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.
Sarge what I was referring to was the hair/shoulder light which I would position in a studio on a boom over the head of the subject and slightly behind him and tilted slightly back toward the camera.
As far as camera angle maybe come up some but if you want to make some appear bigger than life or to have strength shooting from a slightly lower angle can help.
Also if the strength and stability are the goal which of these shapes best depict that.
Hmmm ok my mistake i thought you were trying to explain i could have lit the top of the head with the key light, that's exactly how i would go about it. But i don't yet have any boom arms so i would put a SB900 in a little foft box and make it hold with a Manfrotto magic grip onto one of the background legs as high as i could go or event grip it to the top horizontal bar.
As for the image vs strength and stability, you make an excellent point. Still my mind just couldn't accept cutting the arm in half, maybe it's just me i don't know :-(
I don't who started not cropping arms. If its a portrait about arms them don't crop them and I still try to watch were I crop them at but I always say whats best to convey the message. Are the arms what the portrait is about? In some cases maybe but in this case I say the eyes, the face and what is trying to said about the subject is more important if indeed that is what you are trying to say. There are some that way crossed arms shouldn't be used period. I reject that to.
Just take something lie a piece of paper and on the computer screen cover the arms to just above the subjects left elbow on the short lit image. I don't think that you are amputating anything and in my opinion it makes the subject appear much stronger and also in my eyes makes for a stronger portrait.
In a small space I wouldn't use a hair light at all. In fact I don't when I shoot formal portraits on location.
Ok i gave it a try in this square 1:1 composition. I don't hate it but Gilbert seems a little cramped up in this rendition would't you say ? Seems that all the effort in making him look slender disappears cropped this way...
Not to me sarge. the crop now creates this strong base to a wonderful classic triangular composition. And if you really wanted to make him look slimmer a little less fill to create more shadow would be more effective in my opinion though I don't think this crop makes him look bigger. I actually really like this portrait now as it is. It has an honest feel to it which in my opinion is what better portraits are really about. Not whether we are making people look prettier (what ever that can mean?). Having said this is still very flattering. If you are really worried about making him look slim crossing arms might not be the best pose to use. I don't think in this case it should be an issue to be honest with you.
Now if your only intent was to make someone look slimmer with short light then tone down the fill to create more shadow, do not cross arms (that creates more mass) and maybe a bit more of a turn of his entire body away from the camera. Not much though because you still want a base for the head to sit on.
I think it's a very good portrait now.
I wanted to add that it has a wonderful 3 dimensional quality to it and my eyes go right to his face that has a good, warm, real expression.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Not to me sarge. the crop now creates this strong base to a wonderful classic triangular composition. And if you really wanted to make him look slimmer a little less fill to create more shadow would be more effective in my opinion though I don't think this crop makes him look bigger. I actually really like this portrait now as it is. It has an honest feel to it which in my opinion is what better portraits are really about. Not whether we are making people look prettier (what ever that can mean?). Having said this is still very flattering. If you are really worried about making him look slim crossing arms might not be the best pose to use. I don't think in this case it should be an issue to be honest with you.
Now if your only intent was to make someone look slimmer with short light then tone down the fill to create more shadow, do not cross arms (that creates more mass) and maybe a bit more of a turn of his entire body away from the camera. Not much though because you still want a base for the head to sit on.
I think it's a very good portrait now.
I wanted to add that it has a wonderful 3 dimensional quality to it and my eyes go right to his face that has a good, warm, real expression. ...Show more →
I see your points airfro and i can't disagree, it'll just take a little time for it to sink in. I mean for this portrait my only goal was to get the exercise right, but at the same time my reflexes told me as i was shooting there were a few more things i could have done but didn't do out of respect for Gilbert, and not wanting to make him play model all day already he had an hour drive just to get here.
But you're right about honesty and heavy retouching in portrait makes me uneasy, i would need a dam good reason to do it, to an extent that is. I do see the 3d effect brought by the light and finally my proper understanding of the principle, have to thank Evan for that. About the arm crossing it's not something i would consciously do, but if i chose to do it i would certainly try not to let the model hide his hands on top of it like my buddy did. if i can at least see the hands or just one, it can visually be more acceptable. But like i said i didn't ask Gilbert to change his posture, i was happy just by seing the light was falling in the right place and that was good enough for me then :-)
Okay, now that you understand and can light your subject using either broad or short lighting, here's the next concept to master (and then ignore if you choose): masculine vs. feminine posing. Here, posing means the orientation of the body in relation to the key light, not in the sense that most folks here are speaking of (e.g. arm position, etc.) In classic portraiture (as embodied by the likes of Monte Zucker and his many, many disciples), when the subject's body faces the key light (whether the face is short or broadly lit), it is considered a "masculine" pose. Your short lit portrait shows a "masculine" pose. Men and women can both be flattered by masculine posing, so the name is not limited to use in men. Conversely, when the body is turned away from the key light, as in your broad lighting example, the pose is considered to be "feminine". In this school of thought, a masculine approach to your broad light portrait would have been to rotate your subject's body toward the key light, which is coming from camera right. It would still be a broad-lit portrait, because the light is illuminating the side of the face toward the camera.
Two other related principles come from this school of thought. First, while both men and women can benefit from "masculine" posing, men rarely benefit from "feminine" posing. (Anyone above think that Ray's broad lit portrait is the better one? Nope.) Second, broad lighting is more successfully employed in portraits of men, and rarely successful in portraits of women, as short lighting tends to slim the body and face. Your broad vs. short examples illustrate this.
However, these days there are probably just as many successful portrait photographers who violate or ignore these "classic" principles as those who follow them. And there are many, many subjects who can be flatteringly lit with either short or broad light, depending on the subject and environment. But when you understand the principles, you can (as I said earlier) know what will happen when you choose to light the subject using broad vs. short, or masculine vs. feminine posing, or any way you choose.
Steve, you're right about masculine vs feminine lighting but I think the more important aspect of it is the direction of tilt of the head. While a female can look great with head tilted toward or away from the high shoulder a male looks more masculine with his head tilted away from the high shoulder and more feminine with his head tilted toward the high shoulder.
And then theres the great portrait photographers that pretty much reject the entire commercial portrait, preconceived, cookie cutter poses mentality that Zucker represented. The likes of Weston, Newman, Bresson, Eisenstadt, Evans, Sanders, Avedon in his West series, Karsh and many others that instead would make portraits that actually tried to capture the individual instead of twisting and turning them into pretty objects that have little resemblance to reality.
Ok, lots of new stuff here for me and i appreciate it really;
First of all thanks Justin for the appreciation of my broad portrait, i do sense also a feeling of strength in the shot, it's not a bad portrait of my friend, however i do prefer the subtleties of the short version but i may be a little biased by the feeling of satisfaction of achieving something just a little more tricky to do than a broad light portrait. No doubt i would go the quicker, less complicated broad light option for on location work where i have to work fast and most times don't have much space to set up, just like i did last summer for soccer player portraits. We were 5 hired photographers all lined up at the end field and we had to shoot quickly hundreds of portraits. A one light set up (beauty dish in my case) did the job just fine especially since it was already tricky to adapt the the changing light at every 10 seconds.
Like this;
As for Steve's explanation i read it with great attention, i like having at least a basic knowledge of these things, and i most probably learned it at some point when i was studying photography but it's been so long i forgot. This being said i tend to think a bit like airfro, in the sense that i simply know at my age i just won't be able to retain all that and most importantly put it in practise at every shoot i'll do. Just too hard for me to remember everything, and most times it's impractical to apply, and honestly most people won't notice the more subtle differences. I'm not saying that the laymen can not differentiate between a short or a broad light, or between a good or a bad shot but ask them if they noticed the head was tilted 10 degrees towards the high shoulder or if they caught that the male model was turned away from the key light and that is a big no no in classic portraiture ? Hmm i doubt very much they'll know of even care if the shot is just let's say ok, if the model is smiling. Besides most folks i show my portraits to are always looking for some sort of wow factor, they will tell me about fantastic special effects they have seen on internet and just how good they found the last B&W picture they saw but the flower bouquet was in color (i.e. spot color).
But like i said, personally i like to have a basic knowledge of those principles, but i might just apply them a couple of times during a year's worth of shooting at best for what i am aiming to do.
At risk of repeating myself again, i am a police officer and i will retire in about 3 years. I joined the force at a later age so i won't do the usual 30 years on the force, i am aiming for 27 or 28 years at most. So in all practicality i'll have 100$ less pay every week compared to the 30 year retiring officers. The way i see it i'll be around 55 when i quit and i hope i'll be healthy enough to enjoy life and my plan is to do portraits both outdoors and in the studio. All i'll need to be at par will be 100-150$/week, so if all goes well with just a little more investment (better glass and a few more lights) i should be able to work for my pleasure doing something i like very much 1 or 2 days a week. So in that respect for the moment i am still getting ready for this day and i am trying to learn the techniques that will help me achieve this goal no more, no less. I'll never do weddings but i might find myself doing some kind of corporative shooting if the occasion arises. For the most part i suppose my clientèle will be girls, older woman and families.
If i can at least do that properly and have a regular clientèle i'll be more than happy.
First, thanks so much for your service to your community.
I think you are really on to something. Very few photographers think about what they are trying to say about their subject. Evan is certainly one that really trys to communicate and idea about his subject. Most just think WOW that looks cool and then takes a technique (often confuses that with a style) and blindly takes photos using a technique without any thought to WHY. Intent is huge. I think if you are trying, and you certainly looks like that is the case, to take your portraits to another level that the intent and some thought of what you are trying to say about your subject is a big step int he right direction. Keep up the good work...
Steve, you're right about masculine vs feminine lighting but I think the more important aspect of it is the direction of tilt of the head. While a female can look great with head tilted toward or away from the high shoulder a male looks more masculine with his head tilted away from the high shoulder and more feminine with his head tilted toward the high shoulder.
And then theres the great portrait photographers that pretty much reject the entire commercial portrait, preconceived, cookie cutter poses mentality that Zucker represented. The likes of Weston, Newman, Bresson, Eisenstadt, Evans, Sanders, Avedon in his West series, Karsh and many others that instead would make portraits that actually tried to capture the individual instead of twisting and turning them into pretty objects that have little resemblance to reality.
Both are very true statements. I offered my comment just as the next thing to think about, and then, as I said, feel free to use whatever strategy suits the intention of the photographer and subject.
