Lighting Ratios

[William W]

. . . It was late fall and quite cool in the studio, until the light was turned onto a subject (we all took turns being the subject). Blindingly bright and incredibly hot; everyone broke out in a sweat. . .

On a much more sombre note – from around 1990 to 2000 we had contract with a Model Agency, the Principal of which was previously a notable Fashion Model – (Cine, TV, Stills and Catwalk). I kept in touch with her – very unfortunately, at a relatively young age, her eyesight was severely damaged, the Doctors’ report, caused by the excessive exposure to hot lights – and – the manner in which Models learned to overcome their instinctive reaction to protect their eyes from that intense light.

WW

[Manfred M]

On a much more sombre note – from around 1990 to 2000 we had contract with a Model Agency, the Principal of which was previously a notable Fashion Model – (Cine, TV, Stills and Catwalk). I kept in touch with her – very unfortunately, at a relatively young age, her eyesight was severely damaged, the Doctors’ report, caused by the excessive exposure to hot lights – and – the manner in which Models learned to overcome their instinctive reaction to protect their eyes from that intense light.

WW

That is a sad story. When I look back at permissible practices at the beginning of my professional career in 1980 and compare ti to things we had to do from a safety and environmental standpoint 40 years later, thing have improved. Unfortunately, I suspect a lot of people will be healthier now because of what happened to your acquaintance.

[Digital]

Is the "ideal" lighting ratio 3:1 or is there an ideal ratio in portrait photography?

Bruce

[Manfred M]

Is the "ideal" lighting ratio 3:1 or is there an ideal ratio in portrait photography?

Bruce

There is no ideal lighting ratio Bruce; it all depends on your vision for the image.

The higher the ratio, the more dramatic the lighting. When I took my studio course (almost 10 years ago), the rule of thumb we were given for "standard" portraiture was that 2:1 was the most versatile and one that was used most often. We were taught that that was as aggressive as one would want to go with most women and children. The 3:1 works well with older men or athletes of either sex. 4:1 was not used all that often unless on had a particularly dramatic look one was trying to achieve.

1:1 was reserved for commercial head shots and passport images where flat lighting is required.

I would have to say that most of my model shots (the bulk of my portraiture work over the past few years) have been women and I was generally shooting those at 2:1.

[Digital]

Manfred, thanks for your response. The information was most helpful. My potential subjects will be mostly older men, and women.

Bruce

[Manfred M]

Manfred, thanks for your response. The information was most helpful. My potential subjects will be mostly older men, and women.

Bruce

In that case I would suggest you start with the safe route and shoot 2:1. Once you know you have some usable images captured, go on and experiment a bit and see how 3:1 works out.

[William W]

In that case I would suggest you start with the safe route and shoot 2:1. Once you know you have some usable images captured, go on and experiment a bit and see how 3:1 works out.

Agree - good starting point.

I suggest you read through my Post #19 and follow that procedure - 2:1 is a good rule of thumb when you get to set the Fill.

Then take a test shot or two and have a look - with digital it is so easy to have a look: take a laptop with you and tether the camera.

In the olden days we shot polaroid test shots.

WW