....a few caveats of my own ... this pic was only intended to work
on light set-up and subject was not groomed or specially posed in
any way. Most of my time is spent trying to position subject so
Main light fully brightens the eyes. This is time consuming and
frustrating, but sometimes I win ... not in this one. The critique
stated: MAIN too large, too much FILL, ACCENT too bright & too low
.... end of caveats.
First, you need to be aware that there are a lot of people out
there who are quick to offer lighting advice - even though they
know less about the subject than you do.
Second, there are some very proficient lighting technicians out
there who think your pictures should look just like the pictures
they would take - and therefore should be lighted the same way.
In the end, you have only yourself who needs to be satisfied - and
your clients, if you have any. There are a hundred ways to light
every subject, and many different techniques can lead to pleasing
results. One problem is, the work you are producing now and are
delighted with now may look terrible to you at some point in the
future when you look back on it.
The sample picture you posted has lighting which looks fine, and
many photographers and clients would be pleased with the result.
However, if it was me shooting this scene, I would position the
accent light a little higher. In my opinion, the cat's fur appears
too low in contrast for my tastes, which indicates your main light
has too much diffusion. This may be what the other critic meant by
your main light being "too large."
The size of the light source, in relation to the subject, affects
only how sharply defined will be the shadow edge as the transition
is made between highlight and shadow. A small light source makes
the shadow edge appear as though it was painted on with a paint
brush, and has a sharply defined edge. A large light source makes
the shadow edge look like it was spray painted on - and has a more
gradual, gradient transition from highlight to shadow. But none of
this ( see footnote below) has anything to do with the low
contrast, "flat" appearance of the cat's fur. The contrast quality
of the light is regulated by the amount of diffusion, not by the
size of the light source.
For one thing, your sample image is slightly out of focus. Since
focusing accuracy also affects image contrast, it becomes more
difficult to suggest subtle changes in lighting technique. The
contrast of the image can be improved with post processing
techniques. Here I'm suggesting that if the image had been sharply
focused, and if the contrast had been optimized in post-processing
- then all of your lighting critics may have been silenced.
Large light sources do not work well in small rooms with white
ceilings, and nearby reflective walls. A large light source spills
a lot of light onto the ceiling, floor and walls of the room - all
of which reflects back onto the subject. The consequence is the
light source loses its directionality, and contrast quality to some
degree. With a low white ceiling and nearby white walls, you end
up with the "bare-bulb" effect. In other words, even though you
have thousands of dollars invested in monolights and softboxes, the
lighting effect looks the same as if you were using a single,
shoe-mount flash on-camera with a Sto-fen Omnibounce.
Large softboxes work well if you are shooting ski boats or bedroom
furniture suites for a catalog, and your lights are positioned 15
or 20 feet away from the subject. Large softboxes work well if
your ceiling and walls are painted black, so that the spill light
they emit can't reflect back onto the subject. If you insist on
using large softboxes within a small shooting space or camera room,
you must use grids to keep the spill light from bouncing off of the
ceiling and walls.
If you must shoot within a small, confined space (particularly if
it has a white ceiling), I suggest using smallish softboxes (with
grids) - and position them as close to your subject as you can get
them.
