Fashion-style studio portrait: the lighting setup

[koloskov]

<p>Recently we had our first photography workshop, I would like to share what we did: the lighting setup and the actual portraits of all our students. Here is one of them:<br /> <img src="http://www.akelstudio.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/workshop-studio-lighting-setup-11.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="812" /> <br /> Here how it was done:<br /> <img src="http://www.akelstudio.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/atlanta-photographer-workshop-ligting-setup.png" alt="" width="600" height="635" /></p>

<p>Ther rest on our blog:<br /><b>Links removed. This is not the "blog link" forum.</b> <br /> I hope this has been helpful and would love to hear your comments.<br /> -Alex<br /><h2><b>Signature URL removed. Not allowed per photo.net Terms of Use.</b></h2></p>

[garypeck]

<p>BD is approximately one and a half feet to high - for glamor you don't want to create enormous shadows under the chin. In this example you lost the lower half of her face.<br>

A bounce card as close to the chest bouncing uo would have helped while softening the other shadows as well. I don't know what this guy is teaching but that kind of contrast is unprintable and is the lighting is simply unfinished.<br>

g</p>

[john tonai]

<p>The height of the BD isn't exactly the problem, it is the angle since the didn't mention how FAR the light is from the model.</p>

<p>Is that lighting diagram created with Kevin Kurtz's free download? If it is, why isn't it credited?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Alex: be careful not to violate photo.net's terms of use, and make postings here that come close to being advertising. You can link to all of your web sites from your PN profile page, which is encouraged. But it's not good form to use a post here to steer traffic away from PN and off to another business's web site.</p>

[koloskov]

<p>Gary, John,<br>

You absolutely right: shadows are too deep.<br>

This is why we added light and changed reflectors on a hair lights on a next shoot. ( I though you looked at my blog post.) But here it is:<br>

<img src="http://www.akelstudio.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/workshop-studio-lighting-setup-8.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="855" /></p>

<p>And the setup. One more light for the eyes, book was used instead of a reflector.</p>

<p> <img src="http://www.akelstudio.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/atlanta-photographer-workshop-ligting-setup-with-snoot1.png" alt="" width="600" height="635" /></p>

<p>Remember, it was a workshop, we started with a very simple one + and reflector setup, adding lights while moving to a better ptortrait.<br>

The one I've showed you is not the best, but an example.</p>

<p>Matt,<br>

Well, I am not only stealing the traffic, but provide an interesting info right on phot.net. But I see your point, I'll re-post my whole blog post here next time.</p>

<p>-Alex</p>

[andresa]

<p>I don't think either of these are strong examples.</p>

<p>The first has too much shadow due to placement of beauty dish. Ideally you want the beauty dish closer and lower; it needs to fill in not only the shadows beneath the models chin, but also open the compressed shadows inside her hair line which are too dark to be successful.</p>

<p>In the second you've over lit the model's eyeline. The hat has proved difficult and you've compensated with more light, but it's bleached her features at camera right. What would have been better is changing the angle of her head to camera. Not only would it have softened the light on her eyes (you would get nice diffusion from brim of her hat), but it would have made her look more natural - a softer, relaxed expression rather than looking like she's just sat on a pin. Direct face to camera with eye line at lens axis is always very difficult to make work properly. Few people manage it.</p>

[koloskov]

<p>Andres,<br>

Agree, there are always ways for improvement of any picture, especially if we consider subjective taste of the person who look at the photo.<br>

I like the way she looked here, it is very in her nature, if you'd know her:-) She is very strong and self controlling girl, I must tell. </p>

<p>-Alex<br>

<b>Signature URL removed. Not allowed per photo.net Terms of Use.</b></a></p>

[koloskov]

<p>BTW, few photos of my kids in the studio with only beauty dish on top of them:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.perfectphotoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/twin-toddlers-studio-portrait.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="900" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.perfectphotoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/little-model.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="917" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.perfectphotoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/studio-photography-atlanta-ga-2.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="900" /><br>

<img src="http://www.perfectphotoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/blue-hands.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="943" /></p>

<p>They are perfect models:-)</p>

[marc_david]

<p>There is no light hitting your 'perfect' models eyes... Look at the shadows...</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Beauty Dish has a nice sound to it. I rather think I prefer an even softer wrap around key light source, Alex. And perhaps even one where the model can turn to wide and short angle (I forget actual languague) of shadow without losing the origninal set up. I am no expert and have to get back into the swing of things. I also like to try a round reflector out in front that can be aime up to the face...the age killer they used to call it....<br>

I am going to experiment w a Light panel Lastolite shoot through scrim and later a Photek Softlighter that I haven't used yet.<br>

I was interested in the comments above,so thank you for allowing others to take a 'shot' at your shots..It is good for all whatever the subject.</p>