Help w/ Group Lighting problems?

photobug · July 31, 2006

(this is in follow-up to earlier thread http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=38411)

I'm preparing for a famliy group photo. I just picked up two studio strobes to help light this outdoor portrait evenly ... plus 10' stands and 40" umbrellas. The umbrellas are the convertible "shoot-through" or "bounce" type; I've started out taking some sample shots using the umbys in bounce mode (with the silver-lined black covers in place, over the back of the white interior). The set up was:

the two umbrellas were on either side of the subject at about 45-degree angles from the lens axis
the center of the umbrellas (strobe level) is about 5' high (roughly average eye level for the 10 people who will be in the group photo)
the umbrellas are about 15' away from the subject
the left one is set at 1/2 power (GN=81, before bounce loss in umbrella)
the right one is set at 1/4 power (GN=57, before bounce loss in umbrella)
the test shots were at ISO 200 (intended to allow sufficient ambient exposure for background, without losing too much depth of field)
also, I'm shooting with shoe-mount flash at low power (-2EV), ostensibly to trigger the other flashes as slaves (I could run PC cords, though, and eliminate the shoe-mount flash)
I shot the samples with my 24-105 lens; since it ended up at about 50mm, I plan to shoot the final photo using my 50mm f/1.4 prime lens
the exposure was 1/125 @ f/5.6

Attached are cropped areas from a couple of test shots [using easily-available subjects ;-)]. On the sample crops, I circled some areas that seemed problematic to me.

Here are my questions:

In (1a) and (1b), there are undesirable shadows appearing (from man's shirt collar and perhaps from the girls, cheek) . How do I eliminate them or reduce them to an accepable level? (Is the problem that the shadows exist, or more likely, that they are too sharply defined?)
Would raising the light stands (therefore the strobes/umbrellas) help with at least the collar shadows?
I understand that some options for softening the shadows are:
- Move the umbrellas closer to the subjects
  (However, I wonder if the light would then cover the width of all 10 people in the "real" group. How wide an area will flash from a 40" umbrella cover at a closer distance (say, 10 feet)?)
- Take off the covers, turn the umbrellas around, and use them in shoot-through mode ... I've read that that will produce softer lighting than the bounce arrangement I used for the test shots.
- Do both -- move the umbys closer and use them in shoot-through mode?
In picture (2), the effect of 3 flashes is apparent in having 3 catchlights in the eyes. If I eliminate the shoe-mount flash, I presume the center catchlight will go away. But will it be a problem having two, instead of one? If not, how do I get it down to one? (Is this something I should even be worrying about?)
I have a Sekonic L-358 flash meter on the way, to arrive in a couple of days, but it wasn't here to help at all with these test shots. Will it help me set up more easily for this (and other) shots, or am I kidding myself?
Shooting at 50mm focal length with 1.6x crop factor sensor puts the camera at about 20' from the subjects -- am I correct in assuming that since only the lens-to-subject distance establishes perspective, that this will give approx the perspective of an 80mm lens on a 35mm camera ... and, with a shot of two rows of people, will that be far enough to give OK perspective (front row won't look out of proportion to back row, as happened to me once before when I thoughtlessly shot with a much shorter focal length)?
Is there anything else I could be doing to improve the lighting for this shot, that I haven't asked about?

Thanks a million for any suggestions you fellow DGrin'ers can offer! Mucho appreciated...
= Dave

Andy · July 31, 2006

Not sure but there might be some nuggets in this thread for you...

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=13671&page=2

photobug · July 31, 2006

Andy wrote:

Not sure but there might be some nuggets in this thread for you...

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=13671&page=2

Thanks, Andy, there are some good tips there! (someone referred me to that thread in my previous thread).

The questions have now turned to more specific lighting issues than were addressed in Mongrel's thread...

= Dave

ziggy53 · July 31, 2006

PhotoBug,

Regarding the shadow shape and complexion:

Assuming that your flashes were able to fill the umbrellas, you can either use larger umbrellas or position the umbrellas closer to the subject (or both) to produce softer shadows.

To make sure that your flashes fill the umbrellas, put some kind of diffusor in front of the flash (to increase the rate of light expansion) and play with the distance of the flash head to umbrella until you get the best overall coverage.

Large softboxes are still a pretty good way to go, even outdoors, because the flat panel front allows very close positioning to the subject. The problem is that most softboxes are designed to be used with "studio" flash heads and rings. You may have to get creative with the attachment to the portable flash and support.

Personally, I don't see a horrible problem with the shadows. Shadows are very important to "hinting" the three dimensionality of the subject to the viewer. If you think the shadows need to be softer, especially at large size, that's a valid reason.

Regarding the multiple catch-lights in the eyes:

This is an age old problem that many pros used to use spotting dye to fix, but with a digital camera you can use the healing brush and/or the clone brush to fix. I am seeing more examples of multiple lights in the eyes so it would seem that many folks just don't worry about it anymore.

I would not recommend moving the lights to eliminate the catch-lights, assuming that you otherwise like how the lights are working for you, but you can use a small reflector in front of the trigger flash to divert it towards one of the slaves and prevent it from showing at all.

ziggy53

photobug · August 1, 2006

Thanks (again), Ziggy...

ziggy53 wrote:

Regarding the shadow shape and complexion:
Assuming that your flashes were able to fill the umbrellas, you can either use larger umbrellas or position the umbrellas closer to the subject (or both) to produce softer shadows.

To make sure that your flashes fill the umbrellas, put some kind of diffusor in front of the flash (to increase the rate of light expansion) and play with the distance of the flash head to umbrella until you get the best overall coverage.

Hmm, this is a very good point. It didn't occur to me that the reflector on these new studio flashes might be concentrating the light too much, but that is certainly a possibility. I have the umbrella out as far from the flash as its rod will allow ... yet if I stand in the "subject" location and fire the flashes, there appears (to my eye) to be a brighter circle inside the umbrellas filling only about half their diameter. I don't know how much I can trust my "eye" on that, but now I suspect you may be on to something!

What would you suggest as a diffuser (hung over the end of the reflector) -- is a piece of white paper (e.g. standard copy paper) OK? I don't think I have a piece of white fabric handy (although I could certainly try to get some).

Large softboxes are still a pretty good way to go, even outdoors, because the flat panel front allows very close positioning to the subject. The problem is that most softboxes are designed to be used with "studio" flash heads and rings. You may have to get creative with the attachment to the portable flash and support.

I am using studio flashes now (see link above), albeit "starter" ones, so the flashes shouldn't be a problem at this point.

Personally, I don't see a horrible problem with the shadows. Shadows are very important to "hinting" the three dimensionality of the subject to the viewer. If you think the shadows need to be softer, especially at large size, that's a valid reason.

OK, thanks for the opinion. That makes me feel a little better, but I'd still like to tame them a bit ... when I have 10 people grouped there, there are bound to be shadows forming among them, which would best be kept soft.

Regarding the multiple catch-lights in the eyes:
This is an age old problem that many pros used to use spotting dye to fix, but with a digital camera you can use the healing brush and/or the clone brush to fix.

Yes, I could easily do that -- I'm learning though that it's best to get as much "right" when the photograph is taken, to minimize time needed in "post" and keep it as natural-looking as possible.

But given your other comments about this, and the difficulty of eliminating it in the first place, this is a pretty minor issue and I'm willing to just ignore it (and possibly touch it up after the fact, if I notice it then -- I doubt anyone else in the family will consciously notice it)

= Dave

ziggy53 · August 1, 2006

Make sure you look at this thread:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=39340

As far as your setup for group photography, I would suggest that the lights be closer together if you shoot 10 people in 2-3 rows. The problem is both shadows cast by the people ahead of the back rows and keeping the light even between sides.

If you don't have to overpower the sunlight, then use it to your advantage as indirect light and use your strobes as fill lights.

ziggy53

photobug · August 9, 2006

Posting of the final photo
Thanks so much to all who generously contributed their "voices of experience" to make this family photo happen!

Some of the people in the photo live in Europe, some in the Midwest, and some in California. This was important because it's the first time we've all been in one spot for over 8 years (since my own wedding) and it's not clear when/if this confluence of family members will occur again.

Attached is the final photo (downsized). Maybe now I should cross-post it in "The Whipping Post" forum?

...If anyone's curious, I'm the rightmost fellow in the photo (in the plaid shirt).

I ended up satisfied with the result, but of course numerous flaws (in posing, lighting, camera technique, etc) jump out at me. But it's good enough that I won't let myself get hung up over the flaws as long as I come away learning from the experience.

Thanks again for everyone's help at DGrin!

ziggy53 · August 9, 2006

Nice Job!

Really, you can be proud of what you accomplished. Don't sweat the little stuff. I see faces that look happy and no major technical problems whatsoever. I've seen highly paid professionals that did poorly compared to this.

Rutt has a tutorial on sharpening, if you decide it's needed. (It's a very subjective choice, and you should use the full sized image to decide.)

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=9541

Thanks,

ziggy53

Help w/ Group Lighting problems?

Comments