Fill light causing unflattering catchlights...

SabrinaO · Jul 13, 2011

You know that pin of light smack dab in the center of the eye? The deer in headlights look? I don't know how to avoid this. I know I can get rid of it in post but is that the only way? I use shoot through umbrellas. Maybe if i bounced the fill light into the umbrella instead of shooting through...? Any suggestions/tips?

gsgary · Jul 13, 2011

It is because you have positioned your light too low

SabrinaO · Jul 13, 2011

How high does the fill light need to be? For my last session i did an 8 month old and positioned it 45 degrees up.... but then its always behind me while i shoot so its not really pointing down its just shooting straight across. I think i need to put it higher and point it down the the further away it is

kundalini · Jul 13, 2011

I usually try to place the Fill light anywhere from on lens axis to ~18" off lens axis on the same side as my Main. The height varies. Everybody has there own choices though.

I did this diagram for someone else and they only had the items mentioned to work with. You can use any equipment you have on hand as a substitute. This was also intended for short lighting the subject.

EDIT: BTW, I don't mind editing them in post, if necessary.

Big Mike · Jul 14, 2011

One trick I learned from an old pro, was to move the fill light as far back as possible. This way, you reduce the size of the catchlight, thus making it less noticeable and/or easier to remove.

flea77 · Jul 14, 2011

Big Mike said:
One trick I learned from an old pro, was to move the fill light as far back as possible. This way, you reduce the size of the catchlight, thus making it less noticeable and/or easier to remove.

I am sure that would work, but in the process I think that would reduce the apparent size of the light requiring more power to provide the same amount of light on the subject (inverse square law) and making the light much harsher (apparent light size).

Allan

Big Mike · Jul 14, 2011

Yes, it would require more power...and it would make the light harder.

But, the roll of a fill light is to apply light evenly to the scene, so hard or soft, it shouldn't really matter. In other words, your fill light shouldn't cause any shadows that the camera can see, thus, you won't see the hard transitions from light to shadow.

It's the main/key light that creates & places the transition from light to shadow...and that is the light that you probably want to be soft (larger apparent size).

flea77 · Jul 14, 2011

I agree that the role of the fill light generally does not produce shadows however I would think that the fill would not be as smooth and even if you used a harder/harsher light source.

Allan

kundalini · Jul 14, 2011

flea77 said:
I agree that the role of the fill light generally does not produce shadows however I would think that the fill would not be as smooth and even if you used a harder/harsher light source.

Allan

The Fill light from my diagram above will not be as directional as the arrows indicate. If you're 6'-10' away from your subject and your Fill is behind you, aimed opposite to your subject and then bounced forward, this creates a rather large light source.

Derrel · Jul 14, 2011

To get a 3:1 lighting ratio with two lights of identical power, when using on-axis fill light (i.e. fill light placed right NEXT TO the camera's angle of view and aimed straight ahead at the subject), the fill light needs to be 1 full f/stop lower in exposure value at the subject than the main light's exposure value at the subject. So, for example, with two identical flash units at the same exact power, the traditional method is to have the fill light farther away from the subject than the main light. For example, with two identical lights, there's a fascinating "one-stop difference" series of main light distances and fill light distances: 1.4 feet, 2.0 feet, 2.8 feet, 4 feet, 5.6 feet, 8 feet, 11 feet, 16 feet, 22 feet. Imagine that!!!! If the main light is at 4 feet from the subject, the fill light of the same power would need to be at 5.6 feet from the subject to give a 3:1 lighting ratio.

In actual use, it's pretty common to move the fill light back, farther away, than the main light to subject distance.

Big Mike · Jul 14, 2011

flea77 said:
I agree that the role of the fill light generally does not produce shadows however I would think that the fill would not be as smooth and even if you used a harder/harsher light source.

Allan

The hardness of a light source, is really only shown where it creates a shadow...otherwise, it should be an even wash of light over the scene. If it's not even, that is probably due to the light modifier and its particular characteristics.

kundalini · Jul 14, 2011

This guy does a great discussion with examples of on-axis Fill light and light Fall Off.

On-Axis Fill Flash & Fall Off

kundalini · Jul 16, 2011

Good information should not be so easily dismissed. It's a shame the OP hasn't replied back though since it was for her benefit.

SabrinaO · Jul 16, 2011

Well i don't come on here everyday... @kundalini But thanks for your diagram and to everyone else who explained!

@Derrel.... are you saying if i had two lights at the same power and distance, then moved one 5.6 feet away that will be a 4 stop difference?

Patrice · Jul 16, 2011

SabrinaO said:
l.... if i had two lights at the same power and distance, then moved one 5.6 feet away that will be a 4 stop difference?

No, that is not how it works.

If one light is at 4 feet from the subject then a second of the same power would have to be 5.6 feet to have a 1 stop less intensity on the subject. There is a 1.414 factor involved (square root of two). So one light at 8 feet and the second at 11 feet will have 1 stop difference. 16 feet and 22 feet will have one stop difference. 1.4 feet and 2 feet will have one stop difference. Look on your lens barrel, the f stop numbers are also separated by a value of 1.414, square root of two.

1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 11, 16, 22, ....... and so on