Lighting Bootcamp - harsh light C&C welcome

[KimC]

This week I attended a boot camp put on by a photographer I have admired for a long time - Cliff Mautner. It was a wonderful experience. An aspect of our training was working in harsh light (no shade). Here are a couple of images from that exercise.

#1 ISO100; 1/400s; f2.8; 200mm



#2 ISO100; 1/320s; f4.5; 175mm


The other part of the session was about dramatic lighting (my favorite part)...I'll post some of those later this week.

[Shadowman]

Nice set.

[ionian]

Lovely shots. Can you share your method for these shots? The sun is behind in the first image, so it can't have been overhead - were you using fill flash and/or reflectors?

[Dave Humphries]

Lovely shots. Can you share your method for these shots? The sun is behind in the first image, so it can't have been overhead - were you using fill flash and/or reflectors?

The answer is usually in the eyes Simon (although these aren't big enough to make it easy to see),

I'd be grateful for Kim to advise also, but ....

#1 - I believe I see something reflective in the lower part of the eyes, so either a reflector, or perhaps someone holding part the dress out to act as one, was employed (or she was stood on a pale surface).

#2 - appears to have what may be a pinprick of brightness, so I'd guess fill flash was used (off to camera left).

Whatever the methods, the results of 'lighting' look good to me.
Perhaps the exposure balance might be improved (in PP) to reduce blown highlights around the rim of sunlight though?

Cheers, Dave

[Rebel]

The answer is usually in the eyes Simon (although these aren't big enough to make it easy to see),

I'd be grateful for Kim to advise also, but ....

#1 - I believe I see something reflective in the lower part of the eyes, so either a reflector, or perhaps someone holding part the dress out to act as one, was employed (or she was stood on a pale surface).

#2 - appears to have what may be a pinprick of brightness, so I'd guess fill flash was used (off to camera left).

Whatever the methods, the results of 'lighting' look good to me.
Perhaps the exposure balance might be improved (in PP) to reduce blown highlights around the rim of sunlight though?

Cheers, Dave

+1 to Daves comments

[KimC]

Thank you John

Nice set.

[KimC]

Thank you both for commenting.

Only natural light was used in both - no flash, reflectors, pulling dress out, etc. The lesson he gave us was about positioning in relation to the sun properly, and then what he really stressed, was looking at what you have just as your camera would, in a 3D way.

Personally, the B&W I posted is not one of my favorites from that day. The other one I like (she's on a cement sidewalk), and I'm ok with the PP.

Lovely shots. Can you share your method for these shots? The sun is behind in the first image, so it can't have been overhead - were you using fill flash and/or reflectors?

The answer is usually in the eyes Simon (although these aren't big enough to make it easy to see),

I'd be grateful for Kim to advise also, but ....

#1 - I believe I see something reflective in the lower part of the eyes, so either a reflector, or perhaps someone holding part the dress out to act as one, was employed (or she was stood on a pale surface).

#2 - appears to have what may be a pinprick of brightness, so I'd guess fill flash was used (off to camera left).

Whatever the methods, the results of 'lighting' look good to me.
Perhaps the exposure balance might be improved (in PP) to reduce blown highlights around the rim of sunlight though?

Cheers, Dave

[Manfred M]

Two well done images, Kim.

+1 to Dave's sharp eyes. I see a pinprick of white in one and possibly both eyes in #1 as well, so I suspect a small flash might have been used in this shot as well. It's really hard to read these small images, but Dave is again 100% spot on. The subject's eyes allow you to figure out what is happening with the lighting.

Cliff is an excellent photographer who is primarily known for his wedding related work, so this definitely shows up in the models that were used. So carefully said, the techniques used are largely applicable to photographing people.

I bought another well known wedding photographer's book "Shooting in Sh*tty Light", by Lindsay Adler (Peachpit Press). It likely covers the same type of material and in these types of lighting relies on reflectors, scrims (i.e. diffusers) or small flash to either soften the harsh light or to overpower it.

Once again we learn that photography is more than just a camera and the photographer; you need a bag of gear and an assistant / helper or two for for many of these techniques to work.

[KimC]

Thank you Manfred.

I swear, there was no flash, no assistants, etc. The only time we used flash during this bootcamp was when we were in a ballroom with very dim lighting. In this situation, if the flash was off camera, we either had a light stand, or asked a class member to hold it - that was the only time we had help.

You are correct, the boot camp was geared to wedding photographers; however, I have admired his work for a number of years and wanted to learn a few of his techniques. He was a wonderful instructor and host, and the participants in the class were great.

Two well done images, Kim.

+1 to Dave's sharp eyes. I see a pinprick of white in one and possibly both eyes in #1 as well, so I suspect a small flash might have been used in this shot as well. It's really hard to read these small images, but Dave is again 100% spot on. The subject's eyes allow you to figure out what is happening with the lighting.

Cliff is an excellent photographer who is primarily known for his wedding related work, so this definitely shows up in the models that were used. So carefully said, the techniques used are largely applicable to photographing people.

I bought another well known wedding photographer's book "Shooting in Sh*tty Light", by Lindsay Adler (Peachpit Press). It likely covers the same type of material and in these types of lighting relies on reflectors, scrims (i.e. diffusers) or small flash to either soften the harsh light or to overpower it.

Once again we learn that photography is more than just a camera and the photographer; you need a bag of gear and an assistant / helper or two for for many of these techniques to work.

[Mike Buckley]

I don't specialize in portrait photography so I'll only provide the critique that the results are quite pleasing to me and the idea to consider removing the five bits of hair sticking up from behind the veil in the monochrome image.

Aside from that, I'll mention that the purpose of the session reinforces the statement for me in Light: Science & Magic displayed at the bottom of my posts. I also think it's interesting that Dave and Manfred thought they saw evidence of gear when none was used. The fact is that we often never know what causes this or that in a photo even when our biases and experiences lead us to think we know. Indeed, sometimes the photographer understandably doesn't know exactly what causes a particular characteristic to be displayed and can only decide whether or not that characteristic is at least acceptable.

[Dave Humphries]

I also think it's interesting that Dave and Manfred thought they saw evidence of gear when none was used. The fact is that we often never know what causes this or that in a photo even when our biases and experiences lead us to think we know. Indeed, sometimes the photographer understandably doesn't know exactly what causes a particular characteristic to be displayed and can only decide whether or not that characteristic is at least acceptable.

Right you are Mike.

Must have been something behind the photographer which was; distant, shiny and spherical, reflecting an 'image' of the sun toward the model's eyes which we are seeing.

Well, that's my latest guess

(at least I was in the right ballpark in that at least one was shot on cement sidewalk, providing some upward 'fill' from its pale surface)

[rpcrowe]

I especially like the high key effect rendered by the mantilla of the bride. To be nit-picky, I might suggest working in PP a bit to even the lighting between her eyes. The veil is reflecting some light into her left eye (image right) which makes it a bit brighter than the right eye (image left)...

Courses like this not only provide knowledge, they boost enthusiam, for me...

[Manfred M]

Thank you Manfred.

I swear, there was no flash, no assistants, etc. The only time we used flash during this bootcamp was when we were in a ballroom with very dim lighting. In this situation, if the flash was off camera, we either had a light stand, or asked a class member to hold it - that was the only time we had help.

You are correct, the boot camp was geared to wedding photographers; however, I have admired his work for a number of years and wanted to learn a few of his techniques. He was a wonderful instructor and host, and the participants in the class were great.

Both Dave and I pointed out that the image size was small, so we couldn't get a good read of what was happening in the eyes. There is definitely something reflecting in the eyes in both images, so there is definitely something bright, off to the side causing those reflections. I suspect you would be able to zoom in and have a closer look as to the cause in your originals. Small flash does cause that type of reflection.

Looking more closely at the shots, there is a fair bit of backlighting in both images. The light on the shoulder and hair of the first image suggests that the sun was high, but just behind the subject. On the second shot, the head covering is quite bright and there is a touch of light on the hair on top of her head. The lighting on the faces is quite flat, suggesting that the models were used to create their own shadows. I suspect that you spot metered or used exposure compensation to get proper exposure on their faces?

Regardless, it seems that you have learned a fair bit at the workshop.

[KimC]

Thanks for commenting Mike. I don't know how I missed those -- Removed them - thank you.

I don't specialize in portrait photography so I'll only provide the critique that the results are quite pleasing to me and the idea to consider removing the five bits of hair sticking up from behind the veil in the monochrome image.

[KimC]

Thank you Richard for your comment. I'll take a look at her eye.

It was just a wonderful class. What I especially liked is that he would not tell us any of his settings. He was more about us using our eyes and back of the camera display... then asking do you like it? What do you think needs adjusting? It was a very supportive environment.

I especially like the high key effect rendered by the mantilla of the bride. To be nit-picky, I might suggest working in PP a bit to even the lighting between her eyes. The veil is reflecting some light into her left eye (image right) which makes it a bit brighter than the right eye (image left)...

Courses like this not only provide knowledge, they boost enthusiam, for me...

[KimC]

Thanks Manfred. I actually zoomed in on my originals to see if I could tell what it was in the eye, but I couldn't (otherwise I would have posted the zoomed view for all). As you and Dave mentioned the light really is a pin prick.

Used matrix metering and I shot in manual (which he wanted us to do for a good portion of the session).

Yes, it was a wonderful experience!

Both Dave and I pointed out that the image size was small, so we couldn't get a good read of what was happening in the eyes. There is definitely something reflecting in the eyes in both images, so there is definitely something bright, off to the side causing those reflections. I suspect you would be able to zoom in and have a closer look as to the cause in your originals. Small flash does cause that type of reflection.

Looking more closely at the shots, there is a fair bit of backlighting in both images. The light on the shoulder and hair of the first image suggests that the sun was high, but just behind the subject. On the second shot, the head covering is quite bright and there is a touch of light on the hair on top of her head. The lighting on the faces is quite flat, suggesting that the models were used to create their own shadows. I suspect that you spot metered or used exposure compensation to get proper exposure on their faces?

Regardless, it seems that you have learned a fair bit at the workshop.

[KimC]

Here's one more that I PPed this afternoon:

#3 #1 ISO100; 1/250s; f3.5; 200mm

[NorthernFocus]

Nos 2 and 3 are awesome, Kim. Nice job.

[bnnrcn]

You seem to learn a lot from him Kim, very nice shots

[William W]

. . .looking at what you have just as your camera would, in a 3d way.

You did.

WW