Portraiture - Request for Review/Assistance

[bmattock]

Hey all,

Once again, I ask for your assistance - and of course this is totally off-topic, since I did not use a rangefinder for this exercise.

But I tried to put together a web page showing my complete failure as a portraitist so far, and I would appreciate if any of you have the time to take a quick look at it and offer your harshest criticism. I would sincerely appreciate it, since you know I have that wedding shoot and bride portrait coming up soon.

http://www.cameramentor.com/portrait_tests/

Thanks again, very much!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[Kris]

Disclaimer: I'm no way an expert so don't take what I write here seriously.

Bill, your house is not crooked. The tilt is there because your lens axis is not perfectly perpendicular to the wall. Similar to tilting the camera up to take photo of tall building but in your case, it's horizontally.

Lighting-wise, I'm not really fond of very diffused light. I prefer dominant light source from the side; a bit in front or behind the subject. To my eyes, side lighting creates better impression that the subject is in three dimension, not a flat poster. Don't know if you understand what I mean.

Example: lighting ratio 4:1 (two stops).

[back alley]

bill,
my 2 cents, for what it's worth.

first, don't use a tripod, hold the camera in your hand and engage your subject.
talk to her/them. they need to feel comfortable. make it like it was happening in your kitchen.

don't get to complicated with the lighting. use butterfly lighting. 2 lights at equal distance from subject and in the front of and off to the sides of your subject. use equal light intensity or for some drama use a 1 to 2 light ratio.

i wish i had a medium format scanner so i could show some examples.

i'll look for some prints to scan.

oh, 35 mm is just fine for portraits.

joe

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by Kris

Disclaimer: I'm no way an expert so don't take what I write here seriously.

Well, I appreciate any advice, so don't worry about me taking it too seriously!

Bill, your house is not crooked. The tilt is there because your lens axis is not perfectly perpendicular to the wall. Similar to tilting the camera up to take photo of tall building but in your case, it's horizontally.

Ah, just so! You're right, my camera was not at 90 degrees to the fireplace! Thanks!

Lighting-wise, I'm not really fond of very diffused light. I prefer dominant light source from the side; a bit in front or behind the subject. To my eyes, side lighting creates better impression that the subject is in three dimension, not a flat poster. Don't know if you understand what I mean.

I'm trying really hard to understand. I mean, I can tell what's different about the photo you posted - it looks like the subject is facing strong light, with a bit coming from the camera area. Am I wrong? I have been told that diffused light is better for subjects who who do not possess, shall we say, young tight skin without blemishes or wrinkles. But please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Example: lighting ratio 4:1 (two stops).

I'm not sure what the ratio expresses. Could you elucidate?

Thanks!

Bill Mattocks

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by backalley photo

bill,
my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
first, don't use a tripod, hold the camera in your hand and engage your subject.
talk to her/them. they need to feel comfortable. make it like it was happening in your kitchen.
don't get to complicated with the lighting. use butterfly lighting. 2 lights at equal distance from subject and in the front of and off to the sides of your subject. use equal light intensity or for some drama use a 1 to 2 light ratio.
i wish i had a medium format scanner so i could show some examples.
i'll look for some prints to scan.
oh, 35 mm is just fine for portraits.
joe

Joe,

Thanks as always! What's butterfly lighting? Tripod bad? I'm hoping to use 6x6 and 6x7 when it comes time to do the 'real' portraits, hard to walk about wtih the 4x5 cast-iron WWII special! Can you give me some more understanding of the 'ratios' you're talking about?

Thanks!

Bill

[FrankS]

I've said this before: natural light, camera on a tripod, 400 speed film, 1/30sec, f4, photographer stands beside window with bride facing them 6 to 8 feet away. If there are 2 windows, the photographer can stand between them and the bride can face towards one of the windows. Please just try it.

Also be very aware of what's showing in the background. Try not to show 1/2 of something, like the clock. Either it's in or it's out of the frame.

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by FrankS

I've said this before: natural light, camera on a tripod, 400 speed film, 1/30sec, f4, photographer stands beside window with bride facing them 6 to 8 feet away. If there are 2 windows, the photographer can stand between them and the bride can face towards one of the windows. Please just try it.

Also be very aware of what's showing in the background. Try not to show 1/2 of something, like the clock. Either it's in or it's out of the frame.

Frank,

I will try your advice, I hadn't forgotten it. In this case, although it was a bright day, there was no way I was going to get 1/30 and f4 with natural light only, and I only barely got one extra stop from my silly little continous light fixtures. What I did not try was taking the photo from the window, but I will try that, I promise.

As to the background...yes, I was very aware of it at all times. In 'real life' I would have cropped judiciously. Also, I spent the morning trying to build a frame to hold my new black velvet curtain (which I want to use as a background). But I misunderestimated my PVC abilities, and it fell down and went boom. So, I'll have to try that one again later in the week.

But you're quite right about the background, of course! I wanted to present an unmolested view for the sake of honest appraisal here.

Best,

Bill Mattocks

[back alley]

bill,

here are some bad flatbed scans of some old work prints (yes, from a wet darkroom)
for some reason the faces are all darker in the scanned image.

butterfly lighting is what karsh used. 2 lights in front of and off to the side of the subject.
1 to 2 ratio is the power ratio, one light is 2x as strong as the other.
equal power makes for easier light to work in/with.

joe

[Kris]

Bill, to conceal skin blemishes, I would use a softener filter or an old lens rather than using flat lighting. Even with diffused light you will still see skin texture (not always bad) it's just not as pronounced as if you use strong light source.

Lighting ratio 4:1 (two stops) means if you take incident light reading on her right cheek and her left cheek, the difference will be two stops (rougly) i.e. one light is 4x as strong as the other.

For that photo, the main light comes from a 500W spotlight at 2 o'clock, 40° up from horizontal. The other light, on her right cheek, comes from my flashgun set to FEC (Flash Exposure Compensation) -1.0.

With my EOS3, it's easy to do: aperture priority, dial EC +1.3, spot meter her left cheek, AE-Lock, dial FEC -1.0, FEL (flash exposure lock) her right cheek, , focus, compose, shoot.

Sounds like a lot of step but it's fast in real life.

[bmattock]

Joe,

Thank you for posting those scanned prints! I think I see what you mean!

Bill

[back alley]

i wish the scans were better. even with being only work prints, the originals have way more detail and tonal gradation. and in the first one, his head doesn't look like it's in the shadows.

i can see why people use film scanners and photo shop.

joe

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by Kris

Bill, to conceal skin blemishes, I would use a softener filter or an old lens rather than using flat lighting. Even with diffused light you will still see skin texture (not always bad) it's just not as pronounced as if you use strong light source.

Well, the lens I used is about 50 years old. Is that 'old'? LOL

Lighting ratio 4:1 (two stops) means if you take incident light reading on her right cheek and her left cheek, the difference will be two stops (rougly) i.e. one light is 4x as strong as the other.

Gotcha, thanks!

For that photo, the main light comes from a 500W spotlight at 2 o'clock, 40° up from horizontal. The other light, on her right cheek, comes from my flashgun set to FEC (Flash Exposure Compensation) -1.0.

I think I understand.

With my EOS3, it's easy to do: aperture priority, dial EC +1.3, spot meter her left cheek, AE-Lock, dial FEC -1.0, FEL (flash exposure lock) her right cheek, , focus, compose, shoot.

Sounds like a lot of step but it's fast in real life.

Well, no gots ETTL or anything like it. I dig TTL metering, but everything else I have is manual focus and manual everthing else. Not even AE if I can help it. I know ETTL is way cool, but I need to understand the basics and I'm afraid I won't bother if I can just let the camera do the heavy lifting. In any case, no way will I ever buy an EOS or any modern camera - just my thing, ya know. I might buy a Digital Rebel someday, but only if I can turn all the auto stuff off. I know, I know, I'm weird. But it ain't a gonna change.

But I truly appreciate all the great advice on the light placement and metering and so on!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by backalley photo

i wish the scans were better. even with being only work prints, the originals have way more detail and tonal gradation. and in the first one, his head doesn't look like it's in the shadows.

i can see why people use film scanners and photo shop.

joe

Well, lemme ask you this, Joe. Do any of my portaits look like they weren't made by a high school junior for the school newspaper? Did you like the look of any of them, or am I on the totally wrong track?

Thanks,

Bill

[FrankS]

Bill, if you are going to use artificial light, a large diffused light is the most forgiving. I have a white photographic umbrella that I use with a strong flash. I set up this one light source just to the side of the camera, (my shoulder can touch the umbrella), and its height is slightly above the subjects eyes.(no more than 1 foot higher, or the eye sockets become shadowed.) I adjust the camera exposure and the strength of the one flash so that it is 1 stop brighter than the ambient light of the room. The ambient room light is a fill light to lighten any shadow areas, and the flash into umbrella is my mainlight. The higher or more to the side the main light goes, the more dramatic the lighting, which for a bride is not that desireable. (generally speaking) A softbox also works but is more expensive than an umbrella. My umbrella is about 40" in diameter.

[back alley]

the best ones seem to be with continuous light and a bit of side lighting.

working with continuous light is easiest for a studio beginner.

if i were you i would head to the closest best camera store and buy...

2 light stands, 2 bowl reflectors and 4 light bulbs. tungsten or the colour corrected ones if you plan on shooting colour.

for practice, set up both lights, equal distance from your subject.

IN A DARK ROOM, maybe at night, turn on one light. and just look at your subject.
then have your subject turn in phases, slowly and watch what the light does.
then start moving the light, subject stays still.

just look.

then add the second light. repeat the above, moving just one light.
then move one light back so that it's twice the distance from your subject as the other light.
just look again.

remember, it's the light stoopid!

joe

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by FrankS

Bill, if you are going to use artificial light, a large diffused light is the most forgiving. I have a white photographic umbrella that I use with a strong flash. I set up this one light source just to the side of the camera, (my shoulder can touch the umbrella), and its height is slightly above the subjects eyes.(no more than 1 foot higher, or the eye sockets become shadowed.) I adjust the camera exposure and the strength of the one flash so that it is 1 stop brighter than the ambient light of the room. The ambient room light is a fill light to lighten any shadow areas, and the flash into umbrella is my mainlight. The higher or more to the side the main light goes, the more dramatic the lighting, which for a bride is not that desireable. (generally speaking) A softbox also works but is more expensive than an umbrella. My umbrella is about 40" in diameter.

That's very cool information, thank you! I've been looking at these types of kits. The biggest problem is, as soon as you accept that 'well, this would be nice, and doesn't cost that much more' then you set foot on that slippery slope and end up spending five large for a 'starter kit'. Yikes. My budget is more like 200 bucks.

Bill

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by backalley photo

the best ones seem to be with continuous light and a bit of side lighting.

working with continuous light is easiest for a studio beginner.
if i were you i would head to the closest best camera store and buy...
2 light stands, 2 bowl reflectors and 4 light bulbs. tungsten or the colour corrected ones if you plan on shooting colour.
for practice, set up both lights, equal distance from your subject.
IN A DARK ROOM, maybe at night, turn on one light. and just look at your subject.
then have your subject turn in phases, slowly and watch what the light does.
then start moving the light, subject stays still.
just look.
then add the second light. repeat the above, moving just one light.
then move one light back so that it's twice the distance from your subject as the other light.
just look again.
remember, it's the light stoopid!
joe

Joe,

Thanks, that's kind of where I'm heading. I really appreciate it! By the way, you're very gentle - it's ok to say they all suck, ya know. I can take it and I'd rather know than not!

Best,

Bill

[doubs43]

Bill, I want to echo Frank's comments about the background. The first thing I noticed - and I do mean the first thing - was the mantle piece cutting across the back of your subject's head. The brick (out of focus) would be fine or curtains as long as the slit between panels wasn't there or a bare wall. Try to use an aperture large enough to throw the background well out of focus.

Play around with the lighting and you'll soon see what works and what doesn't.

I have faith in ya! You'll do just fine.

Walker

[felipe]

Bill,

what Frank said.. If you don't feel comfortable with the lights in a way like you know what results you will get from doing this and that, don't use them.

I had a quite similar experience to what you will be doing last nov. when asked to do a CD cover/booklet shoot for a group of young vocalists. I planned it very carefully, borrowed lighting/studio equipment from a friend et..

I ended up having 30 minutes to set up lights, place softboxes, mount a backdrop and do the shoot in a house I didn't know with people I didn't know - except for the colored fella due to a "slight" organisational error on their part, they "forgot" to tell me they'd be doing another concert the day of the shooting and the shooting would conequently have to be moved to 8 o'clock in the evening just before the 2nd concert.
No comment on how I felt..

What I did was skip everything, (as I didn't feel comfortable using the lights with the low ceiling they had there anyway, and since apparently they didn't tidy up the floor I let go of the backdrop idea too..) pack out the backup cameras (my Mamiya 6 and my M4-P), a monopod, and shoot through as many rolls as possible.
Eventually this also turned out to be a very good idea as they had to leave 10 minutes early.

The first minutes of the "shoot" were literally HELL and my body politely made it clear he'd rather be down there than doing this job by making me sweat like a pig.
The group were focussed on the concert already in a very anxious, tied up "just do what you're paid for!" kind of way, so I even made some very unfunny jokes about this and that, which to no suprise hit on a welcoming wall of ice.

I kept on poking wholeheartedly though, and it paid of. I had half of them when I accidentaly fell over some books lying on the floor, and eventually they all warmed some more when I started talking about food.

I guess it wasn't the hardest part to "crack the ice" since I was on average only 2yrs older, but it wasn't easy either. Painting my nose red and farting would have probably achieved faster results though.

What I have learned:
- The most important thing is to make the subject feel comfortable and/or secure no questions asked. It is frustrating and often wasted effort to shoot grumpy or anxious people, and will most definetly show in the results.
Also, a camera can be very intimidating, especially if the shutter sounds like a hunting rifle (mamiya RZ)

- Talking helps: Most people like talking, some like listening, but I haven't experienced one person who wants/enjoys total silence during a shoot. (but mind the memorial services, very quiet stuff )
People like to laugh, and photographers do, too!

- without a handheld lightmeter, I could have gone home right away. The averaging function as well as reliable spotmetering has proven to be invaluable there, as my brain was working on full auto anyway entertaining the "audience"

- mind harsh lightsources from below or above the subject at close distance (that is except if ya know what you're doing)
This was almost unavoidable in my situation, so if you only got an ugly ceiling light as a main light source make them raise their heads slightly to avoid the "Addams family' look.. recessed eyes and shadows beginning under the eyebrows.
You wrote on your test shots site you already had the pleasure of experiencing this firsthand so you shouldn't have any problems since you know how to avoid it...



I interned at a studio/location photographer/graphic bureau for 9 months and they taught me more than I could keep in mind but here are some things that might further help you:

- different skin tones and especially differently colored/contrasty clothing have to be handled with GREAT care and consideration, especially when using direct lighting. Different fabrics reflect/absorb light differently and as a rule of thumb, dark clothing should be placed closer to the lightsource as it eats up/absorbs more light..

- Whether you use diffused lighting or direct lighting is a matter of preference but definetly dependant on both the subject and what look you want to achieve. Generally speaking, diffused low contrast lighting is often more flattering for female subjects or kids, while contrasty direct light makes them, well I guess more contrasty

- The number of lights you decide to place is also a matter of preference, FWIW I was always told only to add more lights if for a good reason. I was amazed on what a difference one light source vs. a soft box/reflector can make if used accordingly.

- Reflecting lights were a huge issue in the studio, and the make up artists were underpaid for the help they'd do.
reflecting fabrics I've already mentioned, reflecting eyes shouldn't be much of a problem if you don't put a 1000W spot within arms lenght, but I learnt the hard way that different types of skin are reflecting light differntly at best, more unpleasingly at worst. You can compensate for that by moving arround the subject/lights but group shots may need a make up artist or some powder.

- Placing the lights can be very difficult with limited space/ressources and sometimes skipping them wholy isn't the worst thing to do, especially on location. Don't underestimate everyday "ressources" like white walls, ceilling, floor, linen, clothing (brides dress!), curtains, sand, water etc...

- Choosing on which type of light to use is a tough decission as available light can't unfortunately be relied upon in most places. As with most things, it's always nice to have a backup plan! Available light would always be my first choice, and you will have a hard time reproducing its look and qualities in a studio, and even more in "normal" rooms with few space.
If the weather allows and you have slightly overcast sky or indirect sun, I'd place the couple half way aside the window maybe one meter next to the curtains, maybe! drop a medium softbox facing the window/couple's shoulders on the floor or onto a chair, and maybe! if the outside light is already fading or its raining buckets I'd place a spot or strobex with a silver or even white umbrella diffusor in some 2-4m distance as high as you can put it facing the couples front-right side. (If the contrast's too hard even with the softbox)

- Since you will be using at least 6x7 you will already know this, the larger negative often makes for a nicer tone, better shadow detail yadayada..

- forgot this when mentioning the reflective surface thing:
b carefull using a spotmeter on tanned skin, and if the groom is sweating badly don't spot meter his forehead


I'll add the things I don't remember ATM later, hope you are able to fish out the interesting parts..

P.S.: Having said that, a 4x5 and a full fledged lighting set up may deliver what the clients want, but I would at least have a 35mm loaded with something liike fuji 800 or portra or even Acros/TX handy and snap away happily without worrying too much about strobes, flash, using only vailalbe light. Often those shots turn out to be keepers because of their natural authenticity and honesty ...


sorry for the typos it's half past 5 in the morning

Enjoy you shoot and best of luck to you Bill!

cheers
Phil

[Wayne R. Scott]

Bill,

You are asking about light, so here are some of the things I think about when lighting a subject (victim).

What are some of the properties of light?

1. It has direction.
2. It has intensity.
3. It has color.
4. It has a source, large or small this is relative to the distance from the subject.
5. It can be harsh or soft.
6. Light is additive.

To help you understand some of the properties of light take a hand held torch (flashlight) and point it at metallic chrome reflective surface, (I use the side of our toaster in the kitchen). Hold the light an inch from the reflective surface and observe the size and intensity of the light spot on the metal. Now slowly move the light away from the surface and observe how the size and intensity changes as you move away. Very quickly your light will become just a tiny pin point of “hard light”.

Your Vivitar flash is a tiny pin point of light when used to photograph people. So, by adding a stoffen omni-bounce or any other diffusion device to your portable flash all you have done is to effectively reduce its light out put power by about 1 to 2 f stops . You don’t need to do that.

Lighting ratios. If your fill light is set at say f2.8 (let’s call that one unit of light) This fill can be existing light or light that you are supplying. The fill light is set up to illuminate all of the subject as viewed from the camera. Now your main light is set at f4.0 that is 1 stop more powerful than the fill light, (lets call that 2 units of light) and is set so that it is at a height and angle to illuminate just a portion of the subject. That portion of the subject would get 2 units of light right? Nope!!! It gets the one unit from the fill plus the 2 units of light from the main light for a total of 3 units of light. The dark side away from the main light gets the 1 unit of light from the fill source. Lighting ratio would be 3:1 not 2:1. Light is additive.

By the way, this lighting ratio would be very effective for your bridal portraits and is pretty safe, not very dramatic but will keep you out of hot water.

I have attached an example of a single light source photo. The light source is a single mono-light shot through a home made diffusion panel 2 foot by six foot in size. The panel is almost touching the child just out of view camera left. Notice the mother's left check and how the highlight gradually turns into shadow. There is no distinct hard edged transiton of light to shadow. This is what a diffused light source will do for you. Note that this is in effect a very large light source 2'x6'.

It is late and I am going to be rambling here a bit. I think you have too many light sources in your examples and do not have control over any of them. With out a modeling light on your flash you can not have a pre-visualized idea of the outcome.

Camera Position. I think that your camera position is too low in your examples. The lens axis needs to be slightly above the eyes of your subject. I also think that the focal length of the lens looks to be that of a normal lens, it should be a bit longer for head and shoulders shots. 85mm to 135mm in 35mm cameras, 135mm to 180mm in medium format, and 240mm to about 300mm in 4x5.

This is not all. I commend you for experimenting before the photo session and not afterwards.

I will give you a couple of websites later when I recall them.

Wayne

[Roman]

My comments:
-) Open up at least two more stops - the background is much to focussed and is really distracting.
-) Frank has got it right - you need ONE stronger lightsource (and that could very well be your Vivtar 285, maybe hooked up parallel to a second, similar type of flash, or one of those lamp-socket slave flash thingies you mentioned previously)), slightly of axis and slightly above eye-level, and diffused (you are shooting a bride - she should look all bright and fluffy and warm, etc., not contrasty and sinister, with lots of strong shadows on her face) - if you don't have a white umbrella that you could fix to the tripod (if you don't want to buy a special device for that, just use duct tape!), just shoot through some white silk or whatever you have; forget about the hairlight, without modelling lights it is very hard to judge the results, just have an assistant (i.e. your wife) hold a reflector (i.e. a large piece of white styrofoam or cardboard) to get some light onto the hair.
I have plenty of pics I took of my clients with a setup like that, but unfortunately I am not allowed to show those publicly (it is against the privacy rules in our organization) - I asked the friend who I did the light for for shooting a book cover, to send me that image, because unfortunately I don't have it on my computer, but I will post it if he sends it to me - that pic. was shot exactly with a setup like I mentioned...

Roman

[Pherdinand]

Bill - i don't know much about lighting setups, BUT, on photo.net lighting forum there are/were posts called "Weekly lioghtingtechniques" or something like that (look for "Weekly" and all-capitals titles) from pro people which i have found very very very good and practical. Illustrated, of course. Many of them talk about amateur possibilities; many of them have lotsa contributions from different people.

[FrankS]

Wayne's post is worth a re-read. Good stuff there.

[bmattock]

Thanks, all! I have actually gone through and printed out all your responses, and will be reading them most voraciously!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[bmattock]

Purchased:

1 Hama HAMCA3 Multi-Sync (PC 3x) Adapter
2 General Brand GBPCPCC15 PC Male to PC Female Coiled Cord - 15'
1 Paterson PAIU39T Umbrella, White Translucent - 39"
2 Impact IMLS6B Light Stand - 6'- Black
2 Impact IMBSM Umbrella Bracket
1 SP-Systems SP72PCT 72 AC Strobe, PC
2 Kodak KOP80036 Portra-800 135-36 Professional Color Print Film
2 Ilford ILD320036 Delta-3200 Professional 135-36 Black & White Print Film
2 Ilford ILD40036 Delta-400 Professional 135-36 Black & White Print Film
5 Kodak KOP400NC120P Portra-400NC 120 Professional Color Print Film
5 Kodak KOP160NC36PP Portra-160NC 135-36 Professional Color Print Film
10 Kodak KOP400NC36PP Portra-400NC 135-36 Professional Color Print Film

I'm not done yet, still mulling over the continuous lighting situation - I agree that it is easier for a newb like me to control when I can 'see' what's happening (and can't afford strobes w/good modeling lights built in). Still, I think most of this kit will be able to see me through for awhile until I outgrow it - or discover that I really stink on ice. The film is already paid for by the client, so it really wasn't too expensive (I keep telling myself).

Thanks again for EVER BUDDY'S advice! I truly appreciate it! I know that the solution to the problem is less about equipment and more about skill - like most things. But I *do* need *some* equipment...I hope I've chosen wisely.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks