Light too LARGE .... choices are .........

[TMacaw]

...............perhaps one of the dilemmas of wide range of pros and others on same Forum ... my small (15' x 20') studio places major limits on how far any light, background, camera, can be from my subjects. This is not anyone's problem but my own, but I still have to try to find the best ways to function.

My Main light must be low (subject height) for most pet portrait pics so the only direction I can go is straight back. With Main at apprx. 45 deg camera right, going back very far is not possible. This is why I struggle with SB size and possible masking, etc. I wish I could afford to try every possibility, including a grid on the reflector, but budget forces careful choices. My need for a silver SB interior also restricts choices.

I truly appreciate the help I get regularly here on LTF and I feel progress is being made. Every response is appreciated and they all add value even though it may not be at the present moment.
Many thanks
TMc.

 

[Bern Caughey]

there's no such thing as a "too large light". Want it smaller -
move it away. But why would you want it smaller??? Large lights
create gorgeous soft lighting. If it's too flat, move it more to
the side/top. Just learn how to use it effectively, and you will
produce beautiful photos.

Ever see a Hurrell or Watson photograph that used softlight? It's easier to use softlight, but how boring it would be if everyone did.

When you move a light closer or further away you'll change it's scale in relation to the subject, which will effect the specualrity, but you'll also change it's fall-off & contrast.

Beauty photography is often done with a 20 inch pan reflector (with deflector) used very close to the subject. At this distance the scale of the light is relatively large compared to the human face. But by keeping the light very close to the subject causes it to fall-off quickly & the light is contrasty. You cannot acheive this effect by using a large source further away & this is the primary reason why there are different size modifiers.

Regards,
Bern Caughey
--
APA/LA
http://www.apanational.org/

 

[TMacaw]

there's no such thing as a "too large light". Want it smaller -
move it away. But why would you want it smaller??? Large lights
create gorgeous soft lighting. If it's too flat, move it more to
the side/top. Just learn how to use it effectively, and you will
produce beautiful photos.

Ever see a Hurrell or Watson photograph that used softlight? It's
easier to use softlight, but how boring it would be if everyone did.

When you move a light closer or further away you'll change it's
scale in relation to the subject, which will effect the
specualrity, but you'll also change it's fall-off & contrast.

Beauty photography is often done with a 20 inch pan reflector (with
deflector) used very close to the subject. At this distance the
scale of the light is relatively large compared to the human face.
But by keeping the light very close to the subject causes it to
fall-off quickly & the light is contrasty. You cannot acheive this
effect by using a large source further away & this is the primary
reason why there are different size modifiers.

Regards,
Bern Caughey
--
APA/LA
http://www.apanational.org/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.....though it has not been in my area of interest (pet portraits), what is the sequence of MAIN/KEY light approaches you would expect to work best with my specific subjects? I am open to doing many pets over the longer term, but my learning curve focus is restricted to my captive companion pets (4 Macaws, 1 African Gray, 1 Amazon, ..... 3 long-haired cats [Persian, Himalyan, Maine Coon]). The issues I have been told to exploit are the specular characteristics of the parrot feathers, and the deep, dense, long fur of the cats. These are the factors that suggested small, hard, light.

My current list is: 1) Bare reflector (w/barndoors), 2) grid, 3) silver-lined, smaller softbox, 4) other??

I am using a shiny silver umbrella for Fill, and a bare reflector with barndoors directly overhead on boom arm for Accent.

I recall your earlier comments on softboxes and your preferences. I just do not know what is most likely to produce the bright, colorful and 'punchy' pics, with lots of contrast, that I am trying to achieve.
TMc

 

[MarkMcCombs]

this guy knows what he's talking about.

My suggestion for improving the lighting on the cat pic that you posted would be not to move your light to a greater angle, but to decrease the size of the light, as mentioned, and cut back on the "rim" light coming in from the back. We need to see some shine and texture in the fur. I don't know that you couldn't try barebulb on something like this; try it and see.

Good luck....

Mark

...............perhaps one of the dilemmas of wide range of pros
and others on same Forum ... my small (15' x 20') studio places
major limits on how far any light, background, camera, can be from
my subjects. This is not anyone's problem but my own, but I still
have to try to find the best ways to function.
My Main light must be low (subject height) for most pet portrait
pics so the only direction I can go is straight back. With Main at
apprx. 45 deg camera right, going back very far is not possible.
This is why I struggle with SB size and possible masking, etc. I
wish I could afford to try every possibility, including a grid on
the reflector, but budget forces careful choices. My need for a
silver SB interior also restricts choices.
I truly appreciate the help I get regularly here on LTF and I feel
progress is being made. Every response is appreciated and they all
add value even though it may not be at the present moment.
Many thanks
TMc.

 

[MarkMcCombs]

(NT)

 

[TMacaw]

(NT)

 

[Peter Berressem]

TMc,

whichever size you decide, I suggest to insist on a type with removable front diffusor , like the Chimera Pro series (silver lining) and other brands. This way you have the option for more specular highlights - as you intend - by using the sobo as a large reflector bowl, even with a textile grid / louvers, usable for more accuracy.
Nothing beats: the proof of the pudding is in the eating!

--
Kind regards,
Peter B.
(Pardon my English. Still practising)

 

[Oleg Kikin]

i'mjust curious - how large is that panel that you use? If it's smaller than 3 feet, it should be just fine.

---------------
http://www.olegkikin.com

 

[TMacaw]

i'mjust curious - how large is that panel that you use? If it's
smaller than 3 feet, it should be just fine.

---------------
http://www.olegkikin.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

.........53" wide x 70" tall. The recommended size was 40" wide, but PVC pipe is cheap and the white nylon ripstop was 60" overall ... then seams.
I can easily reduce it so now testing at 40" wide.
TMc

 

[TMacaw]

..........barndoors. I like this better than with diff. panel, but still not much 'punch'. Getting contrast to left side of face is probably not going to happen since there is no nose to help. Accent seems more pleasant (ND 2-stop in place). If I increase Main, or open aperture, the white front paw blows out. Aaaarrrggh .... so close in many respects.



Maybe different BG color and more light.

TMc

 

[TMacaw]

TMc,
whichever size you decide, I suggest to insist on a type with
removable front diffusor , like the Chimera Pro series (silver
lining) and other brands. This way you have the option for more
specular highlights - as you intend - by using the sobo as a large
reflector bowl, even with a textile grid / louvers, usable for more
accuracy.
Nothing beats: the proof of the pudding is in the eating!

--
Kind regards,
Peter B.
(Pardon my English. Still practising)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....the ones Amvona has started offering on eBay. I hope to get a 24" x 32" and it will have silver lining, removable front diffuser, plus a circle mask and strip mask. I really wish 16" x 22" would work for my small subjects and small studio, but I will not know for sure until I try one.
Thanks for staying with me on this.
TMc

 

[john g]

When you move a light closer or further away you'll change it's
scale in relation to the subject, which will effect the
specualrity, but you'll also change it's fall-off & contrast.

Beauty photography is often done with a 20 inch pan reflector (with
deflector) used very close to the subject. At this distance the
scale of the light is relatively large compared to the human face.
But by keeping the light very close to the subject causes it to
fall-off quickly & the light is contrasty. You cannot acheive this
effect by using a large source further away & this is the primary
reason why there are different size modifiers.

Regards,
Bern Caughey
--
APA/LA
http://www.apanational.org/

Well, finally, someone on this site who knows something about lighting.

The original poster's lighting is way off, and it might be difficult to really understand lighting without some kind of teaching or mentorship, or at least a clue as to what kind of light modifier to start with.

In his latest post, I'd say that his light modifier is too far away; it's sharp enough, but not contrasty enough, in other words, specularity. He's got a small soft light. It needs to be brought closer to increase specularity,the contrast of the light and the size is secondary after that.

Most lighting problems stem from looking in the wrong direction, instead of looking at the light modifier, one has to look at the set and the subject. That's 'where the rubber meets the road' and it doesn't matter what kind of car you're driving, vision and experiance counts more than access to equipment.

 

[TMacaw]

When you move a light closer or further away you'll change it's
scale in relation to the subject, which will effect the
specualrity, but you'll also change it's fall-off & contrast.

Beauty photography is often done with a 20 inch pan reflector (with
deflector) used very close to the subject. At this distance the
scale of the light is relatively large compared to the human face.
But by keeping the light very close to the subject causes it to
fall-off quickly & the light is contrasty. You cannot acheive this
effect by using a large source further away & this is the primary
reason why there are different size modifiers.

Regards,
Bern Caughey
--
APA/LA
http://www.apanational.org/

Well, finally, someone on this site who knows something about
lighting.

The original poster's lighting is way off, and it might be
difficult to really understand lighting without some kind of
teaching or mentorship, or at least a clue as to what kind of light
modifier to start with.

In his latest post, I'd say that his light modifier is too far
away; it's sharp enough, but not contrasty enough, in other words,
specularity. He's got a small soft light. It needs to be brought
closer to increase specularity,the contrast of the light and the
size is secondary after that.

Most lighting problems stem from looking in the wrong direction,
instead of looking at the light modifier, one has to look at the
set and the subject. That's 'where the rubber meets the road' and
it doesn't matter what kind of car you're driving, vision and
experiance counts more than access to equipment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems like I'm chasing a ghost ..... With pets (like this Persian cat) it seems that one requirement is to keep the light low or the eyes are shadowed and have no life. I've seen (few) pics that capture the life in the eyes, but also get some punch on the other head fur and on the body. So far I trade one for the other and overexposing the white highlights is a persistent problem. I hesitate to press for more help since the vast bulk of activity here on LTF is human portraits.

All I can do is keep experimenting with ratios, placement, and modifiers (as appropriate) until something good happens.
There are certainly some talented responders and their expertise is appreciated.
TMc

 

[Nabal]

..........barndoors. I like this better than with diff. panel, but
still not much 'punch'. Getting contrast to left side of face is
probably not going to happen since there is no nose to help. Accent
seems more pleasant (ND 2-stop in place). If I increase Main, or
open aperture, the white front paw blows out. Aaaarrrggh .... so
close in many respects.



Maybe different BG color and more light.

No, your background color is fine - perhaps ideal. The muted green color compliments the color of the cat's eyes, whereas about any other color would compete for viewer attention with the cat's eyes. I like the level of brightness you are using on the background. Again, if you make the background any brighter, it will compete for viewer attention with the cat's eyes.

And no, you don't want to put brighter light on the subject. This will accomplish nothing except forcing you to use a smaller lens aperture, and give you more depth of field. I think the depth of field is fine in this image, and it is about perfectly exposed - therefore the brightness of your main light is fine.

Image contrast, or "punch" as you call it, is defined by the degree of difference between the brightest highlights and the most dense shadows. If you have too much image contrast, you will lose visible detail in both the highlights and also the shadows. In this image, we see very bright highlights on the cat's paws, and there is still detail there. The shadows around the cat's paws and in the folds of the cloth the cat is laying on are dense and black, which is good. In summary, this image has about all the image contrast your camera is capable of capturing - and therefore it is probably futile to try to achieve more image contrast with lighting changes.

There are 2 issues here which keep this image from displaying the "punch" or "snap, crackle and pop" you are trying for. For one, all of the subject matter in this scene has a matte, non-reflective surface. The background is a muted shade of green and the cat is predominately gray - the whole scene shows a general lack of color, except for the cat's eyes, which in my opinion is a good thing. Gray is never going to be anything else but gray, no matter what kind of lighting you use. However, if you were to massage some light oil into the palms of your hands and then stroke it onto and comb it into the cat's fur - then the cat would light up like a Christmas tree.

The second issue is your post processing of the image. This image has a light, overall haziness - which is a product of the camera and not the lighting, and this lowers the image contrast. The haziness could be caused by lens flare, resulting from the accent light shining into your camera lens. But I doubt it, and think it's probably just the nature of the camera. I downloaded this image and applied the Local Area Contrast technique (USM 20/50/0), applied it twice, and it improved the contrast tremendously.

I would like to see a little more separation between the cat and the background. This can be achieved by lowering your accent light to produce a rim light effect, like you had in the first image - but less bright.

All in all, I think you've pretty well got your lighting, exposure and color balance nailed. If anything, you just need to work on your post-processing to get rid of that haze which is robbing you of the contrast you want.

 

[Mats Björnström]

no text

 

[TMacaw]

No, your background color is fine - perhaps ideal. The muted green
color compliments the color of the cat's eyes, whereas about any
other color would compete for viewer attention with the cat's eyes.
I like the level of brightness you are using on the background.
Again, if you make the background any brighter, it will compete for
viewer attention with the cat's eyes.

And no, you don't want to put brighter light on the subject. This
will accomplish nothing except forcing you to use a smaller lens
aperture, and give you more depth of field. I think the depth of
field is fine in this image, and it is about perfectly exposed -
therefore the brightness of your main light is fine.

Image contrast, or "punch" as you call it, is defined by the degree
of difference between the brightest highlights and the most dense
shadows. If you have too much image contrast, you will lose
visible detail in both the highlights and also the shadows. In
this image, we see very bright highlights on the cat's paws, and
there is still detail there. The shadows around the cat's paws and
in the folds of the cloth the cat is laying on are dense and black,
which is good. In summary, this image has about all the image
contrast your camera is capable of capturing - and therefore it is
probably futile to try to achieve more image contrast with lighting
changes.

There are 2 issues here which keep this image from displaying the
"punch" or "snap, crackle and pop" you are trying for. For one,
all of the subject matter in this scene has a matte, non-reflective
surface. The background is a muted shade of green and the cat is
predominately gray - the whole scene shows a general lack of color,
except for the cat's eyes, which in my opinion is a good thing.
Gray is never going to be anything else but gray, no matter what
kind of lighting you use. However, if you were to massage some
light oil into the palms of your hands and then stroke it onto and
comb it into the cat's fur - then the cat would light up like a
Christmas tree.

The second issue is your post processing of the image. This image
has a light, overall haziness - which is a product of the camera
and not the lighting, and this lowers the image contrast. The
haziness could be caused by lens flare, resulting from the accent
light shining into your camera lens. But I doubt it, and think
it's probably just the nature of the camera. I downloaded this
image and applied the Local Area Contrast technique (USM 20/50/0),
applied it twice, and it improved the contrast tremendously.

I would like to see a little more separation between the cat and
the background. This can be achieved by lowering your accent light
to produce a rim light effect, like you had in the first image -
but less bright.

All in all, I think you've pretty well got your lighting, exposure
and color balance nailed. If anything, you just need to work on
your post-processing to get rid of that haze which is robbing you
of the contrast you want.

--------------------------------------------------------
will look at the 'haze' issue a bit as well.
Many thanks.
TMc

 

[Bern Caughey]

Sorry I don't have time to read all the posts, but I would use a somewhat specular source to rake the fur/feathers with light in order to emphasis it's texture, then use another light or reflector to "catch the eyes" & if need be, fill.

Regards,
Bern Caughey
--
APA/LA
http://www.apanational.org/

 

[TMacaw]

Sorry I don't have time to read all the posts, but I would use a
somewhat specular source to rake the fur/feathers with light in
order to emphasis it's texture, then use another light or reflector
to "catch the eyes" & if need be, fill.

Regards,
Bern Caughey
--
APA/LA
http://www.apanational.org/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

..your time and expertise are much appreciated. This thought was gradually evolving since I do not want to give up on the eyes ... not much choice other than another light/reflector. Thanks for reinforcing this idea which I can now experiment with and enjoy.
Best regards,
TMc