Portrait of a Woman - C&C please

[KimC]

I thought I would be ok as my Ice Light is 5300K daylight balanced. I did make a major blunder as it was close to her some what neutral couch and prob cast a bit of color from that. Live and learn - why I am experimenting...

You will do yourself a world of favor if all of your light sources are the same Kelvin temperature or are modified to cast the same Kelvin temperature when doing this kind of photography. When I'm in my makeshift studio, sometimes I'll intentionally use light sources with different temperatures for artistic effect, but that's only because I'm shooting objects other than people.

[KimC]

Excellent tip Manfred and easy for my brain to remember - thank you!

1. Lightsource size vs softness of light - a small (relative to the size of the subject) light source gives one much harder light and harsher shadows than a large light source. One rule of thumb that I learned during my studio lighting course a few years ago was that to get good, soft light for portraiture, the light source should not be more than twice the diameter of the light source away from the subject. With a 20" Octa, that means keeping it no more than 40" away.

Yes, I am. I have focused on environmental portraits up to this point. Thanks, I'll give that a try. Plan to start experimenting on myself so I can get a good handle on the flash. I prefer a constant light source as you can see it (I'm eye driven).

2. Position of light source - if you are just getting started with portraiture, try positioning your key light (a.k.a. main light) at the standard 45/45 position, i.e. roughly at 45° to your subject pointing down at 45°.

It does. I have the older version which is 5300K. My blunder was placing it too close to a fairly neutral couch - it prob picked up that color a bit.

3. Fill light - I was under the impression that an Ice Light ran at 5500K, so the colour temperature should match the output of both studio lights and Speedlights. Obviously something is not quite right here.

I had a reflector with me. I need to get a stand for it, as it didn't seem to be throwing enough light up... another thing I need to experiment with on myself.

I use a far simpler fill light solution - a static reflector. For a lot of my portraiture work, all I use is a roughly 24" x 30" piece of white foam core (from an office supplier like Staples / Office Depot) that I set on a c-stand with a support arm. I position it so it throws light up from the key light. I sometimes get the subject to hand-hold the reflector, pointing slightly back just below the bottom of the frame. The colour temperature will be bang on and give you roughly a 2:1 lighting ratio, which is perfect for shooting this type of subject.

This is an extremely helpful tip explained in a way I can visualize - thanks.

4. Broad light vs Short light - as others have pointed out your shooting position is broad light. This is where you are aiming your camera at the side that your key light is hitting. This technique works well for someone with a long, narrow face and based on what you have written, this is not what your subject has.

Short lighting is far more flattering - this is where you shot from the opposite side of where the key light is pointed at (i.e. where the fill light is coming from). This has a slimming effect. I think this will work far better for the face shape of this subject.

Thanks

5. Compensating for the dominant eye - you are doing this correctly. Almost every one has one eye that is larger than the other. In this case, this is the camera right eye. If you shoot towards the non-dominant eye, it will look larger and the dominant eye will look smaller. That gives a more balanced view.

Also, the way your subject is looking straight ahead, this centres the iris between two roughly equally spaced parts of the whites of the eyes, and that tends to look much better than when the whites are not as balanced. This is something else you have done well.

Thanks

5. Shooting from slightly below eye level (something else that you have done) - this tends to accentuate the neck and makes it look longer, which tends to give a more slimming look.

I did figure out the shadow issue quickly. Looking forward to getting that light source closer and darkening up that background. Thanks for hair light reminder as the background darkens.

6. Distance between model and background - a minimum of 6 - 10 ft tends to help get rid of any unwanted shadows. As you move your light closer to the subject, the inverse square law will mean that the light drop off is more severe and you will find that your background darkens up. I will sometimes position a second or third light to light the background it if is getting too dark. Your model has dark hair and you don't want it blending into the background. A hair light is also an option.

I was using a prime lens - a 105mm. Do you think cropping some more from the bottom would help - of would it be too tight?

7. I'm not fond of the way you have positioned your subject's arm. If you are just getting started in portraiture, this can be a bit problematic to deal with. In this shot it is quite distracting. If you look at the very bottom of the frame - the arm is looking close to the size of the head and that just looks quite strange. Appropriate focal length choice helps here. I can't see the metadata, but I suspect you are not using a focal length that is long enough. With a FF camera for a shot like this the shortest focal length I will use is in the 105 - 135mm range.

Sure -- please just remember that I only started using my flash in December with the help from all of you.

8. Would you mind posting a larger, unprocessed image so we can see what you started with?

Thanks. I'll check him out. My favorite portrait photographer at the moment is Sean Archer from Russia.

One other thing you might want to do, and that is to study the work of some of the great portrait photographers. I tend to get people to look at http://www.karsh.org/ . Yousef Karsh is often viewed as the greatest portrait photographer, and was one of the masters all portrait photographers should study.

[KimC]

Yes, thanks for the comments you and Manfred have provided. The easy tip Manfred provided was super. As this is of interest to you as well, be sure to read it. And I will def add that hair light!

That 20" light needs to be much closer than 12 feet away, no wonder the shadows are a touch harder than we'd like and catchlights as small as they are.

When you do move it closer, you'll notice that the background (bg) will become darker, so that means separating the hair from the bg will become something you positively need to light for (e.g. either subject's hair or the bg), rather than 'get away with', as you have here (as do I sometimes, when concentrating on other aspects).

Yes, she did have a lot of foundation on. The Ice Light should have been ok (5300K daylight balanced) but I made a mistake and placed too close to a fairly neutral couch :-(

I suspect the side of her arm we see is the side that doesn't get the sun so much, whereas her face may, but there's also the make up and ice light aspects to this as well.

Inadvertently lighting my subjects with different colour temperature sources is something that I keep doing too

I didn't notice the button, so thanks for fine tuning my eye. What about the necklace bothered you - I see that are subtle?

I find the ICE light reflection in the button a distraction too, being pernickety.
That, combined with bracelet and necklace all conspire to draw my attention away from her face.

I'm being super critical with the benefit of hindsight, please don't think I'd do any better faced with a subject, if you've followed my Baby Pics series, you'll know this already.

Yes, I have a couple of books (I don't learn as well via just reading), and I also have some videos which I love. Posing is a real skill for a variety of reasons as we know

Thanks for all your comments Dave.

Have you seen* any training on posing?
There are techniques which can help, mind you, being confident enough to ask the model would be my problem.
* seeing, in a video tutorial is much better than reading about it.

[KimC]

Here's the SOOC.... remember I just got over my flash phobia last month

BTW, something that just struck me - there was a fire going in this room - in front of her to the image right... it was prob 15 feet from her

[KimC]

William, sorry I missed your response. How do you shrink the width?

An easy way to disguise weight issues is...simply shrinking the width by 10-15%, then crop for proper ratio.

[Mike Buckley]

The color of the background in your original file that you just posted complements the model's brown hair much better for me than the color in your finished version at the top of the thread.

[KimC]

So, I revisited this after pondering the comments... and here is a revised version...

Note: I modified the image some on 1/19 - it was too warm for my taste and brightened face a hint. I'm still not happy with it and prefer my original ... I think I'm struggling with this as I think I have developed a style with my other images and this one is just not fitting. :-(

[Manfred M]

Yes, I am. I have focused on environmental portraits up to this point. Thanks, I'll give that a try. Plan to start experimenting on myself so I can get a good handle on the flash. I prefer a constant light source as you can see it (I'm eye driven).

That is one advantage of using studio lights rather than small flash - built in modeling lights.

In studio type work, you might want to consider shooting tethered. Connect your camera to your laptop with a USB 3 cable (TetherTools is where I bought mine) and you will get a large view of every shot. Lightroom allows you to shoot tethered (although I have gone to Capture One, as it seems to be a lot more stable). It's a great learning tool and used by a lot of pros for this type of photography.

The main downside of constant light is that it is relatively low intensity when compared to flash.

It does. I have the older version which is 5300K. My blunder was placing it too close to a fairly neutral couch - it prob picked up that color a bit.

If you have any CTB (Colour Temperature Blue) gel, try wrapping it around your light source and see if that gets the colour of the light up a bit. I'd start with 1/4 CTB. You can always wrap a second sheet around if that is not raising the colour temperature enough.

I had a reflector with me. I need to get a stand for it, as it didn't seem to be throwing enough light up... another thing I need to experiment with on myself.

The reflector depends on light spill from your key light to illuminate the scene. It needs to be just out of the frame. If it is too far away, it won't throw enough light. I sometimes have my light sources so close that the get into the corners of the image, but are easy to retouch out in PP.

Part of the problem is that you have too much light on the arm. Portraiture is generally about the face and this is where the light needs to be. In your initial shot, the arm is definitely too brightly lit.

I was using a prime lens - a 105mm. Do you think cropping some more from the bottom would help - of would it be too tight?

I would suggest you start with your 70-200mm lens. I personally would try a different pose. The one thing that you don't want in a portrait is strange looking "amputations", where the cuts are in an awkward place or there are unattached limbs just sticking into the frame. On this shot I personally would have tried to fit in the whole arm down to the elbow.

Sure -- please just remember that I only started using my flash in December with the help from all of you.

If you are like the rest of us, once you master it you will wonder why you thought it was so difficult. Remember that this is the preferred way of shooting for most commercial photographers because the light is so easy to control, unlike natural lighting.

Thanks. I'll check him out. My favorite portrait photographer at the moment is Sean Archer from Russia.

Yes, have a look at how he poses his models. Stick to the "rules" until you master this genre and then start working on your style. It's already well developed in your other work, so you'll get there quite quickly.


I've done a couple of the things i mentioned (plus a bit of shine removal), etc. Unfortunately my Wacom tablet is not accessible right now, so I had to edit with a mouse. I'm not 100% sure of the colour correction either as I really don't trust the colours on my laptop screen. A slight change of the angle I view at makes a difference, unfortunately and I will retouch my work when I get back home.

[Mike Buckley]

Reviewing this thread about the immense difficulty of shooting portraits reminds me of why I'll stick to photographing wine. Aside from all the obvious reasons, there is always the fallback position that if the subject proves to be uncooperative, I simply drink it. And if the subject proves to be cooperative, I simply drink it.

[Manfred M]

Reviewing this thread about the immense difficulty of shooting portraits reminds me of why I'll stick to photographing wine. Aside from all the obvious reasons, there is always the fallback position that if the subject proves to be uncooperative, I simply drink it. And if the subject proves to be cooperative, I simply drink it.

You have admitted to something we have long suspected Mike.

[Cantab]

Kim, first of all, thank you for starting this thread. I've learned a lot from the various comments.

I was about to post a comment that I preferred the white balance/colour correction in the RAW file as well as in your re-worked image in post 27 when I saw Manfred's recent post. To my mind the white balance in your first post as well as in Manfred's post 28 is too blue. (I'm looking at the image on a relatively good monitor that has been calibrated and profiled – albeit not for the past two or three months.) But I'll be interested in what others may comment about the white balance.

edit: "RAW" presumably is the SOOC jpeg?

[Manfred M]

First of all, thank you for starting this thread. I've learned a lot from the various comments.

I was about to post a comment that I preferred the white balance/colour correction in the RAW file as well as in your re-worked image in post 27 when I saw Manfred's recent post. To my mind the white balance in your first post as well as in Manfred's post 28 is too blue. (I'm looking at the image on a relatively good monitor that has been calibrated and profiled – albeit not for the past two or three months.) But I'll be interested in what others may comment about the white balance.

I'm working on a laptop that I profiled and calibrated last week. I white balanced my shot against the gray seamless that is in the original image; using an area to the left and near the top of the model. The subjects arm still has a bit of a blue colour cast; definitely more than I expected but I'm not aiming at 100% here as there is something a bit strange about the light. The IceLight is at 5300K and the Speedlight should be in the 5500K to 5600K range - the colour should be reasonably close.

I don't 100% trust the colours on this laptop and would have preferred to white balance against a proper target, but if anything I find the image just a touch warm (outside of the arm).

[KimC]

Yes, I have been considering that and prob will do so once I start experimenting on myself. I also use Capture One for processing of RAW images. I do have access to LR now, as I signed up for a subscription this winter so I could start to learn PS. I use Affinity and it doesn't seem as powerful, so I feel I need to bit the bullet. I have tried working RAW images in LR so I can cut down on software, but I prefer the result with Capture One.

In studio type work, you might want to consider shooting tethered. Connect your camera to your laptop with a USB 3 cable (TetherTools is where I bought mine) and you will get a large view of every shot. Lightroom allows you to shoot tethered (although I have gone to Capture One, as it seems to be a lot more stable). It's a great learning tool and used by a lot of pros for this type of photography.

The main downside of constant light is that it is relatively low intensity when compared to flash.

I do believe the problem with my IceLight was related to where I placed it. Until now, I have never had a problem with the color of the light it was throwing. If it continues, I'll def look into your below suggestion. My flash was only on 1/4 power.

If you have any CTB (Colour Temperature Blue) gel, try wrapping it around your light source and see if that gets the colour of the light up a bit. I'd start with 1/4 CTB. You can always wrap a second sheet around if that is not raising the colour temperature enough.

Thank you for the advice.

The reflector depends on light spill from your key light to illuminate the scene. It needs to be just out of the frame. If it is too far away, it won't throw enough light. I sometimes have my light sources so close that the get into the corners of the image, but are easy to retouch out in PP.

Yes, absolutely! And it gets at where my light source was and how it was positioned. It was a def lesson. I tend to be someone who learns by doing, so why I sought out a friend to experiment on. I don't forget my hard lessons.

Part of the problem is that you have too much light on the arm. Portraiture is generally about the face and this is where the light needs to be. In your initial shot, the arm is definitely too brightly lit.

That is my favorite lens and was in my bag :-( Yes, def need to really study posing... and practicing them on myself.

I would suggest you start with your 70-200mm lens. I personally would try a different pose. The one thing that you don't want in a portrait is strange looking "amputations", where the cuts are in an awkward place or there are unattached limbs just sticking into the frame. On this shot I personally would have tried to fit in the whole arm down to the elbow.

I hope so. I was surprised that Sean Archer is just a natural light guy. I purchased some books and videos by Roberto Valenzuela and he has helped me see "light" differently... and has made me want to really learn my flash.

If you are like the rest of us, once you master it you will wonder why you thought it was so difficult. Remember that this is the preferred way of shooting for most commercial photographers because the light is so easy to control, unlike natural lighting..

His posing is just gorgeous. Will do. I did figure out this morning, I am having a hard time with this set of images as they just don't look like my other work... maybe I was trying to be something I'm not.

Yes, have a look at how he poses his models. Stick to the "rules" until you master this genre and then start working on your style. It's already well developed in your other work, so you'll get there quite quickly.

Thanks for modifying the image. I'll wait until you are home and on your calibrated monitor to comment on color. What I do really like, and I would like to know how you did it -- you seemed to give more shape to her face.

I've done a couple of the things i mentioned (plus a bit of shine removal), etc. Unfortunately my Wacom tablet is not accessible right now, so I had to edit with a mouse. I'm not 100% sure of the colour correction either as I really don't trust the colours on my laptop screen. A slight change of the angle I view at makes a difference, unfortunately and I will retouch my work when I get back home.

[/QUOTE]

[KimC]

That's the truth Mike! I think I need to have some Fireball over ice after working on this set.

Reviewing this thread about the immense difficulty of shooting portraits reminds me of why I'll stick to photographing wine. Aside from all the obvious reasons, there is always the fallback position that if the subject proves to be uncooperative, I simply drink it. And if the subject proves to be cooperative, I simply drink it.

[KimC]

You're welcome. I don't mind putting my work out there as it's how we all learn; and I've learned a lot here. I prefer true C&C on my images as it helps me see how others might see them and helps me think differently and of course learn.

I'm struggling with this set Bruce. See my comments to Manfred today.

I have a calibrated monitor, but I just can't get this image to a place I personally like. Out of all of them, I prefer the original. I agree the original is a hint on the cold side (I tend to like colder images).

Kim, first of all, thank you for starting this thread. I've learned a lot from the various comments.

I was about to post a comment that I preferred the white balance/colour correction in the RAW file as well as in your re-worked image in post 27 when I saw Manfred's recent post. To my mind the white balance in your first post as well as in Manfred's post 28 is too blue. (I'm looking at the image on a relatively good monitor that has been calibrated and profiled – albeit not for the past two or three months.) But I'll be interested in what others may comment about the white balance.

edit: "RAW" presumably is the SOOC jpeg?

[rpcrowe]

Kim,

A fun partner in playing with portraiture is a realistic head manikin. Manny, the manikin is very patient and allows you to shoot as much and for as long as you want without any complaints.

The only problem with my manikin is that the catch lights are painted into the eyes...

[Loose Canon]

Hi Kim!

Hey I wonder if you would mind saying your camera settings? I have a couple of questions I’m wondering about. Just personal curiosity I guess!

A couple of those are: do you think at the settings you used is the Ice Light having any real effect on the shot other than providing reflections? Did you shoot using one light at a time at chosen settings and a shot at chosen settings with no lights fired?

And the reason I ask is sometimes using flash at particular settings will over-ride any continuous lights used unless there is a particular “glare” from them (a brighter light reflected directly into the lens) in the shot. The light itself may not have any, or much effect, but a glare off a reflective surface from one may.

Taking the above mentioned shots will tell you the story on what your lights are doing in the scene.

Again, I’m just curious for my own edumacation! Never used an Ice Light, and unless I’m doing say, a special effects type thing in a studio setting, I don’t usually mix flash/continuous! I would assume you already have this worked out, but have not seen anything saying.

Maybe I’m just in The Wild West of lighting at the moment!

[KimC]

I don't know Richard...that's a little scary! ;-)

Kim,

A fun partner in playing with portraiture is a realistic head manikin. Manny, the manikin is very patient and allows you to shoot as much and for as long as you want without any complaints.

The only problem with my manikin is that the catch lights are painted into the eyes...

[KimC]

Camera settings were:
ISO 200; 1/160s; f/3.2; 105mm

Flash was on 1/4

I do know the Ice Light filled the shadow under her neck. All shots were fired with some light. Some of the initial shots I used only the Ice Light, but it wasn't cutting it. All over shots used both.

Hi Kim!

Hey I wonder if you would mind saying your camera settings? I have a couple of questions I’m wondering about. Just personal curiosity I guess!

A couple of those are: do you think at the settings you used is the Ice Light having any real effect on the shot other than providing reflections? Did you shoot using one light at a time at chosen settings and a shot at chosen settings with no lights fired?

And the reason I ask is sometimes using flash at particular settings will over-ride any continuous lights used unless there is a particular “glare” from them (a brighter light reflected directly into the lens) in the shot. The light itself may not have any, or much effect, but a glare off a reflective surface from one may.

Taking the above mentioned shots will tell you the story on what your lights are doing in the scene.

Again, I’m just curious for my own edumacation! Never used an Ice Light, and unless I’m doing say, a special effects type thing in a studio setting, I don’t usually mix flash/continuous! I would assume you already have this worked out, but have not seen anything saying.

Maybe I’m just in The Wild West of lighting at the moment!

[Dave Humphries]

I could do with one of those Richard, at least to start with

The only problem with my manikin is that the catch lights are painted into the eyes...

I wondered whether anyone made them with glass marble (i.e. reflective) eyes, so you'd get realistic catchlights - if they do, they probably cost more than I'd like.

Great thread Kim!