What is acceptable shadows?

[kelly_buechlein1]

<p>I used my flash off camera. About 6 ft angled down off to my left but close to center. There are shadows on legs. When are shadows not acceptable?</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I can see why the shadows might bother you some. My guess is that you needed to set your flash to ambient light ratio a little different. Less pop IOW... And with the closeness to the brick wall, flash looks like your primary light source, thus the headlight effect.( I might add that the grouping of people is just a little awkward, but that is another story, of course.) I wish you well, aloha, gs</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Shadows are not acceptable if you don't like the look of them. As I look at this picture though, I can see lots of detail in the shadow areas and this makes me wonder why you needed the flash at all?</p>

<p>The "easy" answer to this shadow effect is to purchase a ring flash and use it as intended <strong>on the lens</strong>, rather than off to the side...Regards, Robert.</p>

[kelly_buechlein1]

<blockquote>

<p>I might add that the grouping of people is just a little awkward, but that is another story, of course.)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The client did not want the typical posing meaning everyone standing on top of each other and wanted something different. However, I did the norm shots, but opted to try this which I like.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>The lighting doesn't look bad, the shadows are just the result of them being close to the wall and you using a hard light source. Of course, with them spread out, even a soft box would have hardened up with the distance you would have had to place it (light always gets harder the further away).</p>

<p>(A ring flash would just give you a closer shadow in several places and generally less flattering light)</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Learn Lighting :)</p>

<p>Any light source, natural or otherwise, is going to give you 3 values: your highlights, your diffused value, and your shadows. You would get the same shadows if the sun was in the same "position" as your flash, then what would you do? My point being that principles of lighting apply to all light. Shooting natural light isn't a reason to not learn lighting.</p>

<p>In this case, the solution depends on how you want the shot to look. With the subjects <em>on</em> the backdrop (wall), about the only way to <em>not </em>get a shadow is to hope for an overcast (flat light) day, or use a light modifier larger than the group:</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/187452-REG/Matthews_319709_20x20_Overhead_Fabric.html</p>

<p>Which would help simulate an overcast day. The issue then becomes lighting the Overhead (multiple strobes would be needed). The easiest solution is to simply move the subjects away from the backdrop (wall). The further away from the wall, the better. Now, if you can only get a few from the wall, you would set up a couple of small flashes to <em>light</em> the wall. Shadows will be absence of light. Imagine putting someone right in front of a white wall, using the same flash you have in this image: stark shadow. Pull the subject away from the wall, and we have an improvement. Want to keep the backdrop white: light it. Put a light on a white backdrop and you get a white backdrop... no shadow, when properly lit. Don't like the shadow on the wall... light it. One of the rules of lighting written in stone: you want it lit, you have to light it.</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>It's not just the legs.</p>

<p>There are sharp edged shadows for their whole bodies.</p>

<p>If you want softer shadows, you need to learn better lighting techniques.</p>

<p>1) move your subjects away from the background.<br /> 2) diffuse the light source.<br /> 3) move your light(or camera) so that the shadow does not fall on the background the camera sees.</p>

<p>Books I would recommend.<br /> Michael Grecco's, Lighting and the Dramatic Portrait.<br /> Lighting, Science and Magic<br /> Or any of McNally's books, if you are of the Strobist bent</p>

<p>4) get a ring light, if you like the look of a ring light.</p>

[zack_lau]

<p>We have a professional that comes in to take pictures for book and magazine covers--he typically takes a few hours to get the lighting just right--and then takes another hour after the shot to pack away all his lighting gear.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Learn the difference between soft and hard lighting. Soft lighting has soft-edged or no discernible shadows, while hard lighting shows hard-edged shadows. What creates the softness or hardness of light is the size of the lightsource and its distance from the subject.</p>

<p>A hotshoe flash is a small - no, tiny - source of light, and at any distance will give a very hard shadow; as you see in your picture. "Bouncing" or reflecting the flash off a matt surface will give a much softer light and less harsh shadows. The same can be achieved by putting a large diffuser in front of the flash. It's as simple as that. You don't need any fancy gear. A newspaper spread out next to the flash gives a nice big surface to bounce the flash off. Or a light-coloured wall, a white T-shirt or blouse, etc. Use your initiative and imagination!</p>

<p>WRT ringflashes: Totally unnecessary, and when used on camera at portrait distances can look just as nasty as any other source of direct flash.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>Soft lighting has soft-edged or no discernible shadows, while hard lighting shows hard-edged shadows</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I know where you are going, but the above is slightly inaccurate. Soft or hard is the <em>transition</em> from diffused value to shadow. A single light source gives you three values: highlights, diffused value, and shadows. Even a large light source can have shadows. Imagine a split lighting pattern using a huge soft box, or even a large window, on the lit side of the pattern (near the window or soft box) you have "X" EV, on the other side you have a much lower EV. The soft box or window is large, but there will still be a <em>shadow. </em>The light isn't falling equally on both sides. The larger the light source, the more <em>gradual </em>the transition to shadow. So soft lighting still gives you shadows. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A hotshoe flash is a small - no, tiny - source of light, and at any distance will give a very hard shadow; as you see in your picture. "Bouncing" or reflecting the flash off a matt surface will give a much softer light and less harsh shadows.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p> Well, it doesn't have to be a matte surface! Keep in mind that if eliminating shadows on the wall is the goal, for the image posted there isn't a shoe mount flash modifier that will do any good. You need a modifier larger than the group. But in general, bouncing a shoe mount flash will provide better results.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The same can be achieved by putting a large diffuser in front of the flash</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not quite. A diffuser will, well, diffuse the light source. Diffusion will lower the intensity, lower specularity, and lower contrast. But diffusion by itself won't create a softer light source. Imagine putting a diffusion panel right next to your light source. You haven't changed the <em>size</em> of the light source, only diffused it. Since the size of the light source hasn't changed, the light isn't any softer. You will however, have reduced the contrast and specularity. In effect creating a gentler light.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> nice big surface to bounce the flash off. Or a light-coloured wall, a white T-shirt or blouse, etc. Use your initiative and imagination!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed! Although where the original image is concerned, bouncing the flash off any surface isn't really going to do any good: the subject is too large.</p>

<p> </p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Way back for black and white I was told to have a lighting balance of 4:1 and later with colour that became 2:1 To achieve this one was using a key light to cast shadows to show a three dimensional subject in a 2D medium and a fill light to lighten the shadow areas to have them within the contrast range the film was capable of handling. The target, detail in both the brightest and darkest areas of the photo. Having a single light away from the camera was for dramatic purposes though unsatisfactory, but even so one filled the shadows so that it looked like a single light but actually was filling the shadows to meet the range the emulsion could cope with.<br>

I did read, I think on this forum somewhere, somebody suggesting that the current fashion for soft lighting comes from people seeing so much bland TV sit-coms where the non-stop action demands a general lighting to suit the characters all over the set. Whereas the traditional film was one shot at a time with lighting designed for each. That is apart from high fashion photography which used to be the main area of flat lighting.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>If you don't like shadows and another 'no-no' was two lots of shadows you need to have another flash off to the right but at reduced strength so that the shadows are lighter, but if possible to that light doesn't cast a noticeable shadow on the character's right. The classic exercise is to photograph an orange so it looks round and shows its texture but with only one shadow, and no cheating by sitting it on a sheet of glass.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>John in his post above reminded me that the four-set DVD called <a href="http://www.software-cinema.com/training/photography/dean-collins/4/the-best-of-dean-collins-on-lighting">"The Best of Dean Collins on Lighting"</a> is what you should get if you want to understand light. Especially disc 4 which is called Basic or something like that is what you want to start with.</p>

<p>It's all 80's-90's looking but that doesn't matter as the late Dean Collins was the king.</p>

<p>To answer you question though - what's acceptable is in the eyes of the client or the photographer. Does it look like you want it to?</p>

<p> </p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>My mentor worked with Dean Collins back in the day!</p>

[kelly_buechlein1]

<p>thanks everyone for responses. Many of you said learn light and that is what I am trying to do by actually taking pictures. I do have Neil's off camera book, but I learn by doing. I just learned not to place anyone up against a wall unless I have more lights and know how to position them. So, I will practice until I get it right.. I have been shooting natural for over a year and want to add lighting and continue learning all aspects instead of just staying where I am at. I have spent countless hours reading, watching, but without an untrained eye to guide me I will have to slowly figure it out on my own picture by picture. It gets to be overwhelming because I do get many different opinions (some say use meter some say dont, some say use off camera flash some say not enought....) I actually had the picture printed as a test sample from a lab and it's not that bad? Meaning I highly doubt the client would even realize that's its technically wrong. The lower half is a little dark, so I need to lighten, but if they do want to purchase it I am not totally sunk.<br>

Would love to have a mentor, but honestly no one where I live is doing anything with off camera lights. Everyone is a natural light photographer. Back to reading and trying again.</p>