portrait with octabox

Mitchell

My wife hated my last attempt at recreating a portrait of my oldest in this same outfit. The print promptly went in the garbage.

Here is my attempt today. My first shot with an octabox and the strobes. Can you tell I don't know what I'm doing?
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

heatherfeather

No, I can't tell. (but then I don't know much about lighting)

What I see: A georgious little girl with very nice light. You are putting your new strobes to good work!

Mitchell

Thanks Heather!

Here is the original shot of my oldest taken by a pro over 10 years ago in that same outfit.

heatherfeather

My good ness they could be twins! (yours is better, BTW)

Scott_Quier

It's all in the light. In the 10yo shot, the lights are balanced, almost 1:1. There's one up and to the left, and the second a little low and to the right.

In yours, you have an almost 1:2 light ratio, with the key light up and to the right (also, closer to the girl than either of the lights in the "original). The second light is a little low and to the left and quite a bit further away from the girl than either of the lights in the "original".

It's all about reverse engineering the light. Looking at the catchlights is one of the easiest ways of doing this.

Flyinggina

Both girls are so very cute!! I like your photo a lot better than the pro version, fwiw.

Virginia

Mitchell

Scott_Quier wrote:

It's all in the light. In the 10yo shot, the lights are balanced, almost 1:1. There's one up and to the left, and the second a little low and to the right.

In yours, you have an almost 1:2 light ratio, with the key light up and to the right (also, closer to the girl than either of the lights in the "original). The second light is a little low and to the left and quite a bit further away from the girl than either of the lights in the "original".

It's all about reverse engineering the light. Looking at the catchlights is one of the easiest ways of doing this.

Scott, thanks for your great reply. I can see what you are talking about in the original shot. The lighting is very even. I was under the impression that the ratio I had was a little more desireable to give more dimension to the subject. Would you say the original looks a little flatter due to the even ratio?

I'm not sure about one or two catchlights. Is it really so much more desireable to have one rather than two?

Mitchell

Flyinggina wrote:

Both girls are so very cute!! I like your photo a lot better than the pro version, fwiw.

Virginia

Ha!!! Thanks a lot, Gina!!

This was my first real portrait attempt with strobes. I have to confess that I have no idea what I am doing. I just adjusted the strobes to different ratios and then just played with the camera settings while looking at the histogram.

evoryware

I think it is a beautiful high key image for not knowing what you are doing. You could clone out the smaller catchlight but I think it's a matter of taste. Sometimes I see one catchlight which is what many aim for. Sometimes I see four catchlights and it doesn't make an image any worse imo...

Scott_Quier

Mitchell wrote:

Scott, thanks for your great reply. I can see what you are talking about in the original shot. The lighting is very even. I was under the impression that the ratio I had was a little more desireable to give more dimension to the subject. Would you say the original looks a little flatter due to the even ratio?

I'm not sure about one or two catchlights. Is it really so much more desireable to have one rather than two?

First, the disclaimer - I'm no expert and I hope I've not given the impression that I think I might be. So, any opinion I offer is worth almost what you paid for it

The lighting in the original is flatter, but I don't think it was taken to far. There are very subtle shadows around the mouth and nose that give it some depth. There is a shadow in yours over your daughter's right eye that is IMO too strong (for this type of photo) in that it actually hides that portion of her face. Bringing up the fill a bit will take care of it. I don't think I would bring it all the way up to 1:1 'cause, like you say, shadows are a good thing.

If you don't mind, here's one of mine I did a while ago (and posted) where the lighting is closer to 1:1, but there is enough shadow detail necessary to give depth:


Were I in your place, I would take a series of shots at different lighting ratios for you and, more importantly, for your wife to pick from.

Looking at the photos again, there's another element in the original that gives it some depth - the background. It has some interest without even coming close to dominating the image. Oh, and in the orignial there's the white vignette (which dates the photo a bit) and IMO comes up a little high.

One vs. two catchlights - again, IMO (FWIW) I with evoryware on this one - it's a matter of taste. From a psychological point of view, I think many people will relate to one more than they will to more than one - mostly because they are used to seeing only one - from the sun. But, I don't think more than one is an issue as that shows up "in nature" quite often - just put a subject amongst a group of trees (for example) and look at the eyes - lots of catchlights there.

Would I clone out one to get only one in the eyes - no because then, on a subconscious level, the shadows on the face wouldn't look right and viewer's might be uncomfortable with the image and not know why.

ladytx

I like your photo much better than the original. It has a softer feel to it. I like the lighting better. Those are beautiful girls and they look so much alike. I sure would like to have that glorious hair!!

Scott_Quier

ladytx wrote:

I like your photo much better than the original. It has a softer feel to it. I like the lighting better. Those are beautiful girls and they look so much alike. I sure would like to have that glorious hair!!

She's right about the softer feel. With this as a clue, I looked at your shot again and I notice the focus is not on her face/eyes. Looking at her hair, the point of critical focus seems to be just a touch beyond her eyes. It's kinda' a cardinal rule that the eyes (or at least the near eye) have got to be in focus.

It feels to me like I'm beating you up over this photo and that's really not my intent. I like it. I really do. I'm just trying my best to provide a second set of eyes.