Four lights

Here are a couple of pics I took Sat. I was after the formal look and used four lights (main, fill, b/g, hair). The fill is about 2.5 stops under the main. The hair light is probably a half-stop too hot.





More pics on this page.

http://www.paulsportraits.com/images/rachael/rachael.htm

Paul
http://www.paulsportraits.com

Nice photos Paul. A couple refinements:

There's a lack of separation between dark clothing of the subject and the background. You might want to try kicking up the background lighting a few notches or switch to one that is slightly lighter.

Use the Photoshop clone tool to eliminate the catchlight in the eyes from the fill. A single catchlight from the main light looks more natural and gives the eyes a twinkle instead of a deer in the headlights appearance.

The white shoulder in the left lower corner of the frame is a bright distraction from the face of the . You can tone it down in Photoshop, or suggest the subject wear something sightly darker, or with long sleeves.

Something to try:

When you have a cute kid with a nice symmetrical face and good cheekbones, try butterfly lighting (two main lights on either side, no fill). Advantange is that the pose to get a good lighting pattern is less critical, so the subject can relax, move, and you can capture more candid expressions.

Chuck Gardner

Paul Ferrara said:

Here are a couple of pics I took Sat. I was after the formal look
and used four lights (main, fill, b/g, hair). The fill is about
2.5 stops under the main. The hair light is probably a half-stop
too hot.





More pics on this page.

http://www.paulsportraits.com/images/rachael/rachael.htm

Paul
http://www.paulsportraits.com

Click to expand...

Paul, I suggest you look at this fellow's website before you take his advice. http://super.nova.org/PhotoClass/ Ask youself if that is photography you want to mimick.

GageFX

Chuck Gardner said:

There's a lack of separation between dark clothing of the subject
and the background. You might want to try kicking up the background
lighting a few notches or switch to one that is slightly lighter.

Use the Photoshop clone tool to eliminate the catchlight in the
eyes from the fill. A single catchlight from the main light looks
more natural and gives the eyes a twinkle instead of a deer in the
headlights appearance.

The white shoulder in the left lower corner of the frame is a
bright distraction from the face of the . You can tone it down in
Photoshop, or suggest the subject wear something sightly darker, or
with long sleeves.

Something to try:

When you have a cute kid with a nice symmetrical face and good
cheekbones, try butterfly lighting (two main lights on either side,
no fill). Advantange is that the pose to get a good lighting
pattern is less critical, so the subject can relax, move, and you
can capture more candid expressions.

Chuck Gardner

Paul Ferrara said:

Here are a couple of pics I took Sat. I was after the formal look
and used four lights (main, fill, b/g, hair). The fill is about
2.5 stops under the main. The hair light is probably a half-stop
too hot.





More pics on this page.

http://www.paulsportraits.com/images/rachael/rachael.htm

Paul
http://www.paulsportraits.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This is snide and uncalled for, Gage.

I read Chuck's post and came away with food for thought and one or two points worth considering -- particularly the ease with which, in Photoshop, the 'fill' light highlight in a subject's eyes can be cut out, making the all-important eye less cluttered with reflections.

I'm a professional photographer with fifteen years' experience, and I found Chuck's post to be of interest.

How accomplished Chuck is as a photographer is, at this point in the game, irrelevant. I'm not looking at one of Chuck's photographs, I'm looking at Paul's, and reading what Chuck suggests might benefit from some consideration.

Making sly digs at the work of a forum participant who volunteers his thoughts on photographs posted -- which is, after all, exactly what Paul was wanting from the forum -- is unfairly judgemental and quite uncalled for.

ron mcmillan

gagefx said:

GageFX

Chuck Gardner said:

There's a lack of separation between dark clothing of the subject
and the background. You might want to try kicking up the background
lighting a few notches or switch to one that is slightly lighter.

Use the Photoshop clone tool to eliminate the catchlight in the
eyes from the fill. A single catchlight from the main light looks
more natural and gives the eyes a twinkle instead of a deer in the
headlights appearance.

The white shoulder in the left lower corner of the frame is a
bright distraction from the face of the . You can tone it down in
Photoshop, or suggest the subject wear something sightly darker, or
with long sleeves.

Something to try:

When you have a cute kid with a nice symmetrical face and good
cheekbones, try butterfly lighting (two main lights on either side,
no fill). Advantange is that the pose to get a good lighting
pattern is less critical, so the subject can relax, move, and you
can capture more candid expressions.

Chuck Gardner

Paul Ferrara said:

Here are a couple of pics I took Sat. I was after the formal look
and used four lights (main, fill, b/g, hair). The fill is about
2.5 stops under the main. The hair light is probably a half-stop
too hot.





More pics on this page.

http://www.paulsportraits.com/images/rachael/rachael.htm

Paul
http://www.paulsportraits.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This is all about what I expected.

Here's the thing - Chuck gave advice and I dont believe he is in the position to give that advice. I gave advice, to Paul, that advice was to look at Chuck's work before he considered to deeply Chuck's advice. That's it. Take it as a personal attack, or snide, or whatever. It was my advice to Paul. I'm not going to kiss @sses around here and will say things as I see them. I keep my mouth shut quite a bit and do not feel this was a time to do so.

Did Chuck have good advice for Paul? I dont know. I didnt read it. I was just giving advice myself.

What exactly did you find offensive? Here is is again.

ron mcmillan said:

gagefx said:

Paul, I suggest you look at this fellow's website before you take
his advice. http://super.nova.org/PhotoClass/ Ask youself if that
is photography you want to mimick.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I gave good advice and didnt even insult him at all in this post. A suggestion and a question. Take them how you like.

GAgeFX

ron mcmillan said:

This is snide and uncalled for, Gage.

Click to expand...

Gage,

I'd have to agree with Ron. Your post came off as a slam. I thought Chuck's advice seemed quite sound, and offered in the right spirit. Also, while the sample images on Chuck's site are not gallery quality, I think they are intended merely as illustrations.

Duncan C
-------

gagefx said:

Here's the thing - Chuck gave advice and I dont believe he is in
the position to give that advice. I gave advice, to Paul, that
advice was to look at Chuck's work before he considered to deeply
Chuck's advice. That's it. Take it as a personal attack, or snide,
or whatever. It was my advice to Paul. I'm not going to kiss @sses
around here and will say things as I see them. I keep my mouth shut
quite a bit and do not feel this was a time to do so.

Did Chuck have good advice for Paul? I dont know. I didnt read it.
I was just giving advice myself.

What exactly did you find offensive? Here is is again.

Rembvrijn said:

gagefx said:

Paul, I suggest you look at this fellow's website before you take
his advice. http://super.nova.org/PhotoClass/ Ask youself if that
is photography you want to mimick.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I gave good advice and didnt even insult him at all in this post. A
suggestion and a question. Take them how you like.

GAgeFX

ron mcmillan said:

This is snide and uncalled for, Gage.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Gage has been on Chuck's case for several days now. I just have one question....

Where are your pics and advice, Gage????

--
Carlos

http://www.onestarimaging.com

http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=553

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/onestarstudios/

In defense of Gage there are a couple of issues here:

1. When someone is so presumptuous to create a "photoclass" and makes a big deal about having worked with Monte Zucker, he's clearly holding himself out as an expert. Chuck's images don't come close to that level.

2. Picking nits about things like double catchlights is ridiculous. First, Chuck should worry about getting HIS images up a couple of levels. Second, it's pretty obvious from the PS stuff I've posted here that I was quite capable of removing the second set if they bothered me. They don't so I didn't. Catchlights are the least of Chuck's problems.

Personally, I'm not an expert and don't hold myself out as one, although I may be a couple of chapters ahead of some of the other posters so I help when I can. My own philosophy is that I NEVER nitpick an image if I couldn't have done it better myself. I post regularly on zuga, have spent many hours studying Monte's lessons, and have gotten some great tips from Monte on the images I've posted. But I can tell you this, he's NEVER mentioned double catchlights to anyone.

Paul
http://www.paulsportraits.com

Carlos Salcedo said:

Gage has been on Chuck's case for several days now. I just have one
question....

Where are your pics and advice, Gage????

--
Carlos

Click to expand...

Thank you Paul. You seem to be one of the few that really understands what I said.

As to the others, I never said I was any sort of expert and I dont pretend to be. I only asked a question.

Read the posts again for what they say, not what you guys are reading into it.

GageFX

Paul Ferrara said:

1. When someone is so presumptuous to create a "photoclass" and
makes a big deal about having worked with Monte Zucker, he's
clearly holding himself out as an expert. Chuck's images don't
come close to that level.

2. Picking nits about things like double catchlights is ridiculous.
First, Chuck should worry about getting HIS images up a couple of
levels. Second, it's pretty obvious from the PS stuff I've posted
here that I was quite capable of removing the second set if they
bothered me. They don't so I didn't. Catchlights are the least of
Chuck's problems.

Personally, I'm not an expert and don't hold myself out as one,
although I may be a couple of chapters ahead of some of the other
posters so I help when I can. My own philosophy is that I NEVER
nitpick an image if I couldn't have done it better myself. I post
regularly on zuga, have spent many hours studying Monte's lessons,
and have gotten some great tips from Monte on the images I've
posted. But I can tell you this, he's NEVER mentioned double
catchlights to anyone.

Paul
http://www.paulsportraits.com

Carlos Salcedo said:

Gage has been on Chuck's case for several days now. I just have one
question....

Where are your pics and advice, Gage????

--
Carlos

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

gagefx said:

Rembvrijn said:

Did Chuck have good advice for Paul? I dont know. I didnt read it.

Click to expand...

I was just giving advice myself.

Click to expand...

say no more, Gage. You hope people will respect your 'advice' -- in this case a sad attempt to pour scorn on another forum participant -- yet you don't even read other peoples posts??

That really makes you a worthwhile, valued participant in these discussions. Not.

Paul Ferrara said:

2. Picking nits about things like double catchlights is ridiculous.
First, Chuck should worry about getting HIS images up a couple of
levels. Second, it's pretty obvious from the PS stuff I've posted
here that I was quite capable of removing the second set if they
bothered me. They don't so I didn't. Catchlights are the least of
Chuck's problems.

Personally, I'm not an expert and don't hold myself out as one,
although I may be a couple of chapters ahead of some of the other
posters so I help when I can. My own philosophy is that I NEVER
nitpick an image if I couldn't have done it better myself. I post
regularly on zuga, have spent many hours studying Monte's lessons,
and have gotten some great tips from Monte on the images I've
posted. But I can tell you this, he's NEVER mentioned double
catchlights to anyone.

Click to expand...

I see. It's never been mentioned before, so it's not an issue, not worth considering. That's the way to learn.

And when you yourself post pictures ASKING for advice or comments (or trawling for fawning praise, perhaps), a participant's tip about catchlights is written off as 'nitpicking' -- and NOT in a response to Chuck, but in an aside in support of Gage. If you take issue with advice, why not enter into discussion with the adviser?

ron

Wow, I came here to see if I could find anything more out about studio lighting, and I walk into the middle of a bunch of people sniping rudely at each other.

What's so hard about being polite?

In my view:

(1) If one posts and asks for criticism, then that should be received in good spirit.

(2) The viewer's percieved competence with a camera isn't relevant to their appreciation of a picture.

This thread reads like a playground argument - can't we all do better than that?

--
Phil
http://www.wigglesworld.btinternet.co.uk/

phil wigglesworth said:

phil wigglesworth said:

In my view:

Click to expand...

(1) If one posts and asks for criticism, then that should be
received in good spirit.
(2) The viewer's percieved competence with a camera isn't relevant
to their appreciation of a picture.

Click to expand...

I agree with Phil on both points. And, having engaged in this schoolyard sniping session myself -- I've learned of two forum participants from whom I won't be likely to learn a thing.