Under the remote supervision and advice of Evan Baines i've been trying for the past few days to achieve proper Broad and Short light portraits. My 1st attempt was flawed mostly because i did not understand properly the subject to camera relative model positioning.
So i made another attempt at it today with the help of my best Friend Gilbert. We go way back and we studied photography together over 33 years ago. He still has most of his film and paper gear but hasn't shot a frame in years. But i think i might be influencing him to get back in the saddle after today's shooting. At my request he brought his 105mm f2.5 old manual Nikkor lens and i shot with it. Granted it does not have the Bokeh of the new lenses around these days but it is still a very sharp lens, small and light and very agreeable to shoot with. Wish i hadn't sold mine.
So without further due this is my attempt for today.
Sure hope i got it right this time, i for one am completely sold to the short light. I'll be using it a lot in the future i'm sure.
I know the pose might not be perfect but Gilbert was kind enough to help me out although he hates being in front of the camera (like most photographers) So i didn't push it and worked quickly so we could have lunch together and catch up on everything.
I like prefer the short light if I were to choose between the two. It makes him pop out more. Did you accomplish this by using the zoom function on the flash?
galactic.gecko wrote:
I like prefer the short light if I were to choose between the two. It makes him pop out more. Did you accomplish this by using the zoom function on the flash?
Hello galactic.gecko
I much prefer the short light as well.
For the 2 shots i used a 30x40 soft box, the flash head is an Einstein.
For the broad light the key light was on the right of the camera, and i moved it to the left for the short light. I used a medium silver reflector to fill the shadows.
Nikon D3s with Nikkor 105mm f2.5 lens
shot at 1/160th sec. F8, 200 iso
RAW, auto white balance
color space Adobe RGB at 14 bits
Ah well done! I'm considering an Einstein. They seem very capable. What kind of processing did you do in CS6 if you don't mind me asking. I'm barely getting into the groove of using LR5 and it seems to have everything, already. Where would you say most of your editing is done?
These are very well done and a great improvement over your last shots. Nice to work with a subject beside yourself which i have always found frustrating and not as productive as learning with a model. I like the side by side as it really shows the slimming effect of the short lighting.
Enjoying your work and am looking forward to more. Go habs!
galactic.gecko wrote:
Ah well done! I'm considering an Einstein. They seem very capable. What kind of processing did you do in CS6 if you don't mind me asking. I'm barely getting into the groove of using LR5 and it seems to have everything, already. Where would you say most of your editing is done?
Thanks man, must say i recommend the Einstein hands down, a very good buy for the money especially for U.S. residents here in Canada we have to pay shipping and border but it's still a good deal. The Einstein has the shortest flash duration of any flash on the market at the moment. But it is a disadvantage for High Speed sync. Since the flash has a IGBT concept meaning the flash output is short and cuts very cleanly, thus having no tail part in it's flash burst where all the magic of Hyper Sync happens. This being said it is still a very nice flash for the money.
For this picture i have to say i worked as much in LR than CS6.
LR will help me all the basics done correctly: Exposure, sharpness, contrast, vibrance, color profile etc.
While photoshop allows me to make a better B&W conversion since i've recently discovered how to selectively process each colors and parts of my shots independently. then of course i do all the framing and add text in CS6 (no text in this version though)
Here's a nice tutorial you might find helpful on the subject of selective color B&W conversion, it helped me a lot.
sidefunk wrote:
These are very well done and a great improvement over your last shots. Nice to work with a subject beside yourself which i have always found frustrating and not as productive as learning with a model. I like the side by side as it really shows the slimming effect of the short lighting.
Enjoying your work and am looking forward to more. Go habs!
Thanks sidefunk, much easier indeed to work with a real model. It was a breeze working with Gilbert again after years of not doing photography together anymore (he was my partner when we had a studio in the 80's)
galactic.gecko wrote:
Thanks for all the info SargentRay. I'll probably start moving into photoshop once I master LR. Excellent photos I look forward to seeing more!
You bet galactic.gecko my pleasure, see you here :-)
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
This is perfect! I definitely like the short lighting best. Great comparison!
Thanks to you too Lisa, in all honesty i should of taken a little more time to add a hair light for the top of the head and stepped on a stool or something because the angle of shoot is just a little too low for my taste making the bottom part of the image look wider. But like i said i did this fairly quickly in order to spend more time just chilling with my old friend. The important thing though is that i got a great shot of my buddy and i learned an important lighting lesson that i'm guessing i will use for a long time.
Sgt remember what you are trying to say about the subject. I think the camera angle could maybe come up a touch but if you are trying to add stature then a low angle as long as you are not shooting up a nose can help convey that. I would have cropped through the arms to add a strong base to the classic triangle.
When in the studio I usually use a large soft box over head and slightly behind the subject and pointed sightly back towards camera to add both a hair light and a bit of rim on the shoulders. Usually at about what I set my key light for and up or down in power depending on how light ot dark the hair is and the jack or top is.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Sgt remember what you are trying to say about the subject. I think the camera angle could maybe come up a touch but if you are trying to add stature then a low angle as long as you are not shooting up a nose can help convey that. I would have cropped through the arms to add a strong base to the classic triangle.
When in the studio I usually use a large soft box over head and slightly behind the subject and pointed sightly back towards camera to add both a hair light and a bit of rim on the shoulders. Usually at about what I set my key light for and up or down in power depending on how light ot dark the hair is and the jack or top is. ...Show more →
Well in fact as i was shooting it did cross my mind but since Gilbert is rather of hefty built to start with i'm pretty sure the stature would have been maintained if i had brought the camera up a little, but since he's exactly my height (lil over 5'10") i was already on my toes, i'm about 6 inches too low, would have been better if i stepped on a stool i figure.
The soft box was indeed positioned as you describe it; as high as i could go already touching the living room ceiling and it's center about 6 inches behind the subject. It's really the top part of his head in the broad side that would have benefitted from a little added light i think. But i really do understand more about this light now and i'll be ready for the next shoot.
As for cropping the arms i struggled with this decision for 15 minutes toggling back and forth from one version to the other and in the end i really preferred the un cropped one. Other wise it made Gilbert look heavier, was really annoying to guess just how far the arm were going, distracting the eye to an extent and most importantly it made the arm look more oof than it was already with the sharp edge of the frame cutting into it. But at this point i has to do with personal taste and preference i like to think.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Sgt remember what you are trying to say about the subject. I think the camera angle could maybe come up a touch but if you are trying to add stature then a low angle as long as you are not shooting up a nose can help convey that. I would have cropped through the arms to add a strong base to the classic triangle.
When in the studio I usually use a large soft box over head and slightly behind the subject and pointed sightly back towards camera to add both a hair light and a bit of rim on the shoulders. Usually at about what I set my key light for and up or down in power depending on how light ot dark the hair is and the jack or top is. ...Show more →
Well in fact as i was shooting it did cross my mind but since Gilbert is rather of hefty built to start with i'm pretty sure the stature would have been maintained if i had brought the camera up a little, but since he's exactly my height (lil over 5'10") i was already on my toes, i'm about 6 inches too low, would have been better if i stepped on a stool i figure.
The soft box was indeed positioned as you describe it; as high as i could go already touching the living room ceiling and it's center about 6 inches behind the subject. It's really the top part of his head in the broad side that would have benefitted from a little added light i think. But i really do understand more about this light now and i'll be ready for the next shoot.
As for cropping the arms i struggled with this decision for 15 minutes toggling back and forth from one version to the other and in the end i really preferred the un cropped one. Other wise it made Gilbert look heavier, was really annoying to guess just how far the arm were going, distracting the eye to an extent and most importantly it made the arm look more oof than it was already with the sharp edge of the frame cutting into it. But at this point i has to do with personal taste and preference i like to think.
