Lighting a PP C&C

[crimbfighter]

I'm interested in C&C specifically on the lighting and processing here. I will be doing a series, one each week, and want to hear any suggestions for improving the lighting and/or processing before I get too far into the series. You can guess what it's documenting... I still have some touch-up work to do on the background, but I'm not bothering with that until I know my lighting is where it needs to me.

D800, 85mm f/1.8 @ f4, 1/60sec, ISO100
Two light setup
Main light - SB910 in a 24" octobox
Supplemental light - SB600, bare, behind to the left

 

[Derrel]

If you want a tiny bit of light on the buttocks, front of the thighs, and back of the thighs, perhaps figure out a way to get the light so it strikes those areas. The main softbox might be a bit too close to the subject, and angled in just such a way that her body is actually blocking the light from hitting below the bottom of her shirt; not as much light below the waist is an issue I've had for years on square 28x28 softboxes when they are "close", but less of an issue when they are moved farther away.

I use 28 x 28 boxes a lot these past five years, and the 24" dia. octabox is similar in size: it gives a dramatic light, with real, genuine shadows! This looks so,so good in B&W.

I think this shot has high drama. Main light placement is good, and also gives the dramtic, deep shadows on the side plane of her body. The fill light is hotter, and also more specular than the diffused octa main light, but is placed so that it gives a fantastic rim light down her arm, and on her long hair. I just wish the highlight went down below her shirt on the camera-left side, so the black leggings did not fade into the backdrop.

Still, quibbles aside, this is a beautiful, beautiful image, executed in a very nice manner. I've seen many photos like this done very aggressively and in an unbalanced manner; this has a very serious, studied, lovely quality about it. If you think it needs more light below the waist, on the leggings, I'd add that. Otherwise, I would be tempted to lock this one down and measure the distances and tape the light stand foot-spots and keep the entire set lighted just this beautifully for the entire duration, and also for a year into the 'after' time frame. Same wardrobe too!

 

[crimbfighter]

If you want a tiny bit of light on the buttocks, front of the thighs, and back of the thighs, perhaps figure out a way to get the light so it strikes those areas. The main softbox might be a bit too close to the subject, and angled in just such a way that her body is actually blocking the light from hitting below the bottom of her shirt; not as much light below the waist is an issue I've had for years on square 28x28 softboxes when they are "close", but less of an issue when they are moved farther away.

I use 28 x 28 boxes a lot these past five years, and the 24" dia. octabox is similar in size: it gives a dramatic light, with real, genuine shadows! This looks so,so good in B&W.

I think this shot has high drama. Main light placement is good, and also gives the dramtic, deep shadows on the side plane of her body. The fill light is hotter, and also more specular than the diffused octa main light, but is placed so that it gives a fantastic rim light down her arm, and on her long hair. I just wish the highlight went down below her shirt on the camera-left side, so the black leggings did not fade into the backdrop.

Still, quibbles aside, this is a beautiful, beautiful image, executed in a very nice manner. I've seen many photos like this done very aggressively and in an unbalanced manner; this has a very serious, studied, lovely quality about it. If you think it needs more light below the waist, on the leggings, I'd add that. Otherwise, I would be tempted to lock this one down and measure the distances and tape the light stand foot-spots and keep the entire set lighted just this beautifully for the entire duration, and also for a year into the 'after' time frame. Same wardrobe too!

Thanks for the comments and suggestions, Darrel! I was struggling with the lack of light on the legs and was trying to increase that, but I'm not quite sure how. I do have a reflector placed below the main light, angled upward to try to capture some light and reflect it back up, but it proved to not be enough. I'm thinking perhaps because the black leggings are so much less reflective than the skin and gray tank top. I also originally had the second light positioned lower, which did add light to the rear, separating the back of her legs from the background a bit, but that left a large lack of lighting on her hair, making that fade into obscurity. Do you have any suggestions for increasing the lower lighting? I could add a third speedlight, but I'm worried that will add too much light, even at minimum power. I still have the lighting set up and I marked where her feet need to go, but that's a good idea to mark where the stands are, including height and angle.

 

[tirediron]

... I still have the lighting set up and I marked where her feet need to go, but that's a good idea to mark where the stands are, including height and angle.

I use safety-yellow gaf tape on the floor in the form of an 'X' to mark the stand with a Sharpie arrow on it to indicate direction and height/angle as well. I think a strip box on the back at low power (use a cut or two of ND gel if necessary just to lift her legs a hair out of shadow would nail it. I really like what you've done, and I think you're 95%; that little extra light will get you to 100%.

 

[Designer]

Do you have any suggestions for increasing the lower lighting? I could add a third speedlight, but I'm worried that will add too much light, even at minimum power.

If the ND film won't cut the light enough for a 7-o'clock fill, move the third light farther back, and keep the position fairly low (belt high). Just a bit of fill (not enough to wipe out the key light shadows) is what this setup needs, IMO.

 

[Derrel]

My suggestion would be to figure out the rim/separation light's best beam spread on the SB 700 flash unit, and perhaps physically turn and aim the flash so it is suspended "sideways", so the wide-shape of the beam hits her hair and her lower half, probably at the 35mm beam setting. I would work with the main light switched off, and move the SB 700 around, farther back maybe, to get enough beam spread to hit her below the belt; without modeling lights, this might take a few minutes to get the right placement, but i think the SB 700 oought to be able to cover a 5-foot-tall band if placed right.

As far as the octabox placement, her forehead looks a tiny bit hot compared to her lower hand, so I think the octa is too close, and too steeply-angled (angle being gauged by her right hand's shadow on her belly), so the light is still in that rapid fall-off zone created by the Inverse Square Law, or the light is not feathered/aimed to give enough light to her lower half. I think if the octabox were to be moved back a couple of feet or so, that you'd be able to lower the light stand a foot or a bit more, and maybe get a more-even light.

The closer the light is to the subject, the more radical the rate of fall-off is. Compare her forehead against her black leggings. I think you just have the lights too close to her...not quite enough beam spread, and too fast of a rate of fall-off. If you move the light farther away, and maybe boost the ISO a bit, I think most every issue becomes easier to deal with.

 

[crimbfighter]

... I still have the lighting set up and I marked where her feet need to go, but that's a good idea to mark where the stands are, including height and angle.

I use safety-yellow gaf tape on the floor in the form of an 'X' to mark the stand with a Sharpie arrow on it to indicate direction and height/angle as well. I think a strip box on the back at low power (use a cut or two of ND gel if necessary just to lift her legs a hair out of shadow would nail it. I really like what you've done, and I think you're 95%; that little extra light will get you to 100%.

Do you have any suggestions for increasing the lower lighting? I could add a third speedlight, but I'm worried that will add too much light, even at minimum power.

If the ND film won't cut the light enough for a 7-o'clock fill, move the third light farther back, and keep the position fairly low (belt high). Just a bit of fill (not enough to wipe out the key light shadows) is what this setup needs, IMO.

My suggestion would be to figure out the rim/separation light's best beam spread on the SB 700 flash unit, and perhaps physically turn and aim the flash so it is suspended "sideways", so the wide-shape of the beam hits her hair and her lower half, probably at the 35mm beam setting. I would work with the main light switched off, and move the SB 700 around, farther back maybe, to get enough beam spread to hit her below the belt; without modeling lights, this might take a few minutes to get the right placement, but i think the SB 700 oought to be able to cover a 5-foot-tall band if placed right.

As far as the octabox placement, her forehead looks a tiny bit hot compared to her lower hand, so I think the octa is too close, and too steeply-angled (angle being gauged by her right hand's shadow on her belly), so the light is still in that rapid fall-off zone created by the Inverse Square Law, or the light is not feathered/aimed to give enough light to her lower half. I think if the octabox were to be moved back a couple of feet or so, that you'd be able to lower the light stand a foot or a bit more, and maybe get a more-even light.

The closer the light is to the subject, the more radical the rate of fall-off is. Compare her forehead against her black leggings. I think you just have the lights too close to her...not quite enough beam spread, and too fast of a rate of fall-off. If you move the light farther away, and maybe boost the ISO a bit, I think most every issue becomes easier to deal with.

Thank you all for the continued feedback. tirediron, I think a combination of your idea with Designer and Darrel's might help. I don't have a strip box, but I think Darrel's suggestion of turning the flash head sideways might help with a wider beam. I already had the head zoomed to 35mm to concentrate the light a little more, as any wider and the peripheral light from the flash started to bleed into the camera lens. I don't have any flags to hang to prevent that. I think I'll try moving it down a little and turning it sideways to see what that does. In the end, I may try adding the third speedlight and moving them both back more.

Darrel, I agree with what you're saying regarding the main light probably being too close. The look I was going for was to have the light casting in a downward angle for the added drama, but it is clearly creating a hot exposure on the forehead. I'll try moving it back a foot or two and bringing it down a little to see how it effects the image. If the light ends up feeling too straight on for what I'm going for and looses the effect, I may resort to more manipulation in post to even it out a little. Though I much prefer to get it right in camera when possible!