Thoughts about lighting?

[gary evans]

OK, I don't usually do this, but with the glut of photos in the

critique forum, I never get enough feedback when I post a critique

request.</p>

 

<p>If you have the time, I'd love some feedback on the three

portraits in my <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?

folder_id=444224">Yashica Mat 124 Folder.</a></p>

 

<p>Specifically looking for comments on the lighting. Details of the

setup are in the photo details and the setup was the same for all the

photos, so if you see the details for one, you've seen them all.

Also, wondering if you think the shadow over the eyes in the photo

with his hand in his mouth is too distracting.</p>

 

<p>Would greatly appreciate any suggestions for improvement and an

honest appraisal of what you think is right about each photo and what

you think is wrong.</p>

 

<p>Thanks, and I will <b><i>not</b></i> make a habit of this...</p>

[walterh]

Gary - first I am no expert on the topic so do not count on it too much. But perhaps that could even help. The lighting impresses me - great skill - one caveat though - the light is perhaps technically too perfect - the child looks a bit unreal to me. Certainly better than a "normal" customer might expect from a "normal" pro - but since you asked :-)you seem to aim to "artistic" perfection. I have no real suggestion how to improve , perhaps not even a change in the light (like a little sparkle light?)is necessary - another element may be just fine to make the scene appear more realistic? does this make sense?

[emre]

The lighting looked pretty ordinary to me. I was more interested by the expressions.

[sauerwine]

I'm with the other answer'er'...I'm no expert, either. I'm just on this kick of going crazy with being critically tough on my own lighting. There's no way you could have seen that coming ahead of time, but it was just a quick change in the baby's head position that gave you that shadow. I don't think it's too overly distracting- especially to most customers. However, now that I see this, I know I'll be using some reflectors for SURE if the child has a hooded costume on. I'd go further and say that- if I choose to pose them with a lot of stuffed animals, I'd use the same technique. (I have smaller silver/white Larson Reflectol square (flat) folding reflectors. These came in WAY helpful in a recent shoot where the child just wouldn't sit still. Using them in the studio or on location can save you- just like in your image- where that shadow could otherwise be MUCH darker.

I like these, but I'm not a fan of the "floating child," which (and probably due to the scan or my monitor) happens here with your black background. Believe me: I'm not the best at this, either; the balance between too much surrounding background and not enough. (Plus I keep battling half-a$_d equipment which doesn't do what I need it to.)

I'll tell you what works incredibly for child backgrounds. A king-sized "fleece" blanket. These aren't really fleece, but a "spongy" kind of polyester, very shiny. A deep grey blanket is an excellent choice, relatively inexpensive, and even sharp edges soften because of the fuzziness of the blanket material. Here's one sample. Be gentle- it was only the second studio shot I've done on my own in the garage! (I used to assist from time to time.)<div></div>

[charles_gravely]

I'm thinking the woman in the shot won't like the double chin effect of this position.

 

Of course I am a complete novice and wouldn't be able to do half of what you guys are doing here so excuse me for making a negative comment.

 

CG

[olivier_koning]

A few humble suggestions on your family portrait, if I may:

 

Your lighting is a little dull (flat). If you're using two strobes, turn down or back up one of them, perharps the one on the right. Look for a little more drama and warmth. Peharps use a darker backdrop, but that's me.

 

Watch for details, such as the woman's hands clearly out of the frame. Either re-compose and get closer, or "make use" of her hands. My point is that it looks like it was not deliberately planned and that's the difference between an "OK" portrait and a much better one.

 

For an "intimate" portrait such as this one, I find the low angle slightly disturbing.

 

Best regards.

[Jochen_S]

I'm no portraiture expert, but I miss the hint of a reflection in the eyes. You seem to have posed a few giant softboxes and that's all. I know that using ordinary small lightsources is critical with babys, but I firmly believe a hint of (is it called catchlight?) wouldn't request much power.

To the family shooter with the gray blanket. - Good idea, but get alarger one. You manged to catch the poor mother with eyes seeming closed (was she looking down?) and doublechin. - There should be better backgrounds than her (I can imagine how hard it is to wait for the baby to smile) Get a common eyelevel for the family and become able to watch both Why didn't you lay the mother on her side behind the child? - No offense meant, go on.

[olivier_koning]

Gary-

 

I couldn't open your folder earlier but here we go... the baby shots. I like your choice of colors, simple, nothing distracting and right to the point. It's easy to get too carried away with props, but I like how you use them. I rather like the "flat" lighting on these too, complementing the baby skin and emphasizing the simplicity and directness of the scene. I would give a little more room around the left photo, it feels a little too contrived to me. In my opinion, you should leave it as a square format. A little extra "dead" space can create a better sense of space.

 

My main critism is for the 3rd photo from the left. I realize it's a scan, and the original photo may give more detail. However, when you shoot black agaist black, you should give a degree of separation between the subject and the background bu adding an extra light behind the subject, towards the back, or even towards the pedestal to define it better (or you using velvet? velvet needs a LOT of light). It will improve your shot quite a bit and avoid this "floating" effect that's usually not desired.

 

Regards.

[embley]

Gary:

 

I absolutely love the middle shot of the boy surrounded by the stuffed animals with his hand raised to his face. You have captured such a candid moment with that shot and though I am not inclined to portraiture myself I think shots like that are the prize ones.

 

I also really like the shot of the boy sitting on his own though the bit of black cloth covering a bit of his left foot is somewhat distracting. It is a small matter but it was something that caught my eye.

 

I agree with a previous comment that the first photo is made slightly akward by the tilt of the boys face. It produces an odd effect on the boys eyes and chin.

 

All in all I think these are good photos and the boy is absolutely adorable.

 

I don't see any specific problem with your lighting. There is a nice softness produced.

 

Emily

[sauerwine]

Gary: didn't mean to distract from your thread, guy...sorry.

 

 

Charles, Oliver, Jochen..

You're absolutely right in each of your thoughts about my shot. The woman, wasn't pleased with this image because of the double-chin, but; heck: her hand was in the original image- I just cropped too quick for the sample. (LOL)

 

I tried a pose with the mother on her side, but the boy wasn't cooperating at ALL, and that particular shot showed it.

 

Oliver, I'm a little confused on the low angle comment. While I agree that her eyes look closed and her chin looks doubled, it would seem to me that a low angle and tight crop, (sans the hand problem,) would be MORE intimate in a pose such as this. I could understand how imposing a very low angle to an upright or standing person would appear disturbing and imposing, I'm just confused. Can you clarify?

 

Jochen, what do you mean by a common eye level? Less vertical distance between the subjects' eyes? I think I agree with you, but I'm looking for a better explanation. Will you, please?

 

I'm having a huge problem posing, that's for sure. I'm trying to break free from the wedding poses I'm quite at ease with. Still working on it! Thanks for the comments.

 

I apologize if this is in the wrong forum area.

[joshchapman]

Couple quick thoughts:

 

Hairlight or illuminate the backdrop to avoid the floating in a sea of black feeling. It beats extraction, especially when there are little sections of missing feet, and the black makes the kid look too pale by contrast : )

 

I'd dial down your flash by about half a stop, or maybe use some more gentle windowlight for a different look, and see what you like.

 

Play with your lighting ratios. It seems a little flat right now, so experiment with 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 or anything really. Although I admit the high contrast might not work so well with what you have in mind for younger kids.

 

You've got some decent photos, keep it up.

 

Cheers - Josh

[olivier_koning]

Hi Shawn,

 

In your image, the mother appears too high in relation to the child, hence the perception of a low angle. The double chin and the sharp head angle is a consequence of her looking straight down. I think your portrait would have been more effective by lowering the mother closer to the child (resting on her shoulder for instance), but not directly above him. Not only the composition would improve, but the feeling of intimacy as well, as was your intention. Lighting is a matter of taste, but I would have prefered something a little more more dramatic.

 

I hope I didn't sound too over-crtitical. Photography is a never-ending learning process for all of us ;-)

 

Best regards.

[shawn_hooper]

Gary,

I would light the background some more, not hair light. The setting is very cute, but the baby has a kind of harsh shadow from his cool hood/ears. I would soften everything you've got (scrim comes to mind) and change the ratio to highlight more of the front of the baby than from the side. (Not, of course, blowing him out, just making it more of a "key" light.)

 

Just my 2 cents,

Shawn Hooper

Highland Creations

[james_oneill]

It looks like a studio setup - even the toys look like those you'd find in a studio - it feels professional but that can be a little... soul-less; so the key is timing to get an expression or posture that looks nice, and natural.

I think the photo where you were worrying about the shadows is the best of them, the hood of the lion suit is bound to create shadows like that and I don't think it is distracting at all

[red_buckner]

The lighting is too soft for me. Add a little specularity by setting up a third light. It should be dimmer than the others, but give specular light. That will kick up your highlights, adding sparkle. If you don't want to set up the extra light, use a metallic reflector.