Speaking of shadows.
Larry Miracle
Anyone have an opinion about fill lights?
I've read a lot of books on photographing people and come to the
conclusion that every photographer has his own opinion about lighting.
I see a lot of photos by very successful photographers that break a
lot of rules, but produce photos of people that sell very well.
Sometime the way the people are posed and the expressions on their
faces make up for anything else.
I've struggled with where to put the fill light for portraits.
A fill light can be placed opposite the main.
But if it is it should probably be softened more than the main so that
any shadows it casts have very soft undefined edges.
For those of us that saved up to buy a 3'x4' softbox for the main
light, having to buy another bigger one for the fill seems ridiculous.
I have had some luck using a 6'x6' panel I made out of non rip nylon
but it is big and takes up a lot of room.
My wife had a picture taken at her church recently and they had two
soft boxes.
One high on the right side and one low on the left.
The lights were placed further back from the subject than I would have
done it, but the photos seemed to turn out good enough.
There were two small specs of light in the eyes.
Nothing exciting.
Lately I am thinking that the proper place for fill is above or near
the camera and as close to the lens as possible.
It won't have to be that soft, as a light from this position should
not cast shadows.
It should be able to fill the subject very evenly as well.
One might even have a fill flash mounted right on the camera.
This is something I've struggled with for some time and I'd like to
start a discussion about the different ways to do it and the ins and
outs of different ways.
Larry
McLeod
lens. I find it easier to control the fill light than a reflector; going
against most modern portrait shooters. I control the light falling on the
background by moving the subject closer or farther from the background, and
moving the fill closer and farther from the subject. I like the control I
have over these variables vice a reflector. Using these techniques I can
make the background any density I like. For my mainlight I prefer I very
large umbrella, at least 48" but 60" is even better. The bigger the light
source the better for the fill.
"Larry Miracle" <larrym...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dibdvuctg08k3p9mg...@4ax.com...
JustaPawn
Probably every photographer does have an opinion on fill, the proof is in the
image, true?
Honestly, softboxes aren't that expensive, I probably have 8.
I know it's old scxhool, but I still use Polaroids, you can really dial in a
look.
Cliff Hawker
the check.
"Larry Miracle" <larrym...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dibdvuctg08k3p9mg...@4ax.com...
>
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Michael Quack
Larry Miracle says...
> I've struggled with where to put the fill light for portraits.
Depends on what you want your image to look like.
Some portraits don't need fill at all, some don't even
need any artificial light, ambient can be fully okay.
So, make clear to yourself first what you want to achieve,
and then start placing lamps. Start with the key, add
background separation/hair light if necessary, and then,
as last light, add fill. If needed at all. This can be
a reflection panel, this can be another light, bounced
into a panel or through a scrim, maybe even direct light.
It can also be a ringlight right on camera, as Helmut
Newton often uses.
It all boils down to "have a vision first".
And then make it reality. Not two faces are the same,
not two people need exactly the same light, let
alone putting them in scene.
--
Michael Quack <mic...@photoquack.de>
Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick any two of the three.
Anil Konkimalla
>> But if it is it should probably be softened more than the main so
that
>> any shadows it casts have very soft undefined edges.
I know you are mainly focussing on shadows but Aren't you interested
in the highlights? If you look at some portraits, you'll notice
multiple highlights caused by key and fill. Personally, I feel it is
very distracting.
>> One might even have a fill flash mounted right on the camera.
So you will be using a soft key light but a harsh fill light. This
will cause a secondary harsh highlight. Is that effect ok for you?
>> I have had some luck using a 6'x6' panel I made out of non rip
nylon
Use this as Key light and put something similar to white foam core
reflector as fill. See if you'll like the effect.
Anil
Richard Poole
>I've read a lot of books on photographing people and come to the
>conclusion that every photographer has his own opinion about lighting.
Youąve answered your own question :-)
>I see a lot of photos by very successful photographers that break a
>lot of rules, but produce photos of people that sell very well.
>Sometime the way the people are posed and the expressions on their
>faces make up for anything else.
Itąs called ESP. Not Śextra sensory perceptioną but Expression Sells
Photographs.
>I've struggled with where to put the fill light for portraits.
A fill light can be placed opposite the main.
But if it is it should probably be softened more than the main so that
any shadows it casts have very soft undefined edges.
For those of us that saved up to buy a 3'x4' Softbox for the main
light, having to buy another bigger one for the fill seems ridiculous.
I have had some luck using a 6'x6' panel I made out of non rip nylon
but it is big and takes up a lot of room.
My wife had a picture taken at her church recently and they had two
soft boxes.
One high on the right side and one low on the left.
The lights were placed further back from the subject than I would have
done it, but the photos seemed to turn out good enough.
There were two small specs of light in the eyes.
Nothing exciting.
Lately I am thinking that the proper place for fill is above or near
the camera and as close to the lens as possible.
It won't have to be that soft, as a light from this position should
not cast shadows.
It should be able to fill the subject very evenly as well.
One might even have a fill flash mounted right on the camera.
This is something I've struggled with for some time and I'd like to
start a discussion about the different ways to do it and the ins and
outs of different ways.
Larry,
Your on the right track.
If you look at the placement of the fill light over the years it started
opposite the main light and in the days of tungsten lighting the instruction
books warned photographers about creating two nose shadows. This way of
lighting carried into the electronic flash era and is even used by some
today.
Then the next step was top place the fill light beside the camera position
as you said but on the same side as the Mainlight.
A lot of thinking now is to take the direction the subjects nose is pointing
and place the fill light on this imaginary line directed back towards the
model.
While the positioning of the fill light is important so is the type of light
used.
The ideal Mainlight is a Softbox reproducing a bright overcast day. The
Mainlight is a directional light that creates shape, texture, modelling
and mood in the subject.
While the fill light fills in the detail in the shadows created by the
Mainlight. The fill light is a non directional light and is usually via a
soft umbrella or shoot through type. Place the fill light just behind the
camera position or the light will flare into the camera lens.Place the light
at the camera height and on the same side as the main light.
Not mentioned is the ratio of light between the main and fill lights which
is just as important. The easiest way to achieve this is to use f stops as
ratio measurement.
For small children 1/2 stop. Youths 1 stop. For general use 1 to 1 1/2
stops (considered ideal for colour film) For dramatic portraits and older
subject 2 to 21/2 stops.
And a final word about getting the work printed. have the lab. print for
good detail in the highlights of the portrait and everything else should
fall into place if you have done your job right.
regards,
Richard.
-- Richard Poole
photographer
view the publication 'The Lighting Workshop' at;
http://www.lmphotonics.com/photoretreat/
zeitgeist
huh, I wrote a whole rant that didn't show up in the group, humm, maybe even
the usenet is getting tired of my shtick.
>
> Anyone have an opinion about fill lights?
yes, they are evil
they are a kluge fix for problems that need not exist since the invention of
fire retartent fabrics and flash tubes.
additional light usually means additional highlights which usually means
lumpy greasy faces. Few manufacturers would put up with that sort of
treatment to their products.
> I see a lot of photos by very successful photographers that break a
> lot of rules, but produce photos of people that sell very well.
>
Most sucessful photographers are what I call donut makers, quick and simple
sweet and greasy, and cheap. good has little to do with it, PSA or whatever
big company that does lots of kiddie pix in stores and malls, cross light
like mug shots and passports photos, that's not good, its expedient. They
made a buck a client and do 20 - 30 million of them a year.
But rules are not laws, just like grammer be da rules of ritin, u need no
rules if whatcha say carries da day, u no. rules are the grammer of
imagery. there are many poets, especially songwriters, who deliberately
break rules, heck, how many rappers even know some?
Lets not think of them as rules, they are percentages, the odds are, if pose
this way and light that way for a particular shape of face, you are more
likely to flatter the subject. Some rules are rather strong, 99%, others
are only 50-50.
These concepts change over time just like fashions change, when they
invented photography most portraits were broadlit, since most people
prefered to look heathier, (fatter.) today we tend to work our butts off
trying to slenderize the subjects because the subject are fat or just think
they are.
Advertisers deliberately break rules cause that often makes a viewer stop to
look at the image, quite often there is something compelling about bad
composition, the eye seems to need to balance an oddly off center
composition by looking at the empty space, oh look that's where they placed
the product or the logo, gotcha.
> Sometime the way the people are posed and the expressions on their
> faces make up for anything else.
yes, the three most important things in a portrait is expression expression
and expression
>
> I've struggled with where to put the fill light for portraits.
>
> A fill light can be placed opposite the main.
the easiest and seemingly logical place to put it.
> But if it is it should probably be softened more than the main so that
> any shadows it casts have very soft undefined edges.
> For those of us that saved up to buy a 3'x4' softbox for the main
> light, having to buy another bigger one for the fill seems ridiculous.
> I have had some luck using a 6'x6' panel I made out of non rip nylon
> but it is big and takes up a lot of room.
bounce it off a back wall for fill, off a side wall for a main.
>
> My wife had a picture taken at her church recently and they had two
> soft boxes.
> One high on the right side and one low on the left.
> The lights were placed further back from the subject than I would have
> done it, but the photos seemed to turn out good enough.
> There were two small specs of light in the eyes.
> Nothing exciting.
Universally, I've noticed that the worst portraits ever taken anywhere on a
frequent and persistent basis were always church directory photos, they
will place the lights here or there, anywhere, but nearly always
crosslighted, toss in the kids on the parent laps and blast away before the
little *#$^@# start screaming.
HEHEHE, remember last week when that guy posted some family photos and asked
about shadows on the walls? I've seen church directory SAMPLES that looked
about like that. SEriously...
>
> Lately I am thinking that the proper place for fill is above or near
> the camera and as close to the lens as possible.
> It won't have to be that soft, as a light from this position should
> not cast shadows.
> It should be able to fill the subject very evenly as well.
yes but specular light makes specular highlights,
>
> One might even have a fill flash mounted right on the camera.
would work but you would have bright reflections from the 'flats' of the
face, the cheekbones by the nose and the space between the eyebrows and
forehead.
>
> This is something I've struggled with for some time and I'd like to
> start a discussion about the different ways to do it and the ins and
> outs of different ways.
>
There's been lots of discussion here, just do a google groups search, and
most of my rants and raves are archived at the z-prophoto mailing list at
yahoogroups.com In the second and third month of the group's existence I
did a series of articles on why studio lighting sucks and what to do about
it.
Jan Werbiński
news:mzUK9.235324>
> sweet and greasy, and cheap. good has little to do with it, PSA or
whatever
> big company that does lots of kiddie pix in stores and malls, cross light
> like mug shots and passports photos, that's not good, its expedient.
They
> made a buck a client and do 20 - 30 million of them a year.
Simple question.
What is the best way to avoid this greasy cross lighting for a group picture
of 30 people? How to accomplish: no flat faces, no big shining surfaces, no
shadows on people in second row, soft lighting, almost the same amount of
light on every one of the group?
What would you like to use?
I'm trying and experimenting but I'm not pleased with results (I rarely am).
--
Jan Werbiński O0oo....._[:]) bul, bul, bul
Strona domowa http://pa54.zgora.sdi.tpnet.pl/jw/
Nasza sieć http://pa54.zgora.sdi.tpnet.pl/
Greg
> What is the best way to avoid this greasy cross lighting for a group
picture
> of 30 people? How to accomplish: no flat faces, no big shining surfaces,
no
> shadows on people in second row, soft lighting, almost the same amount of
> light on every one of the group?
Easy. As already mentioned fill the room with light. Bounce it off the
walls and ceiling this will have a tendency to reduce shadows. But you
need tons of joules. = $ Notice how modern office blocks have few shadows
and there is an over all softness.
Try to have a friendly , patient assistant drive an office chair in front of
your lights while you sit back and just observe. Swivelling to and fro
pushing back and forth and learn to notice the lighting effects this
generates. Start with one light. After a time you will start to notice a
pattern and will soon find a simple formula that universally suits for
initial set up. DON'T PRACTICE ON CLIENTS that will guarantee failure.
--
Greg- gre...@ozemail.com.au
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the
courage to continue that counts." -- Winston Churchill
zeitgeist
> > sweet and greasy, and cheap. good has little to do with it, PSA or
> whatever
> > big company that does lots of kiddie pix in stores and malls, cross
light
> > like mug shots and passports photos, that's not good, its expedient.
> They
> > made a buck a client and do 20 - 30 million of them a year.
>
>
> Simple question.
> What is the best way to avoid this greasy cross lighting for a group
picture
> of 30 people? How to accomplish: no flat faces, no big shining surfaces,
no
> shadows on people in second row, soft lighting, almost the same amount of
> light on every one of the group?
>
> What would you like to use?
> I'm trying and experimenting but I'm not pleased with results (I rarely
am).
> --
You don't.
Large groups are rarely portraits. Expedience has to figure in somewhere.
As another pointed out you could blast a lot of light into a sidewall, say
if you are in an auditorium you could hang some large curtains to shoot
through with a bank of several large commercial power packs. Why, would it
make that much difference? Humm, I'll have to look closer at some Supreme
Court groups.
It would get easier outdoors. I've seen some wonderful large groups taken
at twilight, Either on the beach at sundown, in some open glade with the
late afternoon sun blocked by a hill side or a windbreak of trees. There
you have a LARGE soft light that is consistent for a large area. Look at
how most car photographs are done. (well these days they are done
individually and composited in photoshop) but many times they are done out
on the desert salt flats, some dry lake bed etc, at twilight with the sun
hidden behind the distant hills.
Sorry but the VP says that the logistics of taking the entire office out to
some lake bed several hours drive, it ain't gonna happen. try syncro sun,
if you have a left shutter camera or one that syncs at a higher speed than
my /60th sec. sun is your key and a good strong flash is your fill.
but just working with standard eq, a power pack or a couple monos, just flat
light them, high and on either side of the camera, shadows fall down on the
folks behind but not the faces or shoulders of the person standing next, its
good enough.
I'm all for good, if the office has the need and budget to turn a large area
into an evenly lighted subject space, that is hard. In some of my previous
writings about large diffuse wall of light I mentioned that one advantage of
a multilayered curtain 10 = 15 feet wide was the apparent depth to the
light, where the subject on the left was washed in a light with the same
characteristics that will fall on the subject on the right, and area of six
feet or so. how wide an area will this group of yours take?
this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com
McLeod
high and to one side of the camera. The ceiling in the room has to be high
enough so the shadow will fall at enough of an angle to not be visible on
the background. On location I usually use a film that is not affected by
the color temperature of the ambient lighting, like some of the Fuji films
and Portra 400nc, and I use the ambient as my fill by dragging the shutter.
If I don't have the ceiling height or lightstand then I have to use the old
standby of putting the flash directly over the lens and dragging the shutter
to bring up the ambient light.
"Jan Werbiński" <jan...@pa54.zgora.sdi.tpnet.pl> wrote in message
news:atha3u$cr1$1...@news.tpi.pl...