Portraits on location, what is the main light?

[Helinophoto]

Hello
Sorry if this is posted in the wrong place, I am not sure where it belongs, move it if it doesn't fit properly.

Ok, so I sent this photo to a friend of mine, of a person, on a beach.
I almost always photograph back-lit, and use a single flash on the person.

I set my exposure to match the ambient (usually max shutter at 1/200 on my Canon),
and I adjust the flash to match on the subject.

For this type of photography, I normally use a 580 EX II speedlight on-camera,
or a studio-flash with battery pack, usually on the camera axis, behind me.

The whole point of the flash, is to illuminate the shadow-side of the subject.

IE. as a fill-flash.

My friend, who is a real nerd when it comes to photography (perhaps not so good at applying his theories when it comes to taking actual photos, he seem to love the technical aspect and the gadgets more).

Well, he started this long discussion, which I thought was rather pointless, that my flash was not a fill light, it was the main-light.

I replied, diplomatically that, sure perhaps, but I use it as a fill, nothing more, it is not at an angle to shape anything, it is simply to illuminate, but I don't adjust my exposure to it, I adjust my exposure to the sun, which is the strongest light in the scene.

If I was to replicate the situation in the studio, I would have a flash replacing the sun, behind the subject, which would be the stronger light, to illuminate the scene and act as a kicker and one FILL on camera axis.

Like so

In my view, it is not more complicated than this.

But he insisted on this, there was no fill flash, there was a main light, nothing else.

So, even though it is completely useless and uninteresting, it annoys me.

I see the sun as the main-light, because I adjust my exposure to match that (it also act as a kicker on the subject).
Then I balance one flash, to lift the foreground shadow, which, in my world, has always been called a fill-flash.

So, for the guys who know more than me, what is the correct term to use?

Is my nerdy friend correct?

 

[AgX]

I think it will be an open discussion...

It depends on definition. The main light is the light that predominantly lights the subject.

Here we got:

-) direct sunlight
-) indirect skylight
-) flashlight


In case the whole exposure idea was to make a silhoutte by the the sunlight, I would say sunlight.
If you would expose that much that the front has reasonable definition, and just do a fill-in for the face, I would say skylight.
If you flash the whole body to yield good definition, I would say flashligh.


On each point one may argue...

What does predominently mean?
What does subject mean?

 

[foc]

Your main light is the brightest light, it doesn't matter where it is positioned.
It is the relationship between your lighting sourse that determins your lighting ratio, the main light being 1. eg. 2:1 the fill or second light is 1 f stop less than the main light.
Since you are shooting outside in full sunshine, I would think that the sun is your brightest light source (ok there may be occasions when this may not be so) so from your description I would say that the flash or any reflected light is the fill light.

 

[AgX]

But what if the brightest light does not reach the object or any of its surface in line of sight? (Or just indirectly, as from the sky, from the sand.) That is why I referred to the silhouette where the brightest light has an image forming effect by shadow giving.

 

[Helinophoto]

The sun (well the kicker it creates) is almost always the strongest light in the scene (for me anyway).

Even if my studio-flash can overpower the sun, I keep the rim/kicker and balance the flash for rest of the subject, so that the kicker is about 1 stop brighter than the fill-flash.

In any scene, there will he reflected light from the "world", brightening even the subject's shadow side.
And for the whole thing to look natural, I strive to keep the light on the subject on par with the rest of the (sunlit) scene.
Sunlight on hair/chin and edges is more or less reflected, direct light, which is much stronger than the rest of the scene.

I don't know, I thought it was a really weird (and a bit annoying) thing to discuss at all.....semantics and how you define it.

But he was a bit condescending, claiming it was photography 1 on 1 and basic knowledge, so it was a bit......provoking

 

[foc]

But he was a bit condescending, claiming it was photography 1 on 1 and basic knowledge, so it was a bit......provoking

I think your friend needs to learn some basic photographic knowledge, especially about lighting and know that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
BTW I am a professional photographer and have shot professionally since 1985.

But what if the brightest light does not reach the object or any of its surface in line of sight? (Or just indirectly, as from the sky, from the sand.) That is why I referred to the silhouette where the brightest light has an image forming effect by shadow giving.

Yes you are correct because no matter where the light source comes from, if it is the brightest, then it is the main light. Think of backlighting (contre jour as it was called when I learned photography) or film noir, they don't have the main light in the standard portrait lighting of 45 / 45 (45 degrees wide and 45 degrees high).

To think of it, studio or artificial lighting is trying to mimic daylight. The sun is taken as the main light (because in most cases it is the brightest) and all other lighting is to create the desired effect the photographer wished to create.
In cinematography the director of photography is sometimes called lighting cameraman (the hint is in the name).

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I like how Jane Bown managed the light on locations.

 

[Arklatexian]

Hello
Sorry if this is posted in the wrong place, I am not sure where it belongs, move it if it doesn't fit properly.

Ok, so I sent this photo to a friend of mine, of a person, on a beach.
I almost always photograph back-lit, and use a single flash on the person.

I set my exposure to match the ambient (usually max shutter at 1/200 on my Canon),
and I adjust the flash to match on the subject.

For this type of photography, I normally use a 580 EX II speedlight on-camera,
or a studio-flash with battery pack, usually on the camera axis, behind me.

View attachment 231768



The whole point of the flash, is to illuminate the shadow-side of the subject.

IE. as a fill-flash.

My friend, who is a real nerd when it comes to photography (perhaps not so good at applying his theories when it comes to taking actual photos, he seem to love the technical aspect and the gadgets more).

Well, he started this long discussion, which I thought was rather pointless, that my flash was not a fill light, it was the main-light.

I replied, diplomatically that, sure perhaps, but I use it as a fill, nothing more, it is not at an angle to shape anything, it is simply to illuminate, but I don't adjust my exposure to it, I adjust my exposure to the sun, which is the strongest light in the scene.

If I was to replicate the situation in the studio, I would have a flash replacing the sun, behind the subject, which would be the stronger light, to illuminate the scene and act as a kicker and one FILL on camera axis.

Like so

View attachment 231769

In my view, it is not more complicated than this.

But he insisted on this, there was no fill flash, there was a main light, nothing else.

So, even though it is completely useless and uninteresting, it annoys me.

I see the sun as the main-light, because I adjust my exposure to match that (it also act as a kicker on the subject).
Then I balance one flash, to lift the foreground shadow, which, in my world, has always been called a fill-flash.

So, for the guys who know more than me, what is the correct term to use?

Is my nerdy friend correct?

I think your "friend" is not correct unless your "fill" overpowers the sun and becomes the "main" light. In doing close-up photography of wildflowers, we tried to duplicate your lighting using a "backlight" as the main light and a light at the camera as a "fill" to get a more "natural" look to our photographs. Isn't a more "natural" look the object of most outdoor or even indoor portraits? Of course I am talking about a "natural' look. Maybe your friend is looking for something else.............Regards!

 

[jim10219]

Traditionally, yes your flash would be the fill, since it's filling in the shadows. The sun is illuminating the majority of the scene, being the brightest light. So it would be the main light.

Though, to be fair to your friend, these aren't technical words with well established, formal definitions. It's not like there's a recognized photographic body that regulates terminology. The closest we have is probably the ISO, which I don't believe addresses this. Most of the terminology used in photography is developed and propagated by the photographic manufacturing industry, and our terms were more designed for marketability than clarity. Still, terms like main light and fill light are commonly used and commonly agreed upon by most photographers.

In any case, what does it even matter? It's just a bunch of names. What you call it doesn't change how it works or what it does.

 

[AgX]

Well, first I thought I could not face students with such an academic question. Howewever it would make them rethink photographic situations and the intended effects.

 

[jtk]

Well, first I thought I could not face students with such an academic question. Howewever it would make them rethink photographic situations and the intended effects.

Good.

 

[Pieter12]

"I set my exposure to match the ambient (usually max shutter at 1/200 on my Canon),
and I adjust the flash to match on the subject."

How are you synching at 1/200?

 

[Alan Johnson]

Basic error?
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm

 

[cramej]

"I set my exposure to match the ambient (usually max shutter at 1/200 on my Canon),
and I adjust the flash to match on the subject."

How are you synching at 1/200?

Basic error?
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm

He didn't say which Canon. Most digital cameras from the last 15 years have at least a 1/200 sync speed. The OP probably isn't using an AE-1 in this situation considering the 580ex flash.

 

[Helinophoto]

"I set my exposure to match the ambient (usually max shutter at 1/200 on my Canon),
and I adjust the flash to match on the subject."

How are you synching at 1/200?

It's the max sync speed on my DSLR (5D mk III), I brought it with me on vacation for easy and quick processing on my laptop.
The fastest sync in *D* canon land is 1/250......for the $5000 cameras, which is still ridiculous and often a problem.

(And a good argument to rather take my Rolleiflex and a sync-cord and a fist-full of film )

High-speed sync is possible, but you lose about 1 stop of light, and the 580 ex II is barely doing the job as it is now, so....

 

[Helinophoto]

I think your "friend" is not correct unless your "fill" overpowers the sun and becomes the "main" light. In doing close-up photography of wildflowers, we tried to duplicate your lighting using a "backlight" as the main light and a light at the camera as a "fill" to get a more "natural" look to our photographs. Isn't a more "natural" look the object of most outdoor or even indoor portraits? Of course I am talking about a "natural' look. Maybe your friend is looking for something else.............Regards!

Yes, apart from adding some shine in post-processing (bikni-shots on the beach), I keep my fill at a level where you still have forms and shapes, and not a flat type of light.

Oh...my friend is talking about one light + the sun indeed.......i don't know...he gets strange hangups.
He was about to cull one of his own photos, full figure outdoor-shot of his nephew, 15 years old, because he had "blurry ears", they were well sharp indeed, even the small hairs on the edge of the ears could be seen on 500% zoom on the monitor.....In my opinion, a full figure shot like he had, ear-fluff is not something you ever study on an actual print, if you are not covering your house in the actual print........but he can be very persistent on getting the technical parts "perfect".....and forgets to have a vision and creativity. (he is the math-type) and (sadly) struggles to progress to make good photos.

 

[Helinophoto]

Traditionally, yes your flash would be the fill, since it's filling in the shadows. The sun is illuminating the majority of the scene, being the brightest light. So it would be the main light.

Though, to be fair to your friend, these aren't technical words with well established, formal definitions. It's not like there's a recognized photographic body that regulates terminology. The closest we have is probably the ISO, which I don't believe addresses this. Most of the terminology used in photography is developed and propagated by the photographic manufacturing industry, and our terms were more designed for marketability than clarity. Still, terms like main light and fill light are commonly used and commonly agreed upon by most photographers.

In any case, what does it even matter? It's just a bunch of names. What you call it doesn't change how it works or what it does.

Hahaha, that's just about exactly what I told him, believe me, he argued that it was standardized and no variation. It was in everything he had ever read about photography and that it was basic knowledge and I should know better.

I must admit, I rarely read photo-theory anymore, and I cannot remember exactly what my books said back in the day, in addition, he is exceptionally smart (in technical and theoretical stuff, like IT, programming and technical stuff.....sort of a brainiac and a sticky brain that remembers everything), so I was at a loss and just stopped trying to argue.

And I started to doubt myself and had to ask here.

I have been actively shooting in the studio and flash on location since 2007, so I have less years behind the trigger than many people here.

I am fairly relaxed and informal and not totally anal retentive about technical perfection and always using the correct words about absolutely everything, especially when it comes to creative arts. (it is important and everyone should know their share about that, but the subject-matter and the vision and expression and a nice end-results is most important for me, always)

 

[Alan Johnson]

Thanks for clarifying the camera was a Canon 5D III. IMO your flash would normally be called "fill flash"
However, if you dial down the exposure from the sun setting and fire the flash from close to the subject it is possible to overpower the sun.
Maybe the flash could then be called the" main light".

 

[Pieter12]

The main light is the sun. You are literally filling the shadowed face with your flash to match the background exposure. If the flash exposure was greater than the balance of the image, then it would be the main light.

 

[Helinophoto]

Thanks for clarifying the camera was a Canon 5D III. IMO your flash would normally be called "fill flash"
However, if you dial down the exposure from the sun setting and fire the flash from close to the subject it is possible to overpower the sun.
Maybe the flash could then be called the" main light".

I would tend to agree more on that indeed.

 

[cowanw]

It could be either is the correct answer. It depends on which light determines the contrast level on the subject or put another way which light creates the major shadow on the subject. Clearly what the subject is has to be specified. Mortensen goes both ways in his book on Flash, depending on the scenario. How about asking your friend for those literature references.
There are some good examples here.
https://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/on-camera-flash-outdoors/

 

[Helinophoto]

Well, thank you all for clarifying this issue more, the whole thing gave me a bad taste in my mouth, because he is my friend and I am trying to change his focus to start "seeing" more and stop overthinking.
- He already knows all the inns and outs, but seems to forget that you cannot calculate your way to the "perfect photo" sometimes and, as someone said here: "What you call it doesn't change how it works or what it does."

 

[Helinophoto]

It could be either is the correct answer. It depends on which light determines the contrast level on the subject or put another way which light creates the major shadow on the subject. Clearly what the subject is has to be specified. Mortensen goes both ways in his book on Flash, depending on the scenario. How about asking your friend for those literature references.
There are some good examples here.
https://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/on-camera-flash-outdoors/

Thanks!
Oh, I won't ask him for reference, he will be digging up the whole internet until Monday, he should be with his wife and kids

But, I will go into the discussion another time, because I see that I was not able to explain it very well for him, perhaps, it remains to be seen

Thank you for the link, it illustrate well, especially the differences between on-axis and off-axis flash.

 

[jamesaz]

The questions may be: Is the brightest light used in a photograph always considered the main light? Or the light that provides a specular highlight? Or the light that best illuminates the subject?
If those are the questions, I'd guess the answer is: It depends.
In the situation you describe you are using the sun as a point source hair light and using the artificial light(s) to properly expose the subject. If it must be called the main light it is only because you can't adjust it, as you would be able to in the studio, where you could have the same lighting ratio with a much smaller source. And, by moving the hair light closer to the subject you could even have a situation where you have a lower power setting on the hair light pack. You'd then have the same lighting ratio as outside but the hair light would be less bright than the lights to properly expose the subject, just closer to the subject. Would it still be the main light then?
I guess it depends. On what you ask? On how you choose to think about light, I suppose.

 

[John Koehrer]

Would a reflector being used for fill be considered a main light? Nah! It's the sun, that bright shiny thing that sometimes hangs in the sky.

 

[wiltw]

Confusion on the subject of 'main' vs. 'fill' can be attributed to the varying factors one usually assumes

1. 'Main' is more specular, 'fill' is more diffuse
2. Highlights are produced by a stronger source (main), whereas the fill is typically the weaker source

Applied to real situations, we frequently see variance from the above, sometimes simply due to ignorance on the part of the person setting up the situation, sometimes due to the need to resort to using what happens to be available.

• If window admits indirect light (no sun shining thru the window) and creating little hard edged shadows vs. when sun comes thru the window casting hard edged shadows
• If the flash is stronger than the window light vs. when the flash is weaker than the window light
• If the flash is modified with umbrella or bounce panel to be indirect vs. used as a direct source (even with a shoot thru umbrella) vs. no modifier at all

So the real answer is, 'It depends' upon the circumstances that applied at that specific time! The exact same scene and subject might be very different at 10am vs. at 4pm, and on a sunny day is different than on a cloudy day.
Sometimes the flash is fill, other times the flash is main, at the same position.