How do you achieve dramatic seemingly single light lighting without it being too dark?

[deedee_jones]

<p>I tried to create some lighting like the kind in the first and fifth photo here: http://fashiongonerogue.com/magdalena-frackowiak-sean-seng-numero-121/</p>

<p>I used a single key light. It's missing something. And yeah, I think I overdid the 'shopping.</p>

<p>What else can I try ? </p><div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The first thing that jumps out at me is that the light source in your example is placed much lower than in shots to which you're aspiring. As a result, you're not getting any light on the top of the shoulders or the head (though you're cutting that off), and that means there's very little definition separating that black suit and the subject's skin from the backdrop. The subject also seems a bit under-exposed. If you're doing that to try to keep the backdrop dark, just increase the separation (distance) so that your source falls off faster. You might need to flag that light to help protect the backdrop.<br /><br />Lastly, your light source looks a bit softer than what was used in the others. Are you using a reflector, modifier, etc?</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<ol>

<li>It looks like you used a smaller light source than the photographer whose work inspired you.</li>

<li>their subject had lighter contours than your subjects black tuxedo jacket, so styling and casting is a major part of the difference as well.</li>

<li>You have a larger contrast range -- white tux shirt against a a surrounding dark and darker surrounding fields in your photo: theirs has a much more moderate contrast range. In your photo the white really pushes forward and sub-ordinates everything else in the photo, including her face. This is an example of how our eyes will always be drawn to the areas of most contrast in a photo. To test this yourself try holding your fingers in front of your monitor so they cover the white shirt front. Do you notice how her face now comes forward? </li>

<li>Look carefully : they have a second light source coming from the model's left (stage right). </li>

</ol>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>As Ellis said, a second light, or even a reflector fill card might help.<br>

On the faces in the photos you linked to, take a look at the inverted triangle of light on the cheek opposite where the key light is. That triangle is the hallmark of what is generally known as Rembrandt lighting. Google "Rembrandt lighting" for more information on light placement, the size of light sources, etc. as a start.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I just did a slight tweak to curves on your posted image and there's a ton of clean detail I brought out considering its a small jpeg. I brightened the face without making the white get brighter. No distortion to color at all which is rare for a jpeg. That image is still good enough for fixing in post most certainly given you have the original Raw to work on.</p>

<p>I can bring out the folds in the black backdrop cloth behind the model as well as her left hand that's in shadow. But if you can do it with light in front of the camera then go for it.</p>

[deedee_jones]

<p>Rad...this was totally helpful.</p>

<p>I need to work more on separating models from backgrounds.</p>

<p>I understand you can fix a lot in post, but I'd also like to become much better at replicating lighting and moods. A reflector would have been helpful.</p>

<p>It's a small studio with extremely limited equipment, so flagging and reflectors becomes a creative endeavor. But that's no excuse to not try it, of course.</p>

<p>About to do some Googling!</p>

<p>Thanks a million for the advice. </p>

[Alan Marcus]

<p>You have discovered that the dynamic range of the human eye far exceeds the range of film or digital. In other words, what you see is not what you get. Classic portrait lighting stems from the old masters working in oil on canvas. They favored creating an illusion of one light coming from above simulating afternoon sun. Low lighting is a theatrical trick that makes the weird monsters as seen at the movies.</p>

<p>Now classic portraiture lighting is a hand-me-down from the great masters working with oil on canvas. They often strived to present an illusion of one-light coming from on high. Most advise setting the main or key light high and likely off to the side. Exact placement is an acquired skill.</p>

<p>Because a one-light setup likely will produce harsh shadows void of detail we generally advise the use of a reflector or better, a second lamp to soften the shadows cast by the main lamp. This lamp is known as the fill. My best advice is to set the fill at lens height somewhere near an imaginary line drawn camera-to-subject. This position fills the shadows cast by the main from the camera's viewpoint.</p>

<p>To preserve the one-lamp illusion, the fill is usually adjusted so that its intensity at the subject's position is subordinate to the main. If the main and fill are equal upon arrival at the subject plane, shadows will be perceived as too weak. This is what we call flat lighting. Often we need stronger shadows because our media is 2 dimensional and we need the shadows to bestow a perception of depth. </p>

<p>It is best to adjust the illuminate differences between main and fill using a light meter or perhaps power settings. If you fixtures are basic, we fall back using adjustments made via lamp-to-subject distance. </p>

<p>The following assumes both fixtures are identical:<br>

Set-up 1: Measure main-to-subject distance and place fill at lens height along the imaginary line at the same distance to the subject as the main. The result is flat lighting that might be OK because often the colors of the subject and the clothing and the background provide some contrast. (flat 2:1 ratio)</p>

<p>Set-up 2: Move the fill further back. The fill's position is 1.4 times the main-to-subject distance. This sets up the most popular ratio called the bread-and-butter ratio. (good<br />3:1 ratio)</p>

<p>Set-up 3. Move the fill even further back. The fill's position is 2 times the main-to-subject distance. This sets up a more contrasty lighting often termed masculine. (contrasty 5:1 ratio). </p>

<p>Set-up 4. Move the fill even more distant. This time 2.8 times the main-to-subject distance. This sets up a very contrasty theatrical ratio. (high contrast 9:1 ratio).</p>

<p>Experiment with different main and fill placements. You will be glad you did.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>With black and white the suggested ratio was 4:1 and with colour 2:1 for a normal portrait. For dramatic purposes one increases the ratio for the result one wants.<br>

A single light has always been just a way of getting "a picture" and the mark of the expert is when one doesn't appreciate that a second or more lights have been used on viewing the result.<br>

Having strict control of one's lighting also helps as opposed to the flooding of light around the place with an umbrella or suchlike. Even fill lights can be controlled with advantage, so you fill where it is needed instead of the whole set..</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I'm not a lighting expert and I don't own or use any high end (expensive) pro lighting systems many amateur and pro photographers use on this site. But I do notice a pattern of use of these lights that shows an attempt at getting the same "look" as other pro photographers and was wondering if anyone ever tried to just throw caution to the wind and experiment just to see what you get.</p>

<p>Just for the fun of it I've been experimenting with GE soft white bulb just feet from my face with several arranged haphazardly around me in a somewhat circluar pattern for self portraits. I just move around them photographing myself and seeing what comes of it. Though the results are far from that "professional" look shown here, I'm just fascinated by the extent light can influence the variety of looks in the final image brought out with a bit of post processing.</p>

<p>I'm not recommending you use GE soft white bulbs, but for god sake if you have all these great lights, play and experiment. You can always put them back the way they were. Maybe no one has time or interest to do this.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I am not a lighting expert either, nor have any experience with professional gear, but I think I do have an inkling of what is the right way to go about it from an early start in a studio equipped with spot lights and subsequent illustrations of studio gear albeit movie studios.<br />However, if you know what you want to do one can get some of the way without spending a lot of money. Some time ago I experimented to see what I could do with just a single light and reflectors and subsequently have purchased at auction a number of flash units, none of which has cost me more than $15,[ the expensive bits are the optical flash triggers at a little more] and only one has a Guide Number of 80, the rest are 56's. I am still assembling my 'studio lighting gear' so have nothing to illustrate its capabilities but in the meantime I post a picture from the earlier experiment which shows the way I'm going. Here I have 'controlled' the flash with a cardboard snoot but opened the side to permit some spill to light the background ... 2 for 1 light :-).<br />It doesn't matter what it is coming from but how it is coming which is important for the non-commercial photographer in their studio.</p><div></div>

[mariosforsos]

<p>I also genuinely think that the images you referenced use more than just one light! I believe there is a second light opposite the key, at very low intensity and slightly behind the model, without any modifier, providing separation and filling-in the shadows. A reflector COULD (and would) work, but it might not give you the exact effect you want...</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>I presume everyone noticed that the original JPG posted was in Adobe RGB, not sRGB? So, depending on which browser / image viewing application you are using, it might appear differently.</p>

<p>As was suggested previously, a touch of rim/hair lighting + a bit of fill would help, IMHO.</p>

<p>At least, how 'bout a bit brighter, more saturated skin tones and more sharpened to go along with the drama?</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - I see the bright edge artifacts from sharpening. If I wasn't being so lazy with someone else's image, I'd go back and fix them.</p>

<div></div>

[deedee_jones]

<p>Hey all,</p>

<p>Thanks again for all your help. Planning on getting back in the studio to try out several of your suggestions soon!</p>