How to get a gradient on black background! HELLLLP

[elliotn]

TatTwamAsi wrote:.

Someone else posted those photos. I was staying away from the photos with hair lights because I knew they needed an extra light. The photo I posted of the middle aged man with the peacoat, I thought, was a one light setup. But I can admit when I was wrong. I purchased another Xplor 600 today at Adorama with a decent 12x36 stripbox and a grid so I can work on hitting the background that way. Thanks for helping me see the necessity of that.

Sadly I think you've been misled by the forum and have purchased a light and softbox unnecessarily. Noles is not using a background light. The gradient you see in the original shot of the man is just a simple tweak in post production (i.e. Noles started with a dark grey background, and then darkened the corners on the computer). For some shots, Noles clearly uses a second light as a hair light. And sometimes this light spills onto the background. If you're trying to copy his look exactly, you can use your new investment on your subject's hair.

 

[BAK]

The original picture of the man in the first posting is a terrible photograph.

Why is there all this discussion?

BAK

 

[elliotn]

The original picture of the man in the first posting is a terrible photograph.

Why is there all this discussion?

I don't care for Noles's work myself, and I'm not sure why anyone would want to emulate it. (Specifically, I'm not keen on the lizard-eyes created by the huge keylight.) But there's no harm in trying to deconstruct a photo.

 

[Ellis Vener]

The original picture of the man in the first posting is a terrible photograph.

Why is there all this discussion?

BAK

But it is a fine headshot for an actor, and that is what Noles specializes in.

 

[photolando]

Personally, I don't think he is using anything to get a "gradient". In fact, I wouldn't call what is behind his subjects a "gradient". I think it's just the result of the lights he is using and how they fall onto the background.

He obviously uses a very large para like a Bron 222 or a Profoto Giant. And unless you have these specialized reflectors, it's going to be pretty hard to get his lighting. You can use a large umbrella but it doesn't modify light the way a Bron Para 222 or Profoto Giant does.

 

[Scott Milso]

Weather or not Miles does or not.

If you want a gradient on the bg, but a cheap speedlight, put it off to the side and just in front of the backdrop. Aim it to skip across. Inverse square will handle the rest.

Try different modifiers and angles to get exactly what you want.

 

[FingerPainter]

... Looking at his website, it is clear that Noles uses a range of focal lengths for his portraits, from wide to standard to telephoto.

I didn't see much evidence of wide for his headshots, but I only had a quick look around. Can you point to any particular examples?

I've already pointed to an example. But I agree that most of his shots are using standard or short telephoto. Here are a couple of others that seem quite wide:

These two do seem to have been taken from a closer distance than most others, But I doubt that the first was taken from much closer than 1m and the second from closer than 1.2 m. At those distances with these framings we are looking at focal lengths of about 70mm and 80mm, unless the images were cropped in both dimensions.

 

[FingerPainter]

How low do you think he pushes his focal length and can you post an example of the photo you see him doing it? I understand if that's asking too much from a stranger online haha.

In the image on the right he is using a wide angle lens.

Why do you say that?

In the image on the left he is using something longer. I'll take a guess and suggest that he's using a 24-70 f2.8 zoom for much of this work.

On FF? Again, why do you think that?

The only way to deduce focal length from a headshot is to get a feel for the relationship between the facial features, the neck and the body. If the ears recede behind the face and the neck and shoulders appear distant, then it is likely that a wide angle lens has been used.

That's what I try to do. Perhaps I need to pay more attention to the nose-ears and chin-neck relationships than I do now. Perhaps I should also not assume that he isn't cropping in two dimensions, but that kind of negates the effects of a wider lens, and just reduces resolution.

By "wide angle" I presume you mean something with a focal length under 40mm or so. If the second shot is nearly uncropped, to get that framing with a 40mm he'd have to have been shooting from about 0.5m. There isn't nearly enough prominance in the nose and mouth for this to have been taken at anywhere close to only 0.5m. I think his shooting distance was closer to 2m (6.6') than it was to 0.5m (1' 8" (so 1.3m and up.). 1.8m still gives a lot of depth separation between nose and ears. This framing at 1.8m requires a focal length of about 135mm. At about 1.3m it requires 105mm.

(People come in different shapes and sizes, some with small necks and pinned-back ears, so it's hard to make an authoritive judgement re. focal lengths.)

Indeed!

 

[FingerPainter]

The head shot photographers I know (I got into photography through theatre) typically use 100-200mm for headshots.

I was thinking in APS-C mode when I wrote this ('cause I had an APS-C camera when I learned this stuff). Multiply the focal lengths by by 1.5 - the photographers I learned from were using FF.

 

[elliotn]

By "wide angle" I presume you mean something with a focal length under 40mm or so.

Yes. I think the three shots I've posted were taken at about a 35mm focal length.

If the second shot is nearly uncropped, to get that framing with a 40mm he'd have to have been shooting from about 0.5m.

Yes, that's right.

There isn't nearly enough prominance in the nose and mouth for this to have been taken at anywhere close to only 0.5m. I think his shooting distance was closer to 2m (6.6') than it was to 0.5m (1' 8" (so 1.3m and up.). 1.8m still gives a lot of depth separation between nose and ears. This framing at 1.8m requires a focal length of about 135mm. At about 1.3m it requires 105mm.

I think he's working much closer to his subjects than you think.

I'd guess his working distance is between 60 and 120cm (2 to 4 ft), with focal lengths between 35mm and 85mm. These are intimate sessions.

To get those huge full frontal catchlights, the photographer needs to work with massive light modifiers very close to the subject, and he needs to squeeze himself into the space between the light and the subject. There is no space to use the very long lenses favoured by traditional headshot photographers.

(But I don't know and I'm happy to be proved wrong.)

 

[FingerPainter]

By "wide angle" I presume you mean something with a focal length under 40mm or so.

Yes. I think the three shots I've posted were taken at about a 35mm focal length.

If the second shot is nearly uncropped, to get that framing with a 40mm he'd have to have been shooting from about 0.5m.

Yes, that's right.

There isn't nearly enough prominance in the nose and mouth for this to have been taken at anywhere close to only 0.5m. I think his shooting distance was closer to 2m (6.6') than it was to 0.5m (1' 8" (so 1.3m and up.). 1.8m still gives a lot of depth separation between nose and ears. This framing at 1.8m requires a focal length of about 135mm. At about 1.3m it requires 105mm.

I think he's working much closer to his subjects than you think.

I'd guess his working distance is between 60 and 120cm (2 to 4 ft), with focal lengths between 35mm and 85mm. These are intimate sessions.

To get those huge full frontal catchlights, the photographer needs to work with massive light modifiers very close to the subject, and he needs to squeeze himself into the space between the light and the subject. There is no space to use the very long lenses favoured by traditional headshot photographers.

So you are basing your judgement to a large degree on the lighting?

(But I don't know and I'm happy to be proved wrong.)

Me too!

 

[elliotn]

So you are basing your judgement to a large degree on the lighting?

No, primarily my judgement is based on a sense of how close the photographer is to the subject. I get this sense from looking at the pictures and comparing them with my knowledge of what people look like in real life at various distances.

The judgement comes from an (unconscious) analysis of the relationship between the subject's bodily features. So in the picture of the guy with the red tie, his ears look really small compared to his nose. This suggests a wide angle lens. (Maybe though he just has a big nose and small ears.)

What I perceive to be the physical constraints of the lighting setup simply re-inforce my ideas about focal lengths.

(Perhaps the OP could chime in with the relevant information? He seems to be friends with five of the photographer's assistants.)

 

[FingerPainter]

So you are basing your judgement to a large degree on the lighting?

No, primarily my judgement is based on a sense of how close the photographer is to the subject. I get this sense from looking at the pictures and comparing them with my knowledge of what people look like in real life at various distances.

The judgement comes from an (unconscious) analysis of the relationship between the subject's bodily features. So in the picture of the guy with the red tie, his ears look really small compared to his nose. This suggests a wide angle lens. (Maybe though he just has a big nose and small ears.)

Ah, OK. I'm doing roughly the same thing and reaching different conclusions. I also am basing it on experience looking at portraits taken from specific distances and calculating the focal length needed to get the framing from that distance.

ATM I have no compelling reasons to believe either of us is more likely to be correct. I am open to the possibility that I am overestimating the amount of distortion I would see at short distances. So I tested myself and do see a tendancy to overestimate shooting distance by a little bit. Here's an example:

What focal length and/or shooting distance do you think that is taken with?

What I perceive to be the physical constraints of the lighting setup simply re-inforce my ideas about focal lengths.

(Perhaps the OP could chime in with the relevant information? He seems to be friends with five of the photographer's assistants.)

Would be nice, if he could get the info.

 

[elliotn]

At least 85mm. Perhaps 135mm?

 

[FingerPainter]

At least 85mm. Perhaps 135mm?

Now you're doing it too!

70mm at 1.2m.

I thought it looked longer too.

I picked it because I thought the nose to neck looked similar to a photo you thought was taken with a wide lens.

It's not easy, is it?

 

[itsDing]

I do not know of this chap Noles or his work. From what I have seen here I am not impressed. Find a style of your own.

 

[Don89]

I do not know of this chap Noles or his work. From what I have seen here I am not impressed. Find a style of your own.

Yep. The more I look the less I like these photos. Folks - should always look at a style they like (which OP has that right) but yet improve on it.

 

[d750guy]

I do not know of this chap Noles or his work. From what I have seen here I am not impressed. Find a style of your own.

what a dumb thing to say. The best way to learn lighting is to mimic work you admire. You learn the nuances of lighting without the hours of trial and error. Let the original artist put in that work. lol. Guess which one I am. LOL!

 

[itsDing]

Dumb thing to say eh! The best way to learn is read the books watch tutorials, learn about modifiers, learn posing, etc. Go to workshops etc, then see others style of work and see what you can accomplish. Chances are you will have a different personality than other photographers and you will have to find your own way of relating to your subjects and getting the expressions you want. A steep learning curve.

 

[d750guy]

Dumb thing to say eh! The best way to learn is read the books watch tutorials, learn about modifiers, learn posing, etc. Go to workshops etc, then see others style of work and see what you can accomplish. Chances are you will have a different personality than other photographers and you will have to find your own way of relating to your subjects and getting the expressions you want. A steep learning curve.

Who said anything about personality, relating to subject and expression?? The question is about learning lighting, this thread is about lighting, this subform is lighting. What the bloody hell are you talking about? LOL!