I had some studio time last week and unfortunately got in a lot less shooting than planned, but walked away having learned a few things. The people who had booked it ran late and instead of getting a couple of hours of shooting time, I ended up with around 45 minutes. These are all informal shots that could be used in an editorial situation (part of an article about the person). These had to be colour; B&W not an option.
I also did a bit of shooting outside the studio with my Speedlight and a 30" / 90cm white, reflective umbrella. These were are part of a composition course I'm taking at the local community college
This was a fully equipped studio with 20ft / 6m ceilings with black floors, walls and ceilings. I was shooting with Photogenic lights and wanted to do a baseline and then try some techniques I can do at home with the rather low ceilings. These are all one-light shots.
1. SB-900 Speedlight and 30" white reflector umbrella at 45° camera right and a large white reflector just out of camera range on camera left. Shots are both taken on a staircase. Dutch tilt to break the horizontal reflective safety paint lines. Rembrandt lighting on the closeup.
Image 1:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7281/...d6211afb_o.jpg
Image 2:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7624/...77c86db7_o.jpg
2. Studio shot - medium softbox (rectangular) at around 45° camera right and fill light from a large V-flat camera left. Again a long shot and closeup. Good comparison of umbrella light versus softbox. Shot the closeup from below for a change.
Image 3:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7589/...dea31531_o.jpg
Image 4:
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8737/...ac53b705_o.jpg
3. Barebulb shot - Here no light modifiers at all. The flash head pointed straight up at the ceiling and set to a height of around 8 ft / 2.5m. An interesting harsh light with no catchlights in the eyes. I wanted to try this technique because the ceilings at home are much too low to try this. The V-flat can be seen behind and camera left of the subject. I tried to get the harsh shadow as a compositional element in the second shot; not as successful as I had hoped. I was standing on a full-size apple box and shooting down for the second shot to get the shadow into the frame.
Image 5:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7653/...caf6f6e5_o.jpg
Image 6:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7629/...66d6321a_o.jpg
This was a fun shoot and I got a lot out of it. Nothing beats a full studio for shooting. The barebulb exercise was fun, but I can't say I love the shots.
Studio shots
Printable View
-
31st March 2015, 09:09 AMManfred MStudio shots
-
31st March 2015, 02:06 PMShadowmanRe: Studio shots
What is it you don't like about these captures, is it the model, the background, lighting effect? You have quite a few different backgrounds so you were obviously utilizing the room.
-
31st March 2015, 02:21 PMTexas DaveRe: Studio shots
Manfred, you are indeed a master of your craft!
-
31st March 2015, 02:39 PMD LRe: Studio shots
A very nice, and instructive series.
I hope you don't mind a few observations from the learner?
I know you often comment about generally trying to shoot from nose level or slightly above ( I think, don't let me misquote you???). However, I like the headshot from below (3rd picture). I'm not sure why but I think it makes the subject look better. Do you agree? (and have any theory on that?)
I quite like the pose of the 1st bare-bulb shot. I think I'd like either more or less light on the shadow side of his face. It's something about the way his eye looks, where I can see the white on one side of the iris, but the other side is black. Or is that just me? -
31st March 2015, 04:34 PMManfred MRe: Studio shotsJohn - I was very much trying things I normally don't do in portraiture; the Dutch tilt, shooting from below, bare bulb, I tend to do a lot of portraits using a seamless paper background etc. The things are probably fairly minor in the scheme of things, but I was missing things I would have preferred to nail. What you see are the finished versions and I ended up cropping the shots a touch more than I would like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowman
Image 1 - I didn't quite nail the Rembrandt lighting; my key light needed to be a bit more forward and a touch higher. My fill light reflector should have been angled up a bit more.
Image 2 - This was a crop issue. I don't do a lot of Dutch tilt and a blew where I positioned the subject, and I had to correct that with a crop.
Image 3 - I don't like the position of and spread of the catch lights. I think they need to be up higher and more in the iris part of the eye. Again, as I don't usually shoot from below, I missed setting up the light correctly to do this.
Image 4 - This worked well, but I should have flagged the light because I got a fair bit of spill camera left that I had to correct with a heavier vignette than I would have liked. A more focused light fall would have been better.
Image 5 - I had a hot spot under his camera right eye that I had to spend some time in post correcting. A bit more care in posing would have eliminated that. I also had too much of a hot spot on his forehead that I more or less managed to correct in post, but there is a bit of an artifact from that. I should have set the light source a bit further back; but again being the first time with this setup... The issue is that the histogram looks fine and you can't see the details well enough on the camera screen. Shooting tethered was not really an option.
Image 6 - this is really my least favourite of the set. It didn't work out the way I had hoped. The shadow was well defined, but the way I shot meant I have a large empty space in the top left corner of the image. I shot have dropped the light to move the shadow higher up the wall. -
31st March 2015, 05:08 PMManfred MRe: Studio shotsThank you, but frankly, I'm a learner too. I thought sharing my learnings might be useful to some. What always surprises me is how much difference a fairly inexpensive set of off-camera tools can get you. Part of the reason for images 1, 2 and image 3, 4 was to compare a fairly inexpensive and portable setup against a much more expensive studio lighting setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by D L
The cost difference between the two setups is a lot, and while I like the quality of the light in images 3 and 4, they are not that much better than the first two images.
The higher shot angle is helpful in hiding a person's double (or triple?) chin, and anyone who is a bit older or a bit heavier set will tend to have one. That is the context of why I advise people to shoot this way. There are a few other tricks to hide that problem as well (sticking the forehead out to stretch out the neck and chin works well too).Quote:
Originally Posted by D L
Mike is fairly thin and has a beard, so no double chin issues, which is why I tried shooting him this way.
Shooting a person looking up gives them a look of power / superiority. I suspect that comes from when we were young children and all authority figures tend to look down.
One gets the opposite effect when one shoots from above (Image 6), and in this kind of shot tends give the subject a bit of a weaker or subservient look.
At or just around eye level (above or below by a few cm / inch or so) tends to be fairly neutral that way.
In that shot I was trying for a very dramatic look and that can be created by using a high lighting ratio (a very bright side and a very dark side of the face). Using a stark background (hence the choice of the black and white background) help accentuate this feeling.Quote:
Originally Posted by D L
The trick is trying to get the dark side without totally losing the shadow detail. A one eyed person looks quite strange and having a shot where there is a bright part of the eye looks quite strange too. I was looking for the right middle ground here, and I think I got fairly close to what I wanted.
What I really don't like about shots 5 and 6 are the dull eyes that come from not having any catchlights. I think the next time I try a shot like this, I'll add a second light on low power that produces a catchlight. -
31st March 2015, 05:14 PMManfred MRe: Studio shotsHonestly Dave, I really am just getting comfortable with this type of work. I understand the theory and can come close in practice, but I'm not where I want to be in this type of photography yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Dave
-
31st March 2015, 06:05 PMShadowmanRe: Studio shotsManfred,Quote:
Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver
Interesting critique on your own images. My negative comments would have been on images #1 and 3. I thought the over the shoulder lighting was a bit hot. In image #3 the jacket collar looks out of place but looks fine in all the other images. I think you did well with the potential reflecting surfaces of the camera in images #5 and 6, I'm sure a few instructions to the model would have sorted out any imperfections. I've only had one opportunity to do studio shooting and it was fun yet challenging. I would like to do more but can't find any willing models since that one opportunity. Like you I am at the learning stage (very early) and would like to do more studio work. -
1st April 2015, 03:36 AMManfred MRe: Studio shotsQuote:
Originally Posted by Shadowman
The lighting in #1 was captured that way on purpose; the lights are the lights and reflective tape seen in #2. The way I framed the shot was to bring the lights out.
As for the jacket collar; I have a down vest with a similar collar; looks okay except when one shoots up. I wanted to keep the black jacket in all the shots to stay with the dark and neutral tones that were prevalent in the scene, so that worked out the way I had hoped as well
As for the lighting; I let the camera control the lighting in shots 1 and 2, but used a incident flash meter to set up the rest. The model and lights did not move in any of the series; i.e. same light and model position for shots 1 and 2, 3 and 4 and 5 and 6; I moved and I changed lenses and focal lengths, but did not change the lights, ISO, aperture or shutter speed in the sets.