If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Amature needs feedback on portrait lighting
"DeanB" wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 23, 12:20 am, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: DeanB wrote: Ok, aside from the dinner around her face, and spilt on her sweater, and the generally unprepared I-just-dont-care hairstyle, can some here take a look at the lighting in this portrait and tell me what you think? http://i11.tinypic.com/2colx5e.jpg I had the flash (sb800) pointing up around 45 degrees and around to the right also 45 degrees, so there was no direct flash onto her face. Above the flash was a 2' reflector, about 2 feet above the camera and to the right, angled to reflect onto her. This is my first ever evening with the flash and reflector, so I openly welcome all criticism. 50mm f/1.4 @ f4, distance 4', wb(flash), ev 0.0 First of all, definitely underexposed. If you get her further from the backdrop, the shadow there will be thrown further from her (probably out of the photo entirely, which is good). See how sharp a shadow the chin is casting on the neck? *Something* is sending hard light her way; quite possibly the head is spreading the beam wider than you expect, or something, and it's reaching her direct in addition to off the reflector. (That's the first, very dark, shadow, not the second, larger, lighter, softer-edged one.) Aside from the strictly technical, I like her expression and head position. The contrast of the relatively formal pose and relatively careful lighting does contrast somewhat strangely with the amount of dinner visible :-).- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hi David - thanks for the reply! I noticed after I posted that the sharp shadow was there, seems that the flash was definitely providing some direct light, just a few degrees it seems, now I look at the setup. There are two lights in here eyes too. Is it coming out underexposed because of the white background? I had the camera set to matrix metering centered on her face so I thought it would be ok, but it seems not. There was no real ambient light, so should I just increase the flash ev up a little, maybe 1/3 or 2/3 stop? (She's asleep now, so I'll have to wait till tomorrow Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it *is* underexposed. The shadow detail in her dark hair looks pretty good; since it's very dark hair I don't know if you'd want more than there is. I have found 45 degrees tilt to be too direct for bounce flash, and I generally use 60 degrees. How much (or if) the 45 degrees of swivel would change that I don't know, but the hard shadow under her chin and the second darker shadow close behind her head indicates she's getting too much direct light somehow. I think the double highlights in her eyes indicate that too. As David says she is too close to the backdrop, and I think those regular vertical stripes are somewhat distracting. I believe it would be much better with a more natural room setting behind her rather than a background of that kind. Have you considered swiveling the flash so that it points *backward* and to one side and up toward the reflector? If your reflector is not too small, and it's not inconvenient for you to get it in that position, you might want to try it. But anyway, you have a cute picture of a really cute little girl there. Neil |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Amature needs feedback on portrait lighting
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:31:18 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
One of our cats reacts fast enough to *always* have her eyes closed when I use the preflashes; I've had to resort to manual exposure to get decent pictures of her. Would the greater delay after a P&S's preflash help with you cat photos, or would it just allow more time for the cats to move out of the frame? The manual for one of Metz's little wireless flashes mentions that its default delay after detecting a preflash is 45ms, as most cameras have a preflash delay that is greater than this. For "problem" cameras the flash's delay can be adjusted to anything from 5 to 255ms. I can't imagine any decent camera having a 1/4 second preflash delay, but it might be needed for some of the under $100 no-name digital cameras. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Amature needs feedback on portrait lighting
ASAAR wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:00:21 +0000, bugbear wrote: I know "little" of this, but I don't see how a camera can "meter" for flash light, which doesn't exist until you hit the shutter From the SB-800's manual: Monitor Preflashes Just before the flash fires, the SB-800 fires a series of imperceptible preflashes that are detected by the camera’s TTL Multi-Sensor and analyzed for brightness and contrast • i-TTL mode This is a TTL auto flash mode in the Nikon Creative Lighting System. Monitor Preflashes are fired at all times. The subject is correctly exposed by the light from the flash lighting and the exposure is less affected by the ambient light (p. 37). For the OP's picture, if more ambient light was used the under-chin shadows would have been lightened. But that would be difficult as 1/60 sec, f/4 was used for the exposure. Brighter room lighting or an additional flash could help, and possibly by also reducing the SB-800's output level. (who had a Pentax LX film camera that actually did meter *during* exposure, but it couldn't do flash that way) It would be nice if metering could be done off the sensor as it was done off the film, as the preflashes can present problems, but I think that the occurrences of such problems are pretty rare. Cool - I stand corrected, and better informed to boot! BugBear |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Amature needs feedback on portrait lighting
On Mar 23, 11:17 am, Signal wrote:
"DeanB" wrote: Ok, aside from the dinner around her face, and spilt on her sweater, and the generally unprepared I-just-dont-care hairstyle, can some here take a look at the lighting in this portrait and tell me what you think? http://i11.tinypic.com/2colx5e.jpg I had the flash (sb800) pointing up around 45 degrees and around to the right also 45 degrees, so there was no direct flash onto her face. Above the flash was a 2' reflector, about 2 feet above the camera and to the right, angled to reflect onto her. This is my first ever evening with the flash and reflector, so I openly welcome all criticism. 50mm f/1.4 @ f4, distance 4', wb(flash), ev 0.0 Is that a radiator she's sat in front of? I don't like the shadow under her chin - looks like she's wearing a choker. -- S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Its a vertical blind. I was actually trying to keep the background white, as in not dull gray. I thank all of you for your most valuable input, I appreciate it very much. I have a 100mm f/4.0 Nikon Micro lense, maybe I will try that and take the camera back. I assume it is capable of magnificent portraits, even if I am not! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Amature needs feedback on portrait lighting
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
snip One of our cats reacts fast enough to *always* have her eyes closed when I use the preflashes; I've had to resort to manual exposure to get decent pictures of her. It seems to work with some people, too. I guess they find it convenient to get a clear signal when it's time to blink :-). Cats seem to sense instantly when _anything_ is about to happen, not when it does happen. Several years ago we had six cats; our son loves cats, so we decided that we would get a picture of us with all six of them. Our son-in-law came over and took 25 exposures (back in 35mm days). Of those 25, one showed _parts_ of all six cats. It was an experience that we never tried again. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Amature needs feedback on portrait lighting
Allen wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: snip One of our cats reacts fast enough to *always* have her eyes closed when I use the preflashes; I've had to resort to manual exposure to get decent pictures of her. It seems to work with some people, too. I guess they find it convenient to get a clear signal when it's time to blink :-). Cats seem to sense instantly when _anything_ is about to happen, not when it does happen. Several years ago we had six cats; our son loves cats, so we decided that we would get a picture of us with all six of them. Our son-in-law came over and took 25 exposures (back in 35mm days). Of those 25, one showed _parts_ of all six cats. It was an experience that we never tried again. Yes, I know exactly what you mean! http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/photography/gallery/Lois%20McMaster%20Bujold%201996?pic=ddb%20199603%2 0042-15 (only one cat) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Amature needs feedback on portrait lighting
"DeanB" wrote in message oups.com... snip I thank all of you for your most valuable input, I appreciate it very much. I have a 100mm f/4.0 Nikon Micro lense, maybe I will try that and take the camera back. I assume it is capable of magnificent portraits, even if I am not! First of all, a micro lens is not necessarily any better at normal distances than any other lens. The 105 f2.5 AIS lens would be the one to use anyway. Secondly, all the lens and camera do is record the scene that the photographer setup. So, you need to study the lighting of your photographs and determine how to change your lighting for the better. Jim |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Amature needs feedback on portrait lighting
On Mar 22, 11:20 pm, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
DeanB wrote: Ok, aside from the dinner around her face, and spilt on her sweater, and the generally unprepared I-just-dont-care hairstyle, can some here take a look at the lighting in this portrait and tell me what you think? http://i11.tinypic.com/2colx5e.jpg I had the flash (sb800) pointing up around 45 degrees and around to the right also 45 degrees, so there was no direct flash onto her face. Above the flash was a 2' reflector, about 2 feet above the camera and to the right, angled to reflect onto her. This is my first ever evening with the flash and reflector, so I openly welcome all criticism. 50mm f/1.4 @ f4, distance 4', wb(flash), ev 0.0 First of all, definitely underexposed. If you get her further from the backdrop, the shadow there will be thrown further from her (probably out of the photo entirely, which is good). See how sharp a shadow the chin is casting on the neck? *Something* is sending hard light her way; quite possibly the head is spreading the beam wider than you expect, or something, and it's reaching her direct in addition to off the reflector. (That's the first, very dark, shadow, not the second, larger, lighter, softer-edged one.) Aside from the strictly technical, I like her expression and head position. The contrast of the relatively formal pose and relatively careful lighting does contrast somewhat strangely with the amount of dinner visible :-). David, you always have good advice and offer excellent critiques. I learned a lot from your post. I think Dean did pretty well for the first time out. -- Gator Bait |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Help, I need your feedback! | JenniS | Digital Photography | 9 | January 31st 07 06:41 PM |
Lighting temperature for a portrait shoot | BD | Digital Photography | 68 | October 1st 06 01:48 AM |
Lighting temperature for a portrait shoot | UC | Digital Photography | 0 | September 28th 06 01:29 AM |
Informal Portable Portrait Lighting | Randy W. Sims | Digital SLR Cameras | 11 | September 15th 06 01:23 AM |
Portrait lighting question ... | Cockpit Colin | Digital SLR Cameras | 19 | July 27th 05 10:43 AM |