guitar_j Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 I got myself some lights and I've been playing, tonight I tried to take a picture of myself... I've got a question... I don't know if this will showup in the picture I upload or not, but I notice that where the highlights bleed into the shadow, I guess it would be from the broadside of my face to the narrow side (most noticable across my forehead) I see an increase in the red tones. The key light is about 1.5 - 2 feet to my left, White fill card on my right, I'm using a shoot through umbrella.<p> Is this because of a crappy digicam? (I'm playing with a Canon A65 on ISO 50, f8.0, Don't want to waste film/processing cost on this yet) or is it because the light is too bright / harsh or a combination? If I shot this same picture on ISO50 film would I see the same thing? <p>Also feel free to point out any other technical flaws you see fit... This is just a learning experience for me... <p>thanks <p>-Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmarkpainter Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 On my monitor, you are overexposed by at leat one full stop. The Highlights on your face and on your shirt are completely blank white. While there aren't any real rules in portraiture (unless you are shooting for the Military or for Olan Mills) you might start off by using a less drastic angle for the lighting. There are loads of websites that show diagrams for traditional lighting and it will give you some ideas. jmp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmarkpainter Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 Oh yeah.... Don't 'waste' Film just yet. Though you will find that Film responds to light quite differently than Digital. Positive Film responds differently than Negative and B&W responds differently than Color.... jmp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitar_j Posted February 26, 2005 Author Share Posted February 26, 2005 Thanks John, I agree on the overexposure, though I kinda like the overexposed look...I do want to not overexpose... I wonder if a)my meter is whacked or b)the fstop on the camera isn't exactly correct. I set the camera for exactly what the meter said and metered several times throughout to makesure nothing had changed. But I do seem to notice consistently that the images are brighter than they should be. <p>-Thanks <p>Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_leck Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 Good picture, overall. Good job in avoiding reflections in the eyeglasses. Your image shows a general reddish cast, which may be a white balance issue. The reason that the highlights don't look so red may be because of the very high values there. You also have relatively high lighting contrast that may be fooling you into thinking that the red is only in the midtones and lower. Although just a beginner at portraiture myself, I have some suggestions (some a matter of taste): 1. The red is not that extreme (and better than cyan or blue!). This may be corrected with the white balance or afterwards with curves. 2. Get the key light closer to soften the contrast a bit 3. Get the fill card closer for more fill and to lower contrast. Sometimes reflectors don't seem to add as much light as you want or need (although you may not want the lower contrast as I am suggesting). 4. The key light is a bit far to the camera right. This is increasing your apparent contrast and making the red issue appear worse. Moving the light left can put a catchlight into the right eye. You also might want to raise the height slightly. 5. Try swapping the light and the fill card for short lighting, which I think might look better for several reasons. 6. Stereotypically, men are encouraged to hold their heads straight up, at least for classic portraiture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sc21 Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 I'm new to portraiture, too, but from what I've seen, one good technique to go by is "don't light the ear." Meaning that whichever way the face is pointing, the light should be coming from that direction, so that the ear that we see isn't lit by the main light. I'm sure this is what was referred to as "short lighting" above. Good job on getting the right focus and framing, and have fun with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sc21 Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 To educate myself, I did a search on "'short lighting' portraits" and found some good information on lighting. http://64.78.42.182/sweethaven/MiscTech/Photog01/default.asp?unNum=7&lesNum=4 http://www.photographers.co.uk/html/improve-your-portrait-photography.cfm http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleedawson/dcnotes/portraits.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sc21 Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 Here's another's try at the same kind of shot, with pointers. http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=6022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 if you like the over-exposed look but don't like the artifacts, try exposing correctly (within the histogram) and then taking it up to where you like it with post-production techniques... t<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now