2. I am always trying to get my models eyes to be open like that. It makes for a compelling photograph. What tips or strategies do you all have with regard to prevent someone from squinting and even better yet, opening their eyes to get enough white to bring out the blue, or green, or hazel that makes an eye so compelling.
Thanks,
Marc
ps. Link is safe:-) But you can just google for the photo and see a 400 x600 pixel image of it.
markymarc wrote:
With the two strip boxes right and left, you would think that the sides of the face would not see a drop off in light. I am still a bit puzzled.
Feather the strips out away from the face and use the "nice" light in the feathered zone - and get the subsequent drop-off along the sides.
As for getting people's eyes to open up, two tricks. One, have them close their eyes and on the count of three open them - they'll (sometimes) open up wider than normal for a few seconds. Two, shoot from slightly above eye level, and their eyes will naturally open wider as they look up.
I saw that diagram. It is amazing that the light drops off that dramatically in just inches.
Also how do you handle the light overlapped in the center where the light from the two strip boxes converge? You would think the light on the nose vs the light on the cheek would be of two different intensities. Or does he feather so perfectly that the light on the nose is just the doubling of the feathered zone which equals the light on the non feathered zone (e.g. cheeks).
As you can read from the link, the strip lights are actually continuous, not strobe, so that eliminates the blinking issue.
As for the light falloff, it is precisely because they are placed so close to the subject that there is a transition to dark on both sides of the head, due to the inverse square law. If you were to move the lights further away while increasing the output to compensate, you would find that the falloff becomes smaller and smaller until it is no longer discernible. Conversely, if you moved the lights even closer, the falloff intensifies.
To understand why this happens, recall that the inverse square law tells us that if we double the distance between subject and light source, the illumination of that subject decreases by a factor of four (two stops dimmer). But when your light source is only a few feet away, you cannot ignore the fact that the subject's head has depth--the ears are not the same distance away from the lights as the nose. The proportional difference is larger when the light source is close, compared to when the light source is distant. If we say that the subject has a depth of 9" = 0.75', then the relative difference in illumination for 1', 3', 10', and 30' are as follows:
So while it may seem counterintuitive that such a degree of falloff is possible when the light is placed so closely to the subject, it is actually the only way such an effect could be achieved.
wickerprints wrote:
As for the light falloff, it is precisely because they are placed so close to the subject that there is a transition to dark on both sides of the head, due to the inverse square law.
Yep. I wonder if geometry also plays a role here. The cheeks get light from both strip boxes. But as you go around the left side of the head, the light on the right only wraps a little and then drops out, adding bit to the falloff effect.
