My daughter - lighting practice.

ronlane · Nov 25, 2012

Took my daughter and niece to a creek in the evening during our Thanksgiving family get together. This is the one that I liked the best. How does the lighting look on it?

IMG_7112 by Ron_Lane, on Flickr

DannyLewis · Nov 25, 2012

I like it! really good job

2WheelPhoto · Nov 25, 2012

Nice lighting!

For the sake of CC, there's a lot of brown space that may qualify as wasted pixels below her. But thats just a comment for CCing, A dash less sky and rock below and more of that cute gal may have made the pic pop harder. But again I like the pic.

ronlane · Nov 25, 2012

Thank you both. 2Wheel, I see what you are saying. Here it is cropped closer.

IMG_7112 - 2 by Ron_Lane, on Flickr

fjrabon · Nov 25, 2012

light should be closer, so it's not as hard.

Looks like your ambient/flash mix was pretty close to 1:1 and you got some camera shake blur on the parts of her that weren't as nailed by flash (her right arm especially).

Why 28mm? Especially considering you stopped down to f/5.6 you got a ton of depth of field, and 28mm isn't a particularly flattering focal length for a portrait.

It looks like the flash was off camera, but just barely to the photographer's right. It should probably be closer, and a bit further off centered. and a bit higher up so that it's casting down and not lighting that grass behind her, which is very distracting.

I'd have probably set the light up closer, higher, and a bit farther to the right.

Camera settings wise, I probably would have done 60mm f/4. I would have shot from the right a bit more to get the grass out of the background. drop down to ISO 100 to counter the opening of the aperture, turn the flash power down to whatever was appropriate given moving it in closer. shutter speed probably more like 1/60. Since the trees got silhouetted anyway, you might as well get a nice rich sky instead of the white you got with 1/8 shutter speed. And that would also kill your camera shake blur as well.

Derrel · Nov 25, 2012

Lowering the ISO to 100 would have cut the flash exposure a good deal, and raising the shutter speed to 1/60 second from 1/8 is a three-stop loss of ambient light, the ISO drop from 100 to 200 would be a four-stop loss of ambient light, and opening the aperture from f/5.6 to f/4 would make a NET, three-stop loss of ambient light...which would have made the night sky and the trees behind look pretty dark and ominous. I looked at the shot large on FLickr...I did not see much DOF to the front...she is JUST inside the DOF band...her front arm is out....her face is in-focus though...

Honestly...I think I would have shot this at ISO 400, not 200, to pick up MORE ambient light. I agree though that the flash is a wee bit too crisp and hard, and that a much bigger apparent light source would look a bit better for a little girl's portrait. I saw the ghost outline on the right arm...and the trees too...I can see the slight camera shake you had goin' on there....it's not horribly bad, but it is noticeable.

Overall though, this is very much "in the ballpark"...it could be processed a bit one way or another, to make it look almost like (but not 'quite') the same as if it has been lighted perfectly....it's pretty "close"...I have seen much, much, much worse, I tell you that!!! THis is a sort of environmental portrait,so I think at least some detail in the plants, and the big rock, and even the trees, is a good thing.

The one area you could adjust is to go with a MUCH warmer (higher degrees Kelvin) White Balance, to make it look more "sunset-y".

Tee · Nov 25, 2012

The second crop is much better. :thumbup:

Buckster · Nov 26, 2012

Looks like on-camera flash, no diffuser, making the light harsh, flat and the shadow from the arm very hard, which I don't personally find appealing. Also, there's something going on with the edges of her right arm (to our left), like it moved or something.

ronlane · Nov 26, 2012

fjrabon said:
light should be closer, so it's not as hard.

Looks like your ambient/flash mix was pretty close to 1:1 and you got some camera shake blur on the parts of her that weren't as nailed by flash (her right arm especially).

Why 28mm? Especially considering you stopped down to f/5.6 you got a ton of depth of field, and 28mm isn't a particularly flattering focal length for a portrait.

It looks like the flash was off camera, but just barely to the photographer's right. It should probably be closer, and a bit further off centered. and a bit higher up so that it's casting down and not lighting that grass behind her, which is very distracting.

I'd have probably set the light up closer, higher, and a bit farther to the right.

Camera settings wise, I probably would have done 60mm f/4. I would have shot from the right a bit more to get the grass out of the background. drop down to ISO 100 to counter the opening of the aperture, turn the flash power down to whatever was appropriate given moving it in closer. shutter speed probably more like 1/60. Since the trees got silhouetted anyway, you might as well get a nice rich sky instead of the white you got with 1/8 shutter speed. And that would also kill your camera shake blur as well.

Why 28mm? Good question, it wasn't something that I remember looking at. I was focused on getting the camera on the right level and angle and giving myself room in the shot so that I could crop it post and make sure that there was nothing too distracting in the background. All while trying to hurry because I was loosing the race with the setting sun.

I did not notice the camera shake until you pointed it out to me, thank you for that.

As for the lighting, I will admit to this being an on camera flash and I was using a reflector.

In the future, I will have to take the camera to fully manual, in this instance, I was using the AV mode, and was letting the camera help me out a bit.

ronlane · Nov 26, 2012

Derrel said:
Lowering the ISO to 100 would have cut the flash exposure a good deal, and raising the shutter speed to 1/60 second from 1/8 is a three-stop loss of ambient light, the ISO drop from 100 to 200 would be a four-stop loss of ambient light, and opening the aperture from f/5.6 to f/4 would make a NET, three-stop loss of ambient light...which would have made the night sky and the trees behind look pretty dark and ominous. I looked at the shot large on FLickr...I did not see much DOF to the front...she is JUST inside the DOF band...her front arm is out....her face is in-focus though...

Honestly...I think I would have shot this at ISO 400, not 200, to pick up MORE ambient light. I agree though that the flash is a wee bit too crisp and hard, and that a much bigger apparent light source would look a bit better for a little girl's portrait. I saw the ghost outline on the right arm...and the trees too...I can see the slight camera shake you had goin' on there....it's not horribly bad, but it is noticeable.

Overall though, this is very much "in the ballpark"...it could be processed a bit one way or another, to make it look almost like (but not 'quite') the same as if it has been lighted perfectly....it's pretty "close"...I have seen much, much, much worse, I tell you that!!! THis is a sort of environmental portrait,so I think at least some detail in the plants, and the big rock, and even the trees, is a good thing.

The one area you could adjust is to go with a MUCH warmer (higher degrees Kelvin) White Balance, to make it look more "sunset-y".

I like the idea of more ambient lighting for this shot. I will also bump up the warmth on the wb on this to see, because it was sunset and that was sort of the look I was hoping for.

ManualMode · Nov 26, 2012

I would agree, lighting is making her face a bit flat, and the second crop is much better. Invest in a cheap wireless system, stand and shoot through umbrella.. it would make a world of difference with something like this..

ronlane · Nov 26, 2012

Thanks Manual. I am working toward that set up, but just having to go slow and find ways to make due at this time.

MK3Brent · Nov 26, 2012

The white balances don't match.
You have a cold subject with a warm ambient.

It screams undiffused flash that's harsh and flat.

ManualMode · Nov 26, 2012

ronlane said:
Thanks Manual. I am working toward that set up, but just having to go slow and find ways to make due at this time.

If you have time to spare, order stuff on ebay from china. or find a local importer. I got a complete off-camera setup (wireless triggers, manual flash unit, stand and umbrella) for under $150.. the only problem is that shipping can take over a month..

fjrabon · Nov 26, 2012

Going to full manual isn't necessarily necessary if you understand flash compensation and exposure compensation. However many people find manual more intuitive than adjusting two kinds of compensation. Somewhat depends on how you learned flash to begin with, I suspect.

One trick I use is visually separating the image into flashed, unflashed and mixed light. Then think about what two settings I will need to get the flashed and unflashed portions right and then were that makes the mixed portions (if any of significance) play out.