I can never get flash lighting right...

[supermongrel]

<p>Any guesses on what kind of setup is getting the lighting in the below picture? I try and try to get even, bright, but still contrasty lighting like this and I can never get it. I get either washed out or hot spots or light where I can see every little flaw and tan line. The closest I've come to getting it is bouncing a camera mounted flash off a reflector behind me and with two studio flashes on either side, but that's a huge setup not conducive to travelling and I'd like to be able to rid myself of an assistant. Anyone got ideas on what gets nice, bright, flawless light like below?</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[phillipmarcovallentin]

<p>Even light = low fallout = large distance between your lights and subject.</p>

<p>Contrast can be improved by using grids and louvres on our sources,<br />and by the use of subtrative fills.</p>

<p>It's pretty basic really ;-)</p>

<p>Forget about your camera mounted flash for this type of work; I would ONLY use studioflashes.</p>

<p>I have never ever compromised on my kit when traveling:<br />I usually have about 30 - 40 kilos of stands, AutoPoles, reflectors, cables, etc, picked up by TNT,<br />and send by Global Express to my location.<br />I carry a further 30 kilos of camera, lenses, laptop, and lights, with me on the train or flight,<br />and don't usually work with an assistant.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[twmeyer]

<p>what is "low fallout"? (fall off?)</p>

<p>There's a ton of retouching on the skin tones in that photo. No amount or type of lighting will make your model's tan lines go away.</p>

<p>You do need larger light sources to duplicate that look, and several of them. The two lights that are immediately obvious are in almost direct opposition to each other, the one at left rear is also slightly cooler, mimicing or actually being sky light (so there may be color temp gels involved, too). It looks like there was also a fan. It's aint rocket science, but it aint simple... or cheap... t</p>

<p>ps: I think that photo is trite and boring (not that you asked).</p>

[phillipmarcovallentin]

<p>Tom:</p>

<p>Yes, I meant Fall Of = the DEPTH of light !</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>Moving your source farther from the subject makes the source smaller and harder, not softer. So the "fall off" shadow transition becomes smaller not larger, and the effect is harder light, not softer.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

[russ_britt3]

<p>You need a flash meter too, if you want to really understand whats going on. Cant just assume you know that.</p>

[r_smith2]

<p>When talking about light fall off you are talking depth of the light as Phillip mentioned. Moving the light farther from your subject gives your light more depth (the ole inverse square law of light thingy). You then use an appropriate light modifier to give you the quality of light you are looking for (hard, soft , small, large etc..). The reason most photographers have trouble with lighting is because they forget that light has depth. <br>

Now on to the image. It is a small image but it looks like an available light image to me. Window light behind the model with a large reflector providing fill to the front of the model. You can recreate all this by replacing the window with a large diffused softbox. The light source behind the model is blown out so it is hard to tell if it is a window or large softbox (doesn't matter anyway).</p>

[mike51664877339]

<p>About "light has depth." I looked at the photo before the responses, and guessed that the shadows are as soft as they are because a large light source was positioned pretty close to the model, probably camera right. Plus, as Tom mentioned, actual or "artificial" sunlight camera left. So I have difficulty understanding Randall's and Phillip's idea that the soft shadows are because of "depth of light/fall off" brought about by placing the lights farther away. I do understand what Charles said, that distance makes the source smaller, therefore shadow-edges will be harder, not softer. I guess you can get equivalent softness as distance increases by increasing the size of the light source, as you pull the light back. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Large apparent light source (i.e. large solid angle seen by subject) => even lighting in the lateral direction. If you achieve this by placing a large light source near the subject, you'll get strong illumination decay as a function of (even relatively short) distance(s).</p>

<p>Far away light source => even light in the depth direction. If the light source is small then you'll get specular reflections, hard shadows etc.</p>

<p>Want even light in both depth and tangential directions? Then make a very large light source that is far away. Preferably add reflectors surrounding the subject, but outside of the frame.</p>

[twmeyer]

<p>Lots of contributors here understand the concepts they are trying to explain, but are having a hard time stating them clearly.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what it is called (I'd go with "decay" and it is relative to the inverse square law...) but when a light source is far away from a complicated subject (like a human body) the light that falls on the part nearest the light is practically equal in intensity to the light falling on the body part furthest from the light source (think of the sun).</p>

<p>When a light is placed near to a body, the light striking the nearest part of the body will be much brighter/stronger than the light falling on the furthest part (this is a function of the proportion of the comparative distance from the light of the two measured points). In this thread, this phenomena has been called "falloff", but not by me.</p>

<p>Do not confuse this attribute with the light "transit", which is that area created by a light as it defines the change from brightly lit to shadow. For example, an umbrella has a wider transit area (or penumbra) than a bare bulb.</p>

<p>It ain't rocket science, but it ain't as easy as falling off a chair... t</p>

[tony_s]

<p>Hello... never get frustrated - it's all ther you just need to find it!<br>

You'll get lots of different suggestions or answers to your problem and most will be right but first of all, if you want to emulate the lighting in the specific image you've posted, then you really need to have a good look at the image first - much of the lighting in this case, is actually from natural light!<br>

That shot could easily be done with one or maybe two reflectors and a single flash ( plus possibly a shoot through brolly or softbox ) for gentle fill to balance with the natural light.<br>

Natural light is often overlooked or dismissed in favour of flash but it's a great tool to work with! By making use and controlling the light which is available, you can easily emulate the image lighting you've posted!<br>

How would I set about doing it? Well first of all you have to think of it as constructing an image rather than just throwing light at the subject and taking a picture - each light source needs to perform a certain task which when combined with the other light sources, produces the resut you require. It's best to add each light source only when the previous ones are correct - this way you'll see the effect each one gives.<br>

If I was emulating the shot I'd need for instance to get the exposure correct for the natural light falling from the far side of the model, preferably with a light meter before moving on - next I'd use the reflectors, each to fill in the shadow areas where necessary and then if there still wasn't quite enough lift on the shadow side, I'd maybe then add just sufficient softened flash to give the model's face etc a lift! The secret is to balance the light - once you have the balance right, it's easy to go from there. <br>

Very often, images like this will have undergone quite a bit of manipulation in post prod before you see the finished product so, don't be fooled into thinking that shots like this are always straight from the camera. Skin tones can be enhanced and blemishes removed digitally but it is important not to give the model a plastic look, so you need to leave in some skin texture.<br>

Also lens choice helps - the shot was most likely taken at a wide(ish) aperture, which softens the image as the focus DOF goes out - the resulting bokeh can also interact with light fall-off etc to enhance the image. <br>

Again, don't be coerced into thinking that you need giggawatts of power from flash heads. Alot of my Boudoir work involves working with natural light plus reflectors and very often the only flash assistance I need to use is from a tiny Multiblitz ring flash with a guide number of only 5 ( in metres). If you use each light source creatively, you will overcome most of the problems you've encountered. <br>

Good luck...<br>

Tony</p>

[gerald_kraus]

<p>There are multiple light sources in that picture. There is either a large window behind her, casting light on her hair & rear end. There is light falling on the close side of her. It also looks like some pp in Photoshop or with an add-on filter package.</p>