Getting ratios right in black background

[musings]

<p>I've been exploring lighting ratios for color photos using a three-light setup (main/fill/hair) against a total black background. My two sons have been kind enough to act as guinea pigs. My Polaris light meter readouts seemed very accurate (what a joy to use), and I used umbrella softliter for main, 12x18" softbox for fill and a small 4x8" softbox for the hairlight. The ratios seemed right, but the hair light may need to be reduced by a stop (or moved further back). Feedback/suggestions welcomed...thanks!</p><div></div>

[musings]

<p>Another trial portrait.</p><div></div>

[josephbraun]

<p>nice job for such tiny soft boxes. I assume you're using battery powered strobe units?</p>

[musings]

<p>Thanks, Joseph, for the feedback. Yes, I was using battery strobes (one Viv 285 for main, one SB-28 for fill, and another Viv 285 for hair light). The main umbrella softliter was rather large (60") but the fill and hair strobes were much smaller relative to the main. </p>

[nealcurrie]

<p>It would be better IMO if I could see where the shirt ends and the background begins. The top picture looks like his neck is coming out of nowhere. Awesome pictures of Alec btw.</p>

[musings]

<p>Good point, Neal, and I agree regarding the shirt definition against the background. Ian happened to be wearing a black shirt during the test photos, so I suspected it would get blended. No worries, though, since that can be easily fixed in the future photos. My primary aim in this round was getting the light ratios correct and to ensure that the light was soft and even and that the Polaris meter was accurate. Thanks again for your feedback and recommendations...much appreciated.</p>

[silverdae]

<p>I like the ratios, but try this- instead of bringing the hairlight strait down, bring it more from behind and down. You should get some spill on the shoulders in addition to the hairlight that will give you the needed separation and a little more dimension where the hairlight hits. Overall though I like the ratios- just fine tune the placement. </p>

[musings]

<p>Thanks, Joseph, Neal and Jen. All good suggestions and feedback. I will make the placement adjustments on the hair light for the next round of photos. Cheers...Jeff</p>

[nathan_stiles]

<p>I didn't respond before, b/c you never said what ratio you are going for? If you are asking about it, then I think your ratios are too shallow for low key photography of this type. But ratios are sorta a preference.</p>

<p>I'd go to a 4:1 or 6:1 key/fill. There's no visible nose shadow at all in the pics and modeling is really barely there. If you are asking about hairlight/key ratio, the hair light is hot-- also too high and not enough behind, IMO.</p>

<p>What ratio did you have in mind when you shot this? 2:1?</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>I debated whether or not to say anything to you about your use of lighting ratios. Perhaps if all you are really looking for is an attaboy, there here is an attaboy for you. Attaboy! Stop.<br>

I think if I had written the original post and had a concern for my use of lighting ratio, I would have given more technical detail about what I wanted to accomplish. I certainly would have mentioned what ratio I thought I used. Your portraits are flat! You killed shadows altogether. There is no modeling at all to tell the viewer that your boys live in a 3D world.<br>

Excerpt from an article I wrote on the subject:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The idea behind interesting lighting is that two lights on a subject give it a nicer balance and texture than only one. They also allow the photographer to move the camera away from the flat appearance of one light only. Cameras cannot capture the wide range of light and shadow the human eye can, and digital cameras seem to have less range than film cameras. If the camera is to see shadow areas as anything more than dark blobs it is necessary to put light into them. Reflectors and secondary light units are the conventional ways for doing this in the studio. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is: shadow areas create modelling, so position the camera on the fill side of the set so you can see their effect on your subject. In the case of your boy's portraits, their faces are the subjects.<br>

Another excerpt:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The lighting ratio is a way to compare the relative intensities of two light sources with each other. The simplest way to read a lighting ratio is to say that one light is x times stronger than the other. The weaker light always has the value “1”, and the stronger one has the value shown in the ratio. Read the ratio “1.5:1” as “The key light is 1 ½ times stronger than the fill light.” Since the stronger light is always the key light, you can see that “1.5:1” and “1:1.5” mean the same thing. The stronger light is typically shown first in the ratio to simplify things for everyone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lighting ratio does not compare foreground and background lighting on your set. The fact that you got good exposure on your subject and a strong black background is not what the lighting ratio you use is intended to do for you. There are other lights on a typical set besides the main and fill lights, but they are not measured in the lighting ratio. <br>

And another:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The comparison of main and fill light units with each other is simply the brightness of one against the other. There are two ways of looking at lighting ratios in the studio. The first is to compare the intensities of the light units directly, and the other is to examine the brightness of the light falling on the subject itself. These methods produce the Source Lighting Ratio and the Portrait Lighting Ratio, respectively. Measure light unit intensities directly using the incident light setting on a light meter, and subject light intensities by metering the subject or by using a gray card substitute.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This information is readily available from many sources. Start with the PN tutorials and then visit the Smith-Victor website (among others) for reinforcement. Additionally you may be interested in reading about posing your subject and the traditional portrait lighting setups such as 'broad lighting,' 'short lighting,' 'butterfly lighting,' and etc..<br>

You have started down an interesting path. As with any journey you should not be concerned to find out that things are not quite what they appear to be, and that the way is not as straight as you thought it would be at the beginning.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Did you do a lot of post process on these? I can't figure out how the skintone can be smooth but the hair in both pics is 'crispy sharp'? That sharpening will "Pop" your edges, (and make the lighting look better) but is distracting IMO.</p>