Fill Light Question
MartyK
portrait photography. One question I have is in regards to the fill
light. What I have read is taht the fill light is usually positioned at
camera position opposite side of the main light. What I have not seen
is at what height the fill should be. Should it be above the model at
approx a 45 degree angle (if using umbrella or box) or shold it be same
height or below the model?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kirk
> Hello all. I have been studying how several of you set lights up for
> portrait photography. One question I have is in regards to the fill
> light. What I have read is taht the fill light is usually positioned at
> camera position opposite side of the main light. What I have not seen
> is at what height the fill should be. Should it be above the model at
> approx a 45 degree angle (if using umbrella or box) or shold it be same
> height or below the model?
>
You don't want the fill light to cast any shadows of its own.
Therefore, it should be close to the lens axis, just about the same
level.
--
Kirk
Experience is the best teacher...
But her pop quizzes can be mighty tough.
zeitgeist
MartyK wrote:
>
> Hello all. I have been studying how several of you set lights up for
> portrait photography. One question I have is in regards to the fill
> light. What I have read is taht the fill light is usually positioned at
> camera position opposite side of the main light. What I have not seen
> is at what height the fill should be. Should it be above the model at
> approx a 45 degree angle (if using umbrella or box) or shold it be same
> height or below the model?
>
First, it is my theory that the concept of fill lights is a kludge fix
to an old problem that does not need to exist. Photography was
invented well before electrical lights and the early photographers used
northlight studios, the same ones that portrait painters used, and
infact, most were portrait painters. However, film was very slow, as
were the lenses, and the photogs were limited to daylight hours, and in
urban areas to offices several floors off the street. Early arc
lights, a spark similar to a welders, were bright enough, but as point
light sources were much too contrasty. Certainly not the light that
fine arts were used to. I'd bet they tried making soft lights, but they
didn't have the synthetic fabrics like today, certainly not fire
resistant ones.
So these harsh lights, and the others that followed, all had intense and
blocked specular highlights, and a sharp quick penumbra edge, and
naturally the shadows were black. Well, there wasn't much to do about
the highlights in those days, but putting light into the shadows from
another source did the trick, and the salesmen got to sell another
unit.
The problem with using secondary light sources is that they add
secondary highlights. This is more problematic in color as these
additional highlights that come from a different direction also seem to
make the skin look greasy. There are a couple other parts to my
bizarre rants, depth of light, angle of incidense (where I compare the
directional spread of the small light sources to the visual distortions
of wide angle lenses.) These articles may be found in the archives of
the z-prophoto mailing list at egroups.com
However, you did ask a question up there. A fill light should be
either directly over the lens or next to the camera on the main light
side. If you place it on the opposite side you are in danger of causing
cross light.
You can get darkening in the eyes on the inside near the nose, and
worse, those dirty shadows, the seemingly inexplicible shadow spots,
usually on the side the nostrils, and in the smile lines and dimples.
The wider the lights are placed, the more prevalent this becomes.
Placing the fill light too high will leave all your subjects with a
black beard, even the ones too young to shave...
The idea is to hide the fact that a secondary light source is used, I
would prefer that it be placed on the same side as the key, with the
typical use of umbrellas and softboxes, the placement of the light next
to the camera will mean that it will still be sorta off on the side just
as a matter of practicallity. So if it is on the side of the key, its
highlights can blend better with the key, in effect it becomes a
secondary key that old time photographers used to extend their
highlights.
Placing the fill up high is an expedient that a lot of pro photogs use,
it gets it out of the way of the tripod and photographer's movements,
some have a large 'rounded' shooting room with multiple backgrounds on
each wall, an infinity cyc in one corner, a 3D set in another (depth,
projecting fence or wall etc) and the fill can rotate in the center of
the room. Yes they get the 'beard' shadow but that is the choice they
make.
One of the principles of facial analysis is that the careful placement
of your spectral highlights and it's creation of shadows, it works on
the visual voodoo that highlights 'advance' and shadows receed. A
photographer can giive the visual impression of making one side of the
face seem larger graphically to balance the subject's natural skew.
That is the heart of many of the methods of Hurrell and Karsh. When you
have spectral highlights on both sides of the face you get the
appearance of a shiny, greasy, and lumpy face. One of the most obvious
problems you see a lot is twin lines of highlights coming down the ridge
of the nose, making it seem much wider than normal. Anyone ever say
that photos make you look ten pounds heavier?
Paul Ferrara
However, with an umbrella, this is next to impossible. The best solution
that I came up with is to put it as high as possible and shoot under it.
You don't want to move it too far to the right or it won't "fill" the
shadows created by the main light. I asked this very question on zuga.net
(a great source for portrait photography, BTW) and it was pointed out that
that's exactly what Monte Zucker does; he puts it up high behind the camera.
Paul
MartyK <mjk...@wthg.com> wrote in message
news:90e7ct$e8k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hello all. I have been studying how several of you set lights up for
> portrait photography. One question I have is in regards to the fill
> light. What I have read is taht the fill light is usually positioned at
> camera position opposite side of the main light. What I have not seen
> is at what height the fill should be. Should it be above the model at
> approx a 45 degree angle (if using umbrella or box) or shold it be same
> height or below the model?
>
>
Jsn234
of your spectral highlights and it's creation of shadows, it works on
the visual voodoo that highlights 'advance' and shadows receed. A
photographer can giive the visual impression of making one side of the
face seem larger graphically to balance the subject's natural skew. >>
Could you give an example/explanation of this situation please?
<< That is the heart of many of the methods of Hurrell and Karsh. When you
have spectral highlights on both sides of the face you get the
appearance of a shiny, greasy, and lumpy face. One of the most obvious
problems you see a lot is twin lines of highlights coming down the ridge
of the nose, making it seem much wider than normal. Anyone ever say
that photos make you look ten pounds heavier? >>
Isn't Karsh famous for his double split lighting? I remeber he did a portrait
of Krupp (sp?) and others that had this dual key lights from oppositte sides,
yet it was *dramatic* and worked for Karsh's subjects, and I believe not all of
Karsh's subjects like Krupp were Ex-Nazis that he tried to make look like the
devil incarnate. When (in whish photos/of which particular subjects) did Karsh
use the technique ("one side of the
face seem larger graphically to balance the subject's natural skew.") you
mentioned in my first quote above of you
TIA
Jsn.
Viva!
If you wish to e-mail me just try and disconnect my brain. Have a thought and
go ahead, make my day! "Clifford, on your planet, what color is the sky?"
"Roads? Where we're going we don't need any roads" "1.21 gigawatts! Do they
make that in AA?"
zeitgeist
Jsn234 wrote:
>
> << One of the principles of facial analysis is that the careful placement
> of your spectral highlights and it's creation of shadows, it works on
> the visual voodoo that highlights 'advance' and shadows receed. A
> photographer can giive the visual impression of making one side of the
> face seem larger graphically to balance the subject's natural skew. >>
>
> Could you give an example/explanation of this situation please?
best explanation of facial analysis is the Zeltsman tutorials at Monte's
www.zuga.net site. He was the only and perhaps the first to simplify,
or at least make sense of it for practical use.
But essentially every face was a larger and smaller side, some folks
have one eye higher, their nose can 'dress' left or right, faces come in
various shapes, round, square, triangle, oval. Use of spectral lighting
can give a sense of balance, you can enhance certain features, you can
exaggerate. This is the principle behind many of the 'rules' of
portraiture.
It works much better in black and white because such specularity that
creates the density values work don't seem to work well in a chroma
scale.
>
>
> Isn't Karsh famous for his double split lighting? I remeber he did a portrait
> of Krupp (sp?) and others that had this dual key lights from oppositte sides,
> yet it was *dramatic* and worked for Karsh's subjects, and I believe not all of
> Karsh's subjects like Krupp were Ex-Nazis that he tried to make look like the
> devil incarnate. When (in whish photos/of which particular subjects) did Karsh
> use the technique ("one side of the
> face seem larger graphically to balance the subject's natural skew.") you
> mentioned in my first quote above of you
>
I've seen a lot of his work but haven't studied it, but Karsh used
people's faces as putty for his light sculptures, his priority was
creating interesting images for magazines, not pleasing the subjects.
Sometimes I felt that what he did to faces was similar to polictical
chartoonists, deliberate exaggerations of some recognizable
characteristics. Not that that's a critisism,
Rolfe Tessem
> Isn't Karsh famous for his double split lighting? I remeber he did a portrait
> of Krupp (sp?) and others that had this dual key lights from oppositte sides,
> yet it was *dramatic* and worked for Karsh's subjects, and I believe not all of
> Karsh's subjects like Krupp were Ex-Nazis that he tried to make look like the
> devil incarnate.
I believe that is Arnold Newman's famous portrait of Krupp that you are
thinking of.
--
Rolfe Tessem | Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
ro...@ldp.com | 96 Morton Street
(212) 463-0029 | New York, NY 10014
Jsn234
From: Rolfe Tessem ro...@ldp.com
Date: Fri, Dec 8, 2000 4:33 PM
Message-id: <3A316FD5...@ldp.com>
Jsn234 wrote:
> Isn't Karsh famous for his double split lighting? I remeber he did a portrait
> of Krupp (sp?) and others that had this dual key lights from oppositte sides,
> yet it was *dramatic* and worked for Karsh's subjects, and I believe not all
of
> Karsh's subjects like Krupp were Ex-Nazis that he tried to make look like the
> devil incarnate.
I believe that is Arnold Newman's famous portrait of Krupp that you are
thinking of.
--
Rolfe Tessem >>
Rolfe:
Thanks. You're right Rolfe, that was an Arnold Newman photo of Krupp, however I
do believe that Karsh used a lot ofe edge or dual side lighitng, if I'm not
mistaken, its been awhile since I looked at one of Karsh's photo books....
Rolfe Tessem
>
> << Subject: Re: Fill Light Question (Contradiction?/Explanations?/Examples?)
> From: Rolfe Tessem ro...@ldp.com
> Date: Fri, Dec 8, 2000 4:33 PM
> Message-id: <3A316FD5...@ldp.com>
>
> Jsn234 wrote:
>
> > Isn't Karsh famous for his double split lighting? I remeber he did a portrait
> > of Krupp (sp?) and others that had this dual key lights from oppositte sides,
> > yet it was *dramatic* and worked for Karsh's subjects, and I believe not all
> of
> > Karsh's subjects like Krupp were Ex-Nazis that he tried to make look like the
> > devil incarnate.
>
> I believe that is Arnold Newman's famous portrait of Krupp that you are
> thinking of.
> Rolfe:
>
> Thanks. You're right Rolfe, that was an Arnold Newman photo of Krupp, however I
> do believe that Karsh used a lot ofe edge or dual side lighitng, if I'm not
> mistaken, its been awhile since I looked at one of Karsh's photo books....
Karsh's lighting is basically classic studio lighting. Karsh worked
either in his studio, or in a makeshift studio on location.
Arnold Newman basically defined environmental portraiture, where the
environment played a key role not only in the composition but in the
lighting. In the Krupp portrait, you will note that the lighting
(unflattering though it is) is not unmotivated by the natural sources in
the frame. To the contrary, it looks as though the head is lighted by
the industrial sources in the factory. Obviously, this is not really
the case, but the fact the the lighting appears to be motivated by the
environment is key to this picture.