The Quality of the Light

[the_mongrel_cat]

<p>Hi<br /> I've just been practising taking pictures of my beautiful new niece and I have run into something that I'm unsure how to get round.<br /> Basically, the quality of the light is somewhat muddy (I don't know how else to describe it). And I'm unsure as to how I can solve it. When I see this picture in my head it is nice and crisp and clear. The light (whilst soft) has that brilliance in it - the skin tones are bright without being blown out etc.<br /> I'm thinking that it may be one of the following problems<br /> 1 - Underexposure<br /> 2 - My post production technique<br /> So to put it into one question <em>How can I improve my light?</em> The setup I use is 3 nikon sb600 speedlights off camera. All in behind one bedsheet as a diffuser to camera left.</p>

<p>If anyone has any ideas I'd be very grateful for the input. Thanks</p>

[the_mongrel_cat]

<p>Sorry, here is the pic</p><div></div>

[leicaglow]

<p>David, it is your lighting. Move the subject closer to the light source (or the light source closer to the subject), and make sure it's diffused. For example, if it is a single soft box, then move the soft box closer to the baby. It will give you that bright effect, while reducing shadows and making a nice soft lighting on the baby. You may need a little reflector to the right to fill it in, but I would think putting even a small soft box next to the subject would do the trick.</p>

[the_mongrel_cat]

<p>wow, that was quick. Many thanks for your advice Michael, it is much appreciated.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>How are you metering, and controlling the light (in terms of power)? This sort of a situation calls for manual exposure settings so that the camera isn't confused by the black background. It has no idea that's a caucasian baby, and assumes that whatever it is, it needs to be 18% grey. So, manual exposure, and manual flash power settings, and push things up until just before you get clipped highlights. Shoot RAW, and go from there. You are, indeed, underexposed.</p>

[the_mongrel_cat]

<p>Thanks Matt, again some great practical advice, very much appreciated.</p>

[JAPster]

<p>To add just a little background info... remember the inverse square law affects your lighting. Assuming the light source remains unchanged (your flashes), if you have a certain brightness level at subject distance X, then if you double the subject distance to 2X, then the brightness level will be 25% of what it was at X. So if you halve the subject distance to 1/2 x, then the brightness level will be 400% of what it was at X. You can also experiment with different diffuser material. White rip-stop nylon fabric (available by the yard from fabric stores) is also a good diffuser for shining lights through. Or you can hang it over a bright sunny window and it will bathe that whole part of the room in nice natural diffused lighting for some very nice portraits.</p>

[wogears]

<p>Because you were shooting at base ISO, this is definitely salvageable. Bit of Levels and some noise reduction, to smooth the baby's skin rather than to reduce noise.</p><div></div>

[the_mongrel_cat]

<p>thanks alan and les, it's always great to get more info. i'll definitely need to absorb the inverse square law! and that's a couple of great tips on post also.<br>

thanks all, your expertise is much appreciated!</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>This really seems to work better for me when rotated. I processed it in Lightroom and gave it a bit more exposure then dodged the mans arms and minus clarity and sharpness with the adjustment brush. I sharpened the entire image then softened using noise reduction, sounds schizophrenic I know.</p><div></div>

[the_mongrel_cat]

<p>now that i've seen it round this way, i can't even look at it another. excellent idea to darken the arms, really makes the baby's skin pop out. thanks for your input into this thread john. i've got loads of good ideas to have another crack at it now - hopefully tommorow.</p>

<p> </p>

[kevin_delson]

<p>Infants skin is particularly difficult to render with pleasing aesthetic quality.</p>

<p>Why?..well; have a look at the skin of a infant from a med/anatomical POV. Not too pleasing to the eye is it?</p>

<p>Photographing babies follows a wonderful understanding found in the medical profession.<br>

"Babies are NOT "little adults".</p>

<p>Their veins ride much closer to the surface. Their skin reacts wildly to fluctuations in light and temperature. Simply repositioning a infant will cause color shifts; no, not in the recording medium, but in the skin itself due to altered blood flow.</p>

<p>While quite possible to diffuse strobes to capture the subtle intricacies of infants skin, it is very difficult.</p>

<p>May I suggest you lose the strobes for a while and try natural light, perhaps from a northlight window with diffusing material and reflectors. My guess is that your results will be far better if not more predictable.</p>

[the_mongrel_cat]

<p>thanks kevin, that's certainly an interesting thought. i never even considered the idea but it certainly rings true. good idea re the northlight window too, I'll definitely try that. cheers</p>

[the_mongrel_cat]

<p>I haven't had the opportunity to re-shoot the image, but I have taken the chance to improve my editing of the pic.</p>

<div></div>