Portrait Lighting

Reverse Engineering: Eyes (Catchlights)

2011-05-01T18:02:00.000-07:00

When you are trying to figure out how an image was lighted, eyes can provide useful clues. The front surface of the eye is reflective, so reflections of light sources, also known as catchlights, can usually be seen there. In addition, the eye surface is convex, providing a wide angle of view similar to that of a security mirror. Let's take a look at a few examples.

The above image, scanned from an old print, provides a good example of how smaller light sources are rendered as reflections in the eye. Click on the image to enlarge and examine the eyes. You will see two small white dots in both eyes, each one a specular reflection of a light source. The faint one at 11 o'clock was created by a 7 inch grid-covered strobe, and the one just below the center of the eye by a 16 inch reflector fitted with a diffusion cap. The grid spot was placed above and slightly to the subject's right and pointed downward. That is why its reflection is very high in the eye. The long shadow under the nose is another indicator of the grid spot's high position. The 16 inch strobe, which provided a generous overall fill lighting for the scene, was positioned back just below the camera. In this position, its catchlight is quite small and, as expected, appears just below the eye center. Had it been positioned closer, as for instance as a main light, its reflection would have appeared larger. You can expect other small light sources and larger sources placed far from the subject to create similar catchlights. Keep in mind that this image was lighted with additional sources placed behind the subject, but only the two in front the subject rendered as catchlights.

The image above shows the catchlights resulting from a large softbox placed close to the subject. The softbox catchlight rendered as a skewed trapezoid with a translucent quality. If you look closely, you can also see a reflection to the left of softbox catchlight from fill light bounced off the wall behind the camera. Large sources create large catchlights, and the closer the source, the larger the catchlight. The tranlucent quality of these larger reflections results from the distribution of light energy over a large diffuser surface. Reflections from a smaller sources with equivalent output will be commensurately brighter, as the same amount of energy must come from a smaller surface area. The skewed shape of the rectangular-softbox catchlight occurred because the softbox was not square to the subject, but extended from the just right of the subject's left ear back to the camera and was tilted downward slightly. Skewed rectilinear boundaries can tell you a lot about a source's position and inclination.

The final image in today's post is a small section scanned from an old executive portrait. You can use catchlights to gain insights into the lighting, but you can also be misled by them. This example demonstrates some of the limitations. Two catchlights per eye are clearly visible in this example. The one at one o'clock is from a 46" umbrella with a diffusion cover and the one near the eye center from a 60" umbrella behind the camera. Two things are clearly demonstrated here: it's hard to determine source size from catchlight size, and it's hard to determine source strength from catchlight intensity. In this image, the catchlight for the 46" umbrella is larger than that of the 60" one, because the 60" umbrella was in an unusually distant position. Also, the 46" umbrella catchlight appears less bright than that of the 60" umbrella, yet the 46" umbrella was delivering about 1.5 f-stops more light to the subject. I think you get the point.

It should be noted that catchlights may be eliminated, modified, or added for artistic reasons. It is still a fairly common practice to retouch out a fill-light catchlight in portraits, so keep that in mind.

In the next post we'll dig a bit deeper into reverse engineering.

We Interrupt Reverse Engineering for a Worthwhile Diversion

2011-04-20T20:16:00.000-07:00

I recently received an email from Sean McHugh, author of cambridgeincolour.com, notifying me of new portrait-lighting sections on his site. These new sections feature nifty 3D renderings, and excellent explanations. If you've never visited this site and are, like me, looking for clear explanations of photographic technology, this is something you have to check out. Below I've listed links to the aforementioned sections and to the site home page. Hope you enjoy it.

Portrait Lighting

Fill Lighting

Home Page

I'll post another section on reverse engineering this coming week.

Reverse Engineering: Examining the Shadows

2011-04-11T09:07:00.000-07:00

I look at shadows, reflections, and lighting contrast when I want to reverse engineer another photographer's lighting. By examining shadows, one can learn a lot about the position, size, and character of the light source. Today I will use a few full-body shots from a recent clothing-line shoot to examine how shadows vary with light source. All of the following images were created in a relatively small room measuring 13' by 18' with an 8' ceiling. Ideally, you would want to shoot these types of images in a much larger space.

The image above was created using a studio flash with the first version of the Paul C. Buff 64" Silver PLM, a large 16 panel silver umbrella that is shaped as a proper paraboloid. The PLM creates a soft but snappy light that I like. It takes well to feathering and was feathered in this example with the light axis forward of our model. A second studio flash was bounced off the white wall behind the camera to produce fill lighting about 1.7 f-stops less intense than that from the PLM. Notice that the shadows thrown to the model's right (our left) are quite soft, but definitely more distinct than those from a softbox of similar surface area. If you click on the photo to get a larger view, you can examine the smaller shadows on the face. Again, these are definitely more distinct than from a large softbox, but much smoother than you'd expect from smaller parabolic or beauty-dish reflectors.

The green-dress-composite image above uses a lighting similar to the prior example, but the PLM was replaced by a studio flash using a standard reflector with a coarse grid and barn doors. The fill light output was increased so that it was only 1.25 f-stops less bright than the grid light. The barn doors where used to block light from falling on the floor or background. This kind of light emphasizes texture and creates very distinct, hard shadows. I generally favor larger sources when doing full-body shots, as I usually find the hard shadows that fall on the floor or surrounding background to be unpleasantly distinct. Click on the image and examine the shadows around the face, and especially those created by the dangling earrings or eyelashes. You can expect small sources, including strobes with their standard reflectors and bare-bulb configurations, to give similarly hard shadows.

The blue-dress shot above was created with a large softbox (100cm X 130cm) oriented horizontally and positioned much like the PLM. In place of a fill light, a large white reflector was placed to our left and somewhat in front of the model. Notice the soft, indistinct and fairly uniform nature of the shadows on the floor beside the model. A bigger softbox would give less distinct shadows and a smaller one correspondingly more defined ones. Satin umbrellas of similar area will give a similar shadow quality, although there will be a slight difference. The umbrella shadows are usually slightly less uniform in the body of the shadow, and the shadow edges slightly more graded.

The final example was lighted with a large beauty dish (24") positioned well above the camera and with a 42" X 42" silver reflector below. This particular beauty dish has a very wide angle of coverage, making it a good choice for pairing with a reflector. The shadows in this example are thrown directly behind the model and are moderately distinct. A smaller dish will provide a tighter shadow with a more distinct edge and a larger source, such as 38" satin umbrella, something a bit softer.

Keep in mind that these examples are just rough points of reference. If you work with different equipment, with different light-to-subject distances, or in a larger space, you will likely get somewhat different results. I'd like to thank Frank for allowing me to use his clothing shots as examples, Lenny for his outstanding makeup, William for his hair wizardry, and Tiffany, our model, for enduring the cold and still delivering a boatload of great poses.

In the next post we'll look at eyes and see how they can be the single-most-important tool for gaining insight into the lighting.

Reverse Engineering Lighting

2011-04-10T18:43:00.000-07:00

OK, I'm back at it. I don't know about you, but when an image catches my eye, I almost always analyze it. I look for clues about lighting, lens settings, post-processing adjustments, etc. In the next few posts I'll describe what I look at to deconstruct lighting. In tomorrow's post we'll use a series of full-body images to illustrate how different lighting sources render shadows.

A Few Common Reflection Workarounds

2011-02-10T18:00:00.000-08:00

Full-length Shots on White

Creating full-length shots on pure white can be problematic. It can be difficult to keep the floor as bright as the vertical portion of the backdrop unless you "wash" the floor with additional lighting either from below or above. This is not always a viable solution. A very effective workaround is to place a smooth, highly reflective sheet below the subject. The floor then acts as a mirror in which the lighted background is reflected. Direct reflection saves the day.

Eyeglasses

Portrait photographers often have to grapple with reflections in eyeglasses. Assuming that you are using a typical portrait-lighting setup with main/fill sources somewhat above face level, you typically have three options: raising the eyeglass arms, raising the offending light source, or repositioning the subject. Raising the eyeglass arms slightly at the ear will cause the eyeglass lenses to tilt downward. A small adjustment may be all you will need, and most viewers will not detect that the earpieces have been raised. Alternately, you may choose to raise your main or fill light sources until the reflection disappears. If adjusting the glasses or moving the lighting fails to solve the problem, consider repositioning the subject. For instance, using broad lighting with a 2/3 facial view, as shown in the image below, the main-light reflection will be directed away from camera view.

On-site Speculars

If you've shot a lot of on-site images with on-camera flash, you've undoubtedly encountered the "ugly blob of light." Reflective surfaces, especially those nearly parallel to the sensor plane can kick back an extremely bright and ugly direct reflection of your flash. To avoid this common problem, you may need to shoot from a different angle or temporarily remove certain reflective objects from the scene. Scan the shooting area for mirrors, reflective clock faces, pictures with and without protective glass, and sundry other reflective items. If you are shooting table shots at a wedding reception, for instance, position yourself so that you are not square to mirrored walls, windows, or glass doors behind the subjects. If you are doing shots in the home, be on the lookout for framed pictures and mirrors. If you are shooting in a business, note the positions of the computer monitors and personal items such as framed pictures and reposition things as needed.

I'm not sure what I'll tackle next, but suggestions are always welcome.

Ideas Anyone?

2011-02-04T18:59:00.000-08:00

I'll be putting together another short blog post early this coming week that will cover just a few more uses/consequences of direct reflection. That will wrap up the subject of reflection for now. I'm not quite sure what I'll tackle next, so I'm putting out a call to anyone who has ideas for good subject matter. Please leave any ideas in the comments below or email me at Barry@portraitlighting.net. I will check this particular post periodically to see if any new ideas have come in.

Reflection Part 6 (Darker Skin Tones)

2010-12-21T12:39:00.001-08:00

If you've attended a few seminars on lighting or portraiture, you've likely heard an audience member ask about exposure for people with dark skin. Invariably, the speaker announces that exposure is exposure and there is no need for compensation. The argument is often supported by an example consisting of an image of several people of differing skin tone. If the exposure is biased for the skin of any one person, an unfavorable skin rendition will result for the others. The argument is irrefutable, but for the inquirer, the answer is often unsatisfying. They want more detail in the photographic rendition of dark skin, something closer to what they see with the naked eye. And, they're not alone. Shortly before digital capture overtook film as the medium of choice, Kodak was marketing a special portrait film for deep-complected skin. If Kodak thought this was an issue, maybe there is something to it.

Dark vs. Light

The subject of skin tone is a very interesting one. It can be approached from both a technical and social angle. In my conversations with people from around the world, I have been surprised by how often darker skin is associated with lower social standing. No doubt, some of this bias is a vestige of Western hegemony. While it would be foolish to assume that a dark-skinned customer will want a lighter rendition of their skin, it can sometimes be an issue. I'm not qualified to talk about the social aspect, so I'll take a stab at the technical.

Diffuse vs. Direct Reflection

In general, the darker the skin, the more it absorbs light and the less it reflects it diffusely. Direct (specular) reflection, however, is dependent primarily on the sheen of the skin surface, and not tone. So, while light and dark skin may produce very similar levels of specular reflection, there will be a big difference in the diffuse reflection. As a result, direct reflections make up a greater proportion of the light reflected from dark-toned skin and the implications of this are many.

Defining Form with Shadow and Highlight

On light skin, the specular highlights ride on top of the glowing skin (diffuse highlight). These specular patches may enhance form, but that are not usually the primary feature that defines form and depth. On light skin, it is the difference in the areas of diffuse highlight and the surrounding shadows that give the face form. With extremely dark skin, shadows and diffuse highlights may be so dark that distinguishing between them becomes difficult. At this extreme, form is rendered by the differences between the specular highlights and the surrounding areas, both shadow and diffuse highlight. Simply, or perhaps over-simply put, with light skin you create form and depth with shadows. With dark skin, you do so with highlights.

Some Celebrities

If you are not quite getting the picture, take a look at some real-world renditions of people with very deep and very fair complexions. One of the best examples of dark African beauty comes in the form of model Alek Wek. A much photographed model, you'll find plenty of images of her on the web. Notice how areas of specular reflection on her cheeks, forehead, nose, and chin often define the form of her face. At the other extreme, take a model with fair skin. Nicole Kidman or Taylor Swift are two examples. Notice how form on these faces is created by shadows around the cheeks, nose, brow, and jaw.

Lighting Strategies for Dark Skin

There is no one right way to light a face, but here are some things you might want to keep in mind when planning your lighting for dark skin. Specular highlights are inevitably more prominent for darker skin. Controlling them is key to achieving the desired result. You'll probably be leaning one of two ways to control specular highlights: minimizing them or making them as large and prominent as possible.

Minimizing specular highlights is not always easy. One approach is to place your lighting, preferably smaller or controllable lights, at oblique angles so that much of the direct reflection is aimed away from camera view. Feathering is another technique that can help, as feathering can decrease both the apparent size and intensity of the source's specular reflection. These techniques were used in the second example from the prior post. By reducing specular reflection, you let the diffuse reflection do more of the talking, and increase tonal richness in the process.

The other approach is to define form by painting the face with large and soft specular highlights. By using very large light sources, you create large specular highlights that can cover the greater part of many facial features. As the light source is large, the energy of the specular highlight will be distributed over a large area, resulting in a pleasant glow. The following picture, as corny as it is, demonstrates the approach. The main light for this image was a large 3' X 4' softbox placed in close.

Reflections Part 5 (Another Example)

2010-12-13T19:58:00.000-08:00

Above is the image from the previous post, but without the circled highlights and with an inset image that uses the same lighting but with the subject positioned for short lighting. What is most notable about these images is that they employ a very common lighting setup, with the main light positioned about 45 degrees off of the camera-subject axis and somewhat above the face. You'll find some variation of this type of lighting in many high-volume portrait studios around the world. Fill lighting of some form is usually combined with the main light to control shadow detail. While the character of the highlights will vary from one implementation to another, the positions will remain largely the same. You can expect to have a highlight on the forehead, the tip of the nose, on one or both cheeks, and, depending on facial structure, a few other spots. You can create hard, distinct highlights by using small sources pointed squarely at the subject, or much softer areas of glow when using very large sources in combination with appropriate makeup. In an upcoming post, we'll look further into how to control these highlights. For now, we'll leave the ubiquitous and take a look at something completely different.

Taking Advantage of Direct Reflection

The above image was created with an unconventional lighting consisting of a large Fresnel light immediately in front of and above the subject. That light was pointed almost straight downward, and feathered ever so slightly back toward the camera, resulting in a beam of light that just grazed the front of the face. A silver reflector was placed just in front of the subject and slightly below his hands. Additionally, kicker (accent) lights were placed behind the subject at approximately + and - 150 degrees off the camera-subject axis.

Minimizing Direct Reflection

This image helps demonstrate some interesting properties of direct reflection. First, the direct reflections of the business portrait are gone, replaced here by a line of specular reflection along the bridge of the nose, and a distinctive highlight on the lip. The near absence of specular highlights occurred because the direct reflections of the Fresnel source were projected downward off the face and not back toward the lens. Only the aforementioned nose and lip highlights can be seen by the lens. The reflector acted similarly, projecting light obliquely up across the face. The result is just a hint of glow across the face. Here, the goal was to minimize visible direct reflections on the face, but the kicker lights performed in quite the opposite manner.

Maximizing Direct Reflection

Unlike the frontal lighting, where direct reflections were mostly directed away from the view of the lens, the kicker lights were positioned to take full advantage of direct reflection. The specular highlights along the sides of the head are largely direct reflections of the kicker lights, and, as direct reflection is more "efficient" than diffuse reflection, these highlights are quite bright. In fact, the main light metered more than one stop brighter than the kickers, yet the lighting along the sides of the head appears brighter. Keep this in mind when placing accent lights. They can look brighter than you expect.

Next Post

In the next post we'll look at lighting darker skin tones.

Reflections Part 4 (Real-World Examples)

2010-12-09T20:08:00.000-08:00

Finally, we're ready to take a look at some real-world portraits and examine reflection at work. Before jumping to today's portrait, I'd like reiterate a few things. First, skin will reflect light in both a diffuse and specular manner. The amount of diffuse skin reflection depends largely on skin tone, with darker skin reflecting less. The amount of direct reflection depends on the skin's surface sheen, and will be strongly influenced by the position and size of the source.

Above we have a rather typical business portrait in which areas of specular (direct) reflection have been circled. These shiny patches are actually reflections of the light source (direct reflections) superimposed on areas of diffuse reflection. If you look carefully, you can often make out the shape of the light source in such reflections. No place are they more distinct than in the direct reflections in the eyes (aka catchlights). Clearly, these specular patches vary in size. Notice that surfaces that curve gradually, the forehead for instance, will have larger, and generally less intense, highlights. Smaller areas with a very distinct curvature, such as the bulb of the nose, will have smaller and more intense areas of reflection. The position and size of reflections will vary depending of the size and position of your light sources. The circled areas in today's portrait are all reflections of the main light, but any light, including a fill light, can create specular highlights.

In the next post, we'll look at an unconventional portrait that digs deeper into the properties of reflection. In the meantime, if today's material was new for you, take a look at your pictures and those of other photographers and examine the highlights. You can learn a lot about how an image was created by doing so.

Reflections Part 3

2010-11-26T13:41:00.000-08:00

Today I will be adding a bit more about diffuse reflection, but before I get started, I think it would be wise to backtrack a bit.

Reflection, Absorption, and Transmission

Reflection is just one phenomenon that light can experience when it encounters a boundary (surface) traveling from one medium into another. When light hits a boundary, it may also be transmitted through the new medium or absorbed by it. For the purposes of our discussion, these three phenomena (reflection, absorption, & transmission) account for all of what light can do when it leaves one medium and encounters another. What is not absorbed or transmitted is reflected. The degree to which light is absorbed, transmitted, or reflected will depend on both the substance and the nature of the surface boundary. For example, clear glass will transmit a large portion of the light that hits it, and absorb relatively little. It can be an efficient direct reflector, but a poor diffuse reflector. If the surface of that glass is etched to produce a frosted surface, it will reflect much more light in a diffuse manner and not nearly as much directly. Unlike glass, black soot will be poor light transmitter, but a very good absorber. As it absorbs much of the light, it will be a relatively poor reflector. I think you get the idea.

Diffuse Reflection

Diffuse reflection was described in the first post on reflection. If you didn't read that, you may want to jump back two posts. An ideal diffuse reflector reflects light in an omnidirectional way. As a result, the surface will appear the same to the viewer regardless of the angle at which the light approaches the surface and from which it is viewed. Surfaces that reflect in a primarily diffuse manner are usually dull in appearance, but this doesn't have to be the case. For instance, a surface covered in fine crystals or glass beads could be both brilliant and reflect largely in a diffuse way.

We are surrounded by diffuse reflection. Our perception of form, luminance, and color are largely a function of how we see diffuse reflection. Foliage, sidewalks, clothing, and painted structures reflect the vast majority of light in a diffuse manner. Light meters are calibrated under the assumption that the metered scene will consist largely of diffusely-reflecting objects, and that, on average, the scene will reflect about 18% of the light that hits it. This leads us to the next topic.

Reflectance

Reflectance is a measure of the percentage of light that is reflected relative to the amount that is incident on the surface. All other things equal, a lighter-toned surface will have a higher reflectance than a darker one. Darker surfaces generally absorb a greater portion of the incident light, leaving less light to bounce back. I'll explore reflectance in more detail, especially as it relates to balancing the specular and diffuse reflections on a face. The following posts will be more fun, with real-world examples showing applications of the boring stuff of the past three posts.

Reflections Part 2

2010-11-10T18:49:00.000-08:00

In the previous post on reflections we covered the basic characteristics of direct (specular) and diffuse reflections. In this post I'd like to address three characteristics of direct reflections: direction, size, and intensity.

DIRECTION

Direct reflections have a very definite sense of direction. In fact, on a plane reflective surface, the angle at which the light approaches the surface is exactly the same as the angle at which it leaves. This principle is most often stated as: the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. It can be extended to non-planar reflective surfaces using the tangent to the surface at the point of reflection. All of this is shown in the diagram below. This principle is very important and explains, among other things, why a light's placement can have a big impact on its apparent strength.

SIZE

The size of the reflection will vary based on the curvature of the reflective surface. Compared to a reflection on a plane surface, convex surfaces will yield a smaller reflection and concave surfaces a larger one. For convex surfaces, such as spheres, a smaller radius of curvature will yield a smaller reflection. This is shown in the diagram below, where the grayed areas represent the reflection. The implications of this principle are numerous, and it explains why, for instance, a specular highlight on one's nose is much smaller than the one on the forehead.

INTENSITY

The intensity of a reflection depends not only on the intensity of the source, but the size of the reflection. For instance, in the diagram above, the smaller reflection on the smaller sphere will be brighter than the reflection on the larger sphere. That is because both must reflect the same amount of energy, but must do so over differing surface areas. And, this explains why the that small specular highlight on the nose is brighter than corresponding hot spots on the cheeks or the forehead.

The next post will be a quick one on diffuse reflection, and then I'll try to bring it all together by applying these principles to real-world applications and examples.

Reflections Part 1

2010-11-02T19:19:00.000-07:00

First, I apologize again to anyone who was looking for new content here. I made a promise I couldn't keep, and I'll not do that again. Nevertheless, I will try to add new content as time permits.

Today I'd like to start the first of several posts on light reflection. For me, it is the most important of all lighting concepts. I'll try to keep the technical stuff to a minimum, using visual aids to make the major points.

Reflections come in basically two forms: direct and diffuse. A direct reflection is a reflection of the light source, and is also called a specular reflection. Mirrored surfaces, for example, produce primarily direct reflections. A diffuse reflection, also known as an indirect reflection, is created when light striking a surface is scattered in a variety of directions. Matte paper, and talcum powder are two examples of diffuse reflectors. Keep in mind that no surface is a perfect direct or diffuse reflector, rather most surfaces produce a combination of both direct and indirect reflection. The differences between the two reflection types are shown diagrammatically below.

The diagram above shows the setup for a little experiment which uses a highly polished steel sheet as a direct reflector and a piece of white foam-core board as a diffuse reflector. The series of photos below shows the results for the two surfaces and two lighting positions. Note that the white board reflects back light similarly regardless of light position, while the polished plate produces strikingly different results. The direct reflector here acts in a kind of on-or-off fashion, either you see a reflection or you don't.

In the following posts, we'll dig a bit deeper into reflections and examine how they can affect our portraiture.

Nine Months, a Great Time

2010-01-04T09:14:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year to all! I'm committed to regular posting in the new year. Let's see how I do. As always, if there is anything you'd like me to clarify or cover in future posts, please send an email to barry@portraitlighting.net. Don't be shy about adding your perspectives, corrections, or requests in the comments section. If you think something is amiss, chances are you're not alone.

First-time parents often ask what is the best time to photograph their baby. I don't think there is one right answer to the question, as you can get memorable images at any age. Nevertheless, I usually suggest 9 months if they'll only be photographing them once in their first year.

Why do I say nine months? Well, actually I should say between 7 months and 11 months, depending on the child's rate of development. The reasons are:

The child can sit up unaided.

The child is not yet inclined to immediately crawl away once seated.

The child is not yet inclined to immediately crawl away when placed on their tummy.

The child has not yet developed an elevated fear of strangers.

The child will usually interact emotionally with the photographer (expressions).

The child is more inclined to smile than at other stages.

The child can be safely propped in a variety of ways.

These are just some of the reasons I'll never pass up an opportunity to photograph a 9 month old. One and two year old children are another story, and a suitable subject for a future post.

Expect a more technically-oriented post later in this week.

A Fill-Light Addendum

2009-12-26T08:06:00.000-08:00

You live and you learn, and your ideas about things change. Such is the case with fill lighting for me, a subject that I explored pretty thoroughly in the Topics section of the Portraitlighting.net site. Today I'll mention two deficiencies in that treatment of the subject.

The first came to light when a commentator, on explaining the position of his fill light, said "it's perfect here, if it were any closer it would act as a main light." That statement was seminal for me. The concept was so obvious in retrospect, but somehow it hadn't seemed that important to me. Put another way, if the fill light is too close to the scene, the effects of the inverse-square law will be clearly seen, and the fill light will look like another main light. This phenomenon is seen quite clearly on the website in Example 1.3 www.portraitlighting.net/example1_3b.htm , but as it applies to the main light. In the second image in that example, the light is further back and more appropriate for fill. At that distance, there is a more general and flat sense of illumination, without the added sense of depth and form visible in the first image. Now that doesn't mean the fill light has to be further away than the main light for all applications, but for classic portraiture, where a subtle and indistinct fill is usually desired, it's a good thing to keep in mind.

The second revision relates not to position, but to number. When I wrote the piece on fill lighting, with a few exceptions, fill was considered from a single source. While it is probably true that most portrait studios have one fill light, if they have any at all, that doesn't mean having just one is best or even the most natural solution. After all, most natural-light images receive fill lighting from multiple sources and from multiple directions. Forty years ago, when softboxes and umbrellas were still rare, and large parabolic reflectors quite common, a single fill source was often not the best solution. In order to create an indistinct fill light, some photographers bounced the hard light from multiple parabolics against neutral-colored walls and ceilings to create a soft enveloping fill light. This approach created a fairly uniform fill illumination throughout the camera room, with the added benefit of no distinct fill-light shadow or catchlight in the eye. While this technique has largely been abandoned and is expensive to implement, it still has its place. It's a technique that works well for environmental portraits, especially if you have a bunch of speedlights and the walls and ceilings are reasonably neutral.

Paul C. Buff PLM

2009-12-19T20:08:00.000-08:00

I generally avoid mentioning particular brands of equipment, believing that skilled lighters can produce great results from all kinds and grades of equipment. Sometimes, however, a particular manufacturer brings a new and unique product to market, and I have to make an exception. This is certainly the case with the relatively new PLM (Parabolic Light Modifier) from Paul C. Buff.

I had stumbled upon a discussion of this umbrella-like modifier on a forum and did a bit of research on it. It sounded like a great product for a bunch of upcoming assignments, so I dropped a few bucks (it costs little more than a quality umbrella of equivalent size) and ordered one. It comes in different sizes, in silver and satin versions, and with a variety of optional covers and diffusers. I'm not going to go into a detailed review of the entire line or the accessories, as I've only worked with the plain 64" silver version, but I will show a few of my first images with it and share a few of my findings.

If the claims for this modifier were true, I could get a large source, with a smooth punchy light, graded shadows, and an efficiency nearly on par with a standard reflector. I have to admit I was skeptical, as I have never been a big fan of silver umbrellas, many of which exhibit wickedly uneven light. Besides, if this was just a tweaked umbrella with a few more panels and bent into a proper parabola, why hadn't a genius at one of those prestigious lighting manufacturers come up with it years ago? Did it really take a red-haired oddball from Nashville to do it? The answer I found is, apparently, yes.

Before taking the PLM out to do some real work, I did a quick output benchmark in the studio. The output of my Quantum X-series bare-bulb flash with the PLM with was just one quarter f-stop less than with its regular reflector in the wide-angle position. That is surprisingly good considering that the PLM provides about 150 times the surface area of the standard reflector. Admittedly, it would have been a better comparison to have done that check with the Quantum reflector in its regular coverage position, but you get the picture. I also played around with the positioning of the flash tube, moving it fore and aft along the "umbrella" shaft checking the light distribution within the modifier's bowl and how that related to output. Positioning the flash tube as recommended by the manufacturer appeared to optimize both. I did little more testing and packed it up to accompany me for a shoot of a musical group.

I rarely use an untested product on paying customers, but we were doing a lot of our shooting without prior scouting or, as it turned out, much planning at all. The guys and I were just going with the flow, so incorporating the PLM seemed just fine. My customer had submitted several sample photos, each using strong on-camera flash. I hoped to duplicate this look, but with a smoother-looking light and softer shadows. In all the photos shown in this post, the PLM was positioned on axis, just behind, and slightly above the camera. In essence, the PLM became a giant on-camera flash.

The photos shown below were among the last taken that day. The sun had already set and we still wanted to catch a few pictures next to a graffiti-decorated overpass pier. The first image shows our subject leaning against the pier. The PLM was approximately 8 feet from the subject. The resulting light has a fairly smooth quality with some snap, and the shadows are distinct, yet have a pleasantly smooth gradation. A view of the entire group shot at the same distance from the PLM is included to show the fall-off in illumination of this modifier. Keep in mind that this was shot at an 18mm focal length with an APS-C sensor (27mm @ 35mm), so the light and camera were in quite close. The darkness in the lower portion of this frame can be attributed, at least in part, to light blocked by my body. One thing became quickly clear during this shoot: the PLM produces a distinct lighting pattern and must be aimed with care.

Earlier in the day I had used the PLM for a few shots with the group in an ambulance. That portion of the shoot was particularly unplanned. I bungled my lighting, and hadn't noticed that a slave flash in the ambulance had failed to trigger. To make matters worse, the image concept and the busy scene with busy clothing just didn't work for me. I had all but written off the shots when I decided to use some high-radius sharpening and a few other tweaks to salvage an image. The resulting image (below), while not exactly what I had intended, does show how the PLM might be a good choice for an edgy, sharpened look.

The silver 64" PLM is not an all-purpose modifier, but it sure has great potential for a variety of applications. I'm looking forward to doing more work with it, especially using it in close for portraiture, and taking advantage of its graded illumination for feathering.

A Few Observations on Camera Height

2009-12-13T17:38:00.000-08:00

Today I'll address a recent request for my take on the effects of camera height relative to a subject's face. What I'll note here is nothing new, and I fully expect many readers to have already come to similar conclusions. I'm going to try to keep this short and to the point, but that's not easy for me.

First, it would be a mistake to address height of the camera relative to the subject without also considering the relationship of the camera's film plane to that of the subject's facial plane. Ideally, one should consider the pros and cons of height (low, level, high) in combination with relative inclination (tilted up, parallel, tilted down). Maybe I'll get to such a matrix in a later post. Today I'll just touch on the most salient points.

Bringing the camera above the subject's eye level has several advantages. An elevated camera position can be particularly helpful when photographing subjects with heavy or multiple chins. Raising the camera and having the subject tilt their head upward will cause stretching of the skin around the jaw, resulting in a more defined chin line and a lighter-looking neck. With the camera moved up considerably, the view of neck can be mostly or entirely obscured. Done skillfully, the photographer can hide a heavy or wrinkled neck and, with a more aggressive head tilt, further stretch loose, inelastic skin for a quickie face lift. Done poorly, the result can look contrived, or just plain awful. A higher camera position may also be appropriate for subjects with a turned-up nose. If the nares are clearly visible, a higher camera position and a slight facial declination may improve the rendition. Subjects with short foreheads, small eyes, short noses, or long, prominent chins may also benefit from an higher camera position. Shooting your subject from a higher camera position can also be helpful when creating tilted perspectives, as when placing your subject along the frame's diagonal. Temper your zest for a high camera position when your subject has a high or broad forehead, a balding or thinning pate, or a small chin. Be careful when shooting full-body views from a higher camera position, as your subject may look shorter.

Using a lower camera position can be tricky. It is rarely flattering for heavier subjects, and often provides a less than flattering view of the nose. Nevertheless, it can be helpful. Consider lowering the camera if your subject has: a long nose (especially, a long hooked nose), a noticeably small chin, or a long or wide forehead. When doing full-body and 3/4 body shots, a lower camera angle can add a sense of height, drama or elegance.

Most head-and-shoulders portraits are photographed at or from slightly above subject eye level. From these moderate positions most subjects render well, but slight changes in camera height and facial inclination can make a big difference. In my experience, the difference of a degree or a centimeter can be the difference between just good and great.

Please feel free to add your perspective (pun intended) on this subject in the comments.

Cool Rule for Facial Analysis

2009-11-25T20:34:00.000-08:00

First, let me apologize to anyone following this blog. I've been terribly busy and unable to update it for months. I'm committed to making regular updates from this point forward, and will attempt to incorporate readers' suggested topics whenever practical.

Today I'll mention a simple lighting rule that can make a big difference when lighting an asymmetric face. When I say asymmetric, I' m referring to symmetry in a lateral sense, where one side of the face is smaller than the other. It is quite common to see this in a face, and it is often most pronounced during smiling. For such faces, you'll generally get the best results when your main lighting source shines into the shorter (squished) side of the face. This seems particularly true with short lighting, but is also true in most cases with broad lighting. As with many general rules, there will be exceptions. Faces are complex structures and symmetry is just one element to consider when analyzing the face. I'll talk more about other aspects of facial analysis in future posts. Until then, give this rule a try. I think you'll find it works a surprising percentage of the time.

Are Handheld Meters Relevant?

2009-07-10T19:14:00.000-07:00

I still use a handheld meter in the studio and outdoors, and I fear I am now a member of a shrinking minority. Certainly, in the age of digital capture, many well-regarded photographers have forsaken their meters, relegating them to the same drawer as their Polaroid backs, color-balancing filters, and film loops. I've seen forum threads where everyone advocated the chimp-and-check approach, with nary a whisper in favor of a meter.

No doubt, my reluctance to move on is partly historic. In the days of film, I usually had to shoot without Polaroid test prints or transparency clip tests, so sound meter readings were the only way to ensure that the previsualized image would be realized in the resulting transparency. However, for me, there is more to it. It's about speed, control, and professionalism. With a meter I can take a single reading of each light and make the appropriate adjustments to power and/or distance to get the lighting where I need it. Why would I want to use the less precise camera display in a multi-pass process to achieve the same end? And, if I'm chimping and tweaking with the customer present, how does that impact their perception of my competence and professionalism?

Look, if you don't already have a meter and you are just doing stuff for fun, or you work in a studio where the lighting is mostly locked down, then chimping may be all you'll need. However, if you work in challenging mixed lighting, take your studio gear on location, or work with rental gear in a rental space, you may find a meter a blessing.

This is my perspective. It may change. You are welcome to add yours in the comments.

That Photo Makes Me Look Fat

2009-07-01T16:01:00.000-07:00

It's common for portrait customers to complain that they look heavy in pictures. Of course, when they tell you this, they're really telling you that they expect you to make them look thinner, or at least as they see themselves. So, I've wondered, are they just viewing themselves through some sort of beauty filter, or is the camera really the villain?

Well, after mulling this over a bit, I've concluded that the added-weight thing is a real phenomenon. Now to some extent it can be due to posing, lighting, and angle of view, but primarily it results from a camera recording a two-dimensional, flattened version of our three-dimensional world. Our binocular sight allows us to sense depth and shape, even when the various surfaces of an object have similar levels of illumination. The camera can't do that, and that's why photographers must use shadows, highlights, and perspective to impart a sense of depth. Failing to do so effectively can leave your subject flat and fat.

To see where I'm going with this, consider the top view of a head shown in the neighboring line drawing. Notice how the distance marked as the "mask" of the face is narrower than that of the full face. Check out your face and the faces of those around you, and I think you'll find that most are definitely wider ear to ear than they are cheek to cheek. When we are looking at someone's face we look at the front surfaces that comprise the facial mask and unconsciously discard the sides. In the mind's eye, we end up with a narrower, smaller face than the one the camera sees. This is particularly noticeable when our subject is viewed and photographed in flat frontal lighting. Under these conditions, there is little shadow at the sides of the face and it is difficult to determine in a two-dimensional photograph where the cheeks end the sides of the head begin. A human will discern the mask; the camera won't. As a result, the photographed face will appear comparatively broad, spanning from ear to ear. As most photographs are taken in uncontrolled and often flat light, it's no surprise that people look heavy in many of their pictures.

The image to the left provides a good example, clearly showing how the facial mask (the highlighted area) is noticeably smaller than the full face. In this selectively-lighted rendition, our handsome subject appears as he does in real life. Imagine how this image would look if it had been photographed in soft, uniform lighting. The shadows on the sides of the head would be greatly diminished and the outline of the face would extend laterally from ear to ear. Needless to say, and I'm saying it anyway, our subject would look heavier and certainly not as he does in person.

Conclusion and Notes

Your camera is inherently biased toward adding weight. Use light and shadow to define facial contours, and, were possible, use hair or head coverings to define the edges of the face.

Using big light sources near the camera-to-subject axis or balanced sources placed on either side of the camera (copy lighting) is a sure way to make your sitter look heavier.

In the Beginning

2009-06-29T18:56:00.000-07:00

This blog was created as an extension of the portraitlighting.net website. In retrospect, much of the material on that website could more easily have been published to a blog. So, from this point forward, a significant portion of the portraitlighting.net-related content will appear here. This switch makes it easier for me to share ideas and observations, and has the added benefit of allowing readers the opportunity to add their own experiences and spin.

Through reader interaction, I'm hoping to create a place where shared perspectives and ideas make us all better photographers.

Stay tuned for more.