First use of 580ex/430ex/st-e2 combo.....

[txbonds]

One I did earlier this week for someone that need a headshot for a few uses. This was my first time using the 580ex, 430ex, ST-E2 combo. I had a hard time getting the lighting to even look this good as the room was small, and without modeling lights it took a lot of trial and error. Basically, I ended up with a 580ex bounced into a 56" umbrella to camera right for main/key light, a 430ex at just shy of a 1:4 ratio shooting without modifier from camera left for fill, and a 42" reflector on soft gold side just above for a hair light of sorts. Also had to use a 40x70 or whatever it is oval reflector against the back wall to help soften the shadows.

While not the best, it was a learning experience. Much tougher than using the 580 remotely alone, and in my opinion was much tougher than using my elinchrom gear with meter when I had it. But at the same time i think with some practice I'll really like the remote flashes and ettl. Critiques welcome.

http://gparrish.smugmug.com/photos/105048455-L.jpg

[Harv]

I'm no expert on portraiture. Hell, I'm no expert on anything. I can't even begin to offer any opinion on the technical side of this but the image looks fine to me. You seem to have the background under control and I don't see any harsh shadows. Perhaps others will have a more informed opinion to offer.

[Jonathan]

Well I am with harv in that I don't have any experiance here. Rudi, kevin and some others should chime in. I like the pose and there are no harsh shadows. I would have liked a little more light on the face and i cant help but notice that second catchlight in the right eye...what is that from? Nicely done

[txbonds]

Thanks.

Well, there is an upper catchlight from the 580ex bounced into the 56" umbrella to the models left (camera right) and the lower catch light that seems brighter in the models right eye (camera left) is the raw 430ex used for some fill.

I would have bounced it too, but didn't have a proper mount with me like I thought I did, so I ended up shooting it unmodified.

Pitiful diagram, but hopefully this makes sense:

http://gparrish.smugmug.com/photos/105565868-L.jpg

[Kevin]

Greg, I've looked at this image a couple of times and was going to wait until I got home to view it on my calibrated monitor. But I think I've seen enough that I can offer some comments.

First let me say that I agree with you that using speedlights is difficult without having the benefit of a true modeling light. When I shot Nikon, I chose to use speedlights rather than studio flashes but pretty much got my system down pat. I did still have to always take a test shot or two to fine tune.

Here's a couple of things I see. First, I think the light background doesn't work very well in this image. I pulled the image into Photoshop and just by selectively choosing the background and darkening it, the impact that made was substantial. You might want to look at that just as an fyi. I think the light background may not work as well due to your strong lighting ratio. If the ratio weren't quite as strong it might work a bit better.

Additionally, I did a levels adjustment and the right slider could come in a bit to lighten the image somewhat. But more drastically was what happened when I slid the center slider to the left. IMO, it improved the image immensely. Basically gave the appearance of a closer lighting ratio.

As for the key light, I've tried to study the face and again, imo, it seems the light was too far back. It gives the appearance of almost being sidelit. The catchlight from the key looks good but it looks like the key light only lit the camera right side of the face. I think you could have moved the key closer to the front to throw some light on the camera left side of the face. There's a little bit there but the nose shadow gives away a lot. ;)

As for the fill, you mentioned it was camera left. I don't see any cross shadows so I'm suspecting it wasn't too far left. I always tried to keep my fill as close to lens axis as possible. The other thing I noticed about the fill is it appears too low (based on the camera left eye catchlight). I think it should be higher. I don't know a better way to make this comment which is another reason I've hesitated responding sooner but it almost has a "horror" look to it like when you put a flashlight below your face. That's too strong a statement but that's the "look" I'm getting. I always try to keep my fill light about the same height as my key. I'll use a reflector under and in front of the model if I need to lessen the neck shadows.

As shot, I think your fill should have been increased. With the light background I think his face should be brighter. If this were low key, the more dramatic lighting ratio works but not necessarily on the higher key shot like this. (High key is a bad term in this instance but I hope you know what I mean.)

The only other item I notice which in my mind confirms the fill was too weak is when you look at the shadow caused by the key light on the camera left jacket lapel. Imo, it's too harsh. Having the fill a bit stronger would have softened that shadow.

I don't know how close your lights were but I tried to get in as close as possible. I understand your not wanting to do that because you didn't have the fill diffused. (You could always use a white piece of paper and rubber band it to your flash head to reflect light back at your subject. I'd sometimes use an index card and swivel the flash head up ~45*)

I'd also bring the hairlight reflector really close to add some slight detail to the hair. But then again, not seeing the image on a calibrated monitor it may be there and I just can't see it.

This has been a good exercise for me. Based on what I know about lighting, I've tried to really examine what I see as being wrong and how to correct it. It's always easier when it's in hindsight, or someone else's shot.

keep at it though...that's how we all get better. :)

[txbonds]

Thanks Kevin. Lots of good info and insight in there. I'll go through the shot and the comments again to see if I can make sense of it all, but I think everything you've said makes sense as I've just read it. LOL




Greg, I've looked at this image a couple of times and was going to wait until I got home to view it on my calibrated monitor. But I think I've seen enough that I can offer some comments.

First let me say that I agree with you that using speedlights is difficult without having the benefit of a true modeling light. When I shot Nikon, I chose to use speedlights rather than studio flashes but pretty much got my system down pat. I did still have to always take a test shot or two to fine tune.

Here's a couple of things I see. First, I think the light background doesn't work very well in this image. I pulled the image into Photoshop and just by selectively choosing the background and darkening it, the impact that made was substantial. You might want to look at that just as an fyi. I think the light background may not work as well due to your strong lighting ratio. If the ratio weren't quite as strong it might work a bit better.

Additionally, I did a levels adjustment and the right slider could come in a bit to lighten the image somewhat. But more drastically was what happened when I slid the center slider to the left. IMO, it improved the image immensely. Basically gave the appearance of a closer lighting ratio.

As for the key light, I've tried to study the face and again, imo, it seems the light was too far back. It gives the appearance of almost being sidelit. The catchlight from the key looks good but it looks like the key light only lit the camera right side of the face. I think you could have moved the key closer to the front to throw some light on the camera left side of the face. There's a little bit there but the nose shadow gives away a lot. ;)

As for the fill, you mentioned it was camera left. I don't see any cross shadows so I'm suspecting it wasn't too far left. I always tried to keep my fill as close to lens axis as possible. The other thing I noticed about the fill is it appears too low (based on the camera left eye catchlight). I think it should be higher. I don't know a better way to make this comment which is another reason I've hesitated responding sooner but it almost has a "horror" look to it like when you put a flashlight below your face. That's too strong a statement but that's the "look" I'm getting. I always try to keep my fill light about the same height as my key. I'll use a reflector under and in front of the model if I need to lessen the neck shadows.

As shot, I think your fill should have been increased. With the light background I think his face should be brighter. If this were low key, the more dramatic lighting ratio works but not necessarily on the higher key shot like this. (High key is a bad term in this instance but I hope you know what I mean.)

The only other item I notice which in my mind confirms the fill was too weak is when you look at the shadow caused by the key light on the camera left jacket lapel. Imo, it's too harsh. Having the fill a bit stronger would have softened that shadow.

I don't know how close your lights were but I tried to get in as close as possible. I understand your not wanting to do that because you didn't have the fill diffused. (You could always use a white piece of paper and rubber band it to your flash head to reflect light back at your subject. I'd sometimes use an index card and swivel the flash head up ~45*)

I'd also bring the hairlight reflector really close to add some slight detail to the hair. But then again, not seeing the image on a calibrated monitor it may be there and I just can't see it.

This has been a good exercise for me. Based on what I know about lighting, I've tried to really examine what I see as being wrong and how to correct it. It's always easier when it's in hindsight, or someone else's shot.

keep at it though...that's how we all get better. :)

[Kevin]

Now looking at it on a calibrated monitor it's not quite as dark as I thought it was. Usually my work monitor is brighter than home and it looked pretty dark. That's why I hate commenting on stuff until I get home. But the principles outlined above still apply. :)

[Kevin]

In thinking a little bit further about this, I think part of what I'm seeing is harsh lighting. If you move the lights in closer, it'll create softer, wrap-around lighting which will be more flattering to the subject.

[Jeff M]

Greg,
This is something I'm very interested in doing. Using two Canon flash units, and the ST-E unit..which I have. I'd like to do location portraitures, at people's homes, offices..etc.
Something for a quick set-up & shoot then quick pack up and leave.

I think the photo looked pretty good...lighting a little harsh, and the light/white background didn't work for me. But ..no harsh shadows..and no shadows of the subject on the background. I always personally hated that...and try to avoid casting shadows.
You might be surprised at the work I've seen by pro photographers, that do produce those shadows. (usually location work..rather than studio, though)

[Rudi]

I have to agree that your ratio is too high - the shadows are too harsh. That seems to be the biggest issue here, i.e. there's nothing really wrong with your photo, it just needs more fill flash. :)

I am a big fan of starting with one light and a reflector, learning the ropes, THEN adding more lights. This seems to be the best way to learn what works for you.

As Kevin mentioned, position your fill light as close to on-axis as you can (or not far off, anyway). Flat lighting is complimentary for glamour shots, so why not for general portraiture, right? :D You can always play with high-contrast lighting setups later on, once you can do the run-of-the-mill stuff.

I can't find anything I've done with just the one light and reflector, but here is a quick grab shot I did while testing my new Bowens strobes. One strobe, positioned at about the 10 o'clock position (behind and to the left of the camera), fairly high, triggered by an on-camera flash, bounced off the ceiling (that's what a reflector would kinda do :)), with a little fill-flash strobe directed directly on the subject (it was a Metz hotshoe flash with a fill strobe on the front, not a separate flash gun). While this is not a great photo, it shows you what can be achieved with one light and a reflector, or one light and an on-camera flash. Most of the time, you only NEED the one light, if you know where and how to position a reflector or two. :) Now, this one was not designed to be sold or anything, and the model wasn't as willing as I would have liked, but I needed *someone* to test my new strobes out on... :D If this was a regular job, I might have tweaked the lighting a bit, but you get the idea - a simple light setup can work well!

http://rudiphoto.zenfolio.com/img/p597345030.jpg

Another thing to remember is that we EXPECT only the one light source (the Sun). So everything you do with your lighting is trying to simulate nature, and maybe to soften shadows, like nature would do on an overcast day. But our brain expects only the one light source. :) Some of the best photographers in the business only ever used one light...