I took these a few weeks ago. They are my first using my Einstein strobe. I forgot a piece I needed to attach my 64" PLM so I used a small shoot through umbrella.
I like this slightly darker lighting, sets a mood.
Number one is best, two loses the hair into the background.
As for the model, why is it that women think that by tatoos etc. they can improve on perfection. I always think a beautiful women renders herself less so by tampering with what is natural - that goes for shaving as well.
She has a lovely figure, I would have liked to see her hair more though. Maybe cascading down her front somehow? I do like the fine muscle definition. Just curious, what descent is she, if I may ask? I was thinking a light Polynesian trace in her face, gorgeous eyes. She does tend to get lost in the darker background though. Just for curiosity, could you backlight the background somewhat to highlight it to make her stand out?
I think she's Korean. I never really got in to that with her. As for backlighting the background…This was shot against a portable 5x7 cloth backdrop. I don't think lighting that type of backdrop us is a good idea, but I'll have to try it in a future shoot just so I know if it works or not. Had I shot her against black paper or muslin, then I most definitely would have used a backlight. I'll definitely keep backlighting in mind for a future shoot, though. I do see what you mean about her hair. It would have been nice for it to be more evident like in pic #1.
Stylistically, these are all too straight forward for my taste. I'd like a little tease or subtlety, personally. I agree that a hair light would definitely add to the lighting.
I'm not going to dive into discussion of posing or model features, as the primary OP's question seems to be about the lighting.
Having said that: OP managed to get an even, nice quality lighting given the described limited resources.
If that was the purpose, the setup was a success.
I, however, find the lighting bland and uninteresting . It doesn't complement the model; it doesn't help to accentuate her prominent feautures (or hide the one one'd like to hide).
And, most importantly, in no noticeable way it participates in the shoot. Briefly speaking, it doesn't make it more interesting than any "general" setup would (obviously there must be *some* light for us to see anything).
Single light setups can be challenging, but my take on this is simple: "if the life gave you a lemon, make a lemonade". Hollywood glamour, backlit, sidelit, horror, window - a half a dozen options pop up in my head immediately when I think of a single light setup. Unfortunately, the one you used is not amongst them :-(
I do hope the next time you find yourself in a dark room with a beautiful willing naked female subject and a single light source you'll come with something more intriguing! :-)
I'm not going to dive into discussion of posing or model features, as the primary OP's question seems to be about the lighting.
Having said that: OP managed to get an even, nice quality lighting given the described limited resources.
If that was the purpose, the setup was a success.
I, however, find the lighting bland and uninteresting . It doesn't complement the model; it doesn't help to accentuate her prominent feautures (or hide the one one'd like to hide).
And, most importantly, in no noticeable way it participates in the shoot. Briefly speaking, it doesn't make it more interesting than any "general" setup would (obviously there must be *some* light for us to see anything).
Single light setups can be challenging, but my take on this is simple: "if the life gave you a lemon, make a lemonade". Hollywood glamour, backlit, sidelit, horror, window - a half a dozen options pop up in my head immediately when I think of a single light setup. Unfortunately, the one you used is not amongst them :-(
I do hope the next time you find yourself in a dark room with a beautiful willing naked female subject and a single light source you'll come with something more intriguing! :-)
HTH
Thanks for the great feedback! You mention a feature that you'd like to hide. Which feature would that be? Also these photos were shot specifically for her portfolio to present to an agency. With that being said, how would you have used the single light setup (plus available window lighting from the left side) to achieve a more creative style? And I ask this question, because I'm finding myself in a situation where I'd like to be able to provide more creative and unique pictures that are "WOW" with simple lighting setups. So if you're willing to share some tips, I'm willing to listen and learn!
Thanks for the great feedback! You mention a feature that you'd like to hide. Which feature would that be? Also these photos were shot specifically for her portfolio to present to an agency. With that being said, how would you have used the single light setup (plus available window lighting from the left side) to achieve a more creative style? And I ask this question, because I'm finding myself in a situation where I'd like to be able to provide more creative and unique pictures that are "WOW" with simple lighting setups. So if you're willing to share some tips, I'm willing to listen and learn!
* You're welcome!
* Hiding features:
there was nothing particularly sinister in this series that would desperatly need hiding, so I was mostly talking about it hollystically - you can hide something IF you need to do it. As a subtle example: her body shape is far from a "hourglass" figures (especially on image #2). You can use the side light/deep shadows to "eat" the part of the body, thus making her subject to look much thinner/shapier
* Window + light.
Given the very different color temperatures of the daylight and the flash I wouldn't dare to try to use both in the same frame unless I knew for sure I'm going to BW/duotone in my results. Besides, the ambient light is usually a couple of orders of magnitude weaker than the weakest flash, so combining them together seems more like a hassle than a convenience.
* Agency
If she needed this for her agency portfolio you may have done the correct thing. Agents usually do not look for artistic or overly photoshopped images. What they need is a "digital polaroid", so they can give their own client a true idea how this or that model looks like, with all the pros and cons.
* Creative lighting
(again, not to be used for agency-requested portfolio images).
I usually go by the quote I've read in "The moments It Clicks" by Joe McNally (great book, btw!), which, IIRC, goes like this:" to make something look interesting you don't have to light it all".
Start with limiting your light (and your view, and your focus) on a single particular point/feature/etc. Leave the rest to the imagination.
* You're welcome!
* Hiding features:
there was nothing particularly sinister in this series that would desperatly need hiding, so I was mostly talking about it hollystically - you can hide something IF you need to do it. As a subtle example: her body shape is far from a "hourglass" figures (especially on image #2). You can use the side light/deep shadows to "eat" the part of the body, thus making her subject to look much thinner/shapier
* Window + light.
Given the very different color temperatures of the daylight and the flash I wouldn't dare to try to use both in the same frame unless I knew for sure I'm going to BW/duotone in my results. Besides, the ambient light is usually a couple of orders of magnitude weaker than the weakest flash, so combining them together seems more like a hassle than a convenience.
* Agency
If she needed this for her agency portfolio you may have done the correct thing. Agents usually do not look for artistic or overly photoshopped images. What they need is a "digital polaroid", so they can give their own client a true idea how this or that model looks like, with all the pros and cons.
* Creative lighting
(again, not to be used for agency-requested portfolio images).
I usually go by the quote I've read in "The moments It Clicks" by Joe McNally (great book, btw!), which, IIRC, goes like this:" to make something look interesting you don't have to light it all".
Start with limiting your light (and your view, and your focus) on a single particular point/feature/etc. Leave the rest to the imagination.
HTH
Nikolai
Ahhh..gotcha! very good stuff! Thank you once again!
I have looked at the images several times and noticed a few things. A black background for a woman with black hair causes her hair to be lost in the background. Also, there appears to me to be too strong of light on the right side of the image (as I view it) and causes some distortion to her breasts (one appears significantly larger than the other). Or is that being caused by the type of lens used with this image? I notice the difference every time I look at the images. I think using one light can work with a different background, as well as positioning the light at a different angle to the model.
All in all I'd have to say that ReLLiK75 did a great job here. That being said (and I think this may be some of Nikolai's point), the light is a bit flat. Single light sources are fine. However, light positioning can be instrumental in giving the subject a more sculpted look. I'm far from an expert but given my experience with lighting nudes, starting with an extreme angle to the light and then positioning to taste usually does the trick. Then you're able to emphasize shapes and contours as you wish with more or less power.
Flat lighting also makes the subject look wider or broader; hence her waistline relative to her bust and hips. Now given her physique is beyond stellar, an added rim light by another strobe or window light to the side and rear of the subject would have slimmed the waist even more thus enhancing her natural curvature. I might have powered down the main, increased the angle of it and then provided a rim light for contouring thus enhancing shadows and highlights.
Your big 64 inch PLM might have been a bit more helpful on the hair and background. It is very soft light that just covers the subject. You might have tried a rear or back rim light and a reflector to fill in the fact and other side too. That would have made her pop from the background. I agree with using shadows to hide things but it is not as easy as it sounds but try moving the light around and the model around an you will fine more interesting light.
Comments
Number one is best, two loses the hair into the background.
As for the model, why is it that women think that by tatoos etc. they can improve on perfection. I always think a beautiful women renders herself less so by tampering with what is natural - that goes for shaving as well.
www.jtsphotoblog.blogspot.co.uk
www.johngwynant.blogspot.co.uk
Website: http://www.wayneposner.com
Blog: http://blog.wayneposner.com
I'm not going to dive into discussion of posing or model features, as the primary OP's question seems to be about the lighting.
Having said that: OP managed to get an even, nice quality lighting given the described limited resources.
If that was the purpose, the setup was a success.
I, however, find the lighting bland and uninteresting
And, most importantly, in no noticeable way it participates in the shoot. Briefly speaking, it doesn't make it more interesting than any "general" setup would (obviously there must be *some* light for us to see anything).
Single light setups can be challenging, but my take on this is simple: "if the life gave you a lemon, make a lemonade". Hollywood glamour, backlit, sidelit, horror, window - a half a dozen options pop up in my head immediately when I think of a single light setup. Unfortunately, the one you used is not amongst them :-(
I do hope the next time you find yourself in a dark room with a beautiful willing naked female subject and a single light source you'll come with something more intriguing! :-)
HTH
Thanks for the great feedback! You mention a feature that you'd like to hide. Which feature would that be? Also these photos were shot specifically for her portfolio to present to an agency. With that being said, how would you have used the single light setup (plus available window lighting from the left side) to achieve a more creative style? And I ask this question, because I'm finding myself in a situation where I'd like to be able to provide more creative and unique pictures that are "WOW" with simple lighting setups. So if you're willing to share some tips, I'm willing to listen and learn!
Website: http://www.wayneposner.com
Blog: http://blog.wayneposner.com
* You're welcome!
* Hiding features:
there was nothing particularly sinister in this series that would desperatly need hiding, so I was mostly talking about it hollystically - you can hide something IF you need to do it. As a subtle example: her body shape is far from a "hourglass" figures (especially on image #2). You can use the side light/deep shadows to "eat" the part of the body, thus making her subject to look much thinner/shapier
* Window + light.
Given the very different color temperatures of the daylight and the flash I wouldn't dare to try to use both in the same frame unless I knew for sure I'm going to BW/duotone in my results. Besides, the ambient light is usually a couple of orders of magnitude weaker than the weakest flash, so combining them together seems more like a hassle than a convenience.
* Agency
If she needed this for her agency portfolio you may have done the correct thing. Agents usually do not look for artistic or overly photoshopped images. What they need is a "digital polaroid", so they can give their own client a true idea how this or that model looks like, with all the pros and cons.
* Creative lighting
(again, not to be used for agency-requested portfolio images).
I usually go by the quote I've read in "The moments It Clicks" by Joe McNally (great book, btw!), which, IIRC, goes like this:" to make something look interesting you don't have to light it all".
Start with limiting your light (and your view, and your focus) on a single particular point/feature/etc. Leave the rest to the imagination.
HTH
Nikolai
Ahhh..gotcha! very good stuff! Thank you once again!
Website: http://www.wayneposner.com
Blog: http://blog.wayneposner.com
Flat lighting also makes the subject look wider or broader; hence her waistline relative to her bust and hips. Now given her physique is beyond stellar, an added rim light by another strobe or window light to the side and rear of the subject would have slimmed the waist even more thus enhancing her natural curvature. I might have powered down the main, increased the angle of it and then provided a rim light for contouring thus enhancing shadows and highlights.
Thanks ReLLiK72. Fantastic work in my opinion.
Still a very nice series.