Portrait lighting help

[Paul Lange]

I've been busy buying some budget lighting gear. At the moment I have a Metz 48AF1 Flash, 2 old Miranda Flashes, some umbrellas, stands, DIY snoot, DIY ice cream tub softbox, wireless triggers and various bits of plastic etc to tape over the flashguns to effect the light.

These pics were my first attempt and while much better that camera mounted flash I'm still having trouble. The main problem seems to be shadows cast by the nose and hair and I think that maybe the light is a bit to strong as well.

I've cropped some just to focus on the face, not really thought about the composition on the crops but they should be OK just for helpful comments.

Oh yeah, I have realised that I really should comb the hair of the subject especially when using a hair light and also making sure there are no dog hairs on clothing!

 

[Hamish Gill]

The first one is really good mate!
The second and third are a little dark to my eye
The rest are pretty decent
My first pointer would be to watch the light on the hair, it's a little bright! It's also a bit far round the back to be doing the job of highlighting the hair ... Does that make sense?

 

[Paul Lange]

Cheers mate, What about the shadow cast by the hair. It seems like a problem to me, how do I get rid of it?

I know what you mean about the hair light, it shouldn't be directly behind the subject. Didn't think of that, will have to give it a shot (pun intended).

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Paul - which flash units did you have where on each shot - can you describe the layout?

i.e. main flash to the right with fill on the left etc etc

expect your shadow issue can be fixed with a little more tweaking on main and fill flash level balancing

 

[Paul Lange]

I don't have a flash meter and the older flashguns don't have variable power. I had to wing it a bit by moving the flashes and putting opaque bits of plastic over them. I'd guess this is the first issue.

From my perspective the main light was just to my right about 2 meters up and bouncing off a silver umbrella. The fill light was to my left and about level with the subject, it was shooting through a white umbrella. The silver reflector was on the right, level with the subject and at her head height. Hopefully the fill light was 1 stop less than the main. The hair light was directly behind her head and was probably at least a stop more than the main.

 

[Hamish Gill]

If I were you Paul I'd cut the amount of lights down to 2 ... There is a danger of over complicating these things and getting your self in a fuss ... I do it all the time in the studio!

The best method IMO to learn these things is - especially with digital where you can see the effect of each photo - is to start with one light move it up and down and around the front of the subject until you are happy ...
There is no reason you can't take a flattering and good photo with one light ...
Then add lights where required, if required...
Simplicity is often key, but it also helps in the learning process ...
You might luck on the perfect 4 light and reflector layout, but if you haven't worked out every step to get there you are less likely to remember it for a repeat shot ...
I am the worst for ignoring this advice ... But I do think it makes sense in the long run!

 

[Pete Askew]

I agree with Hamish. Even though I used 3 heads in the monochrome shot we were discussing I actually like 1 light and a reflector or two. I'm also not a big fan of hair lights (unless you're lighting hair of course!). A relatively soft light above front and to one side or another and a reflector throwing light into the other side and one throwing light up to dampen shadows can produce some nice results. One of the big problems with flash of course can be depth of field - too much. So you end up with background sharp and too much detail where you don't want it. Two obvious solutions are to use a white background and light it burn out detail or force it into deep shadow (as I did). Or, of course, use a complex, blurry pattern or have it a very long way away (not practical in most homes and many studios). From your shots I think you have got number 4 pretty well lit apart from the hair ( a crop will get rid of most of the fly-away though). What setup did you use for that? Was it exactly the same as the others? I guess the angle of the model to the light was more direct in the case of the fill light and therefore you had better control of the shadows.

 

[Paul Lange]

Really useful advice guys, thanks. I tried again tonight with less lights but couldn't get it right. I'm going to try to get a basic flash meter on Ebay. I've ordered some ND gels to control the flash gun outputs on the older non adjustable guns which should come soon.

Number four had the same set up explained but I think the fill was quite close so it came out a bit lighter than the main.

 

[Hamish Gill]

What are the other flashes you use
Manual ones with power down to 1/64 power are readily available very cheaply and will increase the repeatability of what your doing
I'd get lights you can control before you get the thing to tell you what to set them to and your camera to using a meter .. Does that make sense
Just my opinion of course

(btw the turn table is working fine - sounds ok to )

 

[Paul Lange]

Yeah, I know I should get some flashes with adjustable settings. I might get flash guns or a small studio kit, haven't decided yet.

Had a thought though, I know the guide numbers of the flashes and I have just done a quick check and it seems shooting through the white umbrella looses a stop. Bouncing off the silver umbrella set about 1/2 a meter away from the flash looses 2 stops. I could work out what happens with the other bits I have and have a pretty good idea what's going on if I engage my brain.

Am I right in assuming that the GN is based on 100 ASA and 1/60 of a second?

 

[Hamish Gill]

That sentence didn't make sense did it ...
A flash meter will tell you what the camera should be set to based on the light from the flashes
Useful for efficiency, but nothing that you can't do already just by looking at the results and experimenting a bit ...
Experimenting is what will help in the long run ...
... Is that a bit clearer?

 

[Hamish Gill]

Yeah, I know I should get some flashes with adjustable settings. I might get flash guns or a small studio kit, haven't decided yet.

Had a thought though, I know the guide numbers of the flashes and I have just done a quick check and it seems shooting through the white umbrella looses a stop. Bouncing off the silver umbrella set about 1/2 a meter away from the flash looses 2 stops. I could work out what happens with the other bits I have and have a pretty good idea what's going on if I engage my brain.

Am I right in assuming that the GN is based on 100 ASA and 1/60 of a second?

I think you might be over complicating things for your self mate ...

 

[Paul Lange]

Reading on this further it seemed that every photographer does the mental maths with the guide numbers, is it not the case? My mental maths is not great but its something even I can do easily.

RE the flashes I have confirmed my suspicions at it seems that I just need to wire in a 50K pot in place of the thrysistor to give variable output. I just cant resist such a little project especially when it has the potential to make a couple of flashguns I got for £10 something that will always be worthwhile keeping even if I upgrade to better stuff.

 

[Hamish Gill]

That does sound fun!

I cant speak for everyone else but I have never walked around with guide numbers in my head ... I dot even know what the guide number of my flash is

With my lights I just think of everything in stops and fractions of stops
I start with the aperture I want to shoot at, then adjust the lights around that ...
I have never known if anything I do is the right way when it comes to photography ... Just my way ... Especially with artificial lighting!

 

[Paul Lange]

Well to be fair Hamish you know a lot more about it than I so if it works it must be a valid way. For me once I started to think about the guide numbers and distances and the fstop that I calculated in my head it become very obvious what I was doing wrong the other night. The logic just seemed to click into place and it all made sense. Also I can be a bit of a nerd at times and the relationship of guide numbers, distances and stops all become interesting, it's worn off now though.

 

[Pete Askew]

In the days before automatic flash (let alone TTL flash metering) and when flash meters were only used in the studio (I still have my Bowens Flash Meter SSR Mk II - http://www.mwclassic.com/acatalog/45304L.jpg), the only real way to work out the exposure using portable flash was GN, distance and aperture. In some specialised types of photography they are still used such as in certain types of macro-photography and in caving - where flash bulbs are still sometimes used and, in this instance, there is only one chance (and not a pre-flash in sight!!). It can also be useful in night photography where you want to wander around a scene and fire a flash in certain locations. But, as you say Hamish, the GN is often hidden away in the spec. sheets somewhere (if you are lucky) and irrelevant in most instances as the sensor of the gun or the TTL system in the camera does all of the hard work (and you can check the final result instantly if you are shooting digitally). It does help to understand power ratios though sometimes and if you want to use multiple flashes to increase / achieve the exposure you need.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Cheers for the clarification pete ...
i was beginning to wonder just how "wrong" i was doing things
i have used flash meters before and they are useful, but however wrong or right i do what i do i find them an unnecessary step ...
i take a photo in my studio and its on the pc screen and in lightroom in a matter of seconds
i can check for clipping in lightroom, and then just judge by eye if i want to adjust a light down or up
im not saying its the right way to do it ... but i find it works well for me.

I sometimes use a light meter outside of the studio though ... i have a lovely western master 5 with an invacone that is useful in odd lighting situations for indecent reading ... but reasonably speaking its often not worth the bother! i sound so lazy dont i!!
But, we are not talking about slide film here are we ... we are talking about a digital camera, a high end one at that with vast dynamic range and shooting in RAW. the scope for correcting slightly off exposure in lightroom with that massive dynamic range and RAW is so huge it really negates the use of an external light meter i think!
This is all probably sacrilegious to some photographers, but as i have said a million times before, im not in to snobbery or being told/telling people how to do things ... i have found the way i work to work for me, im very happy to be given advice on how to improve and tell people how i do things in the hope it might help them... but im by no means saying im right!

 

[Pete Askew]

Certainly shooting digitally, especially tethered, makes a huge difference and the feedback you get is much more useful than a Polaroid! I still tend to meter setups first as I find it easier to adjust / move lights later on even when shooting tethered - but that's what I'm used to. With film of course you have to. I guess the most important thing, no matter how you achieve it, is to learn from experience and be able to repeat what you achieved or use it to base something new on. Whether that is by visual feedback or through a Zone System type approach really doesn't really matter too much but it is certainly nicer to work with an image than to fight with it when you get to PP!