Some comments on one of my first off-cam-umbrella shots

AaronJAndersonAaronJAnderson Registered Users Posts: 28 Big grins
edited March 5, 2011 in Technique
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aa8888/5483817206/in/photostream/
5483817206_0d13155da0.jpg

I had a little dinner party a few days after setting up my first off camera flash setup.

I'm shooting through a Photoflex 60 inch Convertible Umbrella (This thing is HUGE!) Everything in manual mode. Triggers are the Yongnuo RF602's. These are excellent for 38 dollars! I can't get to the exif data right now, but will later.

As I said, it was after a dinner party (as in, nobody should operate heavy machinery) so please be nice. :D

I'm working on getting a second strobe set up in the year for some effect. What (technically) would you have done different, or did I do well in this shot?

Comments

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,132 moderator
    edited March 2, 2011
    I gather that you only used one flash and that flash was into the umbrella pretty far?

    The orientation of the flash and umbrella is awfully much like Rembrandt lighting. As such, it's not bad for the male subject but definitely not too flattering for the female subject. It also looks like the flash was too close to the umbrella and/or not using any diffusion of the light from the flash to better fill the umbrella. It also looks like pretty strong contrast in processing the image.

    I suggest that next time have the flash fill the umbrella and try the umbrella again in shoot-through orientation and very close to the subjects, but positioned higher and with some sort of fill light, even if just from a reflector like a large white card on the opposite side of the subjects from the light, but with the reflector card close to the camera. (Alternately use a second flash for fill.) Also process the image with less contrast to try to bring out the shadow detail and prevent loss of detail in the highlights.

    It's still much better than flash used straight ahead so you can be commended for a more interesting light that really does work pretty well for the male. thumb.gif
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • AaronJAndersonAaronJAnderson Registered Users Posts: 28 Big grins
    edited March 2, 2011
    You've got a pretty good handle on things ziggy!

    The photo-taking was totally ad-hoc and in the background of the dinner party, not expected or planned at all. Not making excuses for myself, I save these threads in a journal for reference. :)

    Anyway, one flash fired through a 60 inch umbrella that was probably 5 feet away from the subjects. It was a little low because there is a fan in the way, even with a cathedral ceiling. I was directly in front of them and the 'brella was to the side of me. I posted the same picture at dpreview.com and got some good advice for positioning the flash in the umbrella. I think I may have had it zoomed in to 105mm on accident. We were more concerned about fun than good photos.

    I neglected to buy a reflector not knowing how good it would be to have one. Everyone who I've shown this photo to (photogs anyway) all say the same thing, "what, no reflector?" So I'm going to try and find one on B&H and get it ordered today. I'm trying to decide if I want to buy an additional umbrella, or if I want to get a constant light source. Perhaps one of the 5x85watt CFL setups. Either have that in an octabox or umbrella, haven't decided.
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,132 moderator
    edited March 2, 2011
    A reflector can be just about anything but a large sheet of "Foam-Core" works pretty well.

    I tend to use all electronic flash and flash modifiers just because I find it easier to point and to moderate the output.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • AaronJAndersonAaronJAnderson Registered Users Posts: 28 Big grins
    edited March 2, 2011
    How about this one? I know her hand looks silly and the framing is a little bit off. But in terms of the light only...

    DSC_0978.jpg

    re: lighting equipment.... I was thinking about having one constant light at least so I can do some food photography.. it'd just be nice to have the light to make focusing easier, etc.
  • QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
    edited March 2, 2011
    the light in the 2nd shot is definitely softer and nicer. Now you run into another issue when shooting 2 people with an umbrella..light fall off. It's not too bad in this case but she is more exposed then he. To help offset this, you need to move the umbrella a bit closer to the camera and if you have any leeway in positioning the couple have them facing the umbrella a touch more. That way the light source is more equidistant to each subject if you get my drift. Also it appears that the umbrella is still pretty far away from them judging by the catchlights in their eyes (or else the flash is too close to the umbrella so that the full surface of the umbreall is not being used). The umbrella needs to be literally just out of camera view to get the nicest sofest light.

    Finally you missed focus on the eyes (maybe it is your lens?). The image is soft overall. Try f4 and single focal point over one of their eyes.
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • angevin1angevin1 Registered Users Posts: 3,403 Major grins
    edited March 2, 2011
    I actually don't think the first one was unflattering from the lighting perspective. She did have a butterfly and he a Rembrandt...so really kinda decent for first time and one flash..pretty darned good. I do think its a bit contrasty, but that is a taste sensation. The second ...correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that a bit soft or out of focus?
    tom wise
  • QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
    edited March 2, 2011
    angevin1 wrote: »
    I actually don't think the first one was unflattering from the lighting perspective. She did have a butterfly and he a Rembrandt...so really kinda decent for first time and one flash..pretty darned good. I do think its a bit contrasty, but that is a taste sensation. The second ...correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that a bit soft or out of focus?

    actually I am with you on your eval of the 1st image. I kinda like it.
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • AaronJAndersonAaronJAnderson Registered Users Posts: 28 Big grins
    edited March 2, 2011
    Butterfly and Rembrandt?

    The 2nd one is a little out of focus... i was wasn't paying attention to it for this, just firing at will and letting auto focus do its thing.
  • angevin1angevin1 Registered Users Posts: 3,403 Major grins
    edited March 3, 2011
    AaronJAnderson wrote: »
    Butterfly and Rembrandt?

    The 2nd one is a little out of focus... i was wasn't paying attention to it for this, just firing at will and letting auto focus do its thing.


    Butterfly & Rembrandt refer to the types of Shadows on their faces. His, has a Rembrandt. The Master Painter used that type of shadowing in his portraits. And Below her nose is a butterfly. Neither are very strong here, but they are there. The out of focus thing makes sense now!
    tom wise
  • ErinMarieErinMarie Registered Users Posts: 1 Beginner grinner
    edited March 4, 2011
    Very Nice
    Your style seems very urban--so real. Personally, for this kind of style I'd just use a camera mounted flash and you'd get that cool, party like style image. But job well done! Like your style.

    Erin
  • AaronJAndersonAaronJAnderson Registered Users Posts: 28 Big grins
    edited March 5, 2011
    Thanks Erin! I do like some camera mounted flash setups. I like Terry Richardson's style a lot. He's gritty and earthy.
Sign In or Register to comment.