at least twice as much stuff, heads, stands
reflectors etc.
ONe day I was visiting a commercial photogs studio, saw some of the
biggest softboxes, big as RV's hanging from overhead pullies. I asked a
dumb question, "why did they need lights so big." and was told that you
would want to use a light that is about twice as big as the subject. So
then I asked why he used regular sized softboxes for his portraits then
and he scratched his head and said,I dunno.
Another photographer I visited used a wall of light, from a high ceiling
to about four foot off the ground, about 8 foot tall, and twelve feet
long, a translucent white wall with two strong heads and whtie
translucent shoot through umbrellas inside. this is about a 45'
beginning within a foot or two from the background and coming almost to
the camera. (and a smallish reflector!) He gets the most exquisite
highlights, when you print down there is real depth the skin tone and
detail into the darkest shadow side. Amazing light. And what I plan to
do in my own studio.
Peter Madeley
regardless of its position. I think this is why some shoot using what
did used to be known as a skylighter - a strip light behind and above
the camera, which gave a broad shadowless illumination across the
whole set. Other lights were then used to set contrast. Perhaps a
bounced light from polyboards gives a better fill than either brolly
or softbox, but then you need to work on flagging to avoid flare. I
think the nearest you would get to shadowless (without going to
ringflash) would be to use box over camera butterfly as you already mentioned.
I tend to use reflectors more fill, mainly because at present I only
have two heads, from diff manufacturers and only one can be used with
snoot/honeycomb for hair and drop lighting. I've got a box on order
so I'll try these ideas as soon as poss.
BTW Best discussion on here for weeks. Well done guys
*** Make every day as if it were your last ***
'Cos one day you'll be right
Regards and happy shooting
Peter (DPS Design and Photography Services)
Lewisvisn
Mr.? "Zeitgeist":
Thanks for your "illuminating" input on this subject :-)...
Your contribution, as almost always happens w/ me has not only lead me to
greater understanding but to asking greater and greater (well, at least more
and more...:-)) questions...
Why not just bounce a (hard light) off of a large wall or adjustable angle
foamcore board to get a single large spread highlight? I suppose the same thing
can be done w/ a standard reflector head aimed through a large translucent flat
or an umbrellaed bounce flash also aimed through a large translucent flat to
get that long spread highlight. Then the need for any fill at all would be
obviated w/ these rather large/soft light alternatives... I guess I'm asking
why a photographer would want or need to spread the highlight over the face w/
two umbrellas behind a large translucent flat instead of one umbrella shot
through a large translucent flat. Less fall off on the side of the face
furthest from the light when two umbrellas (through a translucent flat) are
used instead of one umbrella behind a large translucent flat?
Also, isn't the alternative solutions I've (and you've) mentioned to the
standard key/fill on same side of the camera (large flat w/ umbrellas behind
them) have the "problem" of being too soft a light. Soft light can be beautiful
- but so can hard light - and hard light "demands" the use of some kind of fill
(unless you are going for a high-contrast highlight and blocked up shadow
look/effect) - so w/ hard light you are back to the problem of a second
highlight on the face (even if that second highlight is from a large fill
source light/reflector). Is this a real or imagined Catch-22 w/ people
lighting? Would the universe grind to a halt if someone has a second or a third
or a thirty fifth set of extra highlights on the face - after all, if we are
talking about studio lighting (and I am here), then why should I have to follow
a convention that's more than a 150 years old (alot more than a 150 years old
if you consider painting w/c is also making images of people)? Yes, imitating
the look of a North light or the sun outside on a cloudy/hazy day w/ one and
only one broad spread facial highlight is a noble pursuit, if that's what works
for the style/mood/etc. of the people image you are trying to do. But why
should we allow ourselves to be stuck w/ a key/fill mentality or a modified key
fill spread the highlight mentality? Perhaps I am going beyond my own
topic/question here of "W/C SIDE FILL," but shouldn't we as inquisitive
photographers question both the conventions and the ways/conventions of getting
around those conventions (in this case the get around being the 2 umbrellas and
large translucent flat to spread the highlight)?
Lighting choices not only show our subjects to their best (or what we 'd like
to think of as their best) side/portrayal, but they also, pardon the pun,
"reflect" on the photographers mind set and what and how that photographer
thinks about the subject as well as their "world lighting view" - reflect both
technically and emotionally. When I use on-flash camera I realize that the
emotional effect/choice I've made might give overtones of Weegee or just
amature snap-shot photography in general. Semi-large to large source North
light window lighting(or flash lighting simulating this kind of light) may be a
conscious/unconscious tribute to Penn, Nadar, Rembrandt or simply the lighting
we grew up with as a child (ahhhh to have a skylight!).
My point is that we should examine both the technical and psychological reasons
for the type(s) of lighting decisions we make, here we go again w/ another
photography pun, and not accept things (lighting conventions) "blindly" no
matter how much sense these conventions may make to us both on a technical and
emotional level.
Just my 222222222222222 cents worth of sense on the subject....
Now, anybody see where I put that fill light?
Lewis ("Lights... Camera... Lens Cap!!!!) Lang
In article <36AD7671...@cntinet.net>, zeitgeist wrote:
>To lessen the problem of double highlights, advanced photographers would
>use doubled key lights. A second light was placed between the key
>(which would be placed at a 45' angle.) and the camera. this would
>cause the highlights to spread smoothly and lessen the need for a
>stronger fill.
"LEWISVISION" - "Fine art and stock photography (conceptual surrealistic people
Bernard
behave in a more off-topic manner, would you....
Showoff!
Bernard.
Lewisvisn
I'm/we're blushing pixels. Shhhhhhh... Somebody may get the idea that this
Newsgroup is actually about people photography instead of that other topic :).
In article <199901262...@zetnet.co.uk>, Peter wrote:
>BTW Best discussion on here for weeks. Well done guys
"LEWISVISION" - "Fine art and stock photography (conceptual surrealistic people
Steve1chsn
the same time...........
Hmmmmm.........
**** steve ****
Lewisvisn
Peter:
This strip light sounds like a good idea for wide spread highlights but
wouldn't there be a problem w/ flagging off the background (I'm assuming that
the strip fill light would be used horizontally above the camera). If you used
the strip light vertically you might not be able to fill a large subject and/or
a group of subjects evenly (assuming you wanted an equal amout of fill on each
of your people subjects).
For more artisticall "bent" photos... Being a person who likes to explore
different avenues, how 'bout doing the oppositte of the soft shadowless
surround fill light scenario above. You know how in Hollywood they'll key a
light on each actor in a broad/deep set? Well why not "key a fill"? (i am
purposely slightly mis-using terms here to make my point so bear w/ me...) Have
each of your subjects (in a posed group people photo shot) w/ a different
amount of fill for a different amount of emphasis. Each person could be lit w/
their own fill light (from soft box to grid spot depending on the spread and
soft to hard quality of the light wanted/needed) from either camera direction
or any other direction for interesting effects. Not your standard form of
"protrait" lighting but an interesting alternative nonetheless w/ "possibly
more possibilities."
Now it would really get interesting if we could (temporarily) have the subject
"be a fill light" by having them swallow a fill light (nothing over 200 watt
seconds, otherwise we might give our subjects indigestion) so that we'd get a
reeeeelllly shadowless light - "self-illumination solves a multitude of
problems." Short of that, I'm all for nuclear fusion at a cellular level for
self-illumination but then you'd have to shield each of their cells (and the
photographer) w/ massive amounts of lead and that would cause lead poisoning,
not to mention the China Syndrome as your subject(s) would start to sink
through the floor when they begin to reach critical mass. They'd have a really
bright smile though.... :-).
What can I say, I guess I'm not the nail the fill('s light stand) to the floor
kind of guy.
In article <199901262...@zetnet.co.uk>, Peter wrote:
>I think this is why some shoot using what
>did used to be known as a skylighter - a strip light behind and above
>the camera, which gave a broad shadowless illumination across the
>whole set. Other lights were then used to set contrast. Perhaps a
>bounced light from polyboards gives a better fill than either brolly
>or softbox, but then you need to work on flagging to avoid flare. I
>think the nearest you would get to shadowless (without going to
>ringflash) would be to use box over camera butterfly as you already mentioned.
"LEWISVISION" - "Fine art and stock photography (conceptual surrealistic people
Bruce Brown
Carey jokes I get suspicious.
1. EYE LINE / MOUTH LINE CONVERGENCE
The main point about "open" and "closed" sides of a subject's face is that
once you determine which side is the "closed" side you put your main light to
that side. This system helps to treat the subject's face individually so each
portrait is made in consideration of the subject's unique facial features
--instead of habitually setting up your main light always to one side (at the
ease of the photographer).
2. OVER ALL SHAPE OF THE FACE
The broad or thin shape of the face determines the amount of fill you want to
use on the side of the face away from your main light. Light of significant
intensity wrapping further around the face to the ear away from the main light
will help "broaden" or "stretch out" a thin face. Less light to this side
will "thin" down a broad face. How much "broadening" or "thinning" you do is
up to you, what you are trying to accomplish, and your artistic eye. There
are no "rules/guidelines" beyond this that I know of.
If you think about it, there really shouldn't be a situation where these two
concepts contradict each other. In #1 all your doing is determining which side
of the face you will put your main light. In #2 you are determining how much
and how far around the face you want your fill to go.
What both of these concepts do is treat the subject as an individual which may
dictate a different lighting set up from previous subjects. As a good
photographer you want to accommodate your subject and his/her individuality to
produce a superior image, not lazily rely on preset written-in-stone rules
which lock you into cookie-cutter images (even though it's easier for the
photographer to leave his set up the same for every subject).
Please don't misunderstand, none of these comments are meant to be a judgement
of any photographer's ability or accomplishments, or a grading of his work.
Bruce :}
In article <19990126172243...@ngol06.aol.com>, lewi...@aol.comz
(Lewisvisn) wrote:
>
>Thanks for explaining the difference between open and closed faces. I've never
>actually heard this term and/or had it explained (very well) before now.
>
>However, I'm still not sure about one point. You mention "For "Thin" faces I
>want my fill to wrap around further to the 'open' side of the face, thus
>broadening it out. For "Broad" faces I want my fill to not go as far around
>the face on the 'open' side thus thinning it down."
>
>Is there any "rule/guideline" or a correlation between broad and short
>lighting, closed and open sides of the face, and thin and broad faces and and
>where you put the fill or would these be considered four separate issues that
>only slightly touch points w/ one another?
>
>Also, would these "rules/guidelines" be applicable in all circumstances? The
>reason I'm asking this is because what happens when you photograph a person w/
>a broad face w/ short lighting whose features converge towards a "closed face"
>on the side of the face away from the position of the main light? In other
>words, suppose I have to go contrary to what you've suggested about "Generally
>speaking, you want your main light to be on the "closed" side which helps to
>'straighten' out these converging lines and makes them appear to 'balance out.'
> This is obviously an illusion but it works. The "open" side of the face away
>from the main light is darker (depending on your fill light)" because, in my
>scenario, that person's "best side" of their face "demands" that I pose them w/
>the closed side of the face facing away from the main light? Would I need more
>fill or less fill in this instance? Did I hear someone say silhouette?....:-).
>Lens cap???...
>
>Perhaps there are so many factors and directions when considering in lighting
>people w/ converging and/or unusual features that I should hire a Pet detective
>like Ace Ventura to track down all the clues and permutations of people
>lighting. Or perhaps I could convince my subjects to let Jim Carrey substitute
>pose for them, whose (Carrey's) best side, we all know, is the side he usually
>talks out of - his backside? :-).
>
>In a message dated 1/26/99 2:00:07 PM, you wrote:
>
><<Surely, DON'T CALL ME "SURELY"!!!!
>
>Most everyone (probably 99% of us) does not have a perfectly
>symetrical face --all quadrants being evenly spaced and parrallel or
>perpendicular. Its most noticable with the parrallel lines the eyes
>and mouth line make. Usually someone has one eye lower than
>the other or a sloping/rising mouth line.
>
>Standing square to the subjact's face and following these two lines
>you can see that they would interesect (if carried out beyond the
>face) on one side of the face or the other. The side they interesect
>on is the "closed" side -the other is the "open" side. Generally
>speaking, you want your main light to be on the "closed" side
>which helps to 'straighten' out these converging lines and makes
>them appear to 'balance out.' This is obviously an illusion but it
>works. The "open" side of the face away from the main light is
>darker (depending on your fill light) and therefore appears to be
>further away and our brain tells us (laws of perspective) objects
>further away have lines that converge. Thus balancing out the
>mouth line and eye line. Obviously you don't want the fill light ratio
>to be too close to the main light to benefit from this effect.
>
>Basically I use this as a rule of thumb for deciding which side of
>my subject's face I want my main light illuminate. My next
>concern is the shape of their face (thin, oval, broad) and that
>determins how I'll set up my fill light (to try to compensate for facial
>form flaws). For "Thin" faces I want my fill to wrap around further to
>the 'open' side of the face, thus broadening it out. For "Broad"
>faces I want my fill to not go as far around the face on the 'open'
>side thus thinning it down. Oval faces are in the middle so I use
>the typical 'glamour' light setup, or a large 'window' light setup
>depending on the mood I want to create.
>
>Have fun shooting!
>
>Bruce
Jerry Hammond
lewi...@aol.comz says...
>
> Bruce:
>
> I'm sorry (not for my Jim Carrey jokes :-)) but your very lucid explanation
> shows me, "upon reflection," that "best side of the face" (w/c way the
> subject's face is turned to get their 'best'/most characteristic side) is an
> important point in portraiture, but it is a separate issue/point altogether. It
> is not really either relevant or contradictory concerning the two main
> points/principles you've made w/c are:
>
> 1. Put the main light on the same side of the face that the subject's features
> "close."
>
> and
>
> 2. The shape of the face determines the amount of fill.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong... In connection w/ your second point, I would suppose
> also that the position of the fill (how far to the side it is away from the
> main light) would also be a factor not only in how much light the shadow area
> of the face was filled w/, but also, perhaps more importantly, the gradualness
> of transition between the area on the subjects face illuminated by the main and
> the area of the subject's face that isn't illuminated by the main (shadow side
> of the subject's face). Keeping the fill closer (sideways, not depth wise) to
> where the main light is positioned would not only cause less fill light to
> reach the shadow side of the face but it would make for a more harsher
> transition between the lit and the shadow side of the subjects' face. But
> keeping the fill closer to the camera/further away from the main light would
> not only help more fill light to reach the shadow side of the face but it would
> soften/"gradualize"/stretch the area on the subjects face where the highlit
> portion (lit by the main light) fades into the shadow portion.
> In other words, a fill closer to the camera/further away from the main light
> would cause a stretched more gradual transition zone from highlit to shadow are
> on the subjects' face.
Lewis,
I don't remember Bruce's point, but the above paragraph is absolutely
correct as I know it from practice...though a bit wordier than I would
put it. ;)
>
> Does my last point/paragraph sound right/make sense to you? I hope I have
> reached a correct understanding on this additional/last point of mine. Correct
> me if I'm wrong. Help me get my bearings on this aspect of postion of the fill
> relative to the main light. In other words
> "fill me in" :-).
>
> Lewis (not pulling at your leg this time, or most of last time, but still
> making puns) Lang
>
>
> In article <36aec...@news.sac.bfp.net>, ibeb...@softcom.net wrote:
>
> >Subject: Last try, I'm feeling something pulling at my leg.
> >From: ibeb...@softcom.net (Bruce Brown)
> >Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:39:09 GMT
Lewisvisn
Bruce:
and
Does my last point/paragraph sound right/make sense to you? I hope I have
reached a correct understanding on this additional/last point of mine. Correct
me if I'm wrong. Help me get my bearings on this aspect of postion of the fill
relative to the main light. In other words
"fill me in" :-).
Lewis (not pulling at your leg this time, or most of last time, but still
making puns) Lang
In article <36aec...@news.sac.bfp.net>, ibeb...@softcom.net wrote:
>Subject: Last try, I'm feeling something pulling at my leg.
>From: ibeb...@softcom.net (Bruce Brown)
>Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:39:09 GMT
>
Lewisvisn
Thanks Jerry for confirming my hunch that I finally "got it."
This en"light"ening thread has opened my eyes and mind not only to fill light
but to lighting in general -particularly the subtleties. And as we know, its
the subtleties that make all the difference between good/OK and great in people
photography.
And Bruce, sorry if I strained your patience in making you explain to me the
finer points more clearly.
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread. It seems there are as many
valid ways of & reasons for doing (and looking at) (fill/etc.) lighting as
there are minds/photographers.
Lewis (filled in, but w/ opened eyes/mind) Lang
In article <MPG.11198abe4...@news.accessnv.com>, jer...@anv.net
wrote:
>In article <19990127231902...@ngol04.aol.com>,
>lewi...@aol.comz says...
>>
>Lewis,
>
>I don't remember Bruce's point, but the above paragraph is absolutely
>correct as I know it from practice...though a bit wordier than I would
>put it. ;)
"LEWISVISION" - "Fine art and stock photography (conceptual surrealistic people
zeitgeist
>
> Why not just bounce a (hard light) off of a large wall or adjustable angle
> foamcore board to get a single large spread highlight?
Exactly, this is what I do for weddings, bounce a light off the side
walls. You get a six foot, etc size light bouncing from an appropriate
side.
Why the layers of diffusion? Depth of Light.
The average photographer in the studio has a key light anywhere from 3
to six feet from the subject, I used to stretch my arms out and have the
strobe head in one hand and the place where the subjects nose should end
up in my other hand. Now, I used 36inch umbrellas for my kiddie pix,
(which I thought I was being so cool doing BTW) Even with my limited
ideas, I noticed some problems.
When you are setting up a family portrait, the subjects are typically
arrayed somewhat horizontally, so they are about four feet across the
frame of view, larger families and you can get six or so feet across
till you run out of your 9 foot background. Now your exposure is based
on the center of the frame, say six feet away. So your subject on the
left is closer, say five feet, and your right side is seven feet away.
(hey, most of us are 'lefty lighters.') There is an exposure
difference, not so much that the film can't handle it.
there is also a light style difference. You can figure out
mathimatically the relative difference in the size of the light, and its
diffuseness or rap-around-ablitily from the subject that's four feet
away and seven feet away.
There will be differences in the highlights, the density of the
specturals and the size of them.
the use of several layers of translucent material extends the depth of
the light.
some light goes directly through the white trans umbrella and through
the wall of fabric and to the subject, some bounces off the umbrella,
off the back wall of the lightroom, and then through the wall. some
makes it through the umbrella, but bounces off the wall, etc. I makes
the light seem to cover the folks nearer or farther to it the same, some
of the light can reach the folks closer to it in six feet, or takes some
beams twelve feet, who knows, I think some light particles are still
bouncing around.
I suppose the same thing
> can be done w/ a standard reflector head aimed through a large translucent flat
> or an umbrellaed bounce flash also aimed through a large translucent flat to
> get that long spread highlight.
This is what they did in the movies when they had to blast 2K spots and
make them soft.
Then the need for any fill at all would be
> obviated w/ these rather large/soft light alternatives... I guess I'm asking
> why a photographer would want or need to spread the highlight over the face w/
> two umbrellas behind a large translucent flat instead of one umbrella shot
> through a large translucent flat.
Paul said the two lights were key and fill, and they were sorta,
however, Im sure the effect would be the same with one head, I believe
that two flashes were used as he needed more light than the one head
could provide.
Soft light can be beautiful
> - but so can hard light - and hard light "demands" the use of some kind of fill
> (unless you are going for a high-contrast highlight and blocked up shadow
> look/effect) - so w/ hard light you are back to the problem of a second
> highlight on the face (even if that second highlight is from a large fill
> source light/reflector).
Effective hard light, like old hollywood stills, would use other lights
for effects, perhaps distraction from the extra highlights. Typically,
a kick or splash light would be set up directly opposite the key light,
so your key is 45' from the left, and 135' (and much lower, again almost
directly opposite) would be this sharp light splashing Bogart's cheek,
often catching the tip of the nose. Even if the shadow'd side was
dramatically dark, I'm sure a fill was there cause you could see some
detail.
In the old days, retouching was much more common, and effective, they
shot on 8x10 cameras (I have a book that talked about miniature formats
like the rolliflex.) and you could retouch with a regular pencil, they
would also etch the highlights down by literally scratching them off
with an exacto blade.
Is this a real or imagined Catch-22 w/ people
> lighting? Would the universe grind to a halt if someone has a second or a third
> or a thirty fifth set of extra highlights on the face - after all, if we are
> talking about studio lighting (and I am here), then why should I have to follow
> a convention that's more than a 150 years old (alot more than a 150 years old
> if you consider painting w/c is also making images of people)? Yes, imitating
> the look of a North light or the sun outside on a cloudy/hazy day w/ one and
> only one broad spread facial highlight is a noble pursuit, if that's what works
> for the style/mood/etc. of the people image you are trying to do. But why
> should we allow ourselves to be stuck w/ a key/fill mentality or a modified key
> fill spread the highlight mentality? Perhaps I am going beyond my own
> topic/question here of "W/C SIDE FILL," but shouldn't we as inquisitive
> photographers question both the conventions and the ways/conventions of getting
> around those conventions (in this case the get around being the 2 umbrellas and
> large translucent flat to spread the highlight)?
Well, sure, but I was talking about what the problems were with using
two umbrellas crossed like all the camera store demo's show. You get
two sets of highlights down the subjects nose that makes it look FAT and
wide. You get those shiny wet look foreheads and cheekbones that make
the subject look fat(ter.)
If you keep bugging me, I'll talk about a completely opposite lighting
set up that requires an entirely harsh light.
esq uire AT cnti net DOT net
zeitgeist
>
> When you refer to "open and closed" sides of the face in your quote below could
> you tell me in a little more detail what this means?
Everyone has two side of their face, and one is typically larger than
the other. You can enhance this effects by which way you light the
subject, left as usual or choose lighting from the right. Which side
you light is rather controversial, sorta like which light you meter, key
or fill. there are some that say place the smaller side closer to the
camera to appear the balance, others say to place the wider side towards
the camera to enhance perspective.
this is one of those areas that is worth looking into, but remember,
rules are only guides, however it is very helpful to know the rules,
either as a starting point or a fall back if for some reason something
just doesn't seem right.
Lewisvisn
Zeitgeist:
Some good comments in your last e-mails. Although I'll have to take exception
to your comment about my question about the "open and closed" sides of the
face.
You said, or actually I said then you said:
"> When you refer to "open and closed" sides of the face in your quote below
could
> you tell me in a little more detail what this means?
Everyone has two side of their face, and one is typically larger than
the other. You can enhance this effects by which way you light the
subject, left as usual or choose lighting from the right. Which side
you light is rather controversial, sorta like which light you meter, key
or fill. there are some that say place the smaller side closer to the
camera to appear the balance, others say to place the wider side towards
the camera to enhance perspective."
But Bruce said:
"1. EYE LINE / MOUTH LINE CONVERGENCE The main point about "open" and "closed"
sides of a subject's face is that once you determine which side is the
"closed" side you put your main light to that side."
From the quote above (and previous posts by Bruce) I don't believe Bruce was
talking about one side of the face being larger/smaller than the other (most
faces are slightly assymetrical w/ uneven features). He was talking about the
convergence of the eye and mouth lines toward a point in the distance and this
would be the subject's "closed" side of the face, where he suggested we put our
main light. Bruce was talking about the convergence of facial features off into
the distance at a common point and not one entire side of the face being larger
or smaller. Or perhaps I'm wrong and people do have entire sides of the face
smaller than the other side. The other possibility would be that what you and
Bruce are saying is the same thing, but it sure doesn't seem like it to me.
You're talking about larger and smaller sides of the face and he is talking eye
and mouth line convergences. I suppose this is something to ask Bruce about if
he wants to reply to this point...
Do you have a name beyond the equivalent English translation of "spirit of the
age"? When I call you "Zeitgeist" it feels like I am talking to HAL 9000's
younger cousin from Germany. Not an insult, just curious if you have a more
"accessable" human name and/or nick name you call yourself.
In article <36B02080...@cntinet.net>, zeitgeist wrote:
>If you keep bugging me, I'll talk about a completely opposite lighting
>set up that requires an entirely harsh light.
I didn't know I was bugging you, (at least I don't remember doing any Jim
Carrey jokes towards you like I punned to Bruce) but since you asked me to ask
(/"bug you")... why don't you "talk" a little about "an entirely harsh
light"... Harsh light as in
H(urrell) and (k)ARSH? More details about how they lit Bogey? Play it again
Zeitgeist :-).