Try my hand at B&W.

[zombiesniper113 13]

Logan by Trevor Baldwin, on Flickr

 

[Peeb72]

Expression says: "Don't mess with this one!"

Really captures an intensity. Nice.

 

[Derrel]

I am seeing this on my phone and it looks just great. The perfect triangle of light under the one eye. The good expression. Nice framing. This is definitely a good picture of your son. Well done!

 

[zombiesniper113 13]

Thank you very much.

 

[zombiesniper113 13]

Is there anything you can see that could have been done or you would have done differently?

Settings below.
Canon 7Dmk2 with a Canon 70-200 F4 @ 118mm
1/200 F9 ISO 200
Lighting:
Used a single 160Watt-second monolight at 1/3 power 50deg camera right at 4' with a 24" soft box.

 

[goooner]

I don't do portraits, but the huge pupils is a small distraction. Can you increase the power of your modelling light? Everything else is great though, much better than I would have been able to do.

 

[zombiesniper113 13]

This is a medical issue with Jr. He can be in direct sunlight and his pupils will only partially constrict. In less than direct sun wide open.

It does give me an idea. If I could light it right he'd be my best bet to get a cornea photo. lol

 

[tirediron]

Nicely done Rembrandt lighting.

 

[BryanMaes]

Nicely lit. Great fade to black.

 

[SquarePeg37 8]

Really well done. He should use that as his profile pic.

 

[zombiesniper113 13]

Thank you all.

 

[Derrel]

Is there anything you can see that could have been done or you would have done differently?
Settings below.
Canon 7Dmk2 with a Canon 70-200 F4 @ 118mm
1/200 F9 ISO 200
Lighting:
Used a single 160Watt-second monolight at 1/3 power 50deg camera right at 4' with a 24" soft box.

Maybe I would have added a tiny bit of light to get the top of his head to separate his hair from the black backgound. And by add light, that could be done in a number of ways, but you want to keep this type of picture dark-ish, dramatic, moody, intense, etc.. Maybe dodge his hair a little bit, to make it just the teeny-tiniest bit less black than the backdrop. Or in-camera, maybe have had a white foam-core board, or a non-firing umbrella or softbox positioned to throw a tiny bit of light onto the top of his head. Just a little bit of light on top of the head. Kind of close to the value on the camera-left side. There's probably enough "meat" to the original exposure to just do this inpost, with the dodge tool. But the picture as-shown is also quite a valid, bold, dramatic, striking picture. You could even crop off some of the top of his head and crop the left side a little bit, and make yet another good, bold, dramatic portrait.

Asking what somebody would have or might have done differently opens up a whole can of worms, and it might or might not agree with your vision of the final image. I think the degree of darkness you kept on his shadow-side ear is just about perfect: many times people will want to add fill. "Needs fill light" has become a photography forum running joke, so when anybody says that...well...grain of salt and all.

 

[zombiesniper113 13]

Thank you for the help. Always appreciated.

I understand the dangers of asking what others would do but I do like to hear/see a different approach to my own just to be exposed to what I may not have though about.
On this shot I figured I got it pretty close but it's never perfect. I can always learn something. Like while shooting on one frame I had Logan stand back a bit to far and it was the lighting was really unflattering and just washed his face out.
It was a good learning experience to shoot with a single light. One that I'll experiment with again since there are more angles to explore and more to learn.

 

[Derrel]

I'd like to thank you for providing the basic tchnical/equipment details of modifier, distance, light placement angle, f/stop, and so on. I think knowing those things really helps people who look at the photo and then can roughly correlate the results with the stuff used to make the picture. I personally LIKE the smaller 24 x 24 inch softboxes and have several. At closer distances like 4 feet, they have a pretty rapid degree of fall-off from highlight to shadow, so the exact placement of them, or the subject, makes a big difference in the lighting result. Moving them BACK, farther away, they have less of a highlight/shadow difference, and in the case of this shot of Logan, if the light had been at say 6 feet, you might have gotten that little bit of light on his hair without needing a reflector, or post-software dodging.

And the thing is: using a single, 24" softbox, you're really learning how to light, precisely, with a light source that creates a real, defined, noticeable direction to the light. These days, so many people want that 60" or 72" modifier...that big, soft, mushy "wall of light" that comes from "the east coast of North America" or "the west coast": but that doesn't reveal much about how to place the light exactingly. The 24" box is the Zombiesniper modifier; the 60" and 72" box is the Zombieshotgunner modifier.

I think learning to light using a single, smaller modifier, like a 24" square box, or a 30 or 32" diam,eter umbrella, is the way to start out. it's more-exacting, and it SHOWS what the light actually does, without much doubt. Ther smaller modifier shows where the light was, and how it hit. I personally think this is the best way to start out for many types of shots, with one, smallish modifier and a simple subject.

 

[DanOstergren26 2]

Is there anything you can see that could have been done or you would have done differently?

I love the lighting and personally I love the look of a single light, but I would recommend placing a white reflector below his face for a subtle clamshell effect to light up his eyes a little bit more. I think the dark areas of the photo all bleed together and would be fixed by taking a much more subtle approach to applying contrast in post-production. Could you post the unedited version?