Photographing People is HARD!

[Suzan J]

Hello All: As some of you may know, I don't photograph people very often. I actually find it easier to stalk wild animals and sit in a swamp for several hours. In any event, a friend had asked me to take pictures of her twin grandsons. I was dreading the day but went ahead and set up a few things in anticipation of the visit. As it turned out, the twins could not make it after all. Another little girl came to visit instead and since the set up was already in place, we just spontaneously tried out a few shots. This one, posted below, was the best of the lot. I am sincerely seeking guidance on indoor portraits set ups as I may want to try this again. I do not have any elaborate lighting equipment.

For this shot, I placed the subject at a 90 degree angle from a large living room window which faces south. The window is under a verandah, so the light was somewhat subdued. The light would have fallen on the right side of her face. My "assistant" held a large silver reflector pointed at the left side of her face and angled to try and brighten that side up a bit.

(I did previously buy a very inexpensive light stand kit from Amazon which includes two lights on a stand with little umbrellas and a third, short, light which I think is supposed to go behind the subject. I did not use them for this shot. I have searched the internet but cannot find any simple diagrams to show me where to place these lights. I tried them out in my basement, but they do not throw off enough light to really expose well.)

Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

DSC_0528 by Soo J, on Flickr

[Digital]

Suzan, this is a pretty good portrait; however I believe (unless it my aging eyes) that the facial features are a tad soft.
What was your shutter speed, and were you using a tripod?


Bruce

[Suzan J]

Hi Bruce: Thanks for viewing and trying to help me. I don't think the softness is due to your eyesight as I see it too. The shutter speed was 100 and the aperture was set at 6.3. Since I had no other light, the ISO was high at 1000. I figured that I would need at least a shutter speed of 100 to photograph a child who was posing and adjusted the other two settings accordingly. I'm guessing that even near a window and using a reflector, there still was not enough light which meant the ISO had to climb?? I did not use a tripod. If I had set up my two lights stands at 45 degree angles from the subject, do you think it would have helped?

[Digital]

IMHO (in my humble opinion) two additional lights may have helped; however the position of the lights may have thrown shadows on the background. I use to know portrait lighting using studio strobes better than I do now. My suggestion is to play with the position of your lights (one being a main (key) light, the other a fill light) to see which produces the best results.
Your use of light coming from a window, and a reflector was a good idea. Use of a tripod may have helped with the softness of the facial features.
Hope this helps.

Bruce

[Manfred M]

Suzan - like with any other form of photography, practice makes perfect. I do think you have gotten a pretty decent shot there. In portraiture, one (of many) "rules" is that the eye closest to the camera must be sharp. Softeness elsewhere generally is generally visually acceptable. In this is the image, and so far as I can tell, you seem to have nailed it.

Using a reflector is a technique I use fairly often. I find that silver is okay for men, but tends to be a bit to harsh for women and children, and I will use a white reflector for those subjects. I do have some "pro" reflectors, but will often use a piece of foam board (left over from my daughter's school projects) just outside of the frame works well for me.

As for the lights, are they for use with speedlights/studio flash or are they continuous light? If they are continuous lights (unless they are very high end), they are probably okay for static subjects if you are shooting off a tripod. If they are continuous, what type of lights are they, as there could be a colour temperature mismatch natural light shots.

When shooting with artificial light, for portraiture (and many other sujbects), there is one main or "key" light. All the other light sources will tend to be used for fill light or accent lighting and will use light modifiers.

[dem]

A few suggestions if it is okay.

Next time try to have more space between the subject and the background so it is more out of focus and is less distracting.

The green earrings are too prominent and add to distraction.

One of the portrait "rules" is that the white of the eye should be seen on both sides of the iris.

Not sure what focal length you used but feels a bit wide for a portrait. If the premises allow, I would step back a bit and use about 100 mm equivalent. On a tripod.

Hope that helps. Cheers, dem.

[Mike Buckley]

Good for you for reaching beyond your comfort zone.

I don't do serious portraiture but I would never photograph a person at less than 1/200 even when the subject is posing. I would have bumped up the ISO or opened the aperture one stop to make that happen.

[IzzieK]

Beautiful girl, Susan...good shot.

[wilgk]

It sure is sometimes! but you have been brave getting out there trying something different & this is well done.
The background which I often have a s too busy really works well it is not distracting, but also complements her hat and style!

[Suzan J]

Thank you everyone for the tips and advice. I will try to incorporate my light set the next time I attempt this type of shot. It is a continuous set and the bulbs it came with are 45 watts at 5500k. (I really don't know what this means, but I don't think it amounts to a lot of extra light). We hadn't planned to take pictures of this little girl as it was a completely spontaneous thing in an effort to try something new. Next time, we will have to find better earrings for her! I am also now following the portrait tutorial posted in the "sticky" at the top of this forum.

[Manfred M]

It is a continuous set and the bulbs it came with are 45 watts at 5500k. (I really don't know what this means, but I don't think it amounts to a lot of extra light).

You've got that right. 45W is certainly not going to pump out enough light for anything other than table-top shots of inaminate objects, and likely looking at very long exposures with your camera sitting on a tripod. Your typical small flash runs around 70W-s, so to get roughly the same amount of light, you are looking at a 1-1/2 sec exposure with your continuous lights.

100% completely useless for shooting people. The 5500K tells you that the bulbs are daylight balanced.

[Mike Buckley]

My guess is that Suzan's bulbs are compact fluorescent (as are mine), in which case the 45 watts puts out about the same amount of light as a 120 watt incandescent bulb.

45W is certainly not going to pump out enough light for anything other than table-top shots of inaminate objects, and likely looking at very long exposures with your camera sitting on a tripod.

I can attest to that. All photos of inanimate objects made in my makeshift studio are lit with similar lights (rated 40 watts instead of 45). When I need to stop the action of a moving subject, I use a speedlight because its greater power makes doing so possible (unlike the compact fluorescent bulbs, including my lamp that houses five of them).

100% completely useless for shooting people.

You could add a couple more zeros and still be accurate. EDIT: That's assuming the continuous lamps are the only light source. They can definitely be used to supplement sunlight and, thus, to control portrait lighting but that's also true of reflectors that emit (produce) no light.

[AB26]

Suzan,

Portrait photography is an art in it’s own right. Some get it right others never succeed with it.
You got this right IMHO. For my personal taste a little too bright on her right side, not wrong, just my personal taste. A very nice portrait of a very beautiful subject. The mother will be very happy with it.

You need not have lots of equipment and studio setups for portraiture. Soft subdued light is wonderful. Keep direct sunlight off your subject with the diffuser of a 5in1 kit and see the stunning light you can get.

This little “Cowgirl” next to a “barn” in bright light is very fitting. No harsh shadow lines – WELL DONE!

[ajohnw]

Something about the shot makes me wonder what focal length you used?

Sounds to me like that 45w maybe over driven tungsten and will have reflectors? These bulbs sometime have a bit of colour in the envelope. Or maybe they are the low energy types that put out rather more light for their 45w. More like 90w or more photo bulbs which should be usable..

Flashes have very short exposure times, much shorter than the camera so it isn't really possible to compare them.

John
-

[Loose Canon]

Could be wrong here but I believe it is shorter flash duration that stops motion. Continuous light at the same power but continuous will not necessarily stop motion alone at x-sync. In that case x-sync must be vastly exceeded!

[Mike Buckley]

I believe it is shorter duration that stops motion. Continuous light at the same power but continuous will not necessarily stop motion

Correct of course. However, continuous light at the same power (if that is possible, I don't know) might stop the motion by allowing a faster shutter speed, at least fast enough to stop the motion of a posing person trying to remain still. Besides, in this case the sunlight was sufficient to allow camera settings with no additional artificial light that would have stopped the motion; indeed, I think the motion probably was stopped in Suzan's photo.

[Loose Canon]

In that case x-sync must be vastly exceeded!

[Loose Canon]

I apologize Suzan.

See: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_synchronization if you are interested.

[ajohnw]

Could be wrong here but I believe it is shorter flash duration that stops motion. Continuous light at the same power but continuous will not necessarily stop motion alone at x-sync. In that case x-sync must be vastly exceeded!

The duration of a flash even at full power is often faster than a cameras max shutter speed and considerably faster at reduced power.

I've taken loads of portraits in the past with 2 photofloods on film. Short life daylight tungsten types. 45w low energy should be fine. Tutorials on using them seem to be rather short on the ground. The basics are pretty simple. Getting it right isn't. The main light needs to be not far of the camera line but. that is also another variable. How it's pointed plus maybe height adjustment can highlight hair. The modelling light is the tricky part. The idea is remove shadows especially under the nose and ideally none to the side of that as well. Power can be adjusted by varying the distances. Any visual sign of a shadow will generally stick out like a sore thumb in the finished shot. I'm assuming a straight forwards shot like the one posted.

I would suspect that starting of with continuous lighting makes a lot of sense unless some one forks out for flash heads with modelling lights. Using the ancient windows term - wysiwyg. Basically the lights can be moved around and the effect seen.

If the camera has a built in flash it can also be used but the majority will give read eye. Perhaps clip on diffusers may held but some how I doubt it.

John
-

[Loose Canon]

I would suspect that starting of with continuous lighting makes a lot of sense unless some one forks out for flash heads with modelling lights.-

Glad it makes sense for someone! Good luck with that on location battling the sun!