bad lighting vs good lighting

[angelo_lightning]

so i set up my lights in my room so i could play around with them. Figure out how to use them. Of course, the only subject I have is myself, in my sweatpants n t shirt at two o clock in the morning. So I had to do the whole thing where I set the timer and ran to the stool and tried to get in a pose, etc.

Anyways, I was trying to nail rembrandt. I thought I'd start with the basics.

This was a typical shot I got. (See the first, straight-on pic.)

I looked at those pics. I cried. I moaned. I swore to start working out daily. I wondered where my youth and looks had gone...

I went into the living room and looked in the mirror and was like... wtf... i dont look thaaaat bad!

I studied the lighting in my living room mirror and then went back into my studio and recreated it.

(See the Smiling pic.)

Now obviously the pose/angle was better n I was smiling, the exposure was different, and the focal length was different. (got rid of that distortion) But it was pretty much the lighting. I took a bunch of mean looking pics with that light too n I still looked pretty decent. Not vomit inducing like that first pic.

Anyways, I thought it was pretty interesting how I had to kind of abandon all the lighting techniques I had read about to get the best picture of myself. I'm not even sure what to call the kind of lighting I used, but I do know that the most important light was the low 'fill' light. Every time I tried to put lighting above my head it added forty pounds to my face. Maybe this is the best lighting for fat people?

So at this point, while I've been reading up on lighting theory... I'm already kind of feeling like... I guess I have to just do what works.

 

[iolair]

There's nothing wrong with rembrandt lighting ... however, you need to pick the best lighting for each situation.

A big problem with the first picture is not the direction of the light, but the difference between light and shadow. There's ... what? ... a 3+ stop difference between the sides of your face. Probably more than that. You have blown highlights on one side, and shadows fading into black on the other.

In general:
- More difference between key light areas and shade areas give a more dramatic look
- Less difference between key light and shade areas gives a more flattering look

Also
- asymmetrical lighting tends to make the face look thinner (the narrower the part of the face that's lit, the thinner it'll look).
- symmetrical lighting tends to make the face look wider

Try repeating the rembrandt lighting but with a fill, to take it only one or two stops below the key light. (Two will probably work best, but experiment).

Finally, as I'm sure you picked up ... poses with the head and shoulders facing in the same direction tend to look rather, well, dead.

 

[Braineack]

The lighting in the first is better.
The pose in the second is MUCHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH better.

 

[tirediron]

I see a few issues; first and foremost is that you're not using any modifiers on your lights. You can definitely create some great lighting shooting bare tube, BUT... it's not really a good place to start. Rather like learning to drive on a 20-speed semi as opposed to Mom's automatic mini-van. Modifiers reduce contrast and create "wrap", as well producing an [effectively] larger light source. I think you will find with some practice that lighting from above will look just fine; after all, that's how we're used to seeing the world lit (overhead lights, the sun, etc).

As for posing, you've gone from one extreme (square to the camera or "football shoulders") almost to another; start by turning the body 15-20 degrees from the camera, and fine tune from there. As well, read up on short and broad lighting. You're off to a good start, but lighting is NOT a simple thing.

 

[Derrel]

A quick, slight three degree rotation, a crop, and a couple minutes freehanding the blur and then the smudge tools (not even making a new layer, working directly on the original) and the look of the background fabric is transformed to sort of the look of a dark, deep blue, painted canvas background. I selected your body and head and face with the magnetic lasso, and applied the Sharpen filter command, went to the Edit menu and pulled down to >Fade Sharpen, and reduced the sharpening to 40%, then repeated that step one more time, then applied Unsharp Masking at 350%, radius .2 pixels.

Eliminating the repeating lines in the background really helps to force the eye to the main subject.

 

[soufiej]

so i set up my lights in my room so i could play around with them. Figure out how to use them. Of course, the only subject I have is myself, in my sweatpants n t shirt at two o clock in the morning. So I had to do the whole thing where I set the timer and ran to the stool and tried to get in a pose, etc.

Anyways, I was trying to nail rembrandt. I thought I'd start with the basics.

This was a typical shot I got. (See the first, straight-on pic.)

I looked at those pics. I cried. I moaned. I swore to start working out daily. I wondered where my youth and looks had gone...

I went into the living room and looked in the mirror and was like... wtf... i dont look thaaaat bad!

I studied the lighting in my living room mirror and then went back into my studio and recreated it.

(See the Smiling pic.)

Now obviously the pose/angle was better n I was smiling, the exposure was different, and the focal length was different. (got rid of that distortion) But it was pretty much the lighting. I took a bunch of mean looking pics with that light too n I still looked pretty decent. Not vomit inducing like that first pic.

Anyways, I thought it was pretty interesting how I had to kind of abandon all the lighting techniques I had read about to get the best picture of myself. I'm not even sure what to call the kind of lighting I used, but I do know that the most important light was the low 'fill' light. Every time I tried to put lighting above my head it added forty pounds to my face. Maybe this is the best lighting for fat people?

So at this point, while I've been reading up on lighting theory... I'm already kind of feeling like... I guess I have to just do what works.






View attachment 104995 View attachment 104996

2 AM?!

Not sure whether that's dedication or fanaticism. Or, maybe, you're otherwise gainfully unemployed and just rolling in from a night out.

I guess I'm not even sure what your post is about. I see you posted at 3:24 AM which means you had still not come to your senses about this.

Abandoning classic portrait lighting is not the answer IMO.

Basically, while it's best to know when to break or bend rules, rules exist because they have proven they work.

What you've entirely pitched out are all the other values which go into the rules.

No lighting designer would just set up lights without the ability to judge beforehand what a subject will add to the final result. How did you judge where your lights should be aimed? Just moving a lighting instrument and then jumping into the frame before the shutter releases is a pretty certain path toward failure.

Buy a photographic modeling dummy head.

At least.

Using this, you can set up lights while observing how very small changes, in your instruments and in the position of the subject, can dramatically alter the look of the photo. Even a small, seemingly insignificant tilt to the head will alter the lighting effect. Professional models get paid good money to know how to hold still - some times for long periods of time. Any attempt to always hit the same spot and same pose by running into the frame will result in a mish mosh of uncontrolled results. So your "test" actually shows nothing about how the rules actually affect the results. I get it this was done at 2 AM but ...

Beyond that, I can't say whether what you've read is being put into practice or not.

Off hand, I'd say this is sort of like judging someone's first angel food cake when they tell you up front they didn't have a recipe to follow or any measuring cups or a spatula and their oven doesn't heat evenly. You can't judge an unknown and make realistic evaluations of the results. I can say, most rules do work when they are followed with the thought all situations are fluid and will require some on the spot adjustment to benefit the model and the desired results.

Set up some controls.

Read that sentence again.

See before hand what results you can expect.

Don't just run to the stool and think you are going to be in the perfect position for the lighting.

Any model or actor will tell you a bit of the skills they learn are how to find the light. They know when the light is most flattering on their face and body and they will move when needed to make the best image. Then they will freeze there to ensure the light stays where they are. You can't do that unless you already have that skill down and you can't get that result no matter how good you are by simply running to the stool before the timer releases the shutter. Watch a few videos on a photo shoot to see how much time is spent in prep and how much of that is simply moving the instrument and the model and then assuring they both stay absolutely still.

Chalk this one up to not thinking things through at 2 AM. But, hey, what else could you have been doing at that time of the morning?

Butterfly

 

[Derrel]

You really nailed the "triangle of light on the far cheek" Rembrandt lighting cue on shot #1, but the light closest to your head camera left is causing a bit of a hot spot on your forehead.

My feeling is that learning lighting by doing self portraits is pretty challenging, since it's a sort of shoot/review/adjust/repeat process, and you lose the ability to dim the room lights, and to then MOVE and adjust the placement/aim on the main light, will simultaneously observing its effects and gaining real-time, continuous feedback; the real-time, continuous feedback is the real secret advantage of studio flash units over speedlights.

Keep at it though! You have the lights now! So, keep plugging away at it man!

 

[Buckster]

This can be very helpful if you don't have a willing (and tireless) model to readily work with: A cheap cosmetology head will pose for you all night and day without moving, while you work on your lighting and photography. There are some good ones on Amazon: Amazon.com cosmetology mannequin head Beauty

 

[angelo_lightning]

thanx for the feedback guys. Interesting stuff about 'finding the light' 'hot spots' n the modeling dummy. I guess I will have to get one. Good crop n shop Derrel. Just wanted to let you guys know, these portraits were not supposed to be actual portraits or anything. Like, I wouldn't use that old bedspread as an actual backdrop. I certainly wouldn't use my bedroom as a studio, etc. I just wanted to... do something. Been waiting forever for some friends of mine to do some practice shots, but no one is coming through for me. I feel like I'm not learning anything just reading about it and shooting candid shots. I've read a bunch of stuff, watched a bunch of videos, been on some photoshoots with some photographers. But I have to actually do stuff to learn how to do it. So I couldn't sleep. Bought all this stuff a few days ago. So I set it all up and played with it for a bit. Its how I learn. Read theory, try stuff, fail, talk about it with other people, repeat. The things I learned from doing this n talking were... 1. How to hook up remote triggers n get the off camera flash to work. 2. How to use the delay timer on my camera 3. need to lay off the pizza 4. need to get modeling dummy. 5. need to know what to tell my models about 'finding the light'

I have a couple questions though. I might be able to google the answers but maybe someone can save me time n just answer? maybe? send me a link to the answer?

1. How do I control the flash brightness? My flashes were BLINDING. I turned the power knob all the way down but that didnt seem to do anything. Just seemed to effect the modeling light.

2. My off camera flashes didnt go off every time I took a picture. Not sure if the problem was the remote trigger or the strobes needed to charge up or what.

3. Honestly... I have no clue how to meter the flash. I know I could google it... but seriously, maybe someone could just tell me? Or give me a link?

4. I tried using a light with a snoot as my 'rim light'. Instead of setting it to strobe, I just had it always on as a model light. But it got insanely hot, even at its lowest setting. Turned it off because I thought it would melt. I only have two remote triggers, so I figured I could just put my rim light and background light to 'modeling' but I dont want to burn down my house. What am I missing here?

 

[tirediron]

Depending on the make of light you have the modelling light may dim proportionally with the strobe (in other words, if you turn the strobe down, the modelling light dims as well), or it may not. If there's only one dimmer rheostat on your light, then it should do both; the modelling light is often indicated by a head-shaped icon, but regardless, when you're looking at the light, you will not normally notice any difference, but you should hear a distinct difference in the loudness and duration of the 'pop' as you dial down the power.

It may have been recycle time; depending on the quality of the lights and the amount of power you were using, it can take anywhere from 1-2 seconds to 7-8 seconds for the capacitors to recharge. It may have been your triggers as well; some of the cheaper, MIC units are very unreliable, even with brand-new batteries (you did check those, right?).

You need a flash meter; that is a meter specifically designed to measure strobed light. You can pick them up on eBay for anywhere from $50 - $500. They're nice, and useful, but not essential.

Nothing, other than the fact that compared to the strobe, your modelling light puts out VERY little power, and will get very hot over time (especially the quartz bulb variety). If you're not using them, leave them turned off.

 

[angelo_lightning]

Depending on the make of light you have the modelling light may dim proportionally with the strobe (in other words, if you turn the strobe down, the modelling light dims as well), or it may not. If there's only one dimmer rheostat on your light, then it should do both; the modelling light is often indicated by a head-shaped icon, but regardless, when you're looking at the light, you will not normally notice any difference, but you should hear a distinct difference in the loudness and duration of the 'pop' as you dial down the power.

It may have been recycle time; depending on the quality of the lights and the amount of power you were using, it can take anywhere from 1-2 seconds to 7-8 seconds for the capacitors to recharge. It may have been your triggers as well; some of the cheaper, MIC units are very unreliable, even with brand-new batteries (you did check those, right?).

You need a flash meter; that is a meter specifically designed to measure strobed light. You can pick them up on eBay for anywhere from $50 - $500. They're nice, and useful, but not essential.

Nothing, other than the fact that compared to the strobe, your modelling light puts out VERY little power, and will get very hot over time (especially the quartz bulb variety). If you're not using them, leave them turned off.

Awesome! Thanx man. Owe you one.

 

[Derrel]

At normal studio flash ISO levels, such as ISO 100 to ISO 200, when shooting at smallish lens apertures, such as f/8 to f/13 (in that general range), the brightness of the modeling lights will register ONLY with slooooow shutter speeds, such as 1/20 to 1/8 second, and the flash will typically be warmer and more yellow than the light that the flash creates.

 

[soufiej]

"angelo_lightning, post: 3504790, member: 207992"]

"Like, I wouldn't use that old bedspread as an actual backdrop."

Not to disagree but, that bedspread at 2 AM give the shots a certain bourgeoisie appeal. Sort of like an early 2oth c/ "artiste" in Paris sipping Absinthe and then going home to defile the expected norm.

Kinda Marxist - in a good sense.

Kinda surrealist. In a cheap way.

Kinda Dada-ist. In a "it's what I got" way.

Maybe you should do a play with the bedspread as a character.

"I certainly wouldn't use my bedroom as a studio, etc."

People have become famous from what occurs in their bedroom.

Just sayin' ...

"I just wanted to... do something. Been waiting forever for some friends of mine to do some practice shots, but no one is coming through for me."

I'm a professional pet sitter. Take it from me, you can't trust friends to come through for you. You'll always end up clean up poop. Lots of it.

"I feel like I'm not learning anything just reading about it and shooting candid shots. I've read a bunch of stuff, watched a bunch of videos, been on some photoshoots with some photographers. But I have to actually do stuff to learn how to do it."

No doubt! I've yet to meet a professional photographer who wants to share information with potential competition. Stop working cheap!

Stop watching videos at 2 AM.

"So I couldn't sleep. Bought all this stuff a few days ago. So I set it all up and played with it for a bit. Its how I learn."

Actually, it's not. What did you learn? Not to do that again?

Bad plan.

"Read theory, try stuff, fail, talk about it with other people, repeat. The things I learned from doing this n talking were... 1. How to hook up remote triggers n get the off camera flash to work. 2. How to use the delay timer on my camera 3. need to lay off the pizza 4. need to get modeling dummy. 5. need to know what to tell my models about 'finding the light'."

3: Bingo! Certainly after midnight. You answer the door thinking it's the pepperoni with double cheese and you get Charles Manson expecting a tip.

5: You don't tell them. They either know or they don't. If they don't and they try, now you have two more variables you can't control.

Another bad plan.

"I have a couple questions though. I might be able to google the answers but maybe someone can save me time n just answer? maybe? send me a link to the answer?

1. How do I control the flash brightness? My flashes were BLINDING. I turned the power knob all the way down but that didnt seem to do anything. Just seemed to effect the modeling light."

Try moving the lights more than a foot from your model's head. Google "value of light".

Ignore the first three results.

"2. My off camera flashes didnt go off every time I took a picture. Not sure if the problem was the remote trigger or the strobes needed to charge up or what."

No idea. It was, after all, 2 AM ... in your bedroom.

Just sayin' ...

"3. Honestly... I have no clue how to meter the flash. I know I could google it... but seriously, maybe someone could just tell me? Or give me a link?"

You don't meter flash. Either the flash meters flash (sorta) or you use lights which are constantly on. It's a whole lot easier setting up instruments that stay on. Checking your set up during a 1/2ooo flash is pretty tough.

I'll let anyone who actually knows anything about this stuff correct me on that one.

"4. I tried using a light with a snoot as my 'rim light'. Instead of setting it to strobe, I just had it always on as a model light. But it got insanely hot, even at its lowest setting. Turned it off because I thought it would melt. I only have two remote triggers, so I figured I could just put my rim light and background light to 'modeling' but I dont want to burn down my house. What am I missing here?"

Waaaaaay over my pay grade. Stick a penny in the fuseholder?

 

[chuasam]

"classic lighting" is really boring. It looks and feels like a school year book.
Don't be afraid to move your lights around and experiment.

 

[soufiej]

"classic lighting" is really boring. It looks and feels like a school year book.
Don't be afraid to move your lights around and experiment.

Good attitude! Wasn't there a plan a while back to do away with the sun?

NO! Not global warming this time.

To just do away with the sun.

It's soooooooo damned ... "classic".

Start a petition. I'll sign it. Of course, I'll have to ask the nurse for permission to use a pen.

I'll get back to you on that one.