Avoiding catchlight, possible?

Curved Wall

A
Curved Wall

  • 1
  • 0
  • 42
Crossing beams

A
Crossing beams

  • 6
  • 1
  • 51
Shadow 2

A
Shadow 2

  • 2
  • 0
  • 47
Shadow 1

A
Shadow 1

  • 2
  • 0
  • 43
Darkroom c1972

A
Darkroom c1972

  • 3
  • 2
  • 89

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,832
Messages
2,781,561
Members
99,720
Latest member
alexreltonb
Recent bookmarks
0

Hamster

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
202
Format
Med. Format Pan
Recently, I made a close-up potriat where I used a fast lens and have the depth of focus on the eyeball only, everything went accroding to plan except the reflection of strobe light and window frame were in the subject's eyes, which I find very distracting. This have been bugging me since and i would really like to know if there are any way I can avoid or minimise catchlight? Or is retouching the only way to go.
 

Dave Parker

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
4,031
Format
Multi Format
Polarizer, and use soft boxes over your strobes to diffuse the light, change your angle a small bit in relation to the subject...most of all lots of practice to see how the lights reflect is good as well.
 

jovo

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Feb 8, 2004
Messages
4,120
Location
Jacksonville
Format
Multi Format
Don't think for a moment that what Photoshop allows you to do with the clone tool began with Photoshop. On ebay, I bought some instructional pamphlets on retouching that simply amazed me with the extent to which portraits and other kinds of photographs can be and have been retouched. My father, who, as an amateur LF portrait photographer, entered his work in exhibitions in Philadelphia in the late '40's and early '50's (and did quite well with them) had no qualms about routinely retouching out extra catchlights or other 'defects' as he perceived them. You can use good lighting technique up to a point, but after that, if you need to, grab the 000 brush and spotting fluid and go to work.
 
OP
OP

Hamster

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
202
Format
Med. Format Pan
I have read somewhere that people used to "retouch" negatives with razor blades. Really am amazed the efforts people put in in the past.
 

Dave Parker

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
4,031
Format
Multi Format
Actually up until a few years ago, neg retouching was very comon, we used to do it, in the photo lab that I worked in, both color and B&W, in addition, most enlargements we did, had spotting done to them, I have done away with many a reflection or catch light for customers.


Dave
 

Monophoto

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,689
Location
Saratoga Spr
Format
Multi Format
God made eyes with only one catchlight. Two is a seriously unnatural thing, something that the Republications in the crowd should abhore.

The solution is to spot out the catchlight you don't like.
 

blansky

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Messages
5,952
Location
Wine country, N. Cal.
Format
Medium Format
The commandments passed down by Moses after he fell down from the mountaintop, were thus:

Thou shalt have only ONE catchlight, and it shall be between 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock in the eye. It shall also be round.


Anything other than this, one does at one's own peril.


As others have said cheating is allowed and that is done with retouching the print.

These days most people don't worry about catchlights much and in most cases they don't have much affect on the print. If it bothers you retouch it out.

That being said, pictures with no catchlights look unnatural.


Michael
 

Lopaka

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
757
Location
Michigan
Format
Multi Format
Yes, one catchlight looks natural because there is only one sun in our sky. If you come from a planet with two suns, then you may have two catchlights.. :D

The only way to retouch it on the negative is to scrape off emulsion.. a process I do not suggest unless you have the specially designed etching knife and much time to develop the skill to use it. I don't think they are made any more. (I still have mine, but haven't used it in 40 years) Spotting the print may be the only answer.

Bob
 

KenS

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
941
Location
Lethbridge, S. Alberta ,
Format
Multi Format
blansky said:
The commandments passed down by Moses after he fell down from the mountaintop, were thus:

Thou shalt have only ONE catchlight, and it shall be between 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock in the eye. It shall also be round.

BUT.... the said round catchlight shall NOT be as of a dough-nut, such as one created by a ringlight mounted on the front of a lens) by a non-card carrying photographer with a motor driven hand-held 35mm just to produce the notorious click-shhhhhhhhhhht sound effect.

8-(

Ken
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Messages
456
Location
Paris, France
Format
Multi Format
Hamster said:
Recently, I made a close-up potriat where I used a fast lens and have the depth of focus on the eyeball only, everything went accroding to plan except the reflection of strobe light and window frame were in the subject's eyes, which I find very distracting. This have been bugging me since and i would really like to know if there are any way I can avoid or minimise catchlight? Or is retouching the only way to go.

Hi Hamster,

Your question seems to ask about future portraits, and not necessarily the current one which so irks you. I would say the solution is to raise your strobe a bit, either handheld or by using a bracket.

I don't exactly understand where the window frame reflection comes in (perhaps you could post a photo). Was this portrait "natural light-plus-fill-flash"?

Lastly, —and maybe I'm being too technical about it, but— I've always considered a "catchlight" as being the tiny, point-like reflections in the eye which result from sources such as flash, bulb/spot or sun, as opposed to the broad reflections from a window. This picky difference will suddenly become important in determining how to solve your problem. You can't just "raise a window a bit", as with the strobe!
 

naturephoto1

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
1,960
Location
Breinigsville
Format
Multi Format
Satinsnow said:
Actually up until a few years ago, neg retouching was very comon, we used to do it, in the photo lab that I worked in, both color and B&W, in addition, most enlargements we did, had spotting done to them, I have done away with many a reflection or catch light for customers.


Dave

Quite true Dave. I remember a time as I recall in my Camera Club days when people would even retouch and/or paint directly on transparencies.

Rich
 

Cheryl Jacobs

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
1,717
Location
Denver, Colo
Format
Medium Format
First, it's important to remember that 1) catchlights in some form or another are desirable, and 2) attractive catchlights are a side effect of good lighting. Eliminating them by changing the direction of your light source means employing lighting that is not terribly flattering for most portrait work.

Secondly, the idea that catchlight must be single, round, and specifically placed on the eye is rather old school, and really can only apply to studio-lit portrait work. Try photographing a person outdoors in "good" light, i.e. open shade or other soft, sun-sourced, diffused light, and you'll see larger, more numerous, multi-shaped catchlights. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. Your catchlights will look like your light and your light source.

If you're finding that your catchlights are distracting, you may need to reevaluate your lighting choices.

If you absolutely must have single, round, specifically placed catchlights....well, you'd hate most of my work. :wink:
 

Charles Webb

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
1,723
Location
Colorfull, C
Format
Multi Format
hmmmmmmmm, I was going to let this thread slide by, then I read Cheryl's
post! She hits the nail right on the head! What a great post Cheryl, I agree with you 100%.

Now on corrective retouching, You are going to have a tough time removing a catchlight or reflection on a B&W/color negative with dye or pencil. You must either retouch the print, or use an etching knife. An exacto or a very sharp needle can be used with great care on some things. The work requires removing a very tiny layer of emulsion, kind of like laser eye surgery.

Charlie..............................

BTW, I started doing corrective retouching in 1947 and was instructed by the same gentleman that tought Veronica Cass. (A shameful name drop!)
 

catem

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
1,358
Location
U.K.
Format
Multi Format
Cheryl Jacobs said:
First, it's important to remember that 1) catchlights in some form or another are desirable, and 2) attractive catchlights are a side effect of good lighting. Eliminating them by changing the direction of your light source means employing lighting that is not terribly flattering for most portrait work.

Secondly, the idea that catchlight must be single, round, and specifically placed on the eye is rather old school, and really can only apply to studio-lit portrait work. Try photographing a person outdoors in "good" light, i.e. open shade or other soft, sun-sourced, diffused light, and you'll see larger, more numerous, multi-shaped catchlights. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. Your catchlights will look like your light and your light source.
Thanks for that post, Cheryl. I was beginning to wonder...
 
OP
OP

Hamster

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
202
Format
Med. Format Pan
Thanks for all the input, I never thought there is so much to it. the "potriat" i really have in mind is actually a head and shoulders shot of some fluffy toy amimals, in the end I rubbed a thin layer of neutral shoe polish to slightly matt the surface of the plastic eyeball, and it proved satisfactory. However, when doing real people potriat I am sure the hint above will be greatly appreciated.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom