Reception lighting study/exercise

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>In a recent thread I suggested that basic lighting principles indicated that you add light to content that you want to feature while you subtract light from what you want to avoid featuring. I think that many of us look at images and try to identify exactly how the image was lit. In portraits you can look at the catch lights in the eyes or in many images you can search the shadows for clues. In the below image, I invite anyone who'd like to "play", to guess how light was added and how it was subtracted. While I don't think that this image is a "contest winner" or a show-stopper by any means, I think it is an example of how lighting technique separates a pro from Uncle Bob. Feel free to critique as much as you'd like.</p>

<p>I'm also curious about any other specific techniques that others have used to subtract light with examples from your folio. While I see frequent posts about supplementing light, I can't remember seeing a post which looked specifically at subtracting/reducing light.</p><div></div>

[cjogo]

<p>I also would had taken my flash ( with that great white top ) bounced a strobe at +1 , with a slight fill card ---- and got a ambient ---- >>> this one works perfectly too.....</p>

[William Michael]

<p ><strong><em>"I invite anyone who'd like to "play", to guess how light was added and how it was subtracted."</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Hi David – I love games . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I am not sure if this is the <strong ><em >format of description</em></strong> you are seeking as an answer, but here goes: </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The additional light is toward the upper part of all the torsos and centre centric, and directed along the lenses axis but just off axis. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The subtractive is at the edges, at the bottom and some directional downward light.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >How was it done? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >My guess- a diffuser with some sort of snoot in combination with turning the power floodlights, off or shading those that were not turned off.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Nice question . . . good point about "subtractive"</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

 

[shawn_mertz]

<p>Almost like on camera flash but much higher and diffused, to soften and hide the shadows plus not lighting the front of the table as much as direct flash would.<br>

Those tents offer great possibilities for bouncing light into corners etc for directional light for closeups and two-3 people, but it can be very uneven on a big group like your sample it can be trouble and may have lit the wrong faces good. I likely would risk aiming the flash 90 degrees to one side and correct unless I knew were they were standing was a problem spot.</p>

[francie_baltazar]

<p>Okay so I will play - I believe this is a bounce with a card out... if you look on pole center it is the brightest area of the photo - also all shadows are down and behind which indicates that the light is coming from above. However there has to be some forward light because of the hot spots on the forheads of some of the men - I guess it's on camera but the flash head is facing slightly turned to the left as the right side of the tent is less illuminated. </p>

[betty_lowrey2]

<p>I'm probably going to get flack for this response, but I'm not seeing how this image "seperates" anyone from Uncle Bob. The light is way too harsh, makes the subjects look shiny, and seemingly was taken with a pop-up flash that possibly was diffused, but not much.<br>

The left side of the tent is getting more light which makes me think if you were bouncing the flash you were bouncing it sideways, which I don't quite get.<br>

The forward light has removed any and all detail from the cake, so much so that it kind of looks like a big white brick.<br>

I think tents are tricky with light, or can be, but I'm just not understanding the flash technique used on this. It's not flattering.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I think the concept of negative light (subtracting light from an image) is often overlooked. When we look for open shade for outdoor shots, that would be a common example of subtracting light. Using a lens hood is a tool for subtracting light. In the days of film, I had a UV filter with black nail polish applied to the outside edges which produced a soft viginette (you could increase/decrease the amount of the effect by varying your aperture). We can also reduce light via a scrim or gobo. In the darkroom, burning selected areas will decrease/subtract light. When faced with a large, highly directional light source that we don't have control over (the sun) we can change the positioning of the subjects and our POV to lessen the light.</p>

<p>I thought the example posted above was a good one to illustrate the above points. The lack of obvious shadows made the exercise more difficult....though picked up readily by William W. It was shot with two speedlites, a 580EX mounted on a bracket/diffused with an omnibounce and bounced taken from the camera position (plus half f stop). A second flash, 430EX/diffused with omnibounce and bounced to the right, just off center of the table (set at less half f stop). While bouncing from the ceiling provides good light fall off just below the table, the actual light that was intentionally subtracted was accomplished by my backing out the tent light (turning it off) just above the large flowers on the table at the top of the tent wall. Agreed, very subtle, very simple but does Uncle Bob think to turn it off?</p>

<p>During the toasts I also turned off the light just above/behind the B/G but didn't turn off the light at the far right end end of the head table. While this was taken when there was still a good amount of daylight, you can see the distracting yellow light that was avoided during the cake cutting and while the best man was doing his speach (see midle image below).</p>

<p>The cake does look like a white blob Betty which was due to some sloppiness on my part when I resized the image for posting. I've cropped the final version to provide some more closeup of the cake to show that there were no blowouts of the whites and evidence some details in the cake.</p>

<p>My original goal with this post was to simply stimulate some thoughts about subtracting light from images. I'm hoping to hear other ideas on how this can be accomplished and I think that a personal project on subtracting light could yield some interesting and creative images that could provide a new edge in creative coverage....hope it was helpful. Thanks to everyone who "played".</p><div></div>

[betty_lowrey2]

<p>The original finished version is much better.<br>

But you're cropping the guy on the left in half.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"The original finished version is much better. But you're cropping the guy on the left in half." -Betty</em><br>

<em></em><br>

I simply cropped in to illustrate and show that the details and the highlights of the "white brick" were not lost. Here's the image cropped closer yet.</p><div></div>

[betty_lowrey2]

<p>Oh, I see. I thought that was your final crop!<br>

Yes, I see the cake detail now.</p>

[William Michael]

<p ><em>"A second flash, 430EX/diffused with omnibounce </em><strong><em>and bounced to the right, just off center of the table</em></strong><em> (set at less half f stop)." </em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >The second Flash! <em><strong>and bounced to the right, just off centre of the table</strong></em> - Ah I looked at the man, extreme camera left and the shadow from his right arm – but I couldn't work out why such a strange shadow, compared the rest of the non shadow image.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I understand how the second flash purposely angled that way would enhanced the scrim around all the base of the image <em>and also especially across the lower back and the base of the dress, of the lady at extreme camera left.</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >[ I reckon I get half marks for getting the on camera Flash and turning the tent lights off correct :) ] </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong><em>***</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong><em>"but I'm not seeing how this image "seperates" anyone from Uncle Bob."</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >On a different, perhaps more sober note: It is my professional opinion that the lighting and, moreover <em>the thinking about and planning the lighting to suit the conditions and the subjects of this sample image . . . </em>goes a long way to differentiate the LIGHTING of this image from any image dispatched by an “Uncle Bob” with a Pop-up Flash or even using a Speedlight, bounced into the ceiling or speed light with a diffuser.</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em><strong>*** </strong></em></p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong><em>"I'm also curious about any other specific techniques that others have used to subtract light with examples from your folio."</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >I expect over the last few years, David, you might have gleaned I don't usually use Flash, as my first choice of lighting, so I would like to contribute additive and subtractive lighting techniques can be used in Available Light capture also, with this example of some informal portraiture.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >These two shots were taken beside a swimming pool whilst I was on holiday in Queensland.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The woman was lying on a deck chair, under a very shaded area. She has almost white skin and almost black hair.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The sun was about 20 degrees, late afternoon but still with a lot of kick in it, as the light reflected form the swimming pool was quite intense.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The diagrams are self explanatory. The tools used were: Canon 5D; 50F/1.4; Big white beach Towel and large beach umbrella on the ground, on its side. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<div></div>

[fotografz]

<p>William W, while I would agree that an amateur with a pop up flash wouldn't get something even near what David has posted ... I do not agree that a bounced speed light would produce a lesser solution in this specific case. Maybe even better.</p>

<p>The problem presented is that the subjects are so close to the background that it is difficult to not have drop shadows and a somewhat harsh feel to the image because of the starkness of the tent wall backdrop.</p>

<p>IMO, if I were using 2 or more sources of light for this shot, I would have "subtracted" the background as a problem by lighting it ... which would eliminate the drop shadows around the people's heads and probably wrap a bit of rim light around them. This is a common lighting technique for studio work, but easily adapted to location.</p>

<p>Tents are almost always white, and usually provide an excellent, very broad bounce source similar to large flats used in major photo studios. </p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"I do not agree that a bounced speed light would produce a lesser solution in this specific case. Maybe even better."</em></strong><strong><em></em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

Marc, your specific point is taken apropos technique and equipment to used: I agree, such is another option.</p>

<p>The thrust of that particular statement of mine was the combining the "Uncle Bob (i.e. he being the one driving the camera) AND the equipment AND the way it might be used.</p>

<p>There was some supposition in my thinking that, generally, "Uncle Bob’s” would have less technical expertise and experience to know the "how to".</p>

<p>Before any war begins - let me be clear: my comments should not be interpreted that "amateur" Photographers cannot not have great skills and much experience - many do: many surpass those who charge money for their efforts.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Continuing the technical discussion:</p>

<p>In your (Marc’s) sample there is a visual effect created by the shallow DoF and the camera’s Viewpoint (perspective) which brings the subjects "off the wall" and that separation emphasises the effect of the shadowless lighting (or we might argue visa-versa).</p>

<p>I mention this to make the point that <strong><em>nothing works in isolation</em></strong>.</p>

<p>One would (should) necessarily credit the combining of all these elements to the Photographer’s thinking and planning, perhaps that planning is unconscious to some degree . . . the shot was composed, a 35mm lens at that viewpoint and F2.8 were all <strong>chosen</strong> – as well as the lighting <strong>chosen</strong>. . . by the Photographer </p>

<p>All these aspects are part of the whole and more likely to be thought through and combined by a "Marc", than a "Bob".</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Thanks for participating Marc and William. I had really hoped to stimulate more thought and participation about subtracting light from images whereas most all the other lighting threads tend to concentrate on how we add light to an image. I had also hoped that at least one new shooter would tuck away the note about pre-planning images and pro-actively turning off lights as I did in the original sample above. Really nice lighting on the image above Marc, white veil, ivory dress, and details in the tux.</p>