Nicely done Setups are always fun to see.

kylegehmlich wrote:
Nicely done Setups are always fun to see.
Pleasure

Thanks. I like comparing results with set-ups. Are the right angles on either side of the model walls or scrims?

irish-george wrote:
Thanks. I like comparing results with set-ups. Are the right angles on either side of the model walls or scrims?
simple black panel boards.

A different way to light the same pose more effectively (IMHO) would have been to put the key light on the left, about 45 degrees from her nose which would have produced more flattering short light on the face (which is half in shadow here) and rim-lit the breast and red top putting in mostly in shadow. Also FWIW the facial angle relative to the camera is making the far side of the face disappear.

Its all a matter of subjective taste of course but on dark backgrounds I find more balanced, short-lit oblique views of faces more flattering than broad-lit ones. The perceptual cause and effect is influenced by the background tone causing the eye to instinctively search out contrasts from it. The lighting on the subject here, if photographed on a white background would make it easier to see the far side of the face because it would contrast more with the white background. Here the problem is it blends into similar dark one. What contrast the most tends to attract the most attention perceptually and in this shot the brightest highlights are on the back, not the front of her face.

The reason short lighting is so effective on dark backgrounds is because absent any clothing brighter than the skin the front of the face winds up having the brightest highlights in the photo, which acts like a magnet to pull the eye into the face. Short lighting the breast would rim light it and reveal its bullet shape in a more subtle way that didn't compete with the face as it does here.

It's a pretty woman in a provocative pose that would be "good" in any light. What I'm suggesting here is more akin to editing the delivery of the elements in the photo so the FRONT of the face would have more emphasis that the side of the head, back, breast, tattoo, etc. On a dark stage the star of the show needs to be in the spotlight.

Chuck

cgardner wrote:
A different way to light the same pose more effectively (IMHO) would have been to put the key light on the left, about 45 degrees from her nose which would have produced more flattering short light on the face (which is half in shadow here) and rim-lit the breast and red top putting in mostly in shadow. Also FWIW the facial angle relative to the camera is making the far side of the face disappear.

Its all a matter of subjective taste of course but on dark backgrounds I find more balanced, short-lit oblique views of faces more flattering than broad-lit ones. The perceptual cause and effect is influenced by the background tone causing the eye to instinctively search out contrasts from it. The lighting on the subject here, if photographed on a white background would make it easier to see the far side of the face because it would contrast more with the white background. Here the problem is it blends into similar dark one. What contrast the most tends to attract the most attention perceptually and in this shot the brightest highlights are on the back, not the front of her face.

The reason short lighting is so effective on dark backgrounds is because absent any clothing brighter than the skin the front of the face winds up having the brightest highlights in the photo, which acts like a magnet to pull the eye into the face. Short lighting the breast would rim light it and reveal its bullet shape in a more subtle way that didn't compete with the face as it does here.

It's a pretty woman in a provocative pose that would be "good" in any light. What I'm suggesting here is more akin to editing the delivery of the elements in the photo so the FRONT of the face would have more emphasis that the side of the head, back, breast, tattoo, etc. On a dark stage the star of the show needs to be in the spotlight.

Chuck
All good points Chuck!
Alan

Since you gave finite values how about updating your diagram to specify the equipment used. Or go to the better +/- stops for reference values. It would make it more universal. That way everyone can get the same results using your diagram. the later method is a better way to speak of light since that is what we see. Not f/8 or f/5.6

Michael White wrote:
Since you gave finite values how about updating your diagram to specify the equipment used. Or go to the better +/- stops for reference values. It would make it more universal. That way everyone can get the same results using your diagram. the later method is a better way to speak of light since that is what we see. Not f/8 or f/5.6

Sorry, you lost me?

profotosstudio wrote:
Sorry, you lost me?

I believe he means indicating what any individual source meters at relative to the main light or camera exposure. So if you were shooting at f/8 and your fill was at f/4, you'd diagram it as being at -2 stops.