Bouncing light onto subject in shade look bland.

[john_e2]

<p>I took everyone's advice and put my subject in the shade and used a gold reflector to bounce. I wasn't getting much bounce from the white side. The pic looks OK but still bland. There's no pop to it. I'm not talking about composition or posing etc. Does the pop in most pics come from photoshop now?</p>

[john_e2]

<p>sorry did't load the pic.</p><div></div>

[mukul_dube]

<p>If you play with the Curves tool you should be able to add pop. Or a simple raising of contrast would increase the saturation.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>You can see the gold reflector in the catchlight in her eyes, to the photographer's right. However, the primary light source is actually the open sky to the photographer's left (see the bright area in her eye on the opposing side). The light is flat because the open shade (sky) is your primary light source, and the reflector isn't doing much.There is really no light hitting your reflector, so there's nothing to bounce back at your subject.</p>

<p>What we were referring to in the prior post was to put your subject in the shade (at the edge of the sunlit area), then to use your reflector to bounce the direct sunlight back into the shaded area. The reflector will be much brighter than the open sky, so it will become your "key" light instead of just subtle fill light. To be honest, when bouncing the direct sun back into shade the shiny silver or gold reflector will be almost too bright and will almost blind your subject. I find a white piece of foamcore or plain white reflector to work better.</p>

[howard_m]

<p>maybe you want to consider firing a small strobe into the reflector to create a sharper poppier light.</p>

[b_christopher]

<p>Merely throwing light(or, bouncing light in this case) on a subject doesn't make a pretty picture. Traditionally, a reflector(or, fill card) is used to reduce contrast(bring up the shadow areas), or as a kicker(accent light from behind.) In portraiture(and other photographic genres, too), think more in terms of "direction of light", "color of light", "quality of light", etc.. I don't know what "Pop" is, but I know interesting light when I see it(a good example of interesting light is this week's Photograph Of The Week - <a href="../photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/00Yhbh?unified_p=1">LINK</a>.) Personally, I don't like to add supplemental light in my photos, unless I have to; and often, I avoid frontal light. Instead, when on location, I like to find the most interesting light on my subjects by studying the existing lighting options. <br>

There are five characteristics of light when it pertains to photography: Color, Contrast, Direction, Specular, and Diffuse. The first two can be adjusted post-exposure, and the last three can only be adjusted pre-exposure. Understanding such basics of photographic light will help you make better photos, certainly. Much luck!</p>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>Looks as though you are not truly in the shade, but rather illuminated by open sky as opposed to direct light. If that's correct, you don't have any real difference in light values. Get them further into the shade and in a place where the reflector can actually pick up the sun so you have at least a 3/1 ratio. This is almost completely uniform so there is no way to see any modeling from the reflector.</p>

<p>The reflector will work very well even with the subject in bright light but facing away from the sun, then bouncing the sunlight back into the faces. You've just got to have the contrast instead of the uniformity.</p>

[john_e2]

<p> B Christopher. that's a great pic. Do you think this was enhanced with photoshop? </p>

[b_christopher]

<blockquote>

<p>B Christopher. that's a great pic. Do you think this was enhanced with photoshop?</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>John E, I guess you're referring to the current Photograph Of The Week? I agree it's a great picture. Sure. I think it has received some enhancement in post.</p>

 

[Mattman944]

<p>Sheldon and I are referring to something like this, with the subject in the open shade and the reflector in the direct sun. The reflector becomes the key light.</p><div></div>

[studio460]

<p>John, I previously replied to your other thread, but I'll add a brief comment here as well . . .</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I took everyone's advice and put my subject in the shade and used a gold reflector to bounce. I wasn't getting much bounce from the white side. The pic looks OK but still bland. There's no pop to it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no "pop" because by putting your subject in open shade, you've reduced your lighting ratio, and therefore your scene contrast is much lower. Adding a backlight (or, a 3/4 "kick"), either by using and netting the sun, or creating one with a Speedlight, would bring the "snap" back.</p>

 

[john_e2]

<p>Thanks for all the comments and tips. I'll be trying them out today. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

<blockquote>

<p>There are five characteristics of light when it pertains to photography: Color, Contrast, Direction, Specular, and Diffuse. The first two can be adjusted post-exposure, and the last three can only be adjusted pre-exposure. Understanding such basics of photographic light will help you make better photos, certainly. Much luck!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I agree with that comment and the encouragement to look at light in nature all the time. As an exercise in seeing how the sun works with different natural reflectors out there.. Shade is not created equally, is it? If you walked around the child, I bet the light coming in from the shade under a tree has a direction for each turn of your circumnavigation of subject...try it and see.<br /> I try to see the direction, there is almost alway direction. So I am, for portraits anyway as I was taught, looking for <em>directionality</em> in light. If I use a reflector I can control a little more, especially when light is way up high and shade is meager, and in a backlight situation, the reflected light becomes the main source, try it and see. Or if the direction is fine, the reflector, on same side of light source and focused well, can add a wee bit more. (I tend to use silver and high gloss silver, a habit) <br /> I guess my understanding, hope it is useful to you, is that directional light has the much desired "pop" quality of undefined yearning, ...So what I am affirming is that light bouncing all around is going flat, or undifferentiated or lacking in much pop.(And that is still what I see in the shot you linked.. even with reflector added.it is kind of flat,or it has almost no direction. )The eye, my eye, prefers light to have direction, Yielding some unpostprocessed snap or pop or sparkle. And never forget the pop in the eyes. Child's eyes show a mixture of reflections, maybe indicating the mix of light sources undifferentiated, not sure...I like a simple eye reflection. Look for instance at the eye catchlight in Matthews sample above..'tis better huh?<br /> IOW, to sum up my thoughts, FWIW, I affirm all that B. Christopher wrote. Read him carefully.. And suggest you use post processing time to fiddle with other qualities,sir. Not for the "pop" methinks. I do wish you well. gs</p>

[john_e2]

<p>I tried putting her at the edge of the shade this morning and boucing using a white and gold reflector. I'm posting the samples I came up with. these are straight out of camera. The sun was coming in and out of the clouds and I tried to wait till the sun was not partially behined clouds, however, it seems that the one with the gold reflector had more sun. I'm going by the shade of the grass in the background. I like the one with the white bounce but I can't see the effect that much. I was holding pretty close to her. Please, let me know what else I should be doing to try to get a better shot. <br>

Thanks for all the help.</p><div></div>

[john_e2]

<p> After looking at these pics online through this post I realize they look much different from when I view them in photoshop. in photoshop they look red. online they look much better. I'm guessing this is a profile issue.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Play with custom white balance in camera for the light, as you find it. And you know, the photos are not all that bad, keep on truckin', Ace, you will get there...</p>

[john_e2]

<p>I used a white balance cap that went over the lens and did the preset shot. It indicated "good". So, I shot on the preset that I shot for that area.</p>

[tjh_images]

John

You may want to look at your monitor calibration also, online they look great. I hope you don't mind I took a few seconds and did a fast curves adjustment on your original picture, Very cute baby.