New Studio Setup. C&C!

JackRabbit · Jan 17, 2010

This is shot in my new studio setup that I put in our spare room.

Strobist Info:
Vivitar 283 camera right, pointed away from the subject and shot into a reflector. Triggered via optical slave.
Canon 430EZ on camera, pointed to the left into a reflector which bounced the light onto the subject.

Also, add me on flickr! I am always looking for new sources of inspiration.

kkamin · Jan 17, 2010

I think it is decent overall. Things I think could improve: I think the lighting feel a little flat. She's not quite selling the pose either for me; it just looks like her arm is slung over her head and her head and neck look tense. The chair looks kind of cheap. It's the ragged texture. I would either replace it with a backless stool.

I like the color of the background and how that works really well with her hair. She is photogenic and I think with a few tweaks you could improve the portrait considerably. Good luck in your new space.

JackRabbit · Jan 17, 2010

I get that critique a lot "the lighting looks very flat." I'm not sure I understand that concept. Can you explain that a bit to me? Or maybe show me how you would improve this photo to make it look less flat.

PatrickCheung · Jan 17, 2010

i'm no professional but i really like looking at

i'm liking the background, i'm liking the contrast between the model's shirt, i'm also liking how the colour of her hair goes with the background, but the pose doesnt seem very fitting for me... maybe if she was on a bed or something... kinda like she just woke up. the chair i'm not feeling either.

this pose might've worked with her standing up head tilted to the left (camera left) side and up, legs shoulder width apart.

as for the lighting, it's not too dramatic it lights everything up evenly, which is good. the light is soft, but i think it might be a bit TOO soft. but i'm a fan of more dramatic lighting

and for the flickr... same here.
here's my flickr

burnws6 · Jan 17, 2010

JackRabbit said:
I get that critique a lot "the lighting looks very flat." I'm not sure I understand that concept. Can you explain that a bit to me? Or maybe show me how you would improve this photo to make it look less flat.

make sure your flash out put is a stop higher or lower then the other so you have different contrast. Shadows kill flat lighting. Remember that.

IgsEMT · Jan 17, 2010

flat - no differentiation b/n shadows and highlights - even lighting.
light intensity on her right shoulder is similar to one on her left shoulder.

Read this site. It' is old school, but it is how many photogs (me including) learned to light for portraits
Portrait Lighting
good luck

burnws6 · Jan 17, 2010

IgsEMT said:
flat - no differentiation b/n shadows and highlights - even lighting.
light intensity on her right shoulder is similar to one on her left shoulder.

Read this site. It' is old school, but it is how many photogs (me including) learned to light for portraits
Portrait Lighting
good luck

I thought that's what I said it was lol

Derrel · Jan 17, 2010

I think it is underexposed by a stop and a half or so. I see yo sot it at ISO 100 at f/7.1 at 1/125 second. Her black shirt is very dark and detail-free, so if you had just bumped the ISO up to 250 to 320, it would have looked better exposed.

When people say the lighting is "flat" what they mean is that there is no shadow and no highlight side to her--each side has almost perfectly equal shadow/highlight relationship, and the lighting is very soft and shadow-free, for the most part. Sure, there are some slight shadow areas, but both sides of her face have very even, soft, diffused lighting. The lighting does not shape or sculpt her face, so that's why some people would call this lighting "flat".

Don't worry though--you are just getting started!

JackRabbit · Jan 17, 2010

Thank you so much for all those tips you guys. And I will definitely read that site IgsEMT.

kkamin · Jan 17, 2010

I'm sure you know all this, but this will help the explanation. Photography is a 2D medium and we use light to form highlights and shadows to help sculpt shape and the illusion of depth. I would google "rembrandt lighting" and "beauty lighting" for the placement of lights, if you don't know. Beauty light tends to work well with females, since you want to usually want to minimize skin texture and blemishes.

What makes flat lighting is that the ratio of highlight to shadow is super close in strength. If you have a light meter, you'll want to maybe start at 1 stop less light on the shadow side. That means the shadow side of the face is receiving only 1/2 the light as the highlight side. This is a standard ratio for color photography and does a good job of modeling the face and revealing its form. And obviously the bigger the difference in light levels, the darker the shadows.

If you don't have a light meter, I would just chimp and keep adjusting until you get the desired result. You can google "lighting ratios" to see some examples of what standard ratios look like.

Good luck.

pharmakon · Jan 17, 2010

JackRabbit said:
I get that critique a lot "the lighting looks very flat." I'm not sure I understand that concept. Can you explain that a bit to me? Or maybe show me how you would improve this photo to make it look less flat.

Flat being you are pretty much lighting both sides of her equally as bright. There should be some shadows to show depth.

Since you're working with 2 lights, one left, one right, maybe try playing with your ratio a little (as in brightness of one light compared to the other) to try to get a little bit of shadow to show depth.

I found an awesome tutorial online one day where you could move and adjust the brightness of the lights in a "virtual studio" to see the affect on a subject... I'll try to find it again for you tomorrow, have to so to sleep now.