why are my pics not coming out like this...

[anand_patel]

<img

src=http://a1216.g.akamai.net/f/1216/955/6h/images2.nordstrom.com/images/store/product/large/163554.jpg>

 

can someone explain what am i doing wrong..and how do u get the back

ground to look like that..soft dark gray..my back ground looks pretty

ugly..and it was shot on a white back ground..i also like the shadows

on her feet..this is what i do at work..shoot dresses...and i cant

seem to figure out what i'm doing wrong..help please if u can..

 

i use threee lights..two umbrallas and one soft box..

 

here is my shot..<div></div>

[jmf]

ok, If i'm not mistaken I see at least 3 and maybe 4 lights going on here.

 

1. camera left and close to the upper left of the photo. It's either aimed at the background or close to it so that it illuminates both that corner with rapid falloff and adds a little kick to her side. Probably a dish type reflector with a a moderatly narrow (65 deg?) beam flagged to not flare the camera.

 

2. A high (like on a 10ft boom) key light to camera right using a beauty dish or other moderate sized light source pointed down to get that defined shadow below her dress.

 

3. fill light about 45 deg to camera right and below the key with a softbox of other larger light source (soft drop shadow behind her)

 

4. there might be another fill or a reflector to camera left

[jonathan_brewer1]

You're not doing anything wrong, but you'll have to rethink how you shoot, to come up w/an image like this, which is the result of excellent technique, the image is well thought out. Looking at the shadows at your subjects feet, you have too many lights going in too many directions, you don't necessarily need three, excellent lighting doesn't have anything to do w/complexity, or using a lot of lights.

 

First off, your young lady doesn't have the same type of skin as the girl in the other shot, she is also wearing plenty of make-up, I also suspect a wide difference in exposure between your image and the other shot, also look at just outside her arm camera right, you can make out the shadow from the 'fill light' which was used very close to the camera/lens axis.

 

Unless I'm very wrong, this is a two light set-up, key light coming from camera right suggestive of Rembrandt lighting, w/a very strong fill relative to the key. I want to say that a cloth grid was used since there is smooth falloff in spill on the background. The film used is also going to make a difference as your shot looks more contrasty, the other shot looks less contrasty and muted.

 

The other shot is the result of a very well thought out lighting scheme, basically more Rembrandt lighting than anything else, very close lighting ratio(a lot of fill), and either a grid or something controling the spill/falloff as suggested by the background, plus the pale skin of the model plus whatever make-up used, also a higher exposure was used(suggestive of 'high key'), than you used.

 

It's a great look, what always amuses me is the ads you see from softbox manufacturers, many showcase their softboxes with an image like this, as if the purchase of a softbox by itself is going to replicate th is look, it isn't, it's the soft box, and everything else(exposure,m make-up,lighting ratio, skin tone, and most importantly light placement) I mentioned incorporated into a well thought out lighting scheme.

 

What you might want to do Anand is to make this into an exercise where you play around w/all the variables that went into this shot, and see if you can come up w/what you want, that will be your most valuable answer, the answer that you come up with yourself.

[jonathan_brewer1]

Look at her arm camera right, you can see an outline of a shadow just outside the arm, there's a big possibility that a ringlight was use as a 'boost' to the fill, this kind of shadow just off her arm is usually produced by a righlight.

[jonathan_brewer1]

Yes...........I see it now, there is also a faint shadow off her other arm, look at both arms, just off the arm camera right is a distinct shadow, the other arm has a shadow outline also but a little fainter than the other arm, a ringlight WAS USED, as this shadow pattern is produced by a ringlight. This is a two or three light set-up, either one light used as a key, and a ringlight coming straight up the lens axis, OR MORE LIKELY a key, fill, with a ringlight as a boost.

 

This was a very skilled shot.

[bill c.]

Anand-- There is another major consideration here. Notice that you have your background paper cyc-ed, and the background in the second shot is at a common square angle. One result is that your background paper is much closer to the model and thus the lights, especially at the bottom.

 

There is no substitute for a long throw in a studio. It greatly eases the problems of the main lights spilling onto the background, and enables the photographer to better control the lighting on the subject and background SEPARATELY, which is vital to achieving the control you are aiming for.

 

 

Back your background up several more feet from the model. And yes, it does look like there is an additional light on the background coming from left (it is possible that the shooter did that to accommodate text in that area). That back wall in the first photo may look like it's not too far from the model, but take a look at her shadow. Even with the light coming in from camera left truncating it, you can see that it casts a decently long swath and peters out long before it hits the back wall. That wall is at least eight feet behind the model. Your backdrop paper was less than half that at most.

 

If I had to make a choice between a wide studio and one that had a nice, long throw, I'd choose the second one, just to help eliminate the type problems you are trying to solve here.

 

Happy shooting. -BC-

[jonathon]

Great thread and input above. I'm not so convinced that it is a ringlight. Usually the ringlight shadow is really tight around the model and uniform all around the figure. This isn't. Its not on the inside of her left hand, only around the outside. This kinda makes me think there is another light source just to the camera left adding a little bit of fill. Also the shadow to the model's right isn't the same which is what you would expect from a ringlight, I think a small beauty dish or softbox just to camera left.

[jonathan_brewer1]

No..............you can see the shadows on each side, from almost to the bottom of her dress to around both hands, both arms, and around her head, a bigger fill light is ALMOST eliminating the shadows of the ringlight but not quite, which means the ringlight is being used a boost.

 

Remember the key is angled toward camera left and is hotter on the background on the camera left side, where the shadow from the ringlight is faintest, so I'm not surprised that this shadow isn't even on both sides, you don't have to be convinced, I am.

 

Take another look around her arms, there are shadows on both sides of her neck, and around her head, you can see it if you look, it's from a ringlight, that's on the money.

[jonathan_brewer1]

OMT.............I have the Profoto ringlight, and have used it in this way, cancel out all the other lights, and you'll get this same exact pattern, try this yourself if you use a ringlight, this photographer is using a key going from camera right to camera right, obviously, the fill is coming at the subject from near the lens axis, the ringlight is being used to 'boost' the exposure on the central area of the frame, and is just a bit above the intensity of the fill, thus.........things are soft but w/some sparkle on the subject which is in the center of the frame.

[jonathon]

Hi Jonathan,<br>

I tried emailing you direct but your account doesn't work. Which lights, what sort and directed where do you think the top photo

used? In the 2:09 post you said<br>

"key is angled toward camera left"<br>

and in the 2:37 post you said<br>

"photographer is using a key going from camera right to camera right"

[anand_patel]

thanks for all the help..how do i get the back ground light the same way..and also..is the

backdrop white?...i think my models too close to the background..and my lights are too

close

to the model..

 

here is another example..of what i'm after..it seems like ringflash was used..

 

and one of mine..

 

<img src=http://a1216.g.akamai.net/f/1216/955/6h/images2.nordstrom.com/images/

store/product/large/161738.jpg><div></div>

[jonathan_brewer1]

That is a cool first name you got, U can e-mail me at lifestories at earthlink dot com,..............."photographer is using a key going from camera right to camera right".................I mis-spoke here, this should've read..............."photographer is using a key going from camera right to camera left".

 

I restate what I'm pretty sure the set-up is, three lights, a very soft key angled Rembrandt style coming from camera right to camera left, this is evidenced by the light pattern on the background, the background is hotter on the left in the direction the key is pointing.

 

The way spill/fall-off graduates so smoothly in terms of the key(again look at the background), I could be wrong, but I'd say a cloth grid was used on a softbox as the key or it could be a beauty light, but I'm thinking softbox. There is no doubt about the light placement of the key, look at the model's face, the triangle of light opposite the nose on the model is a dead give-away for Rembrandt lighting.

 

A very broad and soft fill is coming from the camera/lens axis to fill in the shadows left by the key, and a ringlight is being used to 'boost' up the exposure a bit on the central portion of the frame occupied by the subject, the outer band of shadow created by the ringlight is evident to me, even though it's faint, because I use a ringlight, using a broad lighting source to light a broad area and also using a second and smaller directional light source to boost up or add 'sparkle' to a smaller part of that same area is a technique used by many shooters, and that's what is being done here.

 

If you've got a ringlight, simply snap off a shot with the ringlight only on a subject standing in front of the camera, you'll get the same pattern, as I said here, the outline of the shadow made from the ringlight on this model, is more pronounced/distinct on camera right, ...........................where the light from the key is hitting the background camera left, the shadow is very faint, that doesn't mean it isn't there, it is.

[jonathan_brewer1]

Anand.........................you gotta quit knocking yourself...........you're not doing anything wrong, and your pictures don't suck, you're one point on the learning curve and you want to be at another point.........................learning by questioning things is h ow you'll move up the learning curve.

 

The background on the top image looks the way it does because it's illuminated by a key light that has a very smooth fall-off from camera left to camera right(looking at the background), there is a very smooth transition from light to dark and is is very clean looking, I CAN SEE the shadow on the background caused by the use of a ringlight, but this was disquised very well/is so faint, most folks are not going to notice, and on top of this a broad fill was used.

 

The lighting is simple, a key, a fill, the skill came into this because the photographer used a third light, a ringlight, to 'augment' the exposure on the central area occupied by the subject and did it seamlessy,...................this is a case of a great deal of skill and technique being used to present the subject matter, w/o drawing attention to the light scheme that was used, a heavyweight shot in terms of lighting.

[will_perlis]

"...I CAN SEE the shadow on the background caused by the use of a ringlight..."

 

Yup. There's no problem seeing it once it's looked for, even on this crummy monitor at work.

[anand_patel]

i wanna thank all of you guys for helping..you guys are awsome...

and johnathan i'll email u...i have few more questions...if u can explain that'd be great

 

thanks

--Anand

[jonathon]

Jonathan, pity my mother didn't get the vowels quite right when she spellt it.<br>

Anand, just put the questions up here because then it becomes part of a seachable resource for people in the future. Doesn't matter if you think they're basic, others will learn from them as well.

[jonathan_brewer1]

............And since nobody's purfect, you loved her just the same didn't you!!

[anand_patel]

well here is the setup i used..and bare with me as i'm a NOOB..and alsoo..i shoot in a ware

house..pretty open..and also its always bright inside even if i turn the lights off..because of

outside light..does the warehouse need to be dark?..

 

how should i position my lights..?..and if i need to get a ringflash to get this effect..i willl..

and what ever else you guys can sugggest that i would need..i'll get it..

the pic shows all the lights i own..

 

thanks

--anand<div></div>

[jonathan_brewer1]

You're starting out w/more than most, ringlights and their native strobes can get expensive, what might be more of a priority is experimenting/testing w/what you've got, and for people/portraiture, getting to know what works/what you like, you can't rush the learning process, so save your money for right now.

 

Don't get a ringlight because someone else is using one on a shot, you can always get one later, find out about Rembrandt/butterfly lighting, familiarize yourself w/some of the lighting schemes used in work you like/that inspires, then execute those schemes yourself, no matter how long you look at diagrams, there's no substitute for you doing these yourself, and then have fun/play around w/your lights, move them around just to see what effect the change in position makes, do plenty of tests.

 

Start off w/shooting your tests w/one light, I see what looks like a photoflex softbox, if that's what it is, you might consider a cloth grid for it, the grid controls spill/fall-off from you box. Then play around w/one light and a reflector, keep shooting until you're getting what you want, then start building after you've gotten an understanding of how to do what you want to do.

[anand_patel]

thanks jon..i'll play around..with the lights...its just that i havnt had proper training..thats y it

confuses me..any books you can recommend?..i tend to use all the lights..and i think thats

where i'm messig up..

[streetlevel]

Anand - I think you need to simplify. Start with one light only, then

gradually add some fill - look at the subtle changes from moving

that one light a few degrees each direction... shoot tonnes. You'll

soon start to see what works for you and what doesn't.

 

As you get more comfortable you can start adding in more lights

and learning their effects as well. But take your time to really see

what is going on.

 

Incidentally - your shots are not bad at all... for a self proclaimed

"noob" you seem to be picking up rather quickly.

[jonathan_brewer1]

Start w/two simple lighting schemes, Rembrandt and Butterly, you can start out using the Rembrandt technique by putting your light source up and over, same as the example image in your thread, your in the ballpark of the right position when there is a triangle of light opposite the nose from your lightsource, simple as that, right or left of the lens, and up,.........and you can start doing this with one light.

 

Rembrandt lighting is simple, and simply comes from the paintings of Rembrandt, famous because of the signature 'triangle of light' opposite the nose, when the lightsource on the other side of the nose was at an angle both vertically and horizontally to the subject(all you need to remember is 'up and over', 'til you see a little triangle form on the nose), photographers like the lighting in many of Rembrandts paintings, and used it in their imagery. Rembrandt lighting is VERY simple, it's simply 'up and over' to the side, either way, right or left, of the subject/sitter. This isn't rocket science and you can move your lights around and experiment after you've gotten down the basic concept, the same as w/all the other lightschemes.

 

 

 

Also try some shots w/one light just over your lens, raise it up, lower it down, shoot some tests w/this scheme, see how the light affects your subject/sitter when it comes from just over the lens, then try this set-up with some fill coming just under the camera, you'll then be shooting Butterly, take your time and look at the differences between the two schemes, here is the IMPORTANT THING, do these tests/experiment to develop your sense of being to see just what you are doing with these schemes, that's because these lighting books, the exercises and diagrams are standard stuff, don't get me wrong, they're important to learn, but it is your personal vision/how you make them unique, that will make you images interesting.

 

Take for example the shot you asked about that started this thread, the scheme the photographer used(Rembrandt lighting)is known by countless folks, but very few photographers can EXECUTE that lighting scheme and come up with a cohesive and finely tuned winner that this shot is, understanding the basics of the lighting schemes is something you should know, but that alone won't make the difference, the 'something special' that makes up interesting and fun to look at will hve to come from you.

 

My suggestion is to not limit yourself to books on lighting, there are classic movie masterpieces that are seminars in lighting, and despite the fact that they're by the classic masters, the posing and light quality established by painters like Rembrandt, Rebuens, et al are just as topical and fresh as anything you'll see in a book, the lighting AND posing in some of these classical paintings in sheer brilliance, go see some theatrical plays, now when it comes to photography(and no disrespect to some of the fine books out there), see examples of lighting from the folks who did it the best, David Bailey, Avedon, Francesco Scavullo, Hurrel, Karsh, W. Eugene Smith, and Andre Kertez(google these names U won't be sorry) and many others I can't think of right now.

 

Investigate all the arts, experiment in the studio, take your camera out of the studio, shoot people at the park, festivals, the beach, try some profile/sidelight shots, silouette shots w/the sun at the subjects back, immerse yourself in all the visual arts, and then look, and most of all THINK about what you've seen and how you can use it for yourself, there's no getting around this growth process and the fact that it will take time.

 

Whoever shot the example image that started this thread did not learn lighting in a week.

[jonathan_brewer1]

Anand......................go here http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ANeW scroll down to the image 'my family', I did this w/one light, you aren't in the 'low rent district' with using one lightsource, and you can do some good work w/one light.

 

Try using just one light for a while, and see what you can do, do some tests, w/one light, I'm willing to bet you can come up some good stuff for yourself,...................good luck.