My first portrait---suggestions?
JustPlainMe
Registered Users Posts: 190 Major grins
I do not do portraits and after today, I can see why! I really admire all those of you who post stunning portraits day after day.
A friend of mine wanted a head shot for her husband for Father's Day. She recently acquired a simple, entry-level home lighting studio (main light, fill light, umbrellas) and asked if I would be willing to try some for her, as a birthday gift.
I used her camera---a Nikon D60, with speedlite. Really hard to jump to a different camera, even though it is a nice, intuitive setup. It was really hard to get the lights angled correctly. I tried watching the catchlights in her eyes, and saw how a few times, I had the lights at the wrong angles. The only way I knew was because the catchlights were at funny places.
The color versions are really, really warm. I forgot to shoot in RAW, so I figured these looked better in B&W anyway. I'm going to try to fix the hot spot on her nose and forehead tonight, but if anyone has any tips, please let me know!
A friend of mine wanted a head shot for her husband for Father's Day. She recently acquired a simple, entry-level home lighting studio (main light, fill light, umbrellas) and asked if I would be willing to try some for her, as a birthday gift.
I used her camera---a Nikon D60, with speedlite. Really hard to jump to a different camera, even though it is a nice, intuitive setup. It was really hard to get the lights angled correctly. I tried watching the catchlights in her eyes, and saw how a few times, I had the lights at the wrong angles. The only way I knew was because the catchlights were at funny places.
The color versions are really, really warm. I forgot to shoot in RAW, so I figured these looked better in B&W anyway. I'm going to try to fix the hot spot on her nose and forehead tonight, but if anyone has any tips, please let me know!
Please ignore my opinions! And if I ask for constructive criticism, please give it to me. I have really thick skin! :huh
0
Comments
GaryB
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it!” - Ansel Adams
Gary, wow, thanks for taking the time to help me out. The second one is probably a double whammy---overexposed both with the lighting and then the action I ran in PP. I'll go back and revisit it, and see what I can do with it. I'm sure I heavy-handed the action. I agree with the underexpose vs. overexpose, and I won't use strange equipment as an excuse. I am, however, not familiar with how her camera handles ISO---can anyone tell me if you clean up ISO 800 on that model fairly easily? I'm using her camera b/c I don't have a speedlite or off camera flash.
The lights were fairly close---four feet for the main, six for the fill? I probably have 6 feet I can work with for backing them up. I had the camera even with the main light, I did shoot on manual.
EXIF: 1/50, f/5.6, ISO 200 for both.
I will set this up again and use your suggestions. I had the speedlite at about a 60 degree angle. Straight on was too harsh, straight off the ceiling was way too dark.
Thanks again, I'll keep trying! Indoor lighting is so tricky.
Sarah
GaryB
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it!” - Ansel Adams
Anyway if you're using flash lighting, whether strobes or speedlights, adjusting the shutter speed isn't going to affect the exposure from your lights. It will of course alter the ambient exposure, but the lights flash at 1/1000 of a second or less, which is a much faster shutter speed than the camera can achieve while using flash. This means that no matter what shutter speed you set when using flash, the entire flash makes it into the exposure. So the only way to adjust the light from the flash is to alter the aperture or ISO (both of which will affect the ambient exposure as well) or to actually change the power on the flash units.
How did you set the flash power in the first place? Any nikon speedlight, even an SB400, should provide plenty of light for a shot like this when bounced off a normal ceiling. However, you said that when you bounced the flash the shot was underexposed...
If you find that your lights are too bright and overexposing your subject, you can move them back, yes, but the farther away your lights are the smaller they become relative to the subject. Imagine an umbrella 20 ft. away from you. It's basically just a point source of light at that point. That's an extreme example but the point is the farther away you place the lights, the smaller they are, which means they're going to provide a harder light source with sharper shadows. This often is not what we want when doing portraits of people. Moving the lights in close (when used with umbrellas or softboxes, etc.) makes them much softer and generally more flattering to the subjects. Of course when you move them in close you also have to dial the power down to make up for the fact that they are closer to the subject.
http://blog.timkphotography.com
This is where I'm going to get in trouble! I know absolutely nothing---less than nothing---about lighting and its terminology. Up until now I've always used natural light and my camera flash. I'm probably going to say the wrong thing . . .
The lights are just simple tungsten lamps (continuous) (I remember the bulbs said 3200K), which I just read about, which explains the massive WB problem that I wasn't expecting that mimicked underexposure. Shooting in RAW will most likely fix all of those "exposure" problems. So they weren't flash lights, it was continuous light.
The speedlight is an SB-400. Can you change the flash compensation on the speedlight the same way you can on the on-camera flash? I hadn't thought about that. I'm also going to rig up a diffuser. Thinking about the WB problem, I think I probably had sufficient light, it was just had an awful color. When I got closer to the subjects with the lights behind me, and shot with the speedlight bouncing off the ceiling, I got a more natural light SOOC. It's still a tad yellow, but better.
These lights are so basic that I can't change the power. I might have her come to my place, where I have a more open room with good natural light. I think I could get away with a wider aperture and speedlight in that room without having to use the lamps.
Thanks again, I learned a ton just googling so I could understand what you were asking!
Sarah
Why use the speedlight at all if you're using the hot lights? You can then use your own camera and just maniupate two lights, which should be plenty for pleasing, simply-lit portrait. Takes one of the challenges out of the equation!
Diffusion will help soften the light more - I've put sheets of tracing paper in front of cliplights - keep one HECK of an eye on it in case it starts to burn (WHOOPS!) but for short periods it might work. Some people in the challenges forum are using used fabric softener sheets as diffusers, too - I gather that it's worked quite well (and they might be a little more heat resistant!). Even better might be to just rig up a piece of white fabric a foot or so in front of the key light (old sheet?) and shine the light THROUGH that onto the subject, rather than trying to attach something to the light itself. That has the advantage of making the light source seem bigger too, which will instantly soften it.
Even better than just the two lights on their own, add a reflector into the mix - I'm currently very fond of a simple setup of main light at a 45 degree angle, reflector on the other side to act as fill, and the 2nd light used for the background or to light the hair and separate it from the background.
If you don't already have a reflector, get thee to a Walmart (or similar) and buy one of those pop-open car-windscreen shades - you usually get two to a package,and at $10 for TWO (I got the XL side for trucks and SUVs) they won't break the bank.
Hope that helps! I'm at the beginning of this portrait-lighting-thing myself, but I've learned a ton just by DOING it - you'll be amazed how simple it seems once you've played around with it a little more. And it's fun!
The lights are pointed away from the subject, with the umbrellas over them, reflecting the light back---should I turn the lights around, take the umbrellas out, and use my own reflectors? This is where it becomes confusing to me. Thinking about all this, that setup just won't work in her space. I'm going to have to try it somewhere else.
The close-cropping seemed to be made necessary by the background problem---changing venue would let me work more with DOF and that sort of thing. But I can definitely back up and try that.
It definitely helps, gives me lots to play with. She wants me to come practice a lot. She has money to spend, but no interest in playing with the toys; I don't have the money, but the interest, so we're partnering up to have some grown-up fun. She has 4 kids; two sets of twins, less than a year apart, and the goal ultimately is to get those kids to sit still so I can try to get some good shots for her.
Thanks!
As divamum said, the two lights should be plenty. The problem with trying to mix the flash in with the hotlights is that the color temperature is very different between the two, and the flash will introduce a cool cast to whatever areas of the image that are lit primarily by it. To fix the WB problems just use the two hotlights and if possible set your camera to 3200K as labeled on the lights. If your camera doesn't have Kelvin WB adjustment then just set it to tungsten or, best of all, do a custom WB. Put your lens in manual focus and crank it out to infinity, then stick it right in front of a white piece of paper that's lit by the hotlights to do your custom setting. The actual method is different with different cameras, however, so you'll have to check your manual for the proper technique.
Another option for a reflector is a piece of white foamboard, sold at walmart for $3. It won't reflect as much light as the silver windshield reflector but it will have softer, warmer quality to it. Both are good depending on what look your're going for.
http://blog.timkphotography.com
He-he, that's funny . . .
Thank you both so much for your help. I learned a ton, and am determined to go back out and try all your tips! I appreciate all your help and time with a newbie.
Sarah
That's where experimentation comes in. Try both, see which one you like more. Try different postions for your lights, different poses, etc. Remember, if you're having trouble keeping a fast enough shutter speed to hand hold, get your lights in as close as you can (more efficient and softer light as a bonus) and if you're still not their bump your ISO up. I notice these were shot at ISO 200. If you went ISO 400 you could have shot at 1/100 and got the same exposure and had a much easier time with the handholding. Doubling the ISO doubles the exposure, so if you double the shutter speed you'll be back where you started. If you went up to ISO 800 you would have got the same exposure at 1/200 (though on the D60 I'd try to keep it as low as possible. 400 wouldn't be bad, 800 only if you need it, and 1600 is a last resort).
http://blog.timkphotography.com
Good luck with it - and post back as you work on it!
I set up the lights in my dining room, no ambient light, no speedlight or flash, just the two lights w/umbrellas. I shot in RAW, and adjusted the color temperature to 3100K in post.
This one looks better to my eye than the original post, but I'm still not sure what I'm looking for. She was very happy with these, and her husband loved them, so I'm happy for her, but I'd like to continue pursuing the understanding of all this indoor stuff.
One thing I learned was she needs a hairlight; her hair is just about jet-black and against the dark background, her hair lost dimension and contrast. Also, I was surprised to learn how quickly I could spot her "good side"----all shots taken nearly straight on or with her face turned to the right were not nearly as flattering.
Looking at the recent photo, I was going to suggest a hair light, then read your post and you stated you realized you needed it. I think your starting to catch on to indoor studio lighting! If you ever get to the point where you simply want to own your own studio lights check this site out http://www.lincoinc168.com/ and check out the different setups they have available. This is where I purchased all my studio lighting. I tend to like the floressant lighting, caause they operate cooler, and if needed, you can move them in very close without getting too hot for the subject. If you want to go even further, I can send you some links for backgrounds and stands, at affordable prices as well.
GaryB
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it!” - Ansel Adams
That may have simply been a product of the light setup. Any time a person looks straight into the camera their face is going to look just about as wide as it possibly can look. What you have in this shot is called "short lighting" where the main light is on the side of the face that's turned away from the camera. This is generally more flattering for any subject because it makes their face appear thinner since the part that's turned towards the camera is in shadow and only a narrow portion is highlighted.
The opposite is called "broad lighting" and that's when the light is on the side of the face that's turned toward the camera. This will make a person's face appear larger and is generally less flattering.
It's entirely possible that when she turned her head to the other side and the lights remained in that postion that the broad lighting is what caused the pose to be less flattering. Of course it's also possible that she just has a "good side". But it's worth keeping this in mind when shooting people in general. Of course rules were meant to be broken and there's lots of great shots of people that utilized broad lighting, but it's a good thing to be aware of.
Anyway this shot shows a lot of improvement. The light is softer without the sharp shadow that I think was probably caused by the sb400 in the original shots. The B&W conversion looks good too. Personally I think the hair looks fine in this shot, but hairlights are a personal preference more than anything IMO. Her expression looks a little tense to me... but as far as the lighting goes I think you nailed it!
http://blog.timkphotography.com