Learning, slowly, about lighting

[drmoss_ca]

Since I rather hate digital cameras I am only able to learn very slowly about artificial lighting. I am aware that during some supposed 'golden age' photographers would check their lighting with a Polaroid back on the Hasselblad before committing rolls of film to a set-up that was going to be a disaster. Very sensible too.
Lately I have been re-reading Hicks and Nisperos book about the lighting of classic Hollywood portraits, which is really a remarkable piece of work. I was inspired to try something out, using a high-mounted strobe as key, and a right of camera CFT fill. I got a set of photos that were OK, but were absolutely nothing like I envisaged. It was clear to me that the softbox on the strobe was a large part of the problem, and that I had not done anything to check what the results might have been like before using a whole roll of film. As I am working my way, perhaps painfully, with an obsession with Olympus half-frame SLRs, there certainly isn't the option of using a Polaroid back, even if either the back or the film were available. Having occasionally used an ancient Canon G9 as a kind of exposure meter before exposing an expensive piece of 10x8 film, I decided to go a bit further down that road. Maybe a bit further than this forum allows, so I will post only a link to the result, not the image.
My first film used a strobe set very high and pointing down, with a CFT fill light from the right of the camera. I used a corded flash meter to set the exposure, and it all worked exactly as it ought, but nothing like the way I had envisaged! This is a half-frame picture (you'll just have to cope with my current obsession with half-frame Olympus SLRs, so sorry about that!):



A perfectly nice photo, but nothing like what I had in mind. I could see that the softbox on the strobe was destroying the harsh shadows I wanted. So today I took it off and set up another experimental exposure with the same strobe, no fill light (laziness being my only excuse), and exposure measured with a corded flash meter on the better-lit nose, rather than the usual chin and lips (wanting to keep them dark). Here comes the forbidden part: I took a digital camera, and spent at least as much time in its menus as would normally develop and dry a film, so that it was set to the same fixed ISO as the film I wanted to use (640, being Kentmere 400 developed in Diafine), manual exposure set to f16 and 1/60 as my trusty flash meter prescribed, and to auto-focus on a half-press of the shutter button along with a remote release cable. I may need therapy for the time spent in those menus! Being at home alone under house arrest as prescribed by a recent bone marrow transplant, despite triple vaccination, you will have to put up with a nearly hairless and ugly subject. It's tough being a reader of Photrio, but there we are. I took one shot, being bored already by all the set up. It came out much more like the result I had wanted, and I shall expend a roll of film doing it this way next weekend when the family (poor devils!) are home.

So what's the message here? Perhaps it is not to be afraid to use digital as a modern Polaroid test shot. Perhaps it's just that I'm not very good at this as yet. If so, I don't care, as long as I have enough fun doing it to keep me entertained. Anyway, I may end up taking a selfie in which I look like Cary Grant (or more likely Bela Lugosi) - it doesn't matter as long as I have fun doing it and perhaps inspire someone else to have some fun too!

 

[MattKing]

There is nothing in the forum rules that prevents using digital tools to aid in photography, or display results.
It is the subject being discussed that determines where in the site that the discussion belongs.
Sometimes we run into mixtures that are hard to classify - "how do I use digital camera X to cause Y in my film photography" - but in the normal course of affairs that isn't an issue.
On the subject of lighting: some sort of modeling light makes a huge difference when you are learning and when you are working. You can use the modeling light to set up, and then use the digital to perform a final check.

 

[wiltw]

I am an advocate of the use of a constant light source Main particularly during the early learning phases, as you can immediately SEE what varous positioins of light relative to the subject's face do for accentuating or hiding facial features to best flatter the subject (and 'conceal' facial imperfections.
Fill light is really 'contrast control' and little else, fundamentally. Placement of Main is key for the strategic employment of Broad lighting vs. Narrow lighting to best flatter a face. You move the Main higher or lower, and you move the main from camera left to camera right, while the subject sits in a fixed orientation to the lens (and usually NOT full face!)

Strobes are a handicap when they have no constant light to model the facial characteristics, and force you to shoot in order to see when altering placement of a light source does not beautify or flatter rather than accentuate a facial deficiency. It allows you to see that moving only a couple inches in one direction accentuates or makes less presentable attributes of the face, instantly and with zero film or digital shooting!

A softbox is better initially employed for hair light or for Fill, than using it for Main source. Start to SEE with a hard source rather than a soft source, when you are initially learning. Shadows are beneficial to your learning!

Your first photo is somewhat 'flat' in terms of Intensity...there is not a bright side vs. darker side of the face. The relative intensity of Main vs. Fill is what provides the brighter Highlight side of the face vs. the lesser illuminated side. Consider that Fill will generally illuminate the entire face visible to the lens, and the Highlight provides the light which only PARTLY illuminates the face, as a fundamental principle to position; it is the relative intensity of Main:Fill which controls subject contrast...7:1 is high contrast, 5:1 is medium contrast, 3:1 is low contrast (your photo is flat light, or 1:1).

ALL of the above are fundamentals to lighting. Only after understanding the fundamentals should you bother to soften sources with a sofbox...proper use of modifiers comes AFTER you learn lighting placement. Realize that lighting used to be one source, accompanied by nothing more than a large white card to reflect Fill into the scene.

 

[cowanw]

I see the catchlight in the eyes of your first example and they are quite central. great for the catchlight but rather overall filling for contrast. One trick is to put a small light or flash nest to your camera, small enough to not alter your lighting but it will always give you a pleasing catch light. Hicks and Nisperos's book is a great book to study. We could have a great discussion of some of the lighting schemes, even they admit to confusion in their prologue.
Digital Polaroids are fine but I wonder, no matter how hard we try to make it do what we want manually, it's software always tries to make a nice jpeg out of the picture. Still it's better than try, develop, print, look, try again. You can however do a lot with a role of film if you take many different setups of the dame subject and keep good notes.
I always suggest Professional Portrait Lightings by Charles Abel
and if you want to get really retentive
Lighting for Portraiture by Walter Nurnberg; Focal Press; 1948 or 1949

 

[drmoss_ca]

If Matt is saying it is allowed (and I may be over-generously interpreting his words), this what the single strobe 'butterfly light 'produced:



Now I want to do that on film! If I could do that on film, I'd do it all day long. In fact I might have to if using a half-frame camera!

BTW, thank you all for the helpful comments. Taking photographs like this is a zillion times more exciting than walking around with a camera. Sorry, HCB, but it's true.

 

[MattKing]

If I understand you correctly, that is a digital photo that illustrates a lighting scheme. So there isn't really a problem here. To be fair though, you should follow up with the results on film.
The thing to watch for is where the digital test adds more "contrast" than you end up with on film. That can be the result of post processing, rather than light modification.

 

[drmoss_ca]

I hope, Matt, to be able to follow up with proper film results in a few days (I can only use myself as a subject when the camera has auto-focus, though I do recall spending too much time, film and chemicals on trying to do it with a Crown Graphic a few years back). My long-suffering wife and son should be home this weekend,. I hope they can tolerate me a little longer.

If I may I shall send a PM to you with some thoughts about using digital cameras as tools to let us get better film results - shocking, but better kept to PM unless you want to open up that discussion!

 

[MattKing]

Feel free to open up a thread on the subject of permitted use of digital tools to aid Photrio discussions in the Feedback and Discussion sub-forum.
In this thread, perhaps we can do some moderator assisted edits to allow side by side comparisons between digital lighting tests and film results.
On the question of whether AF is needed for self portraits question, the answer is no - the solution requires "props".
Place something at the plane you intend to have your eyes, focus, and then get into the photo, making sure that your eyes are in the same plane.
You will also need a long shutter release or, as is the case in this example, a self timer:

 

[awty]

I was starting my own journey last year, but realised I needed more space, have more space now, so hope to get involved again soon.
I was using sheet film so could do a few exposures and develop the film to see how I was going. I think once you put in some time working with subject and lights you get a better handle on it and it becomes easier. I was using static lighting which I'm more comfortable with than flashes. I didnt use anything digital except the light meter.

 

[Dennis-B]

You might try using a darker background for starters. The subject and background don't have nearly enough contrast. You don't necessarily need black, but maybe a darker gray will help. You'll also need much more separation from the background. Opening the lens to blur out the background is not the same as having distance separation.

As to the older techniques, those photographers started out with 8x10, sometimes larger format cameras, and used "soft focus" lenses, especially for women. You can imitate, but never duplicate, the images formed from lenses with chromatic aberration for diffusing the image "naturally". The film emulsions were also much different in those days.

You might also try to find images of the great photographer George Hurrell, He's considered one of the greatest "Hollywood Glamor" photographers of all time.

 

[drmoss_ca]

I have a plan for tomorrow. I have found an old navy blue blanket that I can hang for a backdrop. It will be as good as black with B&W film. I'm going to lull my subjects into a false sense of security with lots of half-frame stuff first, and then use the Hasselblad. Kentmere 400 @640 in the Pen-FV, and HP5+ at 640 in the 503cx. Both can develop in Diafine at that EI. One high strobe placed high and no softbox, just as for the d*g*t*l photo above. If I can keep myself organised I will try both the 60mm/f1.5 and a new (to me) 100mm/f3.5 on the Pen-FV, and divide the 6x6 photos between the tried and trusted 150/f4 and the newer but stunning 250/f5.6.
The only blot on it all is that I have started my third episode of shingles today (a common accompaniment to CLL/BMTs and immunosuppression). Maybe tomorrow I will be as grouchy and evil as the average long-term member here and will fit right in. Maybe I'll have to delay it till I can move a bit more comfortably. My sense is to do it while I can as it distracts nicely from too much reality.

 

[Pieter12]

You don't need black, or even a dark color background. Medium grey will go black if the light doesn't hit it, white will go dark grey that way, too.

 

[awty]

Who the he'll are you calling grouchy!!
Back lighting your subject will give better definition with a dark background.

 

[Dennis-B]

I have a plan for tomorrow. I have found an old navy blue blanket that I can hang for a backdrop. It will be as good as black with B&W film. I'm going to lull my subjects into a false sense of security with lots of half-frame stuff first, and then use the Hasselblad. Kentmere 400 @640 in the Pen-FV, and HP5+ at 640 in the 503cx. Both can develop in Diafine at that EI. One high strobe placed high and no softbox, just as for the d*g*t*l photo above. If I can keep myself organised I will try both the 60mm/f1.5 and a new (to me) 100mm/f3.5 on the Pen-FV, and divide the 6x6 photos between the tried and trusted 150/f4 and the newer but stunning 250/f5.6.
The only blot on it all is that I have started my third episode of shingles today (a common accompaniment to CLL/BMTs and immunosuppression). Maybe tomorrow I will be as grouchy and evil as the average long-term member here and will fit right in. Maybe I'll have to delay it till I can move a bit more comfortably. My sense is to do it while I can as it distracts nicely from too much reality.

Consider, also, the need to keep facial features in proportion. With the Hasselblad, a great head and shoulders lens would be the 150mm f/4. However, as 3x magnification, you could start to gain distance compression.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Since I rather hate digital cameras I am only able to learn very slowly about artificial lighting. I am aware that during some supposed 'golden age' photographers would check their lighting with a Polaroid back on the Hasselblad before committing rolls of film to a set-up that was going to be a disaster. Very sensible too.
Lately I have been re-reading Hicks and Nisperos book about the lighting of classic Hollywood portraits, which is really a remarkable piece of work. I was inspired to try something out, using a high-mounted strobe as key, and a right of camera CFT fill. I got a set of photos that were OK, but were absolutely nothing like I envisaged. It was clear to me that the softbox on the strobe was a large part of the problem, and that I had not done anything to check what the results might have been like before using a whole roll of film. As I am working my way, perhaps painfully, with an obsession with Olympus half-frame SLRs, there certainly isn't the option of using a Polaroid back, even if either the back or the film were available. Having occasionally used an ancient Canon G9 as a kind of exposure meter before exposing an expensive piece of 10x8 film, I decided to go a bit further down that road. Maybe a bit further than this forum allows, so I will post only a link to the result, not the image.
My first film used a strobe set very high and pointing down, with a CFT fill light from the right of the camera. I used a corded flash meter to set the exposure, and it all worked exactly as it ought, but nothing like the way I had envisaged! This is a half-frame picture (you'll just have to cope with my current obsession with half-frame Olympus SLRs, so sorry about that!):



A perfectly nice photo, but nothing like what I had in mind. I could see that the softbox on the strobe was destroying the harsh shadows I wanted. So today I took it off and set up another experimental exposure with the same strobe, no fill light (laziness being my only excuse), and exposure measured with a corded flash meter on the better-lit nose, rather than the usual chin and lips (wanting to keep them dark). Here comes the forbidden part: I took a digital camera, and spent at least as much time in its menus as would normally develop and dry a film, so that it was set to the same fixed ISO as the film I wanted to use (640, being Kentmere 400 developed in Diafine), manual exposure set to f16 and 1/60 as my trusty flash meter prescribed, and to auto-focus on a half-press of the shutter button along with a remote release cable. I may need therapy for the time spent in those menus! Being at home alone under house arrest as prescribed by a recent bone marrow transplant, despite triple vaccination, you will have to put up with a nearly hairless and ugly subject. It's tough being a reader of Photrio, but there we are. I took one shot, being bored already by all the set up. It came out much more like the result I had wanted, and I shall expend a roll of film doing it this way next weekend when the family (poor devils!) are home.

So what's the message here? Perhaps it is not to be afraid to use digital as a modern Polaroid test shot. Perhaps it's just that I'm not very good at this as yet. If so, I don't care, as long as I have enough fun doing it to keep me entertained. Anyway, I may end up taking a selfie in which I look like Cary Grant (or more likely Bela Lugosi) - it doesn't matter as long as I have fun doing it and perhaps inspire someone else to have some fun too!

it songs like you already have the book Hollywood portraits, which is a great place to start. In addition, YouTube is full oh great lighting videos. The rest is practice, practice and practice.

 

[gone]

If Matt is saying it is allowed (and I may be over-generously interpreting his words), this what the single strobe 'butterfly light 'produced:

Well, you cooked it, baby! That shot you posted is pretty darned close to perfect. I mean, that is just so good. The floating head.

Keep doing things like you're doing, you'll be fine. Good work, that's very encouraging! This is how it happens. We go along doing the same things because it's familiar and all, but when we venture into new ways of doing things, occasionally we have breakthroughs.

 

[drmoss_ca]

Well, thank you, but along comes real life. I had planned to do much the same today, with my two (near) captive subjects, two films exposed at the same EI and developed in the same developer. Just to be difficult, I wanted also to compare the Sonnar 150/4 and the Sonnar 250/5.6 (which looks very clearly better to me). Since I was going to soften them up with dozen or so shots with the Pen-FV, why not compare the classic half-frame 60mm/f1.5 with the 100mm/f3.5 that arrived yesterday?
At that point, as usual, real life came along, as mentioned, and effed everything up. The first issue of no relevance to this forum was my third episode of shingles, which appears to be an occupational hazard of those with CLL, BMTs and immunosuppression. Eventually, I decided distraction was better than pain. Second problem, which I admit surprised me, was that the roll of HP5+ did not co-operate with the Rondinax 60. Lots of frames stuck together and few of any use. So at the end of it all, I got two frames of my son looking entirely evil on the half-frame film. I'm not sure whether he looks more like Peter Paul Rubens' satyr:

or the classic portrait of Jimmy Cagney and his massive eyebrow shadows:

But what I got, in half-frame as my 120 film got messed up, was this:

(Yes, that is half-frame cropped down to square! I'm told sharpness is a bourgeois concept.) Tomorrow, we are agreed, that if I can I shall do it all over again with the Hasselblad.

If it is of interest to anyone, exposure measured with an incident meter was around half to two-thirds of a stop different with the planned fill light turned on. Looking on the back of the D850, I decided straight away I did not want the fill light. So you will not see any photos with a camera-right fill light. It was just too strong.

 

[awty]

Why not a softer light on his left side? You have no shadow detail and beard is uneven.

 

[foc]

I wish you a speedy recovery from your painful shingles.

 

[drmoss_ca]

Why not a softer light on his left side? You have no shadow detail and beard is uneven.

I think you'll find the answer to that in my post above yours - it was too bright even with two diffuser socks on it. Anyway, I looking for a dramatic effect,

Had another go yesterday with a slightly bigger camera:

 

[awty]

I like the lighting on this, there is enough light on her left side for the shadow detail.
She seems guarded, not relaxed, wonder if there is a calm in her eye you could bring out.

 

[Pieter12]

Not sure the lighting matches the pose. The left side of her neck is just about as bright as her face and about equal in area, competing for the viewer's eye. I prefer the first image you posted for this subject, much more appealing and inviting.

 

[cowanw]

Well, thank you, but along comes real life. I had planned to do much the same today, with my two (near) captive subjects, two films exposed at the same EI and developed in the same developer. Just to be difficult, I wanted also to compare the Sonnar 150/4 and the Sonnar 250/5.6 (which looks very clearly better to me). Since I was going to soften them up with dozen or so shots with the Pen-FV, why not compare the classic half-frame 60mm/f1.5 with the 100mm/f3.5 that arrived yesterday?
At that point, as usual, real life came along, as mentioned, and effed everything up. The first issue of no relevance to this forum was my third episode of shingles, which appears to be an occupational hazard of those with CLL, BMTs and immunosuppression. Eventually, I decided distraction was better than pain. Second problem, which I admit surprised me, was that the roll of HP5+ did not co-operate with the Rondinax 60. Lots of frames stuck together and few of any use. So at the end of it all, I got two frames of my son looking entirely evil on the half-frame film. I'm not sure whether he looks more like Peter Paul Rubens' satyr:

View attachment 291973

or the classic portrait of Jimmy Cagney and his massive eyebrow shadows:

View attachment 291974

But what I got, in half-frame as my 120 film got messed up, was this:

(Yes, that is half-frame cropped down to square! I'm told sharpness is a bourgeois concept.) Tomorrow, we are agreed, that if I can I shall do it all over again with the Hasselblad.

If it is of interest to anyone, exposure measured with an incident meter was around half to two-thirds of a stop different with the planned fill light turned on. Looking on the back of the D850, I decided straight away I did not want the fill light. So you will not see any photos with a camera-right fill light. It was just too strong.

Whether or not you intended this image, I think it is a brilliant photograph. And there is some fill anyway; note the catchlights in his eyes and the light under his chin. Well done.

 

[drmoss_ca]

Here's the poor devil again. 45 years together and she can't say no (to cameras, at least).

 

[drmoss_ca]

Sharing the misery of sitting for me around, 503cx, Sonnar 250, one strobe, HP5+ at 640, Diafine: