Reading mode: Light Dark

Outdoor lighting

Go to last post
maybe you would want to give us a hint on wat kind of weather outside you are looking for or? i mean full sunshine and you will not need any extra-light at all, bottomrule is just to keep the sun coming from your back...
 
Gillis Danielsen said:
maybe you would want to give us a hint on wat kind of weather
outside you are looking for or? i mean full sunshine and you will
not need any extra-light at all, bottomrule is just to keep the sun
coming from your back...
Click to expand...
There are a world of other means to shoot with natural light. Try my previous posts for just a sampler.

Regards,
CLTHRS
 
Thanks for all of your posts on this thread, CLTHRS. I've enjoyed them and learned a lot from them.

ron
 
Your are welcome. Ironically, the more I learn, the less it seems that I know.

If you feel like it send me a email. There is something I want to say offline.

Regards,
CLTHRS
 
michael collins said:
There are a lot of photogaphers here. All have their opinions of
what makes a good photograph. Some like traditional portraiture,
others like a more editorial look. No one is right or wrong.
Photography is so subjective. But it all comes down to how you
want to control your light. I'd like to see more people in here
post more positive responses than things like 'your wrong' 'that
can't be done' 'there is only one way' etc.
Click to expand...
Michael,

The bit about the 'one way' is surely the most important part. This forum is peppered with posters who, over and over again, repeat the teachings of their gurus, never mind how hackneyed or out-moded or widely-disregarded those teachings might be among professionals who actually know anything about lighting (as opposed to those wannabes who think that following guru-prescribed formulae somehow makes them professional).

This is a forum enjoyed by thousands of photography enthusiasts. This means that many impressionable, information-hungry people are subject to the blinkered views spewing forth from the acolytes of these cash-driven 'gurus' -- the result of which is that total unmitigated cr*p like posts from 'professionals' like Ferrara about how shooting outdoors is made sooo awfully horribly impossibly difficult by that nasty ambient light stuff gets read by enthusiasts as some kind of gospel -- partly because he backs them up with links to the cash-cow home sites of his lighting god figures.

Photography enthusiasts deserve to hear the alternative view from people who know better. The view that these guru sites cater to the lowest common denominator, and insult them by feeding them total BS about how photography can be reduced to a set of rules and formulae.

Not for nothing is photography increasingly recognised as an art form. And fifty years from now, when historians are looking back on who did what in the 90s or the first decade of the 21st century -- NOBODY will ever mention the names of these phoney gurus.

And, before you reach for it, spare me the 'look at their success' rationale. McDonalds makes billions by serving up pig slop to people who don't know any better. And yes, the analogy holds up.

ron
 
Jeez guys (Ron and Paul)

You sound like a couple of grade-schoolers. Let's grow up a little, ok?

I've come to respect both of your opinions, reading your posts online. You both have useful insights to contribute, at least when you're not taking pot-shots at each other. You also obviously don't like each other. Can you take your bickering offline, though? You demean yourselves by such public squabbling. You both claim to be professionals, so act like professionals.

Enough said.

Duncan C.

-------
ron mcmillan said:
And all the other sheep can pack a tent along with their camera
gear, just in case any of that nasty uncontrollable ambient light
stuff threatens their guru's engraved-in-stone lighting ratios.

ron
Neil Turner said:
To answer the original post, I would study some of the best
examples of what you want to do and try to work out how they were
done. It will be impossible to copy them, so get out there and
improve on them. Get the flash off camera at every opportunity, use
a sto-fen as a softener rather than a bounce aid if you can and
most importantly experiment constantly.

Good luck, I'm getting off this fence now - it's a pain in the a* e!!!

Neil
--
http://www.dg28.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
To summarize for the original poster:

Outdoor portraiture can be challenging, since you have to work with what nature gives you. There's a lot to consider, but here are a few basics:

Direct noonday sun tends to be harsh and unflattering. Early morning and late evening light is generally better. It's softer, and comes from the side, which better illuminates and models facial features.

Overcast days can be great, particularly when the light has a "pearly" quality to it. On these days you might need to take steps to ADD contrast, however.

If you are going to shoot when the sun is high in the sky, you should do one of several things:

Shoot under some sort of cover so that your light comes from the sides, and preferably from just one side. Shooting under cover gives more diffuse light. Letting light in from only one side provides some shadows and modeling to your subject.

Shoot with a diffusing panel between the sun and your model to soften the light and stop it down some. Then use reflectors to light the shadows. This requires stands, or better yet, assistants holding your diffusers and reflectors.

Use fill-flash, set a couple of stops lower than your sunlight, and preferably diffused. You want to brigthen the shadows, but don't want to create a second set of shadows, which looks unnatural.

With outdoor lighting just like studio lighting, you need to consider your lighting type (spot or diffuse) and direction, and make sure your lighting ratio (highlight to shadow) doesn't exceed what your medium can record, unless you're after a high contrast effect. You can use reflectors or fill flash to brighten your shadows.

People tend to squint when they are in direct sunlight, or looking at something very bright, which is unflattering.

You also want to watch out for bright and distracting elements in your background. You have to be very consious of what appears in the frame, and weather it helps or hurts your compisition.
--
http://www.pbase.com/duncanc
 
I don't think that's too far from what I said in my first message.

And just to add a few more comments at random:

The photographers that I know who are REALLY good with outdoor portraiture abhor the use of flash fill or the use of flash as the main light source. I became good friends with JJ Allen, the author of two books on lighting, and visited him in Atlanta the summer before last. While we were there, he took some pics of my wife and I in a couple of his favorite spots. They are stunning, to say the least. And while I see how he does it, I have not been able to duplicate it myself. He just flat "sees the light."

The other problem of course with outdoor portraiture is sync'ing the weather, timing, subjects, etc. Our outdoor season in OH is pretty short.

And here's what some folks go through to take outdoor pics:

http://www.sunbounce.com/
Looks like they've changed their web site around but this is the general idea.

Paul
http://www.paulsportraits.com
Duncan C said:
To summarize for the original poster:

Outdoor portraiture can be challenging, since you have to work with
what nature gives you. There's a lot to consider, but here are a
few basics:

Direct noonday sun tends to be harsh and unflattering. Early
morning and late evening light is generally better. It's softer,
and comes from the side, which better illuminates and models facial
features.

Overcast days can be great, particularly when the light has a
"pearly" quality to it. On these days you might need to take steps
to ADD contrast, however.

If you are going to shoot when the sun is high in the sky, you
should do one of several things:

Shoot under some sort of cover so that your light comes from the
sides, and preferably from just one side. Shooting under cover
gives more diffuse light. Letting light in from only one side
provides some shadows and modeling to your subject.

Shoot with a diffusing panel between the sun and your model to
soften the light and stop it down some. Then use reflectors to
light the shadows. This requires stands, or better yet, assistants
holding your diffusers and reflectors.

Use fill-flash, set a couple of stops lower than your sunlight, and
preferably diffused. You want to brigthen the shadows, but don't
want to create a second set of shadows, which looks unnatural.

With outdoor lighting just like studio lighting, you need to
consider your lighting type (spot or diffuse) and direction, and
make sure your lighting ratio (highlight to shadow) doesn't exceed
what your medium can record, unless you're after a high contrast
effect. You can use reflectors or fill flash to brighten your
shadows.

People tend to squint when they are in direct sunlight, or looking
at something very bright, which is unflattering.

You also want to watch out for bright and distracting elements in
your background. You have to be very consious of what appears in
the frame, and weather it helps or hurts your compisition.
--
http://www.pbase.com/duncanc
Click to expand...
 
Paul Ferrara said:
The photographers that I know who are REALLY good with outdoor
portraiture abhor the use of flash fill or the use of flash as the
main light source.
Click to expand...
Pardon? What about people like Annie Liebovitz, Nick Knight, David Bailey, Mario Testino? They may not produce videos, or have shops on the high street but they are undeniably amongst the best portrait photographers in the world and all use flash when it suits them, their location and the effect they are looking for.
Paul Ferrara said:
The other problem of course with outdoor portraiture is sync'ing
the weather, timing, subjects, etc. Our outdoor season in OH is
pretty short.
Click to expand...
And that is why having only one technique is a really bad idea. You can shoot great outdoor portraits in driving rain or snow as well as at "that special time on a sunny day". The final judgement of a "good portrait" doesn't have to be that it appears on a suburban lounge wall in the USA. The term portraiture can, and does, mean so much more.

Also bear in mind that many photographers prefer to work alone, so erecting tents and screens isn't always an option. In most of the world there is wind so alternative strategies are needed and to rule out a viable technique such as using flash as a main lightsource is to strap on those creative handcuffs again.

So, here we go again. On one side we have a very narrow view of what portraiture is and on the other we have a view that portraiture should be about so much more than adherence to a style set in stone twenty years ago. Please be open minded, photography is about pushing boundaries and not hiding behind them.

Neil.

--
http://www.dg28.com
 
ron mcmillan said:
Paul Ferrara said:
I'm getting tired of your personal attacks. You're like a kid; you
can't refute what I said so you attack me personally.
Click to expand...
What you said about outdoor lighting is profoundly stupid. Just
about any professional who has ever taken a photo outdoors would
agree. Faced with nasty natural light? Put your subject in a tent!!
duuuuuh
ron mcmillan said:
Monte Zucker
and JJ Allen both teach what I explained, and Ron Kramer has shown
MANY of his outdoor lighting setups where he's used huge panels to
block light and reflectors to add it. There are probably a dozen
lessons on zuga on how to accomplish this.
Click to expand...
So that's the ONLY way to do it? OK, so you are a zuga follower.
Does that mean we all have to fall into line? From what I've seen
on the zuga website, the photography is anything but exciting. I
haven't read what he's said about outdoor lighting, but if your
summary of it is anything to go by, I've not missed much.
ron mcmillan said:
If you think you have a
better method, SHOW US SOME PICS!
Click to expand...
THERE you go again. But, as you prove with mind-numbing fequency,
having pictures to post doesn't mean you have anything worth saying.

I don't post pictures? So what? I know what I'm talking about --
and the pictures YOU post prove just how LITTLE you know. You are a
hack. A hack with lots to say, but still a hack.

rm
Click to expand...
 
Daniel Payne said:
George,

Here's a photo I created this summer in my backyard. Sunlight
provides the hair light, then a flash from camera right puts
sparkle in the eyes. The rest of the body is in the shade from a
tree.

Click to expand...
That's not a bad shot, except perhaps that the fill flash is a little too harsh. Not too bright, but just too sharp-edged. You need a bigger, softer light source.

A reflector might have given more pleasing results. But if you prefer using fill-flash, then you might want to get yourself a diffusion device. I think that would make a big difference.

But not some piddly little toy that attaches to your flash with velcro. Get yourself a real mini softbox like this one:



http://www.photoflex.com/photoflex/products/default.asp?product=litedomeXs

The picture shows their "multiclamp" setup, but there's also an adapter ring (AC-222SM) in their catalog that has a shoe mount for a flash like a 550EX or 420EX, or you can get other adapter rings for pretty much any other kind of studio or portable flash.

I've got a similar little Chimera softbox and it works great with either my 550EX or my Quantum Q-Flash. The only drawback is that it becomes necessary to either use a lightstand, or else a tripod with a flash bracket. Handholding something like this is not practical for more than a few shots.

Mike
 
Once upon a time I feared outdoor portraiture. Studio lighting was pretty well "cook book". Put a light here, a light there, measure them all out and shoot. No problem. Outdoor lighting was much more daunting.

What I had to come to terms with were the REASONS I was placing lights where they were in the studio. Until I understood what light was about, I was simply doing what the Kodak Portrait Book told me to do. It was only when I attended a seminar (in 1988) by Barry Rankin, a student of Leon Kennamer, that I began to understand, not only how to shoot an outdoor portrait, but what my lights were doing indoors as well.

What I learned is that there are 5 properties of light, each contributing, jointly and individually to each image. If you're interested, the 5 properties of light are:

1) Direction. 2) Quality (hard/soft). 3) Color. 4) Intensity. 5) Area of coverage.

One thing that I rarely see discussed are the REAL (technical) goals of photographic lighting, regardless of the look or style you're going for. The REAL objective is to take a three dimensional subject, put it on a two dimensional medium, and make it look three dimensional, once again. How do we do that? The effective use of highlights and shadows. Of equal importance is knowing HOW THE IMAGE WILL RECORD ON FILM (or digital). Sometimes it is simply being able to SEE the light. Knowing how each of the properties of light will react on film. Sometimes the light is right there and all you have to do is push the button. Sometimes you have to give it some help to allow it to record properly. Sometimes outdoor lighting, as it exists, is not ideal, so we take steps to modify it to better suit the style of the image we wish to portray.

When taking outdoor portraits, we often don't get to call the time of day or the exisiting lighting condition. So, sometimes we have to be pro-active, sometimes reactive. Below you will find one example of each. In any case, outdoor lighting is simply a matter of awareness, combined with a bag of tricks to deal with any condition that comes along. When first learning, I found thinking about each of the 5 properties of light and how each contributed to my images made me more successful and my photography more consistent.





Sincerely,
Stanton
Duncan C said:
To summarize for the original poster:

Outdoor portraiture can be challenging, since you have to work with
what nature gives you. There's a lot to consider, but here are a
few basics:

Direct noonday sun tends to be harsh and unflattering. Early
morning and late evening light is generally better. It's softer,
and comes from the side, which better illuminates and models facial
features.

Overcast days can be great, particularly when the light has a
"pearly" quality to it. On these days you might need to take steps
to ADD contrast, however.

If you are going to shoot when the sun is high in the sky, you
should do one of several things:

Shoot under some sort of cover so that your light comes from the
sides, and preferably from just one side. Shooting under cover
gives more diffuse light. Letting light in from only one side
provides some shadows and modeling to your subject.

Shoot with a diffusing panel between the sun and your model to
soften the light and stop it down some. Then use reflectors to
light the shadows. This requires stands, or better yet, assistants
holding your diffusers and reflectors.

Use fill-flash, set a couple of stops lower than your sunlight, and
preferably diffused. You want to brigthen the shadows, but don't
want to create a second set of shadows, which looks unnatural.

With outdoor lighting just like studio lighting, you need to
consider your lighting type (spot or diffuse) and direction, and
make sure your lighting ratio (highlight to shadow) doesn't exceed
what your medium can record, unless you're after a high contrast
effect. You can use reflectors or fill flash to brighten your
shadows.

People tend to squint when they are in direct sunlight, or looking
at something very bright, which is unflattering.

You also want to watch out for bright and distracting elements in
your background. You have to be very consious of what appears in
the frame, and weather it helps or hurts your compisition.
--
http://www.pbase.com/duncanc
Click to expand...
 
Neil Turner said:
And that is why having only one technique is a really bad idea. You
can shoot great outdoor portraits in driving rain or snow as well
as at "that special time on a sunny day". The final judgement of a
"good portrait" doesn't have to be that it appears on a suburban
lounge wall in the USA. The term portraiture can, and does, mean so
much more.
Click to expand...
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Member said:
So, here we go again. On one side we have a very narrow view of
what portraiture is and on the other we have a view that
portraiture should be about so much more than adherence to a style
set in stone twenty years ago. Please be open minded, photography
is about pushing boundaries and not hiding behind them.
Click to expand...
Neil,

You have eloquently captured the essence of the frustration I feel whenever I read a response from the narrow point of view, especially when that point of view is presented as the only valid one. Prior attempts on my part to express that there is much more to portrait photography than "suburban lounge portraiture" has been met with hostility.

I'd like to add another name to your excellent list of portraitists - Jacques Henri Lartique. I would much rather have a portrait of a family member taken by him than by Joseph Karsh. For that matter, I'd much rather have a portrait taken by Neil Turner than by Ron Kramer!

Keep up the great work and keep sharing your thoughts!

Doug
 
Paul Ferrara said:
http://www.houseofphotography.com/

All of those were taken with natural light only, augmented by gobos
and reflectors. No flash fill, in other words.
GH said:
What I would like to accomplish is to create some shots that are
more than just the average snapshot. What things really seperate
or make special a good outdoor shot to a great one? What specific
criteria is in a great outdoor shot? How should the light hit the
face? Should it be contrasty or even? Should DOF be shallow? Im
just looking for a goal to shoot for.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
GH,

Ron certainly brings a high level of technical expertise to his work, and I'm sure he is commercially successful. I'm sure there's a huge market for this kind of work, especially when it is so skillfully accomplished. Ron uses careful lighting, expert makeup and Photoshop retouching to present us with an idealized physical version of the subject.

Yet for me, there is something missing, and for lack of a better term, I'll call it the soul of the subject. Things are a little too perfect. The lighting has been controlled to such an extent that it in combination with the props, it looks more like a indoor studio shot than a outdoor environmental portrait.

You asked what separates a good outdoor shot from a great one. I think we need to ask what criteria you're placing on the portrait. If your criteria is to create a saleable portrait that will bring in the maximum dollars and end up on the den wall of an upscale suburban home, then Ron's work can certainly be considered great. On the other hand, if your criteria is to create a portrait that somehow conveys something of the subject, shortcomings and all, then the kind of portraiture found in the "Family of Man" book and exhibit can also be considered great.

Personally, I find the latter much harder and more elusive, but ultimately much more rewarding. I've heard this kind of photography dismissed as "glorified snapshots" by some. They may be right and that's OK. As long as my photographs elicit an emotional response from family and friends of the subject, I'm happy.

Doug
Paul Ferrara said:
--
Click to expand...
 
It depends on the style of portraits you want to make. I'm a traditionalist and therefor study photographers who work in that style. I like Liebovitz's work but it's not the kind of portraits that I want to make.

I also think that when a forum member posts a message asking about what equipment to buy to take portraits, MOST OF THE TIME they are thinking more along the lines of Zucker than Liebovitz. Ditto for when they ask "how is my lighting."

And I'm a photographer, not an evangelist. I won't try to convert you and you don't have to worry about converting me.

Paul
http://www.paulsportraits.com
Neil Turner said:
Paul Ferrara said:
The photographers that I know who are REALLY good with outdoor
portraiture abhor the use of flash fill or the use of flash as the
main light source.
Click to expand...
Pardon? What about people like Annie Liebovitz, Nick Knight, David
Bailey, Mario Testino? They may not produce videos, or have shops
on the high street but they are undeniably amongst the best
portrait photographers in the world and all use flash when it suits
them, their location and the effect they are looking for.
Member said:
The other problem of course with outdoor portraiture is sync'ing
the weather, timing, subjects, etc. Our outdoor season in OH is
pretty short.
Click to expand...
And that is why having only one technique is a really bad idea. You
can shoot great outdoor portraits in driving rain or snow as well
as at "that special time on a sunny day". The final judgement of a
"good portrait" doesn't have to be that it appears on a suburban
lounge wall in the USA. The term portraiture can, and does, mean so
much more.

Also bear in mind that many photographers prefer to work alone, so
erecting tents and screens isn't always an option. In most of the
world there is wind so alternative strategies are needed and to
rule out a viable technique such as using flash as a main
lightsource is to strap on those creative handcuffs again.

So, here we go again. On one side we have a very narrow view of
what portraiture is and on the other we have a view that
portraiture should be about so much more than adherence to a style
set in stone twenty years ago. Please be open minded, photography
is about pushing boundaries and not hiding behind them.

Neil.

--
http://www.dg28.com
Click to expand...
 
Ron Kramer shoots all of his seniors on film, 6x7 to be exact. His digital shots are just snapshots, more or less, so he can post on his web site and a few boards.

He works with his wife who handles the back office stuff. No makeup artist on staff. He shoots a couple of seniors per hour during the busy season.

Capturing warts and all is one approach but I think that most portrait photographers want to make their subject look their best.

Paul
http://www.paulsportraits.com
Doug MacMillan said:
Ron uses careful lighting, expert makeup
and Photoshop retouching to present us with an idealized physical
version of the subject.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top