45 degree lighting setup

<p>can someone explain the proper placement of a two light setup for 45 degree lighting? are both key and fill lights equal distant from the subject? how far away from the subject? how high above the subject head? is 45 degrees always relative to the direction the nose points? does this lighting setup only work for certain poses? my equipment is two 580 EX's (with an ST-E2 on my 5D w/24-70 lens) and i have two 36" and one 45" umbrella. sorry for all the questions but its been a little frustrating trying to get this right. any help would be appreciated...thanks!</p>

<p>Search Google - Portrait lighting Technique. You may get the lighting setup drawings.</p>

<p>Fill light is ALWAYS in line with the nose (no secondary shadows this way) and half the power of the main light. Main light at about 45 degrees for Rembrandt lighting and more in line with the nose for more of a fashion lighting pattern (butterfly or loop). Some will argue, but never ever put the fill on the other side of the face (or camera) from the main light. That will almost guarantee crossing shadows on the face around the nose, or at least an over fill situation on the face side that is opposite the main.</p>

<p>What you've got to learn is to actually "see" the light and study what effects it has on the face. Get some books on portrait lighting and then experiment with a patient model and actually study the effects of different light positions and light modifiers and how the light itself falls across the face and shapes the features or draws attention to the features, especially the eyes. </p>

<p>Just for learning purposes with your model, shoot with only the main light so you see only the effect of that source and how it creates the patterns. When you are comfortable with seeing those patterns, add the fill to soften the contrast.</p>

<p>Danzel, the classic relationship between Key and fill is 1:2 ... usually determined with a flash meter. Otherwise you have to eyeball it on the LCD screen That ratio can be altered to fit creative intent, but it's a good place to start.</p>

<p>The closer you place a diffused light source to the subject, the larger, softer and wrap-around it gets. As you move it away, the light source becomes smaller and more specular looking (harsher).</p>

<p>What angle the light is in relationship to the subject depends on the pose and the directional angle of the face. While there are basic starting points for classic portrait lighting scenarios, there are no absolute lighting set-ups because of these variables ... so there is always some adjustments to make. </p>

<p>I don't know if you have tried this but you can start with a Key light off to one side at a 45º angle and place the fill right next to you on the opposite side. Then go from there.</p>

<p>I'm sure others will chime in with more approaches and resources.</p>

<p>-Marc </p>

<p>Using the fill on the opposite side of the face is also is a near guarantee that the shadow fill will have no natural gradation, thus flattening the face and removing the three dimensionality of it's form.</p>

<p>Height can vary, but is usually at least a foot or so above the subject's face level so that shadows have a natural downward slant. Watch carefully because too high and you shade the eyes beneath the brows, too low and you have a horror film effect. Distance is not the issue, relative power is. The fill should not be much different than half the power of the main when it reaches the face. Meter the brightness of each with the other turned off, make your exposure based on the main light value, and then modify the balance if you like more or less contrast between highlight and shadow.</p>

<p>A nice way to learn, and for free, is to watch Adorama TV, especialy Mark's 101 series.</p>

<p>I'll have to disagree with the previous sweeping statements and say that a 2:1 key to fill ratio is far too characterless and loses you almost any modelling from the key light. My preference, and that of most textbooks on the subject, is for about 2:1 <strong>stops</strong> between key and fill. That's a =>4:1 ratio in linear terms. <a href="http://www.professionalphotography101.com/portrait_lighting/light_ratios.html">Here's a demonstration of how different ratios look in practise</a>.</p>

<p>But before this goes off at a tangent about personal taste, what are you trying to achieve Danzel? The usual use for 45 degree X lighting is in flat copying or in producing ID mugshots. If that's what you're after, then any further discussion of the finer points of portrait lighting is going to be a waste of time.</p>

<p>Danzel, your questions are mostly answered by what look you are seeking. Several of the traditional lighting patterns like butterfly, loop or rembrandt are determined by where you place your main and where the nose shadow falls as a result, the nose being a flag that casts the shadow. However, some of us have larger flags than others, so placement of the light for that shadow varies from one person to another to place that small butterfly under the nose or to have the nose shadow meet the cheek shadow and leave the light triangle on the shadow side cheek and eye. Also, some folks have deeper set eyes and to get light into the eye sockets, the light needs to be lower. Distance hinges on the size of your modifier, the desired shadow edge transition, and power. Realize the larger the relative size of the light to subject, the softer, more gradual the shadow edge transition. Also, the inverse square rule comes into play on light distance if you are trying to control the amount of light falling on the background as well as whether your lights are angled towards or away from the bg. The limiting factor of speedlights are no modeling lights to see the shadows and move the lights so you have to shoot and check your lcd til you get what you want. Also, if you are shooting in small spaces like rooms in a home, the light from umbrellas is scattered everywhere so you are getting fill from the spill that you may not want if you want deeper shadows. Then consider pulling in a black reflector to subtract light on the shadow side to adjust the shadow density. My 3'x6' is always up with a black and white side, just pull it in. Tim Ludwig taught me the importance of the black reflector and consider subtracting light, not just adding. Bottom line, there is no exact angle, distance, modifier or power that is always right. It depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you dont know what you want to achieve and how to create it, then you are just stumbling around. Take a look at the tutorials here to learn the basics and work with the principles. You are leaving the realm of taking a shot as opposed to making one. </p>

<p>great points everyone. and thanks for the links. joe, you and mark are likely on the same page. he said relationship (which could mean stops) not 2:1 ratio. i was actually thinking wrong along those lines so thanks for the link! considering that 45 degree lighting is the most basic, i want to be able to demonstrate this before branching out to others. i see quite a few sites illustrate both lights set 45 degrees but on opposite sides. that's actually what i was doing before getting your feedback here. i snaps a few shots with the lights placed as you all describe here and am much more pleased with the results. one more question though, i've heard the height of the key light should be about one foot above the head as mentioned here, but is that referring to the bottom of the umbrella, middle of the umbrella, or top? and should the umbrella also be angles 45 degrees down with the swivel piece? thanks!</p>

<p>"Classical 2:1" ... if you got back far enough, to B&W days, you will find that the classic ratio was 4:1 but was reduced when colour arrived since apparently having colour helps to show 3D in our 2D medium. Might also be the tolerance to constrast range difference.<br />Bear in mind that the fill light is probably shining on the key side of the subject too and with the inverse square rule for light half is not double the distance but x1.41 :-)<br>

I query the 45 degree as being for both lights as the only time I have worked that way was when using the 'fill' light to illuminate the background and its spill to lighten the shadows from the key on the subject. "Three lights for the price of two"</p>

<p>The classic lighting setup (two lights):<br>

We are accustomed to viewing others under a one light setup i.e. the sun. We see with our eye /brain combination; often we see what we want to see. To top all this off, our eyes have an incredible dynamic range unmatched by film or digital. What I want to say is, we have an enormous capacity to see detail in shadow. Sorry to report, the camera is poor on this score.</p>

<p>This is bad because we mainly work making 2-dimensional reproductions of 3 dimensional objects. To enhance our 2D pictures, we need to create an illusion of depth. Otherwise, our images look unreal. We correct this boo-boo with well-placed shadows. Further, in the studio, we light to flatter. We spray light into the shadows to modify the scene range so that it better fits our photographic media.</p>

<p>We start lighting the human face simulating afternoon sun. We place a Main light high and off to the side at about a 45⁰ angle as measured from an imaginary line drawn camera-to-subject. This angle is not set in stone, as we often reposition the Main to achieve more flattering light on a per-subject basis. As an example: Long nose set main to cast short nose shadow. Short nose, set Main to cast a longer nose shadow. Fat face, set Main further to the side; this gives an illusion of slimness. Slim face, main is set more frontal; this gives an illusion of fuller face. These lighting skills are acquired with practice.</p>

<p>Now the problem with a single light is, the shadows tend to go too dark and are thus void of detail. To mitigate we bring in a reflector or better, a second lamp. This light, called a Fill plays on the face. Now the frontal area of the face receives light from the Main and light from the Fill. That is OK because we can control the difference between the two by adjusting the Fill intensity in relation to the Main. I think the most import point is we fill from the camera's viewpoint, not the viewpoint of someone standing nearby. To achieve this, the best placement for the Fill is at lens height close to an imaginary line camera-to-subject. It's OK to deviate. Fill placement along this line can sometimes interfere with the line-of-sight of the camera. In other words, Fill placement is not engraved in stone.</p>

<p>If the Fill is adjusted to play on the subject at the same intensity as the Main, it delivers flat, low contrast lighting. Should each deliver 1000 units of light to the frontal areas of the face, the total received as additive; thus the face receives 2000 units. On close examination, we discover the shadows, hidden from the main, receive 1000 units from the Fill while the frontal areas receive both for a total of 2000. In other words, the ratio of Main to Fill is 2000:1000. A ratio, like a fraction, can be reduced; so we call this lighting 2:1. Again, it is flat (lowered contrast lighting) and uninteresting.</p>

<p>If we somehow reduce the Fill to 1/2 power, the Fill now delivers 500 units. It is 50% of the Main as measured at the subject plane. We can do this with a knob or switch on the Fill or simply move the Fill further away from the subject. If both fixtures are equal, we multiply Main-to-Fill distance by 1.4. This math gives a revised Fill distance that cuts the Fill intensity by 1 f/stop (50%) as compared to the Main. This is called 3:1 because the frontal areas receive 1000 units from the Main 500 units from the Fill for a total of 1500 units. The Fill delivers 500 units. The ratio is 1500:500. This reduces to 3:1 often called the Bread and Butter ratio. The 3:1 is a better match for the dynamic range of film and digital, and it likely sells best as it delivers a good illusion of depth.</p>

<p>The next ratio is 5:1. This is a more contrasty lighting, somewhat masculine. The Fill is adjusted to deliver 25% as compared to the Main. Thus the Fill is set 2 f/stops subordinate to the main. We achieve by setting the Fill to 1/4 power or backing it off (Main-to-subject x 2). In this setup the Main contributes 1000 units and the Fill 250 units, so the frontal area receives 1250. The shadows receive only the Fill, which is 250 units. The ratio is 1250:250 and we simplify to 5:1.</p>

<p>The next ratio is 9:1 a very contrasty theatrical lighting. The Fill is set to 1/8 power or moved away from the subject by a factor of 2.75. In this setup the Main delivers 1000 units; the Fill delivers 125 units. The frontal areas receive 1125 units and the shadows receive 125 units. The ratio is 1125:125 and this simplifies to 9:1.</p>

<p>To recap:<br>

2:1 Main and Fill equal<br>

3:1 Fill subordinate by 1 f/stop<br>

5:1 Fill subordinate by 2 f/stops<br>

9:1 Fill subordinate by 3 f/stops</p>

<p>Let me add, Fill to Main ratio is best set by meter. </p>

 

<p>Thanks Alan ... so 2:1 is too flat and on inspection my notion has been wrong thinking of it as an actual ratio as measured at the subject rather than as equal light settings that is additive ... meaning that I actually meter to produce a 1 stop or so (50%) fill reduction as a base starting point ... which is actually a 3:1. A bit counter-intuitive, but your explanation makes it clear.</p>

<p>If you're lucky and receptive, you learn something new every day : -)</p>

<p>-Marc</p>

<p>Good post by Alan.</p>

<p>Fill ratios usually trip people up because they forget that the fill light also illuminates the non-shadow side.</p>

<p>Anyway when you add increase distance to lower light output in the subject remember that the distance increase is the same as the f-stop scale.That makes it easier to remember.<br>

So:<br>

-1 stop = 1.4 x distance<br>

-2 stop = 2.0 x distance<br>

-3 stop = 2.8 x distance<br>

-4 stop = 4.0 x distance<br>

-5 stop = 5.6 x distance</p>

<p>As you increase the distance you diminish the light fall off. This might be particular useful when you want the fill light the fill shadows in the background as well. It's may seem a bit counterintuitive to move the lights further away to fill the background better but remember that you have to increase output as well.</p>

 

<p>glad others are taking something away from this as well!  so is there a such thing as a 1:1 ratio?  do you get this with both flashes set at the same power and on opposite sides of the camera at 90 degrees?

<p>If flat copy such as a painting is illumined by two lamps, each set at equal distant, at a 45° angle to the copy ratio is 1:1. The objective is uniform lighting on the flat copy.</p>

<p>Talking of Rembrandt lighting; Rembrandt van Rijn didn't just light with a high 3/4 key, he used all sorts of lighting, but almost never with a 2:1 key to fill ratio. Here's my take on his famous "Old woman reading", all that was needed was a snooted flash set high above the reader camera left and pointed at the book. The spill from the key just glanced the face and reflected light from the book did the rest.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4185361">Tim Ludwig</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Jan 28, 2012; 09:23 a.m.</p>

<p>Using the fill on the opposite side of the face is also is a near guarantee that the shadow fill will have no natural gradation, thus flattening the face and removing the three dimensionality of it's form.<br /> Height can vary, but is usually at least a foot or so above the subject's face level so that shadows have a natural downward slant. Watch carefully because too high and you shade the eyes beneath the brows, too low and you have a horror film effect. Distance is not the issue, relative power is.<em><strong> The fill should not be much different than half the power of the main when it reaches the face.</strong></em> Meter the brightness of each with the other turned off, make your exposure based on the main light value, and then modify the balance if you like more or less contrast between highlight and shadow.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2403817">Rodeo Joe</a><a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 28, 2012; 11:46 a.m.</p>

<p>I'll have to disagree with the previous sweeping statements and say that a 2:1 key to fill ratio is far too characterless and loses you almost any modelling from the key light. My preference, and that of most textbooks on the subject, is for about 2:1 <strong>stops</strong> between key and fill. That's a =>4:1 ratio in linear terms. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.professionalphotography101.com/portrait_lighting/light_ratios.html" target="_blank">Here's a demonstration of how different ratios look in practise</a>.<br /> But before this goes off at a tangent about personal taste, what are you trying to achieve Danzel? The usual use for 45 degree X lighting is in flat copying or in producing ID mugshots. If that's what you're after, then any further discussion of the finer points of portrait lighting is going to be a waste of time.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that it is interesting that there is still no single standard way that photographers talk about lighting ratios. Some talk about the ratio of the intensity/power of the light source and others talk about the ratio of incident light striking the subject. The former is very dependent on the angle of the lights and the shape of the subject (where shadows form). I have heard some like to blame this confusion on companies like Canon that usually focus on the ratio of the power of the light source in their instruction manuals. If you assume a fill light is straight on and key at 45 degrees, than two lights with the same power will give am incident light ratio of 2:1, highlight to shadow, at the subject. Two lights with the key being twice the power of the fill will give a 3:1 ratio of highlight to shadow at the subject, again if the fill is near the camera position. Rodeo Joe recommends two stops difference in the flash meter reading - I assume with each light fired separately. This would actually be a 5:1 ratio of h/s rather than 4:1. But a key that is two stops brighter than the fill light does have 4 times the brightness. I little bit confusing.</p>

<p><br /> My point is that casual discussions of lighting ratios can be confusing because it is not always clear if someone is talking about the ratio of the power of the lights or the ratio of highlight to shadow on the subject. And if we start talking about f/stop ratios, that would be even more confusing (a ratio of a ratio?).</p>

<p>= tommy</p>