Multiple Catchlights

[rob_martin5]

When using multiple strobes in front of a subject (e.g., a simple

main on one side at 45 degrees and a fill on the other at 45 degrees

setup) is it just inevitable/unavoidable that two catchlights will

appear in the subject's eyes?

 

I'm wondering if this is generally undesirable. I guess I haven't

noticed multiple catchlights in professional portrait/fashion/beauty

shots.

 

Should one care, and if so, how is this avoided when multiple

strobes are used in this manner? I realize that a reflector in lieu

of the fill strobe would solve this (?), but I see plenty of setups

with two lights similar to how I've described.

 

 

Thanks,

Rob

[digitmstr]

Two catchlights are not necessarily a bad thing, provided one is bigger than the other and/or a different shape.

<p>

A white reflector could "cause" a catchlight as could a window, of course if at the proper angle and distance.

<p>

Here's an <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/2453930>example</a> with two catchlights...

[kram]

There is only one sun shining on this planet.

I personally hate split lighting. It looks unatural. I don't care for multiple catchlights- mostly.

 

But it all depends on what YOU like. If you have some favorite photographers, study their

work and see what they do.

 

There is absolutely no reason to light a human for portrait/fashion/beauty shots with two

lights in front.

[dennisprice]

Rob, if you are bothered by two catchlights but otherwise like the effect of multiple frontal lights, just use the clone or brush tool in Photoshop to eliminate the unwanted catchlight.

 

Only you (and perhaps your clients) can determine what is desirable or undesireable...

[rob_martin5]

Great responses, thanks. I'm glad to hear it's not necessarily an "industry standard" to avoid this.

 

I haven't made the jump to digital, so Photoshop isn't an option (Dennis) but is a great idea/option for when I do make that transition.

 

I like your conviction Major. :)

 

Giampi, I like your model :), but more importantly it was a relief to see such a nice example that includes multiple catchlights as I described.

 

I appreciate the responses.

 

Rob

[mike_lepp1]

When I look at old family portraits, if you look closely at the eyes you can see that the second catchlight, usually the fill, was penned out. You can find these pens at places like calumet under retouching pens.

 

Some people inked out one of the catch lights on the negative too. You can also find pens designed for this at calumet.

 

Personally, I tend not to worry about it. Which seems to be today's trend.

[cappoldt]

Too, pick up a fashion magazine such as Vogue or similar, and look into the eyes of many of the makeup models - there's often more than two, sometiems up to four.

[rob_martin5]

Mike, I thought this sort of thing was generally reserved for uncoated papers. I've done a bit of coloring of b/w prints but was taught that an uncoated paper is the right approach. Thanks!

 

Christopher, you're absolutely right. I need to pay more attention to stuff like this. If there is a "right" or "wrong" here, this would certainly be a strong indication.

 

 

Rob

[er1]

I've seen some great fashion shots with catch lights & reflectors in the eyes that look fantastic. It just depends on the look you are trying to achieve. You and your client should be the only ones who care.

[randall paul]

Most pro's will retouch or PS the second catch light out. The primary light should always be in the 1'o'clock position. This gives the illusion of the the stare following you no matter what angle you view the photograph. So with a second catch light present this diminishes that effect. For me personally I don't care and it would depend on the subject. But I think you will find that most secondary catch lights are unavoidable and are retouched! Good luck