Question: Portrait lighting

Hi,

I would like to hear your opinion about the following. I have learned that

in portraits the fill light generally should be 1-2 stop less than the main light.

In the first of the following two samples the fill light has the same level as the main light and in the second one the fill light is 1 stop less.
I personally prefer the first one.
(Sorry for the poor model!)

Regards

Andreas

Andreas P. said:

Hi,

I would like to hear your opinion about the following. I have
learned that
in portraits the fill light generally should be 1-2 stop less than
the main light.
In the first of the following two samples the fill light has the
same level as the main light and in the second one the fill light
is 1 stop less.
I personally prefer the first one.
(Sorry for the poor model!)

Regards

Andreas

Click to expand...

I prefer the first one and I wouldn't settle for it either. I'm particular about portrait lighting. My personal preferences lean toward short lighting with the fill light illuminating the short side of a turned face.

Shadows define the structure of a face. Without shadows, the form or shape of the face cannot be defined. This is the whole purpose of setting up the lights. To define that shape by placement of the lights. A person with a fat face can be made to appear thinner with short lighting and the use of shadows cast on the longer fill side. Anyhow that's my feeling. A lot of the portrait lighting game is stictly personal preferences. It's also the customer's preference if doing this commercially. Gotta give customers more than one lighting choice to choose from for the final product.

While were talking lighting, I'd like to point out the 3 catchlights in the eyes of your subject. I'd guess that one is from your main light (key) and the other is from the fill light. The third is probably from your on camera flash that your using to trigger the strobes. Not good, having three catchlights. Catchlights are very important as they give essential life to the portrait. Three is not so good as it is not natural. You can get rid of the fill catchlight by moving that light back until it dissappears. A filter coupled with re-aiming the camera flash will eliminate the on camera flash. The mainlight, traditionally should be lowered until the eyesockets are just lite and the catchlight appears at 11 o'clock. You don't want it on the pupil. Looks kinda space alien that way!

I actually like the second of the two better, in that I prefer shadows, especially for male faces. Adds character.

In either case, however, I feel that your hair light is too strong. It wants to be an accent and provide some separation from the background, not a dominant feature.

Just my opinion.

I prefer number two as well because the shadows give dimension to the face. Number one is the good old flat or fat lighting.

The pointers given about moving your main to the other side is a good one. Generally, when photographing a male, the main light should be firing into the chest. For a female the light should be firing across the subject with her face turned back towards the main. Try moving your main to the other side and see if you don't like it better.

What you have here is a masculine or basic pose. It works well for either male or female. However, the head should be tilted slightly to his right so his neck and head are perpendicular to his shoulder line. I like to use the guideline that no two anything (eyes, ears, shoulders, etc. ) should be on the same horizontal line. Having him cross his left leg over his right will shift his weight to his back hip and will give a natural dip to the back shoulder. Then have him put his right arm out onto his thigh. This will lower the back shoulder further and create a pyramid shape to the composition.

As far as lighting ratios are concerned, play with it until you find what you like. I always meter with all lights on. I shield the meter from the main and meter the fill at the camera alone. I then measure both the main and fill together with the meter pointed at the main. With digital I like about a 1 to 1.5 stop difference although I will go with more of a difference for dramatic effects.

Lighting, like photography, is very subjective. What one person may like, someone else will not. My own personal style is to have the fill 2 stops darker than my main, or a 1 to 4 ratio. Sometimes I may use a 1 to 2 (fill one stop less) but only if it's like a glamour type thing and they have a face that can take it. I also always turn my subjects toward the main light. Broad lighting is just not that flattering to me. Short lighting tends to shape the face better.

The lighting is too flat in your first one and the second one has no character or mood or whatever. It's just lit. Shadows, whether hard or soft, to me, is what really makes a good portrait. Your diffussed highlight, or true tonality of the subject is a constant, but your shadow is what you really control and thus creates your mood.

I also use soft lighting, either with soft boxes or umbrellas. Again, a very subjective area. My main is about 45 degrees from camera. I meter my main only by pointing the meter at the light. I than meter my fill, main turned off or away, again pointed at light. I use my main's reading as my f stop. I usually shoot at f/11. My fill at f/5.6.

I prefer No. 2; I like contrast because it shapes the face like the other posts. My idea of lighting is to create the look of a single light source. Reality is we only have one sun, which is the main, and the atmosphere is the fill. Lighting should be believable weather it is hard or soft. Shadows create depth.

Martin Greeson

I use one light mostly with reflectors. 1 to 3, 1 to 4.

Mike Collins said:

Lighting, like photography, is very subjective. What one person
may like, someone else will not. My own personal style is to have
the fill 2 stops darker than my main, or a 1 to 4 ratio. Sometimes
I may use a 1 to 2 (fill one stop less) but only if it's like a
glamour type thing and they have a face that can take it. I also
always turn my subjects toward the main light. Broad lighting is
just not that flattering to me. Short lighting tends to shape the
face better.

The lighting is too flat in your first one and the second one has
no character or mood or whatever. It's just lit. Shadows, whether
hard or soft, to me, is what really makes a good portrait. Your
diffussed highlight, or true tonality of the subject is a constant,
but your shadow is what you really control and thus creates your
mood.

I also use soft lighting, either with soft boxes or umbrellas.
Again, a very subjective area. My main is about 45 degrees from
camera. I meter my main only by pointing the meter at the light.
I than meter my fill, main turned off or away, again pointed at
light. I use my main's reading as my f stop. I usually shoot at
f/11. My fill at f/5.6.

Click to expand...

Rob,

Thanks for the input an analyzing the photos. In aspect of the catchlight
you are correct. The elimination of the trigger catchlight was just lazyness.
Thanks for the recomandation to elimate the other one.

Regards,

Andreas

Guys,

Not to be blunt but these are not good portraits. Posing, lighting and expressions are lacking. Rather than giving ad-hock advice, I would suggest checking out http://www.zuga.net where there is a plethora of information about how to do portrait lighting. When you have good poses, lighting positions and fill balances, you'll see why you want to have the fill a stop or two lower than the mainlight.

Additionally, I'd get rid of the orange hairlight...

Jaz-- http://www.jackzucker.com

Michael,

Thanks for your feedback!

Regards,

Andreas

Tom,

Thanks a lot for your useful recomandations! Seems to be a another science

Regards,

Andreas

Mike,

Thanks for some more homework for me !

Regards,

Andreas

Hi Ansel,

The question wasn't if this is a good portrait or not . The question was about a very specific point. Except from you i received very useful info.

A.P.

Andreas P. said:

Hi Ansel,

The question wasn't if this is a good portrait or not . The
question was about a very specific point. Except from you i
received very useful info.

A.P.

Click to expand...

I answered your question. The 3:1 light ratio will work if you get the light in the correct position and using good posing techniques.

My point was to ask in a portrait forum.

Don't post pictures and ask for advice if you are sensitive about getting feedback.

Jaz-- http://www.jackzucker.com

Hey boys this sounds like one of my critiques in portrait class, except these days our portrait program is full of women..............who it appears will inherit the portrait industry.

The Kodak method to determine ratio is to

1. Meter the fill light meter alone with an incident meter and establish a reading of (what ever) lets say f/5.6.

2. Add the main light and measure the combination of the two lights. (again incident meter) Now adjust only the main light to get a difference of 1 2/3 stops (meter reads F/ 8 2/3) Now that is 3:1.

By the way if you want 4:1 the difference is 2 stops, so the Main plus fill reading is f/11. Leave your fill set, adjust the main light.

Now, the hair light should be no more than equal the Main plus fill to reproduce detail. (Incident reading at the hair)

I think this right, lets see 20 portrait students a semester for 20 years............MMMM

Jack A. Zucker said:

Andreas P. said:

Hi Ansel,

The question wasn't if this is a good portrait or not . The
question was about a very specific point. Except from you i
received very useful info.

A.P.

Click to expand...

I answered your question. The 3:1 light ratio will work if you get
the light in the correct position and using good posing techniques.

My point was to ask in a portrait forum.

Don't post pictures and ask for advice if you are sensitive about
getting feedback.

Jaz
--
http://www.jackzucker.com

Click to expand...

--Jerry S

Andreas,

Alas, I am not able to access your images, but perhaps I can provide a better response NOT having seen them. Frankly, too many photographers get hung up on all the techno-babble lighting ratios, etc, without regard to more important issues: Contrast of film and paper, key of photograph, and mood of the image. Those things are inter-related and cannot be ignored. However, each light in a portrait setup provides a very specific role. I hope to provide a brief synoposis of the role of each light... Nah.... It'll be pretty long.

THE MAIN LIGHT- The role of the main light is to provide shape, texture and the main illumination to the main subject(s). The main light will also create a level of contrast (or lack thereof) which may or may not be within the films ability to capture the entire dynamic spectrum, or within the paper's ability to print the density difference between highlight and shadow. It is generally accepted that there is only ONE main light, but there are ways to cheat an use multiple mains, but thats a discussion for another day. Simply put, the main characteristics of the main light that you should be aware the directionality of the light, and the quality (hard/soft) of the shadows.

THE FILL LIGHT (hopefully the answer to your question)

The simplistic answer of the role of the fill light is to "fill up the shadows". Yes, it does that, but that is too simplistic.The role of the FILL LIGHT is to provide general AMBIENT illumination to the scene. Its primary goal is to bring the shadow density up to "capturable" and printable range. However, many photographers use the fill light to create a given "look", which may be what your original question might be about.

My opinion is that if EXCESSIVE fill is required for the "look", then it is highly likely that an inappropriate light source was used as the main (in terms of light quality/contrast). Again, there is no cookbook answer and is an entirely personal matter. Were it not, everyone's portraits would look the same.

The amount of fill light required is largely dependent on DYNAMIC RANGE of your capture device (film or ccd). A capture device with a large dyanmic ranges (i.e. Nikon D1) requires very little film to capture a full spectrum of highlights and shadows. The D1 is also accused of lacking contrast. Consequently, harder light and less fill is probably called to mimic the look of film, which doesn't have quite the dynamic range of the D1. The D1x does not have the same dynamic range that the D1 does, and has less exposure latitiude as well. Consequently, the amount of fill illumination required for the D1 will be different from the D1x. With film cameras, each film emultion will have unique characteristics and require its own "recipe" for a given look.

It is important to understand that the fill light should be NON-DIRECTIONAL in nature and should not be visually present to the viewer. Again, its role is to bring up the general illumination of the shadows into printable range and not steal attention from the qualities created by the main light.

HIGHLIGHTS- Highlights are generally created from light originating from the side, above and slightly behind the subject. The objective of the highlights is often to create a visual separation from the subject and background and create additional depth in the portrait. Highlights are the antithesis of shadows. Shadows recede and highlights come forward. A portrait with a good balance of highlights, shadows and normal tones (Dean Collins calls these "diffused highlights") will provide the most depth of image. Highlights can come in the form of hairlights, kicker lights, backlights, etc. It is important to understand that the intensity of those lights will be far less than the novice photographer anticipates. You may be familiar with the rule; "The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection". This applies here. The farther off axis of the highlight, the more intense it appears. Often a highlight can be effective even though the actual measured intensity at the subject is 1.5-2 stop UNDER that of the main, even though highlights appear brighter.

As long as I've gone this long, here are a couple thoughts in regard to some other "properties" of light...Lighting in general has 5 properties. Direction, quality, intensity, color and area of coverage. If you are aware of each of these within the role that each light plays, you will be well ahead of the game in creating stunning looking portraits.

AREA OF COVERAGE

Remember, you do not have to blanket the entire subject area with the same intensity of light, nor do you have to light then entire subject at all. Film photographers have been burning and dodging photographs for decades trying to sculpt the look of the subject. When lighting, tis better to use a scalpel than a chain saw... though we can always cheat .

COLOR OF LIGHT

There is no rule written that color balance has to be dead neutral. Photographers have used colored gels on one or all of their lights to provide some level of creativity and capture the viewer's attention. In portraiture, "natural" color is not always best. With digital capture, there are many ways to change or overcome a situation. In the good ol days, we used to have to do it with the light, or within the color pack while printing.

I'm sure I've forgotten something. Keep in mind that the roles I've described are for CLASSICAL PORTRAITURE. In CREATIVE portraiture, we often take the rules and throw them out the window, creating fresh new looks. However, I believe that it is critical that the portrait photographer understand the classical rules and the role that each light is supposed to play, but at the same time not be a slave to them.

Hope this sheds some light on the subject. Sorry for the length.
Sincerely,
Stanton

Stanton,

Thanks a lot for your very valuable feedback! It is quite seldom that people are making such efforts in responding in a manner like you did!

Thanks!

With respect,
Andreas

Excellent recap Stanton.

Edmund
--Look Ma, no film !

Stanton said:

Hope this sheds some light on the subject.

Click to expand...

hehehe ... terrible pun, Stanton ... but excellent explanation!!!!
Warmest Regards
[email protected] (Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.) http://www.pbase.com/heinzi

Edmund,

To prevent more comments like the one of this "Ansel" guy i deleted them

Anyway, i already received a lot of very useful input for future improvements!

Regards,

Andreas