jonathan_brewer1

'I was wondering if someone could recomend a good beginner book on studio portrait photography? A bible on the subject if there is one'.....................I don't believe such a book exists, and I believe that you find the elements of your craft by finding inspiration in other artforms besides Photography.

 

Check out the work of sculptors, painters, mimes, classic movies (particularly 'film noir'), everything in any other art form that has to do w/form, and expression, and mood, and lighting, and dress. In terms of expression and pose, there's nothing to equal the posing ability of the masters of classical painting, even though many of these paintings are hundreds of years old, if you really look at the subject matter, the mood, expression, and poses in some of these masterpieces are as valid now as they were then, timeless in other words.

 

Again mood and lighting in paintings by many of the masters will provide you with inspiration that you would find hard pressed to find in any book.

 

Traveling is one of the greatest inspirations for learning how to shoot a portrait, immersing yourself in different cultures and their different ways of doing things that provide inspiration, particularly some of the spectacular and ceremonial dress of other cultures.

 

My taking up woodworking a long time ago was an unending source of inspiration for my ability to do portaits. Why?...............Woodworking involves fashioning and co-ordinating several smaller pieces into a whole/a form that means more than the components that make up the 'piece', you learn how to remain focused, you have to, or you lose fingers, you learn precison or the pieces don't fit, and most important of all, you learn attention to detail and the ability to really LOOK at things.

 

Don't tie yourself to one kind of source of information/inspiration for your art, and apart from how others do it, finding things that can discipline your ability to stay focused, to really see things, to be a problem solver, that's my 2 cents, good luck.

'I appreciate what posters have written. I just happen to like simplicity and it didn't begin with SKREBNESKI. I also happen to like HCB, who primarily shot with a 50mm lens. I'm a minimalist.'..........................Yes, but what does that really mean?

 

I went to the link w/some of Skrebneski's images, that are a couple that are dynamite, 'Givenchy in red', and the Diana Ross images, the Diana Ross images used one light, the lighting scheme is simple in regards to how many lights he used, he only used one, but that isn't the point, it's never the point................it's how he developed his vision, w/nuance, and execution, incorporating a bunch of elements ...........he chose a particular bacground, a particular reflector, a particular position, Diana Ross is dressed a certain way, she has a certain pose, expression, her arms are in a certain position, the lights a certain distance, and a certain distance from the background, which is getting a certain amount of spill from the key,.............so Skrebneski has all these choices/judgement calls, and he orchestrates them all into a cohesive whole, and IT WORKS, that's not easy, that's not simple, IT IS a minimalist shot.

 

Take away the background, take away Diana Ross's clothes, all the props, take away everything except the light, and have 10 photographers start froms scratch with one light, and Diana Ross, and how many of them will have the vision, the skill, the technique to come up with something as interesting as Skrebneski came up with in this shot?

 

It wasn't the one light that made this shot, it was what Skrebneski had INSIDE HIS HEAD.

'simpler is better.'..............................................

 

"I usually try to keep my shoots very simple," "I don't want to get involved in complexity. I'd rather concentrate on my subjects."........................................Nobody in his right mind wants to make work for himself, and using the simplest of technique most often gives the best results, so I think the above 'straw man' is built out of the 'jaded' view/suggestion that others have a first inclination to utilize the needlessly complex when a simpler terchnique will achieve the same result.

 

Knowing what to use, when to use it, whether it's Skrebneski or some of the masters I admire, involves at times, plenty of problem solving skills, now some can spout the 'aw shucks, wadnt nuttn' line, which is essentially true, but then again these folks also have the flexibility/ability to 'change gears'/problem solving skills to work around a problem/come up w/another way of achieving a shot if that's what it takes.

 

Simpler is better, I agree, but not always, more to the point I think, is do whatever it takes, and it begs the question, what's simplicity? What's complexity? They're different things to each of us, at times it takes a great amount of problem solving ability to utilize a single light on a portrait instead of using several lights, and so 'simpler is better' in terms of the result IF the shot ultimately looked better using one light, but thinking through the process to achieve a result that looks like the result of something simple, WASN'T NECESSARILY SIMPLE, which is why these folks are masters.

 

One person writes music all his life, and is surpassed by somebody else 10 yrs old whose ability to write inspired 'pieces' comes naturally and at an early age,...................... simplicity, complexity, neither one has anything to do with it, to me the answer is, did what you try work, and either it worked very well or it didn't.

 

I don't agree w/the above thread, we're all ignorant of how to do something, until we learn how to do it(simple or otherwise), and eventually how to do it better, that's how we move along the learning curve, and how we learn when to go for the simplest way, or problem solve our way around a problem, I believe you ought to at least try to learn how to do both.

 

Consider the portrait photograher who meets a client who happens to be a overweight, balding in spots, and overly wrinkled middle aged woman, who asks you to make her look glamorous,............you may in fact make her portrait look utterly natural and simple without being obvious about it, how you went about doing that wasn't simple in any way, the fact that there was a fair amount of problem solving/compexlity in getting the shot won't be evident in the shot, if you don't telegraph the technique, if it is obvious, then you've messed up,............................so I think the above statements while on the 'face of it' make sense, they miss the mark in what a photographer by way of experience, the growth process et al, needs to have in his head.

I used to retouch these out, as time wore on I realized nobody noticed them but me, my clients never said anything about catchlights.................ever. I have the ability now to PS them out, but I no longer care, unless they're crazy looking, leave 'em be.

 

If the rest of the pictue is good enough the only people who'll spend time looking at catchlights are you and other photographers.

In terms of the utiization of Chiaroscuro in manipulating the lighting in his paintings, and what are absolutely incredible portrait studies, check out the master Christian Seybold.

My pleasure.........google such painters as Caravaggio and Delazquez and a term important to the establishment the effects of lighting in both painting and photography called 'Chairoscuro'.

Well first, you have to tell him to quit holding his breath :^)!!!

Lighting is less science than it is Alchemy, or maybe call it the science of illusion,.............I don't know if I can provide you w/the answer you want, but here are my thoughts.

 

Light hits objects from the front, from the side, and from behind, and to any degree in between, there's frontal lighting, side lighting, or backlighting on an object, and you can also effect how that object looks by lighting the background behind an object, you can create a silouette of an object by shining a light at the object from the back, or you can silouette an object by illuminating the background, two very different things.

 

The shot of the Butterfly is not in Silouette, it is both back and frontally lit, you can see plenty of detail from the front, if the Butterfly was in semi-silouette, there would be a great difference in illumination between the 'backlight', and the frontal illumination, I would tend to call that 'low key' lighting, if the Butterfly was in Silouette you wouldn't see ANY detail from the front.

 

All these terms, 'crescent' lighting, 'sidelighting, 'rimlighting', 'backlighting', 'background' lighting, are nothing but indicators of the placement of your illumination relative to the position of the camera and its lens, everything is relative, if an object is in complete silouette and lit from behind, and you take your camera and walk around to back of the object, it will appear frontally lit, why?....................because you've changed positions, which has drastically changed the appearence of the object relative to where you are/your lens is.

 

The most important difference to me in terms of Silhouette shots is that they can be created with light shining on the object from behind, or from illumination of the background BEHIND the object, and thus one shot is created from a backlight, and one is created from a background light.

 

All of this stuff and their effects can be found in painting, I don't mean Jackson Pollack, I mean Rembrandt, Rubens, folks like that, motion picture folks refered to what you're asking about as traditionally a 'kicker', that is a backlight that is used to separate the foreground object from the background and/or give some dimensional aspect to that separation.

'I don't like to say it because I use 4x5 and 8x10 film (scanned and printed digitally) and plan to continue using it for the foreseeable future. But IMHO for someone your age who is planning a future in photography to become heavily involved in film as opposed to digital is foolish.'.........................................but then again you can get a 'bare bones' system for not a helluva lot of money, certainly nowhere what you'll invest in digital, you can learn exposure, lighting, you'll get a tremendous amount of experience and value out of shooting film and scan your best work.

 

You could get a fairly nice 4x5/lens/tripod/meter for approx. a grand, what's that compared to the cost of some of these Dig. camera/backs?.........................$5-$8K?................$10-$25K?

 

I just don't see how you can lose in terms of the now very small cash outlay for a 4x5 system and scanning film into the digital loops as opposed to the whole Magilla, they were having these debates about the demise of film in '95 Nick, some folks then were adamant that film would be gone in 5 yrs, that due date was 5 yrs ago, the price is right for film, why not get the film gear if that's what you want.

Your RZ ProII and Pro TL has outlasted several digital backs, they simply aren't musuem pieces at least to me, but current and very vital gear for anyone to own. The beauty and lyricism from an image made from a Minolta Autocord w/its Rokkor lens, belies the 40-50 yr old age of such a camera,.............'bells and whistles' aside, many of the cameras of 50-60 years ago w/their single and multi-coated lenses are very close in what they can produce compared to what's been produced in the last few years, which might come out ahead shooting test targets, 'bagged down on a tripod shooting at maximum shutter speed w/a cable release, that difference won't be a big difference, the photographer's imagination/skill in creating something unique, is the bottom line, and blows away any consideration of the advantages of the Pro II and Pro TL system versus a ZD back.

 

You move forward because you're shots are getting better, more creative, not because of any change in gear,...........for years Avedon used basically a TLR Rollei along w/his Deardorf, way past the time when other photographers had switched to gear w/all the lastest gizmos, the speed and convenience of all those gizmos did equal what Avedon produced if those folks couldn't equal what Avedon had inside his head.

 

This is just a moot point for me, you've already got what you need to make magic, you're not running a commerical house, or swamped w/wedding dates,............................. get a good scanner which is the cheapest part of the digital equation, and your imagery from your 'musuem pieces' will continue to provide value w/o having to shell out $10K.

 

You've got a fortune in lifetime gear, that outlast you, I assume it's all paid for, don't give away, keep it, WAIT until the hunger pangs go away.

Anand......................go here http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ANeW scroll down to the image 'my family', I did this w/one light, you aren't in the 'low rent district' with using one lightsource, and you can do some good work w/one light.

 

Try using just one light for a while, and see what you can do, do some tests, w/one light, I'm willing to bet you can come up some good stuff for yourself,...................good luck.

Start w/two simple lighting schemes, Rembrandt and Butterly, you can start out using the Rembrandt technique by putting your light source up and over, same as the example image in your thread, your in the ballpark of the right position when there is a triangle of light opposite the nose from your lightsource, simple as that, right or left of the lens, and up,.........and you can start doing this with one light.

 

Rembrandt lighting is simple, and simply comes from the paintings of Rembrandt, famous because of the signature 'triangle of light' opposite the nose, when the lightsource on the other side of the nose was at an angle both vertically and horizontally to the subject(all you need to remember is 'up and over', 'til you see a little triangle form on the nose), photographers like the lighting in many of Rembrandts paintings, and used it in their imagery. Rembrandt lighting is VERY simple, it's simply 'up and over' to the side, either way, right or left, of the subject/sitter. This isn't rocket science and you can move your lights around and experiment after you've gotten down the basic concept, the same as w/all the other lightschemes.

 

 

 

Also try some shots w/one light just over your lens, raise it up, lower it down, shoot some tests w/this scheme, see how the light affects your subject/sitter when it comes from just over the lens, then try this set-up with some fill coming just under the camera, you'll then be shooting Butterly, take your time and look at the differences between the two schemes, here is the IMPORTANT THING, do these tests/experiment to develop your sense of being to see just what you are doing with these schemes, that's because these lighting books, the exercises and diagrams are standard stuff, don't get me wrong, they're important to learn, but it is your personal vision/how you make them unique, that will make you images interesting.

 

Take for example the shot you asked about that started this thread, the scheme the photographer used(Rembrandt lighting)is known by countless folks, but very few photographers can EXECUTE that lighting scheme and come up with a cohesive and finely tuned winner that this shot is, understanding the basics of the lighting schemes is something you should know, but that alone won't make the difference, the 'something special' that makes up interesting and fun to look at will hve to come from you.

 

My suggestion is to not limit yourself to books on lighting, there are classic movie masterpieces that are seminars in lighting, and despite the fact that they're by the classic masters, the posing and light quality established by painters like Rembrandt, Rebuens, et al are just as topical and fresh as anything you'll see in a book, the lighting AND posing in some of these classical paintings in sheer brilliance, go see some theatrical plays, now when it comes to photography(and no disrespect to some of the fine books out there), see examples of lighting from the folks who did it the best, David Bailey, Avedon, Francesco Scavullo, Hurrel, Karsh, W. Eugene Smith, and Andre Kertez(google these names U won't be sorry) and many others I can't think of right now.

 

Investigate all the arts, experiment in the studio, take your camera out of the studio, shoot people at the park, festivals, the beach, try some profile/sidelight shots, silouette shots w/the sun at the subjects back, immerse yourself in all the visual arts, and then look, and most of all THINK about what you've seen and how you can use it for yourself, there's no getting around this growth process and the fact that it will take time.

 

Whoever shot the example image that started this thread did not learn lighting in a week.

You're starting out w/more than most, ringlights and their native strobes can get expensive, what might be more of a priority is experimenting/testing w/what you've got, and for people/portraiture, getting to know what works/what you like, you can't rush the learning process, so save your money for right now.

 

Don't get a ringlight because someone else is using one on a shot, you can always get one later, find out about Rembrandt/butterfly lighting, familiarize yourself w/some of the lighting schemes used in work you like/that inspires, then execute those schemes yourself, no matter how long you look at diagrams, there's no substitute for you doing these yourself, and then have fun/play around w/your lights, move them around just to see what effect the change in position makes, do plenty of tests.

 

Start off w/shooting your tests w/one light, I see what looks like a photoflex softbox, if that's what it is, you might consider a cloth grid for it, the grid controls spill/fall-off from you box. Then play around w/one light and a reflector, keep shooting until you're getting what you want, then start building after you've gotten an understanding of how to do what you want to do.

............And since nobody's purfect, you loved her just the same didn't you!!

Anand.........................you gotta quit knocking yourself...........you're not doing anything wrong, and your pictures don't suck, you're one point on the learning curve and you want to be at another point.........................learning by questioning things is h ow you'll move up the learning curve.

 

The background on the top image looks the way it does because it's illuminated by a key light that has a very smooth fall-off from camera left to camera right(looking at the background), there is a very smooth transition from light to dark and is is very clean looking, I CAN SEE the shadow on the background caused by the use of a ringlight, but this was disquised very well/is so faint, most folks are not going to notice, and on top of this a broad fill was used.

 

The lighting is simple, a key, a fill, the skill came into this because the photographer used a third light, a ringlight, to 'augment' the exposure on the central area occupied by the subject and did it seamlessy,...................this is a case of a great deal of skill and technique being used to present the subject matter, w/o drawing attention to the light scheme that was used, a heavyweight shot in terms of lighting.

That is a cool first name you got, U can e-mail me at lifestories at earthlink dot com,..............."photographer is using a key going from camera right to camera right".................I mis-spoke here, this should've read..............."photographer is using a key going from camera right to camera left".

 

I restate what I'm pretty sure the set-up is, three lights, a very soft key angled Rembrandt style coming from camera right to camera left, this is evidenced by the light pattern on the background, the background is hotter on the left in the direction the key is pointing.

 

The way spill/fall-off graduates so smoothly in terms of the key(again look at the background), I could be wrong, but I'd say a cloth grid was used on a softbox as the key or it could be a beauty light, but I'm thinking softbox. There is no doubt about the light placement of the key, look at the model's face, the triangle of light opposite the nose on the model is a dead give-away for Rembrandt lighting.

 

A very broad and soft fill is coming from the camera/lens axis to fill in the shadows left by the key, and a ringlight is being used to 'boost' up the exposure a bit on the central portion of the frame occupied by the subject, the outer band of shadow created by the ringlight is evident to me, even though it's faint, because I use a ringlight, using a broad lighting source to light a broad area and also using a second and smaller directional light source to boost up or add 'sparkle' to a smaller part of that same area is a technique used by many shooters, and that's what is being done here.

 

If you've got a ringlight, simply snap off a shot with the ringlight only on a subject standing in front of the camera, you'll get the same pattern, as I said here, the outline of the shadow made from the ringlight on this model, is more pronounced/distinct on camera right, ...........................where the light from the key is hitting the background camera left, the shadow is very faint, that doesn't mean it isn't there, it is.

OMT.............I have the Profoto ringlight, and have used it in this way, cancel out all the other lights, and you'll get this same exact pattern, try this yourself if you use a ringlight, this photographer is using a key going from camera right to camera right, obviously, the fill is coming at the subject from near the lens axis, the ringlight is being used to 'boost' the exposure on the central area of the frame, and is just a bit above the intensity of the fill, thus.........things are soft but w/some sparkle on the subject which is in the center of the frame.

No..............you can see the shadows on each side, from almost to the bottom of her dress to around both hands, both arms, and around her head, a bigger fill light is ALMOST eliminating the shadows of the ringlight but not quite, which means the ringlight is being used a boost.

 

Remember the key is angled toward camera left and is hotter on the background on the camera left side, where the shadow from the ringlight is faintest, so I'm not surprised that this shadow isn't even on both sides, you don't have to be convinced, I am.

 

Take another look around her arms, there are shadows on both sides of her neck, and around her head, you can see it if you look, it's from a ringlight, that's on the money.

Yes...........I see it now, there is also a faint shadow off her other arm, look at both arms, just off the arm camera right is a distinct shadow, the other arm has a shadow outline also but a little fainter than the other arm, a ringlight WAS USED, as this shadow pattern is produced by a ringlight. This is a two or three light set-up, either one light used as a key, and a ringlight coming straight up the lens axis, OR MORE LIKELY a key, fill, with a ringlight as a boost.

 

This was a very skilled shot.

Look at her arm camera right, you can see an outline of a shadow just outside the arm, there's a big possibility that a ringlight was use as a 'boost' to the fill, this kind of shadow just off her arm is usually produced by a righlight.

You're not doing anything wrong, but you'll have to rethink how you shoot, to come up w/an image like this, which is the result of excellent technique, the image is well thought out. Looking at the shadows at your subjects feet, you have too many lights going in too many directions, you don't necessarily need three, excellent lighting doesn't have anything to do w/complexity, or using a lot of lights.

 

First off, your young lady doesn't have the same type of skin as the girl in the other shot, she is also wearing plenty of make-up, I also suspect a wide difference in exposure between your image and the other shot, also look at just outside her arm camera right, you can make out the shadow from the 'fill light' which was used very close to the camera/lens axis.

 

Unless I'm very wrong, this is a two light set-up, key light coming from camera right suggestive of Rembrandt lighting, w/a very strong fill relative to the key. I want to say that a cloth grid was used since there is smooth falloff in spill on the background. The film used is also going to make a difference as your shot looks more contrasty, the other shot looks less contrasty and muted.

 

The other shot is the result of a very well thought out lighting scheme, basically more Rembrandt lighting than anything else, very close lighting ratio(a lot of fill), and either a grid or something controling the spill/falloff as suggested by the background, plus the pale skin of the model plus whatever make-up used, also a higher exposure was used(suggestive of 'high key'), than you used.

 

It's a great look, what always amuses me is the ads you see from softbox manufacturers, many showcase their softboxes with an image like this, as if the purchase of a softbox by itself is going to replicate th is look, it isn't, it's the soft box, and everything else(exposure,m make-up,lighting ratio, skin tone, and most importantly light placement) I mentioned incorporated into a well thought out lighting scheme.

 

What you might want to do Anand is to make this into an exercise where you play around w/all the variables that went into this shot, and see if you can come up w/what you want, that will be your most valuable answer, the answer that you come up with yourself.

I didn't post this to give him an idea of any early bidding, I gave him this to moniter, AND jump in on the bidding since it may bid out somewhere in the ballpark of the other deal, with way newer gear.

Go here http://cgi.ebay.com/MAMIYA-RB67-PRO-SD-WITH-90mm-KL-LENS-

120-RFB-WLF_W0QQitemZ7535315456QQcategoryZ3352QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem hopefully the link is good, if not, you should still be able to track it down on e-bay, it's a Pro-SD, 90KL lens, and RFB, bidding is currently at $584.10.

In order to give you a perspective of prices these days for Mamiya RB gear, consider this, a BRAND NEW Mamiya RB 100-200 which used to retail for $4000,was bid out on e-bay for $568.00. Prices for MF gear are great for anyone getting into MF, and unlike Digital, you can use it for life as long as you maintain the gear w/reasonable but minimal maintence.

 

Don't buy this particularly when you can probable get a RB-SD demo/like new outfit or better for under $1,000. If you just take your time and wait, the market is going your way, MORE brand new/demo/like new/pristine gear will be coming your way, gurenteed. Great thing about this is that no matter how terrible this is for the manufacturers, there are enough already manufactured cameras and lenses on the planet to last us all forever, and unlike digital, plenty of technicians who can fix these things pretty cheaply.

The lighting on this shot is excellent Tom........I would suggest that the values gained from this photograph for the viewer/subject in this character study are obvious, it transmits strength, yet sensitivity without the heavy use of cosmetics/make-up. I know you know this Tom, but in speaking in general terms to anyone else listening, I'd also say that everything is relative, to me, this is how he looks w/a certain film, the light at a certain angle, and if the lighting were to be placed differently he'd look differently.

 

In terms of me personally, this is a terrific shot, without narcissism(however the hell U spell that), at the same time that I resist the requests of some of my clients to try to totally disquise their looks or to photographically COMPLETELY, reverse the effects of aging, I try to photograph people so they will recognize themselves, I will upon request, from say a woman into middle age, give her something that she wants that will make her feel good about herself, some folks don't care about bags under the eyes, wrinkles, some do, I'm 56, I'm still upright, some folks my age aren't, I'm thankful for that so the last thing in my life that affects me in any way is a crease on my face.

 

In terms of the original question, placing your key right above the lens, your fill just below the lens, and boosting your fill up to just below the intensity of your key will for the most part, will make the shadow areas barely noticable, since they'll be very close to your hightlights. If you want to eliminate shadows, you have to do the above AND utilize 'high key'(a lot of overexposure).

 

Now having said that, the above technicques would absolutely ruin Toms great character study, there's a look in the individuals eyes, that's legit, purposeful, and the lighting is perfect for the shot.

 

What needs to be said though is that photographic images are abstractions, something is framed in, other things are cropped out, a still photograph freezes the subject matter, freezes the subject matter at a particual point in time, when in real life(whatever that is), time streams along in a continium, ....................photographs are real, but they don't really accurately represent what seems to be in them, they give you a slice of something that seems to look real, said plainly, all photographs are 'put ons', none of them reflect reality.

 

If Tom's gentleman in his photograph is walking down the street, in the same clothes, with the same expression on his face, I'd probably recognize him............if hes got a hat on, dressed differently, with a different expression, I probably wouldn't, a photograph, particularly a portrait, isn't really us, it's a slice of us, at a certain wavelength of light, there's another reality in infrared, UV, harsh light, soft light and on and on.

 

Forgive me, I've lapsed into all this esoteric MACARONI to essentially say 'it's all good' :^).