Lighting critique please

[tirediron]

I don't see any distinct lighting. The pattern you describe is vaguely apparent, but the image is too underexposed to tell a story. Yes, some separation would help a lot if you're using a dark background, like a kicker light or rim light. You have to figure out what lighting will tell the story you want. For veterans I would consider a more dramatic look, something that conveys depth and mood vs. flat, soft lighting. Get the exposure right. I recommend a hand-held meter and manual flash.

Okay, I think I've been convinced on the rim light. Determining what type of lighting to use is the object of the exercise and indeed dramatic is what I am after, but I also wanted some 'dark' in there, which I suspect has just come out as under-exposed unfortunately. With respect to your recommendation, I was unaware there was any other way to do it! (Minolta Flash V and Speedotron Brownline)

I pulled it into Lightroom and it looked like it had been way over-exposed at the As-Shot settings. I re-worked it to how I liked it, like this. My major criticism is the deep shadow under that one nostril...once you see it, you cannot help but notice how much one stands out more so than the other.

I like the crisp, more-traditional lighting look to my re-work...but then...that's my preference showing.

View attachment 62346

Exposure increased 1/4 stop in LR, so no 'way overexposure'. I agree yours definitely works for a more traditional portrait, but I'm not sure it's quite the look I'm after for this project. Having said that however, with all of the input from the community, I'm not 100% sure what that look is!

 

[Derrel]

Yeah...I dunno, might be my "As Shot" parameters messing things up. One thing I noted in my re-work is that his jacket shows some of the colors in the fabric, whereas in the original presentation, his jacket is muddy-looking.

One thing I really did like was the very strong, broad-shouldered look...the dude looks like a rock!! His pose just screams masculine strength and presence.

 

[skieur]

To flatter your subject I would reverse the lighting. You have the shadow on the right side of his face (from my view) which is his best side and the brightest light on the left side which is where there are less than ideal skin issues. Lighting wise emphasize his best side, not the side with issues.

Good point, but I want to keep the lighting the same for all of them; commonality is more important than vanity, and most of these people are not too worried about minor flaws; they know who they are and are comfortale with it.

The "commonality" production line approach to portrait photography is certainly more convenient for the photographer but I don't see it as meeting the expectations of the client. Just looking at what the client is wearing and the manner in which his hair is carefully combed suggests that he wants to look his best...and that is not vanity, rather it is common to most people. My view is that no portrait photographer can go WRONG by ensuring that his/her client looks his or her best due to even a small measure to the skills of the photographer.

 

[amolitor]

I think you're missing the point. This is supposed to be a unified portfolio for some larger purpose, not a bunch of pictures he's selling to individuals.

 

[Braineack]

I like Derrel's edit. I was going to say the lighting looks pretty good, but it needs to be brightened in post. I also agree that a hair light for separation would be nice.

 

[amolitor]

When I'm thinking of a portfolio, I am thinking of my three major components: Balance, Variety, and Unity. When I look at this picture, and imagine 20 more just like it, I starting thinking 'ooo, not a whole lot of variety here'

I am wondering if you could mix it up a little in some thematically appropriate way. WWII vets get one background color, UN Peackkeeping ops guys get another, and so on. You guys don't have the wonderful collection of wars to choose from that we do down here, of course, but there might be something you could do, so it's not just the same damn picture over and over again.

 

[tirediron]

Good point, but I want to keep the lighting the same for all of them; commonality is more important than vanity, and most of these people are not too worried about minor flaws; they know who they are and are comfortale with it.

The "commonality" production line approach to portrait photography is certainly more convenient for the photographer but I don't see it as meeting the expectations of the client. Just looking at what the client is wearing and the manner in which his hair is carefully combed suggests that he wants to look his best...and that is not vanity, rather it is common to most people. My view is that no portrait photographer can go WRONG by ensuring that his/her client looks his or her best due to even a small measure to the skills of the photographer.

Fair comment, and normally I would agree totally, HOWEVER... these aren't portraits that the subjects are paying for, it's a personal project that I'm working on, and my goal is to produce a series of large prints which show them in a similar light (pun fully intended) and which use each person's appearance to give their portrait a unique look.

When I'm thinking of a portfolio, I am thinking of my three major components: Balance, Variety, and Unity. When I look at this picture, and imagine 20 more just like it, I starting thinking 'ooo, not a whole lot of variety here'

I am wondering if you could mix it up a little in some thematically appropriate way. WWII vets get one background color, UN Peackkeeping ops guys get another, and so on. You guys don't have the wonderful collection of wars to choose from that we do down here, of course, but there might be something you could do, so it's not just the same damn picture over and over again.

That's a cool idea Andrew, and I will try that. Thanks!

Where I want the variety to come from however is the look of the person. The ONLY direction they get is to come to the studio wearing the same/similar clothes and accoutrements (medals, beret, specialty badges, etc) as they did on Remembrance Day. My hope is that, and the wide variety in ages (some of the guys just back from the sandbox are as young as 19) will give me the variety I need.

Now... all of that said, if you think I'm way off base, don't hesitate to tell me.

 

[amolitor]

I don't think you're off base at all!

Suzanne Opton did a much more pretentious project that is still somewhat similar. The uniforms are explicitly NOT present in her project, but some of the ideas are similar. And, interestingly, I find the tonality and use of color to be oddly similar.

Many Wars | Suzanne Opton photographer

I saw this thing hung. It's an interesting show, but I think ultimately a very mixed result. Success? Maybe. Failure? Certainly she failed her subject, but then, one always does, doesn't one? It's a bunch of giant prints or mostly white dudes, which was a disappointment. Canada is not the USA, but south of the border our military is not predominantly white. There are other issues with her show as well. Honestly, I think this is a quite tricky thing to get right. The subject matter is really fraught, there's a lot of things to watch out for, and there's a lot of things you need to be sensitive to. The lines between respect, truthfulness, and exploitation are always problematic in photography, but wildly moreso for projects like this, I think.

 

[tirediron]

Thanks for the link Andrew!

 

[Rags]

Do you have access to one more light that could be aimed at the back drop to help separate him more?

I'm late here...

I agree with the comments of his jacket blending in..

You could try a different color of the background (in PS) somewhat toned down bluish; would be the first I would try

The front body is well lit

Rags

 

[Granddad]

Plenty of suggestions without me adding mine... But does anyone else think that this gentleman looks a lot like (a slightly younger) Roger Moore (ex-James Bond)?