Different modifiers for portrait photography

[lennon33x]

I am new to portrait photography, especially in a "studio" type setting. I've used brollyboxes for the longest (mainly because they're cheaper than softboxes, but also easy to carry/set up). I was hired to do a test shot for a potential client (he's a coworker and business owner), and if he likes the work, he'll hire me to do it.

Here's the issue I ran into: I set up a lower powered strobe through a 24x36 softbox, aimed to the subject's left at 45*, then I set up another strobe in a brollybox to the subject's right at 45*. The brolly was supposed to be the fill and the SB the key. The SB was casting such a drastic shadow behind the subject that the brolly couldn't keep up with the flash, no matter how close I moved the light to the subject. I played with exposure a bit, but essentially was able to fix a lot of it in post (I hate fixing everything in post. I prefer to get as close as possible in camera). My question is more about the modifiers.

Since the strobe shooting through the brolly essentially had to travel further to hit the subject, was that the reason it was less bright and softer (i.e. reflect off of umbrella, travel back through diffuser to subject, whereas the SB's strobe's distance was shorter, just diffused twice)? If that's the case, is the only real way to correct it with using two of the same-type modifiers?

 

[Derrel]

First off, two lights, each on opposite sides of the subject and aimed inward at 45 degrees is the kind of lighting one uses to photograph flat artwork, and is cross-lighting. It tends to produce either no shadows, if the lights are exactly equal in power, equidistant, and of the same exact type with the same exact modifiers fitted to each light. However, if the lights are different, cross-lighting can easily, easily create absolutely HORRIFIC, ugly, competing shadows.

The proper way to avoid this issue is to place one light as a MAIN light, off to one side, then position the fill light close to the camera position, and aimed straight ahead, so that "some" light hits the main light side, and some hits the shadowed side, thus acting as a true fill-in light for the shadows. The close position to the camera axis keeps the nose and facial features from creating awful shadows on the "off" side of the face.

The way to "correct" the problem is to position the MAIN light so it is indeed a "main" light source, then to move the fill light to the proper position, which is another 40 degrees closer to the camera position.

 

[lennon33x]

Thanks. I'm pretty new to this area (I've done portraiture in ambient light). So you suggest placing the fill light just off camera (essentially head on), while the key light is placed at 45 degrees away from the subject?

 

[gsgary]

Thanks. I'm pretty new to this area (I've done portraiture in ambient light). So you suggest placing the fill light just off camera (essentially head on), while the key light is placed at 45 degrees away from the subject?

You knew everything about studio lighting last week

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

 

[lennon33x]

Thanks. I'm pretty new to this area (I've done portraiture in ambient light). So you suggest placing the fill light just off camera (essentially head on), while the key light is placed at 45 degrees away from the subject?

You knew everything about studio lighting last week

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

Trolling the forums again are we?

I never said anything about me knowing "everything" about studio lighting. As a matter of fact, I never said anything about me knowing everything about anything. It was the fact that I disproved your theory when you said shutter speed had nothing to do with stopping motion.

Is your sole purpose in life to spend as much time on forums, blasting people for not "knowing as much as you?" While you may be a gear head and knowledgable about many different aspects of photography, I'm spending my time more wisely - actually taking photographs.

 

[lennon33x]

First off, two lights, each on opposite sides of the subject and aimed inward at 45 degrees is the kind of lighting one uses to photograph flat artwork, and is cross-lighting. It tends to produce either no shadows, if the lights are exactly equal in power, equidistant, and of the same exact type with the same exact modifiers fitted to each light. However, if the lights are different, cross-lighting can easily, easily create absolutely HORRIFIC, ugly, competing shadows.

The proper way to avoid this issue is to place one light as a MAIN light, off to one side, then position the fill light close to the camera position, and aimed straight ahead, so that "some" light hits the main light side, and some hits the shadowed side, thus acting as a true fill-in light for the shadows. The close position to the camera axis keeps the nose and facial features from creating awful shadows on the "off" side of the face.

The way to "correct" the problem is to position the MAIN light so it is indeed a "main" light source, then to move the fill light to the proper position, which is another 40 degrees closer to the camera position.

Derrel-
Thanks for the reply. I immediately tried it out. I imitated the shot from yesterday, placed the SB to the subject left, and then placed the brolly to the subject right, only at about 12-18 inches from the camera. I tried one directly above the camera, one 12-18 inches, moved about another 2 feet, and then finally replicated yesterday. And alas, the one you mentioned is indeed most pleasing. Nice shadowing, gives depth and mood and isn't too dramatic. Thanks again.

*Edit: Oh, and I took your advice on something else. I was too lazy to get out my triggers, so I just plugged in one of the strobes to the 5D via sync, and used the other as a slave. Worked fantastically.

 

[Big Mike]

Thanks. I'm pretty new to this area (I've done portraiture in ambient light). So you suggest placing the fill light just off camera (essentially head on), while the key light is placed at 45 degrees away from the subject?

Yes, this is the 'classic' or 'traditional' way to do it...but it's probably called that because so many people do it 'wrong' these days. Not that there is ever really a right or wrong...they key is to understand the concepts and do what will get you the results that you want.

This is why it is often recommended to start learning with one light. By default, it will be your main/key light. You use it to light your subject and thus create shadows. The combination of light and shadows is what gives your subjects 'tonal variation' which makes them look 3 dimensional. The location and way in which the light transitions from light to shadow, is where a portrait photographer lives.

Once you get a feel for how (& why) to position your key light. Then you add in the fill light. The job of the key light is to create light and shadow. The job of the fill light is to control the ratio by adding light to the shadow. The easiest way is often to bathe the whole scene evenly with the fill light. So it add light to both the shadows and the lit areas. Also, this will mostly ensure that the fill light does not create it's own shadows (that can be seen by the camera). Remember, the create of light and shadow is the job of the key light, not the fill.

So when people place the 'fill' light opposite the key, at 45 degrees etc. It has a very real possibility to create shadows of it's own, which usually don't look good in a photo, especially a portrait.

Of course, there is the balancing act with how much key & fill light are adding to the scene...but I think it's important to understand the roll of each light first.

 

[lennon33x]

Thanks. I'm pretty new to this area (I've done portraiture in ambient light). So you suggest placing the fill light just off camera (essentially head on), while the key light is placed at 45 degrees away from the subject?

Yes, this is the 'classic' or 'traditional' way to do it...but it's probably called that because so many people do it 'wrong' these days. Not that there is ever really a right or wrong...they key is to understand the concepts and do what will get you the results that you want.

This is why it is often recommended to start learning with one light. By default, it will be your main/key light. You use it to light your subject and thus create shadows. The combination of light and shadows is what gives your subjects 'tonal variation' which makes them look 3 dimensional. The location and way in which the light transitions from light to shadow, is where a portrait photographer lives.

Once you get a feel for how (& why) to position your key light. Then you add in the fill light. The job of the key light is to create light and shadow. The job of the fill light is to control the ratio by adding light to the shadow. The easiest way is often to bathe the whole scene evenly with the fill light. So it add light to both the shadows and the lit areas. Also, this will mostly ensure that the fill light does not create it's own shadows (that can be seen by the camera). Remember, the create of light and shadow is the job of the key light, not the fill.

So when people place the 'fill' light opposite the key, at 45 degrees etc. It has a very real possibility to create shadows of it's own, which usually don't look good in a photo, especially a portrait.

Of course, there is the balancing act with how much key & fill light are adding to the scene...but I think it's important to understand the roll of each light first.

I saw a video from Phlearn about using the "clamshell" technique, which was pretty interesting. They recommended, I think it was, a 1:3 ratio with the upper light being brighter. I somewhat extrapolated the same theory with the fill/key to get it right. And by "right," I mean pleasing to my eye.

I'm a fan of more edgy/moodier lighting. However, the guy who wants the pictures wants more of a classic look for his business. The original photographer (before they hired more staff, thus the need for pictures) used quite a bit of post-processing. I prefer to go with the more natural look. It almost looked weird, but that's who he went with, and now I'm just trying to earn his business. Nonetheless, I appreciate the feedback.

 

[Derrel]

Sounds like you got to see first-hand how on-axis fill light would work in that situation. Big Mike's post above covers things pretty much accurately, and has some good insights. It's a good thing that you actually went right to the lights and tried the suggested set-up and got immediate feedback, and could have some results to evaluate and see the difference right away. It's a learning experience. If you have a large enough reflector, many times when working with larger light sources, it's easy to just reflector-fill the shadows, and thus there's not a need for a second, fill-in light unit. As with so many things in this world, "it all depends", both on what's on hand to light with, and with how you want the final image to look.

With the trend today toward bigger and bigger and bigger light sources (like Wescott's 7 foot umbrellas, the huge PLM modifiers from Paul C. Buff, and the new mega-Octaboxes,etc.) it's often not all that necessary to use a fill light, but just a reflector. And to an extent, how big the modifier is, and what kind of modifier it is, and what the size of the room is, can all determine if ANY type of fill-in is needed. In smaller, low-ceiling rooms with shoot through umbrellas with studio flash, there's often so much ambient spill that a fill light is not wanted, and even a reflector is not 100% needed. Again--it "depends" on how the MAIN light looks, to you, on that day, for that setup.