Managing ambient light for portraits and headshots

[BList33]

Hey all, I just posted a question over on the Equipment section, but there was something else I wanted to ask too that didn't necessarily have to do with equipment. Basically I want to shoot headshots with a basic setup including a speedlight for key light, reflectors for fill and separation, and another speedlite to light the background (which will be grey or white paper). You can read the post at the link below, including the inspiration and approximate look I am trying to achieve:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...quipment-portraits-headshots.html#post3147656

My question is, assuming I am shooting with this setup in a small apartment that has typical ambient light, how would I go about managing that ambient light? Do I want to ensure that the room is dark? (Not completely black, but should I consider blocking light from the windows, turning of lamps, etc.?) And will the speedlites be powerful enough to overcome the ambient light, assuming normal sunlight through a couple of windows?

Can anyone maybe recommend any books, websites, or other resources that can help me better understand ambient light in a studio setting, and for taking portraits?

Thanks for your help! Looking forward to your responses

 

[tirediron]

F8, 1/250, ISO 100 - ambient won't be an issue. My studio has four large skylights, and in the early afternoon, it can get VERY bright; it's never been a concern.

 

[BList33]

Just the answer I was looking for! Thank you!

 

[Derrel]

The darker the ambient light, the larger and more dilated the pupils of the subjects will be, which gives black, colorless eyeballs, which makes the people look like heroin users....all bug-eyed and such. If anything, you want to keep the ambient light a big BRIGHTER than you might otherwise think, so that the iris will be closed down somewhat, and the people will not have that drug-addled, black,vacant, glassy, cow-eyed look.

In the article you link to the lower-eyeball catchlights are huge and bright, and round, which causes a very unnatural, oddball look to every person in that article. I would think long and hard about using rectangular or square reflectors which will create a broader, less-circular under-eye catchlight. I thought the photos in that article look like they were done by a very inexperienced headshot shooter, and that the eye catchlights from using those $19 collapsible disc reflectors were woefully short of imitating Peter Hurley's headshot look. On a close-in headshot, if the eye catchlights look gimmicky, with awful, round and ellipsoidal, bright, silver catchlights in the lower half of the eyeball, with dark, vacant, cow-eyes, the lighting setup is utterly a failure.

Look again at those shots in that article, and see how awful those round, bright circular catchlights look when seen on-screen at the size of a playing card; now imagine that look on 8x10 headshots. No...go with something that's been an industry standard for the under-chin reflector: a rectangular-shaped reflector that will throw an EVEN, steady catchlight across the entire width of the lower eyeball.

 

[tirediron]

The darker the ambient light, the larger and more dilated the pupils of the subjects will be, which gives black, colorless eyeballs, which makes the people look like heroin users....all bug-eyed and such...

THANK-YOU Derrel - How the heck did I forget that????

 

[Derrel]

Well, when you watch the video, the guy says they typically do NOT DO HEADSHOTS, and do not have a need for a good lighting setup, and what he is showing a "hack" version of something. His word...a "hack version". He says it might cost thousands ofd dollars to do it right. Sorry, but this is one of those YouTube videos done by somebody who admits he does not do this kind of work, and lacks the basics to do it right, and is making do with stuff that he has. He doesn't even have enough light stands to hold the under-chin reflector.

The look this lighting set-up achieves has a number of MAJOR differences from what it should look like. it is NOTHING at all like what it is supposed to emulate. This is once again, a "hack version" of something. A few minutes into the session, he says he had to consult Hurley's DVD for guidance on posing. Wow. Yeah. He's an expert.

 

[tirediron]

And bear in mind, Peter uses fairly spendy lighting gear.

 

[Derrel]

And bear in mind, Peter uses fairly spendy lighting gear.

Yes, he does. He has a LOT of light on the set, so the peoples' eyes are COLORFUL, and he has actual "lights". The fellow who did this "hack version" is trying to take one, big overhead light then three reflectors, and is shooting in a fairly dark shooting environment. The effect looks very,very bad. Why? Cow-eyes, with no eye color really visible, and a horribly bright, SILVER-colored round, or elliptical disc shaped lower eye catchlight that calls huge attention to black, dilated eyes. The catchlights in the hack video are round or elliptical, and even worse, are positioned LOW on the eyeball. Totally,totally,totally wrong!

The top light just "raining straight down" means the top of these black, dilated eyeballs has no shape, no sparkle...no catchlight; the exact OPPOSITE of the Hurly, 4-light method!

If the video guy had placed the mainlight high, but at an ANGLE, the way a real experienced headshot shooter or beauty photographer would, then the setup would look vastly different...but this is a fellow who by his own admission, does not "do" headshots, and who was "tasked with" coming up with some headshots for office staff, and a couple of friends, and he happened to make a video...

If he wanted to imitate Hurley's 4-LIGHT setup, he could have used four cheap "lights". The "look" of dark, cow-eyes is hideous, but he doesn't seem to understand enough to even realize that his lighting is utterly wrong to emphasize peoples' eye color, nor to mimic the natural world tendency of the most-significant catchlights to be on the TOP of the eyeball.

I did a Google search for Peter Hurley + 4 light look, and this AWFUL f/stoppers video is the top result.Peter Hurley + 4-light setup - Google Search

The lighting results in this "hack version" video looks NOTHING AT ALL like a FOUR-LIGHT Peter Hurley setup's results. It is utterly,totally WRONG. Four "lights", which actually emanate "light" is very different than one 7' PLM overhead, raining down on two haphazardly parallel-with-the-lightstands round discs, and one round disc reflector being held by the subject.

Peter Hurley's 4-light headshots have a rectangular catchlight HIGH UP on the eyeball, where we expect the main catchlight to be most prominent. His subjects' eyes show tremendous COLOR. In this fellow's video the subjects' eyes are dark, and cow-eye like, and have an unnatural UNDERNEATH placement of rounded or elliptical, silver, not "white light",rectangular catchlights at the TOP of the eyeballs.

This video is just utterly, totally amateurish and wrong. Hurly elevates ambient light by using four BRIGHT, continuous light sources; this f/stopper fellow minimizes ambient light, and uses only ONE rather dim, overhead, "raining down" actual light, and then a half-baked reflector set. Not.Even.Remotely.Hitting.ANY.Of.The.Basics.

The actual Hurley look could be well-imitated with $59 Chinese strip boxes, and $59 Chinese softboxes, and one small piece of white posterboard ($8.00). Three real, actual LIGHTS,or what the heck, maybe even four lights, placed in the right manner--you know, the way Hurley actually lights his headshots. It's not the expense of the KinoFLo lights as much as it is actually using FOUR, individual LIGHTS. It's not necessary to have $25,000 worth of KinoFLo lights, but it **is** necessary to follow the most-basic light placement fundamentals.

 

[JoeW]

The darker the ambient light, the larger and more dilated the pupils of the subjects will be, which gives black, colorless eyeballs, which makes the people look like heroin users....all bug-eyed and such. If anything, you want to keep the ambient light a big BRIGHTER than you might otherwise think, so that the iris will be closed down somewhat, and the people will not have that drug-addled, black,vacant, glassy, cow-eyed look.

In the article you link to the lower-eyeball catchlights are huge and bright, and round, which causes a very unnatural, oddball look to every person in that article. I would think long and hard about using rectangular or square reflectors which will create a broader, less-circular under-eye catchlight. I thought the photos in that article look like they were done by a very inexperienced headshot shooter, and that the eye catchlights from using those $19 collapsible disc reflectors were woefully short of imitating Peter Hurley's headshot look. On a close-in headshot, if the eye catchlights look gimmicky, with awful, round and ellipsoidal, bright, silver catchlights in the lower half of the eyeball, with dark, vacant, cow-eyes, the lighting setup is utterly a failure.

Look again at those shots in that article, and see how awful those round, bright circular catchlights look when seen on-screen at the size of a playing card; now imagine that look on 8x10 headshots. No...go with something that's been an industry standard for the under-chin reflector: a rectangular-shaped reflector that will throw an EVEN, steady catchlight across the entire width of the lower eyeball.

Very smart point. But one question Darrel...if the OP's subjects ARE heroin users, what would their pupils look like with darker ambient light?

 

[Braineack]

I have a better way of mimicking a Hurley headshot, I think mine came out good: