C&C - Nazmi Indoors

[ElNico]

This is one of a number of shoots I did in mid to late summer last year. You could consider them as my second "batch" of self-directed shoots, after getting feedback on the shoots I posted here last year and getting some rudimentary lighting equipment.

These were taken in the model's apartment after sundown, using two reverse-umbrella lamps and, when I needed a third light source, a reflector. This was my first and so far only time setting up artificial lighting myself.

I realize this is one more than the recommended number of photos to show at once; as there were three outfits, I felt it was appropriate to include two photos from each. I tried to include ones that I liked in different ways. No one person need comment on all of them, if you feel this is too many.

The main specific question I have about these photos is whether #2 is over-lit. If so, I think I could improve it by decreasing the highlights and/or exposure, but I'm not sure whether it's necessary or not; I've definitely been noticing a trend that the majority of photos I take want to be brighter than I thought they did, so for all I know, this could be the only photo of mine that's lit enough. #2 is the only one of these that I haven't yet edited for exposure/contrast/ect, since I want to see what people think of it first.

(Also, yes, I'm aware of the cushions in the background. I indeed need to get better at spotting things like that when taking a photo.)

To a lesser extent, I'm interested in whether my attempts at cropping #6 have worked out. Does it feel too close, and is her rear arm distracting? It ended up looking smaller than her front arm (I believe due to shooting too close) but I really like the pose otherwise, so I tried to crop the arm out as best I could. If the arm is still a significant problem, do you think anything can be done about it? (I can show the uncropped image if needed.)

In an earlier thread where I posted some photos with this model, it was observed that her chest appeared lit more strongly than her face; among these photos, this can be seen most notably in #5. Looking at all of the photos I have of her, I'm fairly sure that her skin is actually darker on her face, perhaps due to a difference in tan. In this shoot especially, I'm pretty sure that the lighting is too broad to create that much of a difference between her chest and face. (Edit - I mention this because before people thought I was directing the light towards her chest rather than her face. I'm not suggesting that this can't be dealt with.)

Feedback very much appreciated! Thanks very much!


#1

DSC02601 (2) (ExpP20) by El Nico, on Flickr

#2

DSC02629 (bsf wspf crp slf) by El Nico, on Flickr

#3

DSC02663 Bq (crp) (tf) (CntP15 ExpP30) by El Nico, on Flickr

#4

DSC02687 (3) (s4 wp sa) (CntP20 ExpP30) by El Nico, on Flickr

#5

DSC02802 Bq (3) (CntP20 ExpP30) by El Nico, on Flickr

#6

DSC02833 (7) (CntP20 ExpP30) by El Nico, on Flickr​

 

[tirediron]

Numbering the images makes proving feedback easier...

#2 is reasonably well exposed meaning there isn’t too much light, but it’s also what I would characterize as “flat lihjt” meaning even, lacking desirable highlights and shadows.

Personally I’m not a fan of the crop,in #6 because of the disembodied hand. I like it to be visually clear whose limbs are whose.

With respect to your comment on skin, it’s very likely, especially with a Mediterranean complexion, and if she liv d in a sunny locale that her face is darker than her chest. Your job as the photographer is to deal with it. Given the quality and sophistication of software today, this cam easily be handled in post.

 

[ElNico]

Numbering the images makes proving feedback easier...

Done. Thanks for pointing that out.

#2 is reasonably well exposed meaning there isn’t too much light, but it’s also what I would characterize as “flat lihjt” meaning even, lacking desirable highlights and shadows.

So, the lighting is "too filled?" I had two lights which I probably positioned in a V in this photo, and they're both pretty bright. Is having lighting of different intensities from different directions the way to avoid this effect?

Initially, there was a conspicuous bright spot on her cheek, which I was able to get rid of. Is that a sign that the lighting was too bright, or is it normal to have to correct things like that in post?

Personally I’m not a fan of the crop,in #6 because of the disembodied hand. I like it to be visually clear whose limbs are whose.

Hmm. To my eye, her hand and wrist match up with what you can see of her shoulder and upper arm; my brain tells me that these are part of the same arm. But maybe that's just because I know what it's supposed to look like. Does anyone else think her hand looks disembodied?

With respect to your comment on skin, it’s very likely, especially with a Mediterranean complexion, and if she liv d in a sunny locale that her face is darker than her chest. Your job as the photographer is to deal with it. Given the quality and sophistication of software today, this cam easily be handled in post.

Yes. I was just heading off the claim from last time that I was pointing the light at her chest instead of her face.

And she's Indian btw.

 

[tirediron]

"Too filled" is actually a very good way to describe it. Lighting is something that needs to be planned and in order to plan it, you need to understand it. In general, you start with an idea and build to it beginning with your key (main) light, and then adding fill, back, rim, and accent lights as desired. For most portrait work, and as a good starting point for leaning, start with the key about 30 degrees off lens-axis and at a height such that the light is angled down at about 30-40 degrees and the bottom of the modifier is around the top of the model's head. Then bring in a fill light from the other side, on-axis. and just a bit above camera level. That will get you started, and then it's a matter of fine-tuning. In general, one of your lights (The key light) should be 1 1.5 stops more light to the images than the others. Often with small issues such as a cheek nightlight, it's easier to deal with in post. Remember, the finished image is what counts. Yes, you want to get it as close as possible in-camera, BUT... your work in the pixel room is as much a part of creating the image as your work in the studio.

Yes, you can follow the line and have your brain fill in the missing arm (and it's easier for you because you were there, you know what it looks like), but remember, the eye is attracted to light over dark, so a person will see the hand before the shoulder in the dark dress. This is one of those things that comes under the heading of "best practice" and is entirely up to the artist. The other consideration here is that her left hand is the closest thing to the camera, and thus appears largest in the image. To me, it actually seems about 20% larger than it should.

 

[Derrel]

A couple of general observations about lighting. Above John mentioned setting the key or main light 30° off-axis,meaning the axis from the subject's face it back to the lend, and you'll note that he suggests the fill
Lighbe positioned on-axis, meaning right next to the camera.

 

[Derrel]

You mentioned two lights positioned in a V, which might mean two lights positioned at 30 or 40° on either side of the subject. I have seen that many many times in articles on the World Wide Web, and it is a great set up for copy stand work or copying artwork but it is not the traditional way to light a portrait. Two lights positioned On opposite sides of a subject often create two sets of shadows, which can be seen in a couple of your photos here, although the effect is subtle.

I would say that in Photos one, four, and five especially, that the fill
Lighis not strong enough, or that you have exposed insufficiently, or a little bit of both. It is difficult to tell. The reason I say this is that her hair has large patches which look black and detail free,indicating to me lack of light, lack of exposure in the camera, or perhaps a need for brightening in software in the post processing stage, or in light room or a similar application with advanced controls, increasing detail in the shadow areas of each file. This is a very common issue, especially when shooting in JPEG.

One thing I think you should look at is in photo number one, the shadow that her hair casts on the wall behind her. When a subject is very close to a wall or background and there's a shadow behind them that shadow is often called an attachment shadow, and while it used to be considered very uncool, in the last 5 to 10 years, the attachment shadow has made tremendous inroads and we are seeing it in a lot of shots. I personally am not opposed to an attachment shadow and there are many poses which use the attachment shadow, but in your photos number one,my feeling is that your attachment shadow from her hair is coming from your fill Light, from Camera right.

 

[Derrel]

I think in photo number three she looks beautiful, confident, and interesting. In photo number one, the shadow on the wall behind her means that the main or fill lightwas too low, and the shadow is above her head-- perhaps if she were standing in the position of that light would be OK but since she is seated on the couch, the light position needs to be readjusted, so that the shadow falls downwards, not upwardly.

..

 

[ElNico]

For most portrait work, and as a good starting point for leaning, start with the key about 30 degrees off lens-axis and at a height such that the light is angled down at about 30-40 degrees and the bottom of the modifier is around the top of the model's head. Then bring in a fill light from the other side, on-axis. and just a bit above camera level. That will get you started, and then it's a matter of fine-tuning.

That's great, except that "modifier," while I think I understand what you mean by it, seems kind of broad and I feel like it doesn't apply equally to every situation. To wit, I was using reverse umbrella lamps here. I'm not sure if that's the proper name for them, but what I mean is that instead of the light passing through the umbrella, the lamp is meant to be pointed away from the model, and the umbrella reflects the light back behind the lamp. So if the light is shining at a downward angle, the modifier, in this case the umbrella, would actually be located above the light source. How do I judge the height of the light in that scenario?

In general, one of your lights (The key light) should be 1 1.5 stops more light to the images than the others.

I don't understand this sentence... I know that stops is a way of measuring light/brightness (relating it to f-stop I assume), but "one light should be [amount] more light to the images" doesn't seem to make sense grammatically. Did you mean to say "bring more light to the images?" If not, what does "be light to the images" mean?
Also I assume you meant "1 to 1.5," as in "between 1 and 1.5".

Yes, you can follow the line and have your brain fill in the missing arm (and it's easier for you because you were there, you know what it looks like), but remember, the eye is attracted to light over dark, so a person will see the hand before the shoulder in the dark dress. This is one of those things that comes under the heading of "best practice" and is entirely up to the artist. The other consideration here is that her left hand is the closest thing to the camera, and thus appears largest in the image. To me, it actually seems about 20% larger than it should.[/QUOTE]

The other consideration here is that her left hand is the closest thing to the camera, and thus appears largest in the image. To me, it actually seems about 20% larger than it should.

Is there software that can correct for this? I can imagine a tool that applies a "curved mirror" effect to part of an image... could such a thing be used to shrink an area that appears too large in this kind of situation? Or would that just create more problems than it would solve?

start with the key about 30 degrees off lens-axis

Above John mentioned setting the key or main light 30° off-axis,meaning the axis from the subject's face it back to the lend

To clarify, you're saying that if I draw a line from the camera (lens) to the model and then from the model to the light, those lines should make a 30 degree angle. Right?​

 

[Derrel]

I used to work in a high-volume portrait studio in my 20s, and I have photographed upwards of 10,000 people, over 45 years or so.I used to shoot 30 to 35 sets on an average day,from one person to 10 people, so that is how I racked up such high numbers.One day during the lead up to Christmas I photographed 50 sets inan eight hour day!

The idea of keeping the Fill light close to the camera axis, is a very old one, but something that many people are unaware of. Using on-axis fill light it leads to a good balance between main light on one side and a shadow side on the other, with fill-in light inthe shadows,and that does not create conflicting shadows.

Traditionally there are two ways to establish the ratio of main light to fill in light. The first is to use two lights of equal power, and to position the main light and the fill light so that there is a one stop difference in brightness at the subjects face. Guess what? The f-stops on a camera show how far away twos equal lightd
should be placed! If we place the main light 5.6 feet from the subject and they fill light at the exactly 8 feet from the subject. Will have a beautiful leading ratio of about 3:1. One can literally look at the f-stop scale of 2.8, 4,5.6,8, 11,16 , and by literally using two equal lights at distances separated by one value such as 2.8 and four, or 5.6 and 8 feet, or 4 feet and 5.6 feet, establish an easy and basic ratio of main light to fill in light which has proven itself to be pleasing over a span of 150 years of formal portraiture.

Let us be clear here: what you are doing is considered formal portraiture, and it's not avant-garde inlighting or posing or clothing,etc.

A lighting ratio of approximately 3 to 1 looks quite nice in photos such as yours.

A second traditional way of establishing and easy to work with lighting ratio is to maintain the _same distance of each of two lights, with one light set to 50% more power than the other, typically let's say 100 Watt-seconds for the main light and half of that, or 50 Watt-seconds for the fill-in light. If you are using let's say a speed light flash, then the fill would be set to half power and the main light would be set to full power.

 

[ElNico]

Could #2 be improved by increasing the shadows? Or is there not enough shadow in the first place to intensify?

I would say that in Photos one, four, and five especially, that the fill
Lighis not strong enough, or that you have exposed insufficiently, or a little bit of both.

If I recall, I was trying to tone down the intensity of the light in that run of photos, bouncing the light off the ceiling. (There was a lot of white in the walls and ceiling so they gave light back pretty well.) This is another casualty of my thinking there is too much light when there is actually the right amount; something I first began to realize upon looking at the results of this shoot on my computer, and further confirmed as I've begun to play around with editing and find that my photos usually look better when I turn the exposure up.

In photo number one, the shadow on the wall behind her means that the main or fill lightwas too low, and the shadow is above her head-- perhaps if she were standing in the position of that light would be OK but since she is seated on the couch, the light position needs to be readjusted, so that the shadow falls downwards, not upwardly.

Noted.

The idea of keeping the Fill light close to the camera axis, is a very old one, but something that many people are unaware of. Using on-axis fill light it leads to a good balance between main light on one side and ashadow side on the other, with fill-in the shadows,andthat does not create conflicting shadows.

Traditionally there are two ways to establish the ratio of main light to fill in light. The first is to use to light up equal power but to position the main light and the feel light so that there is a one stop difference in brightness at the subjects face. Guess what? The f-stops on a camera show how far away to equal light should be placed! If we place the main light 5.6 feet from the subject and they fill light at the exactly 8 feet from the subject. Will have a beautiful leading ratio of about 3:1.

A lighting ratio of approximately 3 to 1 looks quite nice in photos such as yours.

I'll keep that in mind, thanks!

A second traditional way is to maintain the _same distance of each of two lights with one light set to 50% more power than the other, typically let's say 100 Watt-seconds for the main light and half of that, or 50 Watt-secondsfor the fill-in light. If you are using let's say a speed light flash, then the file would be set to half hour will the main light would be set to full power.

I'd already been wishing I could alter the intensity of these lamps. I presume that the kinds of lights you're talking about have adjustable power, but these don't. Is it feasible to add a dimmer extension cord or something?​

 

[Derrel]

I personally think that a person learns much more from looking at mistakes, than from praising successful photos, but I will tell you that photo number three is pretty good! With that said let's look at number six,and what John referred to as the " disembodied hand", And which he described as appearing perhaps 20% too large.

And let's look at photo number six with regard to that bright spot on her cheekbone. OK so, because that is the brightest spot on her face, it draws the eye immediately to it which is a typical old saying, "light advances, dark recedes. What we are seeing here is called specularity.

Regarding her hand, this is called an incomplete pose. Her hand just jets in the frame, without seeing much of the arm, or of the elbow, and with the back or flat of her hand and its veins clearly visible. In what is called a complete pose, we would see her elbow and the arm and the hand not see the hand jetting into the frame, with no elbow visible, and we would probably see her hand turned to the side call in what is considered to be a more traditional and more pleasing pose

 

[Derrel]

I do not wish to appear to be denigrating your work here, and I think you've made some pretty good pictures of her. I am not specifically concerned with the brightness of her face in regard to her chest area, but is it possible to draw the eye to the brightest area immediately, which in many cases is a woman's slightly lighter cleavage area. She's a very beautiful woman, and quite frankly many women today show a lot more cleavage then was seen 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, So I am not overly concerned about the old idea that the brightest area in the picture should be the face, especially if a woman has darker make up, or she is wearing revealing clothing, which this model is wearing.

 

[Derrel]

I think if there is a single resource available on the web to teach a person the fundamentals of formal studio portraiture, it would be a very old 12 or 15 lesson web presentation called The Zeltsman Approach To Portraiture.

Many people today take exception to the idea that there are actually rules for formally photographing people so as to make them look their best and to follow the unwritten rules that we expect to see followed when a person is presented to us in a photograph.

For example there is what's called a masculine pose and a feminine pose.
There is a thing called broad lighting, and a thing called short lighting. There is a masculine head tilt, and a feminine head tilt. Many people are unaware of this, and sometimes occasionally make a fundamental error in lighting or posing, and their subjects absolutely detest the Way they look. About six months ago a woman posted a link to an online gallery of her office mates, and the work was absolutely bad. There was not a single good photo of some reasonably attractive people despite the fact that they were all lighted by a so-called "professional" photographer, who was unable to shoot his or her way out of a paper bag. I can tell you that studying the above Zeltsman Approach will pay huge dividends for the rest of your life in photography.

 

[ElNico]

I think in photo number three she looks beautiful, confident, and interesting

I personally think that a person learns much more from looking at mistakes, than from praising successful photos, but I will tell you that photo number three is pretty good!

Thanks!

Regarding her hand, this is called an incomplete pose. Her hand just jets in the frame, without seeing much of the arm, or of the elbow, and with the back or flat of her hand and its veins clearly visible. In what is called a complete pose, we would see her elbow and the arm and the hand not see the hand jetting into the frame, with no elbow visible,

I'm familiar with this concept, and it's what I was referring to when I said that her shoulder and upper arm seemed to be enough for my brain to fill it in. It's probably easier to see for me because I know what's actually going on in this picture, including knowing what the uncropped image looks like.

and we would probably see her hand turned to the side call in what is considered to be a more traditional and more pleasing pose

What does "the side call" mean? Is this a typo?
Should the back of her hand be facing less towards the lens, and more towards the direction her face is pointing?

I'm kind of puzzled by why the veins on her hand are standing out so much. Is this likely to be mostly/entirely a result of the fact that it's facing straight at the camera, or is there another likely cause that I'm missing?

Regarding the size of her hand; while I didn't notice that her hand looked too big until it was pointed out, I definitely shot this one too close. Her other arm, which I've mostly cropped out, looks even worse.

I do not wish to appear to be denigrating your work here, and I think you've made some pretty good pictures of her.

No, the feedback you've been giving is helpful and I appreciate it. And, thanks.

I think if there is a single resource available on the web to teach a person the fundamentals of formal studio portraiture, it would be a very old 12 or 15 lesson web presentation called The Zeltsman Approach To Portraiture. [...] I can tell you that studying the above Zeltsman Approach will pay huge dividends for the rest of your life in photography.

I'll look that up, thanks!

 

[Derrel]

speaking of that hand appearing 20% too large: One way to make a hand or nose appear smaller is to use a very long lens, which literally magnifies objects that are farther from the lens in relation to objects which are close to the lens

Years ago there was a comedian named Jimmy Durante and he had a very prominent,extremely large nose. The Jimmy Durante Effecy was easily obtained on regular people by photographing them from very close range with a very short focal length lens, which would make their nose appear to be very much larger than was the case in reality.

To make a distant mountain appear very large, a common way to do that is to use a very long focal length lens. This is commonly known as "telephoto compression", which is a somewhat erroneous term, but one which is commonly used. In order to make houses look extremely close to one another, it is pretty common to use a telephoto lens. Long telephoto lens is give us a distorted view of reality and distance,and physically make things in the background appear larger than they do in real life and so in portraiture using a very long focal length lens it is thpossible to make the ye up here earsappearcloser to the nose, in the same way that we can make a mountain that might be 50 miles from the city appear to be a mile or two in the distance, using the effect commonly known as "telephoto compression andwhen making a portrait using a very long focal length lens, it is possible to make the ears appear closer to the nose, in the same way that we could make a mountain that might be 50 miles from the city appear to be a mile or two in the distance, using the effect known as "telephoto compression". To get rid of that slightly large appearing hand, the easiest quickest way would be to either remove the hand from the post, which would in effect, and in actuality, render her head a little bit larger than it would look with a normal lens. If you had made that photo with a very short focal length lens her hand and her ear would look much larger than they do in real life.