How to decrease the eye pupil size so more of the iris shows?
I asked this question a while ago and the answers were mostly use a flashlight or other small source directly at the model, which is not working out that well .. so outside of pointing small light sources at the model or raising the studio ambient how can I decrease pupils?
Any chance you have access to more powerful modeling lights? Anytime you increase any lights the chance of it (if it's constant light) affecting the exposure are pretty big.
If you don't have modeling lights at your disposal (e.g., using Speedlites or something), you can pop off multiple frames. The first will cause the pupil to constrict, then you can pop off another before it "resets."
Thanks for all suggestions .. my modeling lights are 150 watts each, set to full (non -tracking) and usually two are facing the model, but even with very efficient modifiers like beauty dishes in close the iris is often not big enough.
Everybody's eyes are different in the way their pupils react to light and it seems I have more trouble (ie larger pupils) with darker eyes like browns. My own eyes are greenish brown and it takes about 250 watts of tungsten in close (2 feet) to close my pupils to what I regard as a good level for a headshot. Of course 250 watts of tungsten that close to someones face is not always practical.
Right now I think I'll just try raising the overall ambient in my studio by getting some higher power lighting at the back of the shooting area. Unless anyone else has any bright ideas.
My lights have 300 W modeling lights, and after using them for modeling, switching them to full from proportional works quite well.
Have you though of getting one flash unit with a stronger modeling lamp, and using that for your fill light. Or, if you have spare lights, you could set them to a different radio channel (or turn off optical triggering if you are using that), and use them for additional lighting. But you really need the continuous lighting to be more then three stops below the lighting you are using for the exposure.
It takes a few seconds for eyes to fully adjust to changes in light intensity, so even hot shoe type flashes, which put out a preflash redeye reduction burst, only partially work.
Get a video light, i have a 800w on a dimmer, it'll usually be low enough to not affect my exposure, but bright enough to dilate the pupils however much i desire.
Csae wrote:
...bright enough to dilate the pupils however much i desire.
I assume you mean bright enough to constrict the pupils, not to dilate them.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
...I asked this question a while ago and the answers were mostly use a flashlight or other small source directly at the model, which is not working out that well .. so outside of pointing small light sources at the model or raising the studio ambient how can I decrease pupils?
You could keep a little cocaine on hand, but I don't recomend it.
If you're doing a lot of head shots -- enough to justify the costs -- you could get some continuous fluorescent lights like the Impact Octacool-9. You need to work in close with them to get decent exposure at reasonable apertures and shutter speeds, but because they're constant they do a good job with most subjects' eyes.
Isn't it interesting how things cycle? In old times, women took drops of belladonna tincture to dilate their pupils, because it was considered attractive. In fact, belladonna means "beautiful lady" in Italian. Now, we like the pupils small in order to show the beautiful color in the iris. So it goes.
Get them too small, though, and as BrianO suggested, you get the coke addict look. I personally prefer medium irises--the pupil is about 1/3 the diameter of the iris. I get that pretty handily with 250-watt modeling light even in a softbox or beauty light.
DanBrown wrote:
Isn't it interesting how things cycle? In old times, women took drops of belladonna tincture to dilate their pupils, because it was considered attractive. In fact, belladonna means "beautiful lady" in Italian. Now, we like the pupils small in order to show the beautiful color in the iris. So it goes.
It seems to go in cycles .. books were the learning medium before all the workshops and online seminars and Lee Varis authored "Skin" and one of his techniques was making the pupil smaller, as apparently people find large pupils more friendly, at least according to a (uncredited) university study quoted in his book.
There are lots of things, aside from the quantity of light, that cause pupils to change size. For example, pupils constrict when you're sad and dilate when you're happy.
If you want your image to convey sadness, intensity, and lack of empathy, make the pupils real small.
If you want pointers to the scientific evidence for this, check out the studies referenced in the the wikipedia entry for 'pupil'.
I've noticed under the same lighting that the pupils of young kids seem to be more dilated than adults.
In my basement home studio the subjects wind up facing a wall that is illuminated with "wall washer" incandescent fixtures in the ceiling. When I find that my modeling lights alone are not producing normal looking pupil size (one that will attract attention) I'll adjust the lighting on the wall they are looking at which causes their eyes to react without lifting the overall ambience of the shooting area as much as raising the room lighting there would.
RDKirk wrote:
Isn't that self-contradictory? "Normal" doesn't attract attention.
If modeling lights are NOT producing normal pupil size it will attract attention to the eyes IN A UNDESIRED MANNER. in other words if the viewer of a photo is conscously thinking about why the pupils are abnormally large the pupils become an undesired distraction in a conventional studio portrait.
What looks "normal"? It is hard to define because what seems normal in a photograph is a moving target based on a variety of perceived clues, but we know it when we see it; like pupils which seem too big or small when viewing a portrait. With respect to eyes what seems normal is based on an idealized mental image of what an eye should look like. So even if the context of a photo showed a darker than normal setting eyes with blown pupils, while perfectly natual for that situation, might not be seen as being "normal" in the photo. It's a one of many perceptual quirks that make viewing a photograph different than what is noticed in person.
For me a photo passes the "looks normal" test when nothing about it triggers a conscious thought that something like the pupil size is "not quite right ". That's not to say one would want a "normal" look to the eyes in every situation, but I think it is important to understand the perceptual baseline that constitutes what most viewers would expect pupil size to be in order to understand and control the size when other than a "normal" reaction is desired. That is to say that the pupil size would be noticed and the viewer of the photo would start wondering if the person in it was on drugs, etc. That would work in a positive way if the goal of the photo was to make the person look like they are on drugs, but not so well for a photo of the kids or granny, unless she's a very hip granny with plants in the basement under grow lamps
select and liquify using the pinch tool (I think that's what it's called). Is an OK short term solution, but stronger modeling lights are a better long term solution.
